The Issue Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Background5/ DMS released Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 on March 18, 2013, and released a revised version of the ITN on May 14, 2013, for the selection of a company to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida. Thirteen vendors responded to the ITN. The replies were evaluated by five people: Bryan Bradner, Deputy Director of REDM of DMS; Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS; Rosalyn (“Roz”) Ingram, Chief of Procurement, Land and Leasing of the Department of Corrections; Clark Rogers, Purchasing and Facilities Manager of the Department of Revenue; and Janice Ellison, Section Lead in the Land Asset Management Section of the Department of Environmental Protection. Five vendors advanced to the negotiation stage: Cushman (score of 87), JLL (score of 87), CBRE (score of 87), Vertical (score of 89), and DTZ (score of 86). DTZ is not a party to this proceeding. The negotiation team consisted of Beth Sparkman, Bryan Bradner, and Roz Ingram. Janice Ellison participated as a subject matter expert. DMS held a first round of negotiations and then held a public meeting on July 16, 2013. DMS held a second round of negotiations and then held a second public meeting on August 1, 2013. A recording of this meeting is not available, but minutes were taken. Also on August 1, 2013, DMS posted Addendum 8, the Request for Best and Final Offers. This Addendum contained the notice that “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3) . . . shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes.” The vendors each submitted a BAFO. DMS held a final public meeting on August 14, 2013, at which the negotiation team discussed the recommendation of award. All three members of the negotiation team recommended Vertical as one of the two vendors to receive the award. For the second company, two of the three negotiation team members recommended CBRE and one negotiation team member recommended JLL. DMS prepared a memorandum, dated August 14, 2013, describing the negotiation team’s recommendation of award. The memorandum comprises the following sections: Introduction; The Services; Procurement Process (subsections for Evaluations and Negotiations); Best value (subsections for Selection Criteria, Technical Analysis, Price Analysis, and Negotiation Team’s Recommendation); and Conclusion. Attached to the memorandum as Attachment A was a memorandum dated April 30, 2013, appointing the evaluation and negotiation committees, and attached as Attachment B was a spreadsheet comparing the vendors’ BAFOs. DMS posted the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE and Vertical on August 16, 2013. Cushman and JLL timely filed notices of intent to protest the Intent to Award. On August 29, 2013, JLL timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. On August 30, 2013, Cushman timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. An opportunity to resolve the protests was held on September 9, 2013, and an impasse was eventually reached. On October 10, 2013, DMS forwarded the formal protest petitions to DOAH. An Order consolidating JLL’s protest and Cushman’s protest was entered on October 15, 2013. Scope of Real Estate Services in the ITN Prior to the statutory authority of DMS to procure real estate brokerage services, agencies used their own staff to negotiate private property leases. Section 255.25(h), Florida Statutes, arose out of the legislature’s desire for trained real estate professionals to assist the State of Florida with its private leasing needs. The statutorily mandated use of tenant brokers by agencies has saved the state an estimated $46 million dollars. The primary purpose of the ITN was to re-procure the expiring tenant broker contracts to assist state agencies in private sector leasing transactions. Once under contract, the selected vendors compete with each other for the opportunity to act on behalf of individual agencies as their tenant broker, but there is no guarantee particular vendors will get any business. The core of the services sought in the ITN was lease transactions. The ITN also sought to provide a contract vehicle to allow vendors to provide real estate consulting services, including strategies for long and short-term leases, space planning, and space management as part of the negotiation for private leases. As part of providing real estate consulting services, vendors would also perform independent market analyses (IMAs) and broker opinions of value (BOVs) or broker price opinions (BPOs). In almost all instances, this would be provided at no charge as part of the other work performed for a commissionable transaction under the resulting contract. However, the resulting contract was designed to allow agencies to ask for an IMA or BOV to be performed independently from a commissionable transaction. In addition to the primary leasing transactions, the contract would also allow state agencies to use the vendors for other services such as the acquisition and disposition of land and/or buildings. These services would be performed according to a Scope of Work prepared by the individual agency, with compensation at either the hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or at the percentage commission rate negotiated between the vendor and the individual agency. However, these services were ancillary to the main purpose of the contract, which was private leasing. In Florida, most state agencies are not authorized to hold title to land. However, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) serves as staff for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board”), which holds title to land owned by the State of Florida. In that capacity, DEP buys and sells land and other properties on behalf of the Board. DEP recently began using the current DMS tenant broker contract for acquisitions and dispositions. The process was cumbersome under the current contract, so DEP asked to participate in the ITN in order to make the contract more suitable for their purposes. The ITN was revised to include DEP’s proposed changes, and DMS had Ms. Ellison serve first as an evaluator and later as a subject matter expert. At hearing, Ms. Ellison testified that she was able to participate fully, that her input was taken seriously, and that the proposed contract adequately addressed DEP’s concerns. While DEP anticipated that under the proposed contract it would use more BOVs than it had previously, there was no guarantee that DEP would use the proposed contract. DEP is not obligated to use the contract and maintains the ability to procure its own tenant brokers. Additionally, administration and leadership changes may cause a switch of using in-house agency employees instead of tenant brokers to perform real estate acquisition and disposition services. Specifics of the ITN The ITN directed vendors to submit a reply with the following sections: a cover letter; completed attachments; pass/fail requirements; Reply Evaluation Criteria; and a price sheet. The Reply Evaluation Criteria included Part A (Qualifications) and Part B (Business Plan). Qualifications were worth 40 points, the Business Plan was worth 50 points, and the proposed pricing was worth 10 points. For the Business Plan, the ITN requested a detailed narrative description of how the vendors planned to meet DMS’s needs as set forth in section 3.01, Scope of Work. The ITN requested that vendors describe and identify the current and planned resources and employees to be assigned to the project and how the resources would be deployed. Section 3.01, Scope of Work, states that the primary objective of the ITN is to “identify brokers to assist and represent the Department and other state agencies in private sector leasing transactions.” The ITN states that the contractor will provide state agencies and other eligible users with real estate transaction and management services, which include “document creation and management, lease negotiation and renegotiation, facility planning, construction oversight, and lease closeout, agency real estate business strategies, pricing models related to relocation services, project management services, acquisition services, and strategic consulting.” Id. The ITN also specifies: Other real estate consulting services such as property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales or those identified in the reply or negotiation process and made part of the Contract (e.g., financial services, facilities management services, lease v. buy analyses). The ITN lists the following duties the contractor will perform: Act as the state’s tenant broker, to competitively solicit, negotiate and develop private sector lease agreements; Monitor landlord build-out on behalf of state agencies; Provide space management services, using required space utilization standards; Provide tenant representation services for state agencies and other eligible users during the term of a lease; Identify and evaluate as directed strategic opportunities for reducing occupancy costs through consolidation, relocation, reconfiguration, capital investment, selling and/or the building or acquisition of space; Assist with property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding property, property auctions and direct sales; and Provide requested related real estate consulting services. The ITN set the commission percentage for new leases at 4 percent for years 1-10 and 2 percent for each year over 10 years; 2 percent for lease renewals, extensions, or modifications; and 2 percent for warehouse or storage space leases. Id. For “other services,” the ITN states: With respect to all other services (e.g., space management services, general real estate consulting services, property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales), compensation will be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the broker and the using agency. The ITN also required that vendors specify the number of credit hours to be given annually to DMS. Each vendor gives a certain number of credit hours at the start of each year under the contract. The state earns additional credit hours as the vendors perform transactions. DMS manages the pool of accumulated credit hours and gives them to individual agencies to use on a case-by-case basis as payment for individual projects. These credit hours are commonly allocated to pay for IMAs and BOVs that are not part of commissionable transactions. With the exception of one legislatively mandated project, DMS has never exhausted its pool of credit hours. The ITN further specified that IMAs and BOVs must be offered at no cost when performed as part of a commissionable transaction. Historically, most IMAs and BOVs are performed as part of a commissionable transaction. They have only been performed separately from a commissionable transaction a handful of times under the current contract, and many of these were still provided at no cost through the allocation of free credit hours available to the agencies. Therefore, most IMAs and BOVs to be performed under the proposed contract will likely be at no cost. The ITN states that points to be awarded under the price criterion will be awarded based on the number of annual credit hours offered and the commission rate paid per transaction per hour of commission received. The ITN further provides that DMS will evaluate and rank replies in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to award, and then the team will proceed to negotiations. Regarding negotiations, the ITN states: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent’s demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the section criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. The ITN also states: At the conclusion of negotiations, the Department will issue a written request for best and final offer(s) (BAFOs) to one or more of the Respondents with which the negotiation team has conducted negotiations. At a minimum, based upon the negotiation process, the BAFOs must contain: A revised Statement of Work; All negotiated terms and conditions to be included in Contract; and A final cost offer. The Respondent’s BAFO will be delivered to the negotiation team for review. Thereafter, the negotiation team will meet in a public meeting to determine which offer constitutes the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria. The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the State. The ITN and draft contract permit subcontractors to perform under the contract and provide an avenue for a contractor to add subcontractors by submitting a written request to DMS’s contract manager with particular information. Best and Final Offers After the conclusion of negotiations, the negotiation team requested each vendor to submit a BAFO, to be filled out in accordance with the RBAFO format. The RBAFO noted that each vendor would get a set percentage commission for leasing transactions, but asked vendors to submit their prices for IMAs, BOVs, and BPOs performed outside a commissionable transaction and to submit the number of annual credit hours vendors would give DMS at the start of the new contract. In an effort to increase potential savings to the state, DMS lowered the percentage rates of the commissions for lease transactions in the RBAFO below the rates initially set in the ITN. By selecting only two vendors instead of three, the additional potential volume for each vendor on the contract could support the lower commission rates being requested of tenant brokers. The state would ultimately save money due to the impact of the reduced commissions on the overall economic structure of each lease. Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS, expounded on the rationale for reducing the number of vendors under the new contract to two: The Court: To me, it’s counterintuitive that having fewer vendors would result in more favorable pricing for the state of Florida; and yet you said that was the anticipated result of reducing the number of vendors from three to two – The Witness: Correct. The Court: -- for the new contract. I’m unclear. Tell me the basis for the team’s anticipation that having fewer vendors would result in better pricing. The Witness: When the original ITN was released, it had the same percentages in there that are under the current contract. And I’ll talk, for context, new leases, which right now is at 4 percent. So the discussion was – and 4 percent is typical of the industry. That’s typical for what the industry pays across the board. So the desire was to reduce the commission, to reduce those commission amounts to drive that percentage down. So we went out with the first BAFO that had a range that said for leases that cost between zero – and I can’t remember – zero and a half million, what would your percentage be? Thinking that when we had a tiered arrangement, those percentages would come down. They really didn’t. So when we sat down as a team and discussed: Well, why didn’t they – and you know, because typical is 4 percent. So we came back and said: Well, if we reduce the percentage on new leases to 3.25 but restrict the reward to two vendors, each vendor has the potential to make as much money as they would have made at 4 percent, but the savings would be rolled back into the state. Each of the five vendors invited to negotiate submitted a BAFO, agreeing as part of their submissions to comply with the terms and conditions of the draft of the proposed contract and agreeing to the lowered set percentage commission rates in the RBAFO. The RBAFO listed selection criteria by which the vendors would be chosen, to further refine the broad criteria listed in the ITN. The RBAFO listed the following nine items as selection criteria: performance measures (if necessary), sliding scale/cap, IMA set fee, broker’s opinion of value, balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum), contract concerns, credit hours (both annual and per deal hour), hourly rates, and vendor experience and capability. CBRE’s BAFO submission followed the format indicated in the RBAFO, but CBRE included an additional section giving its proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions of land. These rates were also submitted by other vendors at other parts of the procurement process, but CBRE was the only vendor to include such rates as part of its BAFO submission. DMS considered this addition a minor irregularity that it waived. In its BAFO submission, Cushman offered a three-tiered approach to its pricing for IMAs and BOVs. For the first tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for free as part of a commissionable transaction. This is redundant, as the ITN required all vendors to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when part of a commissionable transaction. For the second tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when the user agency has previously hired Cushman on tenant representative work. Ms. Sparkman testified that this provision was unclear, as Cushman did not define the scope of this provision or what amount of work qualified the agency for free services. For the third tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for $240 when not part of a commissionable transaction for an agency with which it had never done business. Best Value Determination The five BAFOs were sent to the negotiation team for review on August 8, 2013, and on August 14, 2013, the team met in a public meeting to discuss the BAFOs, consider the selection criteria, discuss the team’s award recommendation, and draft a written award recommendation memorandum. During the August 14, 2013, meeting the team determined that CBRE and Vertical represented the best value to the state, by a majority vote for CBRE and by a unanimous vote for Vertical. Ms. Sparkman stated at the meeting that, from her perspective, CBRE and Vertical represented a better value than the other vendors because they were more forward thinking in their long term business strategies for managing Florida’s portfolio. Also at this meeting, Ms. Sparkman noted that CBRE’s prices for IMAs and BOVs were somewhat high but that she would attempt to convince CBRE to lower its prices during the contract execution phase. This was part of an attempt to equalize costs to ensure user agencies selected vendors based on individual needs rather than cost. However, CBRE represented the best value to the state regardless of whether its pricing changed. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that if CBRE had refused to lower its pricing, DMS would still have signed a contract with them based on the pricing submitted in its BAFO. Ms. Sparkman also stated at the public meeting that if she were unable to come to contract with both CBRE and Vertical, she would arrange for another public meeting to select a third vendor with whom to proceed to the contract execution phase. This statement did not refer to DMS selecting a third vendor to replace CBRE should CBRE refuse to lower its price, but rather reflected the possibility that during the contract execution phase, DMS and either one of the vendors could potentially be unable to sign a contract because the vendor was unwilling to execute the written terms and conditions. The “contract negotiations” referenced during the public meeting are the remaining processes to be worked out during the contract execution phase and are distinct and separate from the negotiation phase. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that in the past, vendors have refused to sign a contract because their legal counsel was unwilling to sign off on what the business representatives agreed to. Thus, if either CBRE or Vertical refused to sign the contract altogether, DMS would potentially have selected a third-place vendor in order to have a second vendor on the contract, according to Ms. Sparkman. International experience weighed in favor of CBRE and Vertical, according to team member comments made at the public meeting. Although the phrase “international experience” was not specifically listed in the selection criteria of the ITN or RBAFO, many vendors highlighted their international experience as part of the general category of vendor experience. Vendor experience and capability is specified in both the ITN and RBAFO as part of the selection criteria. Ms. Sparkman testified that international experience is indicative of high quality general vendor experience because international real estate market trends change more rapidly than domestic market trends. None of the negotiation team members recommended Cushman for a contract award, and in fact, Cushman's name was not even discussed at the award meeting. The Award Memorandum Also during the August 14, 2013, public meeting the negotiation team prepared a memorandum setting forth the negotiation team’s best value recommendation of CBRE and Vertical, and many of its reasons for the recommendation. There was no requirement that the memorandum list every single reason that went into the decision. For example, the memorandum did not state that the team found CBRE and Vertical’s focus on long term strategies more impressive than Cushman’s focus on past performance under the current contract. The award memorandum included a “Selection Criteria” section which simply repeated the nine selection criteria that had been previously identified in the RBAFO. The memorandum then went on to include a section labeled “B. Technical Analysis” that stated: Analysis of pricing is provided in section C below. As to the remaining selection criteria items, the Team identified the following key elements for the service to be provided: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. The selection criteria provided above were used by the Team to make its best value recommendation. Ms. Sparkman testified that while the choice of wording may have been imprecise, the items listed in the Technical Analysis section were simply elaborations of the selection criteria in the ITN and RBAFO, and not new criteria. The first four are subsumed within vendor experience and capability, and the fifth was specifically listed in the RBAFO. Indeed, Cushman’s Senior Managing Director testified at hearing that Cushman had addressed the first four items in their presentation to DMS during the negotiation phase to demonstrate why Cushman should be chosen for the contract. The memorandum failed to note that CBRE had included non-solicited information in its BAFO regarding proposed rates for the acquisition and disposition of land. However, the negotiation team considered CBRE’s inclusion of these proposed rates a minor irregularity that could be waived in accordance with the ITN and addressed in the contract execution phase, since those rates were for ancillary services, and there was no guaranteed work to be done for DEP under that fee structure. The memorandum included a chart, identified as Attachment B, that compared the proposed number of credit hours and some of the pricing for IMAs and BOVs submitted by the vendors in their BAFOs. The chart listed Cushman’s price for IMAs and BOVs as $240 and failed to include all the information regarding the three-tiered approach to IMAs and BOVs Cushman listed in its BAFO. However, Ms. Sparkman testified that the chart was meant to be a side-by-side basic summary that compared similar information, not an exhaustive listing. The Cushman Protest Negotiations After Award of the Contract Cushman alleges that DMS’s selection of CBRE violates the ITN specifications because DMS selected CBRE with the intent of conducting further negotiations regarding price, which provided CBRE with an unfair advantage. Cushman further argues that the procedure of awarding to one vendor and then possibly adding another vendor if contract negotiations fail violates Florida’s statutes and the ITN. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 23, 28 & 31. Section 2.14 of the ITN specifically reserved DMS's right to reopen negotiations after receipt of BAFOs if it believed such was in the best interests of the state. Specifically, section 2.14 A. provides: The highest ranked Respondent(s) will be invited to negotiate a Contract. Respondents are cautioned to propose their best possible offers in their initial Reply as failing to do so may result in not being selected to proceed to negotiations. If necessary, the Department will request revisions to the approach submitted by the top-rated Respondent(s) until it is satisfied that the contract model will serve the state’s needs and is determined to provide the best value to the state. The statements made by Ms. Sparkman at the August 14, 2013, public meeting and in the award memorandum, that DMS would attempt to reduce CBRE's prices for ancillary services during the contract execution process were not contrary to the ITN or unfair to the other vendors. Both Ms. Sparkman and Mr. Bradner, the two negotiation team members who voted to award to CBRE, testified that they recommended CBRE as providing the best value even considering its arguably higher prices for ancillary services. Ms. Sparkman further confirmed that even if CBRE refused to lower its prices during the contract execution phase, DMS would still sign the contract, as CBRE's proposal would still represent the best value to the state. The anticipated efforts to obtain lower prices from CBRE were simply an attempt to obtain an even better best value for the state. Ms. Sparkman also testified that section 2.14 F. allowed continued negotiations, even though it was silent as to timeframe. Paragraph F states: In submitting a Reply a Respondent agrees to be bound to the terms of Section 5 – General Contract Conditions (PUR 1000) and Section 4 – Special Contract Conditions. Respondents should assume those terms will apply to the final contract, but the Department reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if the Department determines that it provides the best value to the state. Ms. Sparkman also cited section 2.14 I. as authority for reopening negotiations following receipt of the BAFO’s. That section provides: The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving the BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the state. Ms. Sparkman’s statement that if DMS failed, for any reason, to successfully contract with either of the two vendors selected, it would consider pulling in another vendor, is not inconsistent with the clear language of the ITN. Selection Criteria Cushman alleges that DMS used criteria to determine the awards that were not listed in the ITN or the RBAFO. Amended Pet. ¶ 25. Section 2.14 E of the ITN established broad selection criteria, stating: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent's demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the selection criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. (emphasis added). Following the negotiations, and with the assistance of its subject matter expert, the negotiation team provided in the RBAFO additional clarity as to the selection criteria, and identified the "Basis of Award/Selection Criteria" as follows: Performance Measures (if necessary) Sliding scale/cap IMA set fee Broker's opinion of value Balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum) Contract concerns Credit hours (both annual and per deal hour) Hourly rates Vendor experience and capability The foregoing selection criteria, as well as the selection criteria stated initially in the ITN, make clear that pricing was only one of the criteria upon which the award was to be made. Indeed, Cushman's representative, Larry Richey, acknowledged during his testimony that criteria such as "Performance Measures," "Contract Concerns," and "Vendor Experience and Capability" did not refer to pricing, but rather to the expected quality of the vendor's performance if awarded the contract. As the principal draftsman of the ITN and DMS's lead negotiator, Ms. Sparkman explained that the RBAFO's statement of the selection criteria was intended to provide greater detail to the broad selection criteria identified in the ITN, and was used by the negotiation team in making its best value determination. Ms. Sparkman further testified that the best value determination resulted from the negotiation team's lengthy and extensive evaluation of the vendors' initial written replies to the ITN, review of the vendors' qualifications and comprehensive business plans, participation in approximately two and a half hours of oral presentations by each vendor (including a question and answer session with regard to the proposed implementation and management of the contracts), and a review of the vendors' BAFOs. Applying the selection criteria contained in the ITN and the RBAFO, the negotiation team selected Vertical for several reasons, including its performance indicators, employees with ADA certification, computer programs and employee training not offered by other vendors, its presence in Florida, and the strength of its business plan and presentation. Similarly, the negotiation team selected CBRE for an award based on the strength of its ITN Reply, its broad look at long-term strategies, its key performance indicators, the experience and knowledge of its staff, the comprehensiveness of its proposal and business plan, size of its firm, and creative ideas such as use of a scorecard in transactions. Ms. Sparkman observed that both Vertical and CBRE specifically identified the CBRE staff who would manage the state's business and daily transactions, while it was not clear from Cushman's ITN reply and related submissions who would actually be working on the account. Cushman likewise did not discuss out-of-state leases and how such leases were going to be handled, which was a significant concern because DMS considered out-of-state leases to be particularly complex. Ms. Sparkman also noted that with respect to the vendors' business plans, both Vertical and CBRE focused primarily on strategic realignment and plans for the future, whereas Cushman discussed their current transactions at length, but did not demonstrate forward thinking to the negotiation team. Cushman's reply to the ITN also included various discrepancies noted at the final hearing. While Cushman's ITN reply identifies a Tallahassee office, Cushman does not in fact have a Tallahassee office, but instead listed its subcontractor’s office.6/ Additionally, two of the business references presented in Cushman's ITN Reply appear not in fact to be for Cushman, but instead for its subcontractor, Daniel Wagnon, as Cushman's name was clearly typed in above Mr. Wagnon's name after the references were written. Finally, Cushman failed to provide in its ITN Reply the required subcontractor disclosure information for at least one of its "Project Management Partners," Ajax Construction. Based on all of the above, DMS's decision to award contracts to Vertical and CBRE as providing the best value to the state was not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition. Simply stated, and as the negotiation team determined, the submissions by Vertical and CBRE were more comprehensive and reasonably found to offer better value to the state than Cushman's submission. Indeed the negotiation team did not even mention Cushman as a potential contract awardee, but instead identified only Vertical, CBRE and JLL in their deliberations as to best value. Cushman's argument that DMS award memorandum improperly relies on the following as "key elements" related to services does not alter this analysis: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. While Ms. Sparkman acknowledged that the choice of language in the memorandum could have been better, it is clear that the foregoing are indeed "elements" of the selection criteria stated in the ITN and RBAFO, as the first four elements plainly relate to the vendors' ability to effectively provide the services, their technical proposal, performance measures, and vendor experience and capability, while the last element relates to the pricing portion of the criteria. Cushman also argues that the award memorandum failed to inform the final decision-maker that Cushman offered IMAs and BOVs at no charge when Cushman was engaged in a commissionable transaction or was performing other work for an agency under the contract. As a result, Cushman asserts, the Deputy Secretary was provided with inaccurate information relating to price. Cushman's argument that the award process was flawed because the pricing chart attached to the award memorandum did not accurately reflect Cushman's proposed pricing is without merit. As Ms. Sparkman testified, the chart was prepared by the negotiation team to provide for the decision-maker an apples-to- apples broad summary comparison of the vendor's proposed pricing for the proposed ancillary services. The chart was not intended to identify all variations or conditions for potential different pricing as proposed by Cushman.7/ Best Value Determination Cushman contends that the negotiation team’s decision to award a contract to CBRE did not result in the best value to the state. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 26, 28 & 29. Cushman further argues that DMS did not meaningfully consider differences in proposed pricing. The failure to consider price for potential ancillary services, Cushman argues, was contrary to competition as it gave an unfair advantage to CBRE whose prices were higher than Cushman’s prices in all but one category. Although pricing for the potential ancillary services was relevant, the ITN's initial scoring criteria made clear that DMS was primarily focused on evaluating the experience and capability of the vendors to provide the proposed services. For this reason, the ITN's initial scoring criteria awarded 90 percent of the points based upon the qualifications and business plan of the vendors, and only 10 percent of the points based on the pricing for potential ancillary services. The negotiation team members testified that this same focus on qualifications and the vendors' business plan continued during the negotiation phase and award decision, although without reliance on the mathematical scoring process utilized during the initial evaluation phase. Nothing in the ITN specifications altered this focus, and the negotiations were directed to gaining a greater understanding of the vendors' proposed services, the qualifications and bios of individuals who would actually do the work, vendors' approach to the work and parameters the vendors would use to evaluate their performance. Pricing remained of relatively minor significance primarily because the RBAFO established a uniform lease commission rate for all vendors, effectively removing pricing as a means to differentiate between the vendors. As a result, vendors were required to quote pricing only for certain potential ancillary services, including IMAs and BOVs, and the number of free credit hours to be provided to the state. Pricing for these potential ancillary services was not considered particularly important, since historically these services were seldom used, and the ITN required all vendors to provide IMAs and BOVs free of charge when related to a commissionable transaction (thereby greatly reducing the impact of any "free" IMA or BOV services). For these reasons, the negotiation team considered the potential ancillary services and pricing for these services not to be significant in the award decision and only incidental to the core purpose and mission of the intended contract, to wit, leasing and leasing commissions. As a result, the negotiation team referred to these potential ancillary services as "balance of line" items which were nominal and added little value to the contract. Notwithstanding Cushman's argument that it should have been awarded the contract because it offered the lowest pricing for these ancillary services, its prices were not in fact the lowest offered by the vendors. Indeed JLL offered to provide all IMA and BOV services (with no preconditions) at no cost. Cushman's pricing for the ancillary services also was not materially different than CBRE's pricing. CBRE's consulting services rates are comparable, if not lower, than Cushman's rates, and the difference between Cushman's and CBRE's proposed charges for IMAs and BOVs is only a few hundred dollars. When considered in terms of the anticipated number of times the ancillary services will be requested (rarely, based on the prior contract), the total "extra" amount to be spent for CBRE's services would be at most a few thousand dollars. The negotiation team reasonably considered this to be insignificant in comparison to the multimillion dollar leasing work which was the core purpose of the intended contract.8/ Because pricing for the potential ancillary services was of lesser significance to DMS's award decision, Cushman's position that DMS should have awarded Cushman a contract based upon its pricing for ancillary services is not consistent with the ITN and does not render DMS's intended awards to Vertical and CBRE arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous or contrary to competition. To the contrary, DMS articulated a rational, reasonable and logical explanation for the award. CBRE’s Proposal Non-Responsive to ITN and RBAFO? Cushman alleges that CBRE’s BAFO was not responsive to the ITN and the RBAFO because CBRE included a set rate for acquisitions and dispositions in its proposal. Amended Pet. 30. Since CBRE's BAFO materially deviated from the ITN's specifications, CBRE’s proposal should have been deemed non- responsive and therefore rejected, Cushman argues. The ITN originally requested pricing related only to credit hours as the ITN set the rates for leases. The ITN stated that “other services” would be determined on a case-by- case basis as negotiated by the agencies. However, as part of the ITN process, DMS discussed with the vendors the potential for them to assist the state in the sale and acquisition of property, and what commission rates might be charged for this work. For this reason, CBRE included proposed commission rates for acquisition and disposition services in its BAFO. DMS considered the inclusion of potential rates for acquisitions and dispositions to be a minor irregularity which did not render CBRE's BAFO non-responsive. This determination is consistent with the terms of the ITN, which at section 2.14(g) states "[t]he Department reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in replies." The form PUR 1001 incorporated by reference into the ITN likewise reserves to DMS the right to waive minor irregularities and states: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the state's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Consistent with the above-cited provisions, the negotiation team noted at its August 14, 2013, meeting that CBRE's inclusion of the proposed rates was not material, and that during the contract execution process, DMS would either exclude the proposed rates from the contract, or possibly include such as a cap for these services. Both of these alternatives were available to DMS given CBRE's commitment to follow the terms of the draft contract, which specifically stated that fees for acquisitions and dispositions would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, CBRE's inclusion of proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions did not give CBRE an advantage over the other vendors, or impair the competition, because Cushman and JLL also submitted, as part of their ITN responses, proposed commission rates for the acquisition and disposition of property. Do the ITN Specifications Violate Section 255.25? Cushman's final argument is that the ITN specifications, and the proposed contract, violate section 255.25(3)(h)5., Florida Statutes, which states that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract and may not be supplemented or modified by the state agency using the contract." Cushman's argument has two components. First, Cushman argues that the specifications included at Tab 5, page 13 of the ITN violate the statute by providing: "With respect to all other [ancillary] services, . . . , compensation shall be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by a percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the using agency.” Cushman also argues that the language in the award memorandum stating that the BOV rates are "caps" and "may be negotiated down by agencies prior to individual transactions," violates the statute. This latter reference to "caps" correlates to the "ceiling rates" stated in the above quoted ITN specification. Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires vendors to file a protest to an ITN’s terms, conditions, or specifications within 72 hours of the release of the ITN or amendment; failure to protest constitutes a waiver of such arguments. DMS included this language with the release of the ITN and each amendment, so Cushman was on notice of its protest rights. Cushman's challenge to the ITN specifications as violating section 255.25 is untimely and has been waived. Having been fully informed of this specification since May 14, 2013, when the revised ITN was published, Cushman could not wait until the ITN process was completed some four months later, and then argue that the ITN specifications do not comply with section 255.25 and must be changed. Such argument plainly constitutes a specifications challenge, and such a challenge is now time-barred. Even were Cushman’s challenge not time-barred, it would still fail. Section 255.25 requires only that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract," and not that all terms identifying the compensation be specified. The challenged ITN specification, actually added via Addendum 2 at the request of DEP and its subject matter expert, does specify the approved methods by which the state could compensate the vendor, which DMS determined would best be determined on a case-by-case basis. By stating the approved methods which can be used by the state agencies, the ITN specifications and term contract did specify the terms "relating to" the compensation of the vendor, i.e., an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or a percentage commission rate. DMS established these terms because the exact compensation would best be determined by the state agency on a case-by-case basis in a Statement of Work utilizing one of the specified compensation methods.9/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the petition of Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc., and affirming the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE, Inc., and Vertical Integration, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 24th day of January, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Royal Arms Villas Condominium, Inc., discriminated against Petitioners, Eric and Nora Gross, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are a married couple, living in a rental home at 209 Yorkshire Court, Naples, Florida (rental unit). Petitioners have two children and two grandchildren; however, none of these relatives live in Petitioners’ rental unit. Mr. Gross was diagnosed with stage four hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2002. Mr. Gross has been in remission since 2003. Mr. Gross was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration in 2003. Petitioners have lived in this rental unit since August 2006. A Florida residential lease agreement with the property owners, Joan and Charles Forton, was entered on August 8, 2006.3/ This lease was for a 12-month period, from September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007. At the end of this period, the lease became a month-to-month lease and continued for years without anyone commenting on it. In 2012, Respondent inquired about a dog that was seen with Petitioners. After providing supporting documentation to Respondent, Petitioners were allowed to keep Mr. Gross’ service dog, Evie. Respondent is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. There are 62 units, and the owner of each unit owns a 1/62 individual share in the common elements. Since its inception, Respondent has, through its members (property owners), approved its articles of incorporation, bylaws, and related condominium powers, and amended its declaration of condominium in accordance with Florida law. Ms. Orrino is currently vice-president of Respondent’s Board of Directors (Board). Ms. Orrino has been on the Board since 2009 and has served in every executive position, including Board president. Ms. Orrino owns two condominiums within Respondent’s domain, but does not reside in either. In 2012 or 2013, Respondent experienced a severe financial crisis, and a new property management company was engaged. This company brought to the attention of Respondent’s Board that it had not been approving leases as required by its Declaration of Condominium.4/ As a result of this information, the Board became more pro-active in its responsibilities, and required all renters to submit a lease each year for the Board’s approval. Petitioners felt they were being singled out by Respondent to provide a new lease. The timing of Respondent’s request made it appear as if Respondent was unhappy about Petitioners keeping Evie. Petitioners then filed a grievance with HUD.5/ HUD enlisted the Commission to handle the grievance, and Mr. Burkes served as the Commission’s facilitator between Petitioners and Respondent. On October 24, 2013, Petitioners executed a Conciliation Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent and the Commission. The terms of the Agreement include: NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows: Respondent agrees: To grant Complainants’ request for a reasonable accommodation to keep Eric Gross’s emotional support/service dog (known as “Evie”) in the condominium unit even though it exceeds the height and weight limits for dogs in the community. That their sole remedy for Complainants’ breach of the provisions contained in subparagraphs (a) through (g) below, in addition to the attorney’s fees and costs provision of paragraph 10 of this Agreement, shall be the removal of the Complainants’ dog. Complainants agree: That they will not permit the dog to be on common areas of the association property, except to transport the dog into or out of Complainants’ vehicle, to and from Complainants’ unit, and to take the dog through the backyard of the unit to walk it across the street off association property. That if the dog is outside of the condominium unit, they will at all times keep the dog on a leash and will at all times maintain control of the dog. That if their dog accidentally defecates on association property, they will immediately collect and dispose of the waste. That they are personally responsible and liable for any accidents or damages/injuries done by the dog and that they will indemnify and hold the Respondent harmless and defend Respondent for such claims that may or may not arise against Respondent. That they will not allow the dog to be a nuisance in the community or disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of other residents. A nuisance will specifically include, but is not limited to, loud barking and any show of aggressive behavior, including, but not limited to, aggressive barking, growling or showing of teeth regardless of whether the dog is inside or outside of the unit. That they will abide by all community rules and regulations of Respondent with which all residents are required to comply, including but not limited to submitting to the required pre-lease/lease renewal interview, and completing a lease renewal application and providing his updated information to Respondents and submitting to Respondent a newly executed lease compliant with Florida law and the Declaration of Condominium. The pre-lease/lease renewal interview will be conducted at Complainants’ unit at a time and date agreeable to the parties but not to exceed 30 days from the date of this agreement. If Complainants’ current dog “Evie” should die or otherwise cease to reside in the unit, Complainants agree to replace the dog, if at all, with a dog that is in full compliance with the association’s Declaration of Condominium or Rules and regulations in force at that time and will allow the dog to be inspected by Respondent for approval. Respondent agrees to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that their policies, performance and conduct shall continue to demonstrate a firm commitment to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Sections 760.20-37, Florida Statutes, (2012), and the Civil Rights Act of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982 and 3601 et.seq). [sic] Respondent agrees that it, its Board members, employees, agents and representatives shall continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which provides that Respondents shall not make, print or publish any notice, statement of advertisement with respect to the rental or sale of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondent also agrees to continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which prohibits Respondents from maintaining, implementing and effectuating, directly or indirectly, any policy or practice, which causes any discrimination or restriction on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondents also agree to continue to comply with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute a judgment on the part of the Commission that Respondents did nor did not violate the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, Section 760.20-37, Florida Statutes (2011). The Commission does not waive its rights to process any additional complaints against the Respondent, including a complaint filed by a member of the Commission. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute an admission on the part of the Respondent that they violated the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, or Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Complainants agree to waive and release and do hereby waive and release Respondent from any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Respondent, with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in this complaint under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Respondent’s performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The Commission agrees that it will cease processing the above-mentioned Complaint filed by Complainants and shall dismiss with prejudice said complaint based upon the terms of this Agreement. Respondent agrees to waive and release any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Complainants with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in these complaints under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Complainants’ performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The parties agree in any action to interpret or enforce this agreement the prevailing party is entitled to the recovery from the non-prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including attorney’s fees and costs of any appeal. FURTHER, the Parties hereby agree that: This Agreement may be used as evidence in any judicial, administrative or other forum in which any of the parties allege a breach of this Agreement. Execution of this Agreement may be via facsimile, scanned copy (emailed), or copies reproduced and shall be treated as an original. This Conciliation Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Conciliation Agreement to be duly executed on the last applicable date, the term of the agreement being from the last applicable date below for so long as any of the rights or obligations described here in continue to exist. Eric Gross and Nora Gross signed the Agreement on October 24, 2013. Ms. Orrino, as President of Respondent, signed the Agreement on September 9. The Commission’s facilitator, Mr. Burkes, signed the Agreement on October 24. The Commission’s housing manager, Regina Owens, signed the Agreement on October 30, and its executive director, Michelle Wilson, signed the Agreement on November 4. The effective date of the Agreement is November 4, the last day it was signed by a party, and the clock started running for compliance. Petitioners failed to abide by the Agreement in the following ways: Petitioners failed to submit an updated lease agreement that conformed to Respondent’s rules and regulations. Petitioners failed to submit to the required pre- lease/lease renewal interview within 30 days of signing the Agreement. Petitioners failed to complete a lease renewal application. Petitioners failed to provide updated information to Respondent. It is abundantly clear that Eric Gross and Ms. Orrino do not get along. However, that personal interaction does not excuse non-compliance with an Agreement that the parties voluntarily entered. Each party to the Agreement had obligations to perform. Respondent attempted to assist Petitioners with their compliance by extending the time in which to comply, and at one point, waving the interview requirement. Petitioners simply failed to comply with the Agreement. Petitioners failed to present any credible evidence that other residents in the community were treated differently. Mr. Gross insisted that the Agreement had sections that Petitioners did not agree to. Mr. Burkes was unable to shed any light on the Agreement or the alleged improprieties that Mr. Gross so adamantly insisted were present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of March, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Mini-Warehouses At Kendall, Ltd., d/b/a A+ Mini-Storage (Petitioner) is a business located in Dade County, engaged primarily in the rental of storage space. Petitioner employs 20 to 21 employees and has been operating for 13 to 14 years. Petitioner's property on which its business is located consists of approximately four acres and abuts property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent), known as Parcel 0739, which contains approximately .0986 acres. On June 28, 1985, Petitioner executed a written lease agreement leasing Parcel 0739 from Respondent. The lease terms provided that it was a year-to- year lease, automatically renewable yearly until terminated by either party upon a 30-day notice, and that the yearly rental cost was $2,400 plus tax. Petitioner leased Parcel 0739 from Respondent because the parcel provides better access to Petitioner's property from the rear and prevents water from encroaching onto Petitioner's property. The same lease agreement was renewed yearly until 1991. In 1991, prior to the expiration of the lease, Respondent notified Petitioner that a new lease form would have to be executed. Respondent provided Petitioner with its Lease Agreement Form 225-080-03, OGC-00031, dated 7/92 (Form Lease) for execution. The Form Lease was developed by Respondent's Office of General Counsel and the General Counsel of each of its Districts, so that there would be a standard lease form statewide with minimal review by Respondent. The Form Lease contains blanks to be completed by Districts to comport with their specific situations. The Form Lease dramatically changed the terms and conditions of leasing Parcel 0739. Petitioner attempted to modify Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Form Lease, but Respondent refused to agree to any modifications. Paragraph 6 of the Form Lease provides: 6. Indemnification. Lessee shall indemnify, defend, save and hold Lessor, its agents and employees, harmless of and from any losses, fines, penalties, costs, damage, claims, demands, suits and liabilities of any nature, including attorneys fees (including regulatory and appellate fees), arising out of, because of, or due to any accident, happening or occurrence on the leased land or arising in any manner on account of the exercise or attempted exercise of Lessee's rights hereunder, whether the same regards person or property of any nature whatsoever, regardless of the apportionment of negligence, unless due to the sole negligence of Lessor. Lessee's obligation to indemnify, defend, and pay for the defense or at the Department's option, to participate and associate with the Department in the defense and trial of any claim and any related settlement negotiations, shall be triggered by the Department's notice of claim for indemnifica- tion to Lessee. Lessee's inability to evaluate liability or its evaluation of liability shall not excuse Lessee's duty to defend and indemnify within seven days after such notice by the Department is given by registered mail. Only an adjudication or judgment after the highest appeal is exhausted specifically finding the Department solely negligent shall excuse performance of this provision by Lessee. Lessee shall pay all costs and fees related to this obligation and its enforcement by the Department. Department's failure to notify Lessee of a claim shall not release Lessee of the above duty to defend. Under Paragraph 6, Respondent intended to limit lessee's liability to its (lessee's) own negligence or damages it causes. Paragraph 8 of the Form Lease provides: 8. Eminent Domain. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that its relationship with Lessor under this Lease is one of Landlord and Tenant and no other relationship either expressed or implied shall be deemed to apply to the parties under this Lease. Termination of this Lease for any cause shall not be deemed a taking under any eminent domain or other law so as to entitle Lessee to compensation for any interest suffered or lost as a result of termination of this Lease, including but not limited to (i) any residual interest in the Lease, or (ii) any other facts or circumstances arising out of or in connection with this Lease. Lessee hereby waives and relinquishes any legal rights and monetary claims which it might have for full compensation, or damages of any sort, including but not limited to special damages, severance damages, removal costs or loss of business profits resulting from its loss of occupancy of the leased property specified in this Agreement, or adjacent properties owned or leased by it, when any or all such properties are taken by eminent domain proceedings or sold under the threat thereof. This waiver and relinquishment applies whether (i) this Lease is still in existence on the date of taking or sale; or, (ii) has been terminated prior thereto. Under Paragraph 8, Respondent did not intend for the lessee to waive any of its eminent domain rights or relinquish such rights subsequent to the termination of the lease, which would be improper. Presently, Respondent refuses to lease the Parcel to Petitioner unless Petitioner executes the Form Lease without modification. However, at hearing Respondent admitted that it has no intention of requiring Petitioner to agree to Paragraph 8 of the Form Lease. Rule Chapter 14-19, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth Respondent's rules on right-of-way property management. Rule 14-19.002 provides that the purpose of Chapter 14-19 is to set forth standardized methods for, among other things, the leasing of surplus property owned by Respondent. In 1992, the Form Lease was incorporated by reference in Rule Chapter 14-19. Rule 14-19.0012 specifically provides that the Form Lease is one of the forms incorporated by reference in and made a part of Chapter 14-19. Moreover, Rule 14-19.013 requires the Form Lease to be used for short term leasing. Chapter 14-19 is silent as to whether the Form Lease must be used in any of Respondent's other lease situations. Rule 14-19.013, Florida Administrative Code, does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Respondent has a Right Of Way Manual (Manual) for statewide use. Chapter 10, Section 6 of the Manual, entitled "Right of Way Property Leases" and effective January 21, 1993, provides in its "Purpose" section that the purpose of Section 6 is to establish uniform procedures for leasing property owned by Respondent. Also, the Manual's "Procedure" section mandates the use of the Form Lease for all of Respondent's leases. Prior to this mandate, Respondent had no standard lease form for its leases. In October 1992, Respondent required the Form Lease to be used in surplus property leases. The Form Lease is applicable statewide and implements procedures and policies involved in leasing surplus property. Parcel 0739 is considered by Respondent to be surplus property. The Manual is silent as to whether the Form Lease may be modified. Since the implementation of the Form Lease for surplus property, Respondent's District Offices have modified the Form Lease but rarely. In the rare instances when modification has been made, it has been on a case-by-case basis and only with approval of the District General Counsel. Respondent's Office of the Right-Of-Way Administrator under which the responsibility for leasing falls has no authority to approve or disapprove modifications made to the Form Lease by District Offices. However, Respondent's Office of General Counsel does have such authority, but it has not exercised its authority in any of the District situations in which the Form Lease has been modified. Even though there have been modifications to the Form Lease by Respondent's District Offices, although rare, no District Office has modified Paragraphs 6 or 8. Respondent admits that Petitioner has standing in this proceeding.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Children and Families, properly rejected all bids received on an Invitation to Bid on Proposed Lease No. 590:2622.
Findings Of Fact The Existing Lease and the Decision to Look for New Space. District 7 of the Respondent, the Department of Children and Families (at all times relevant to this proceeding, the Department of Children and Families was known as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)(hereinafter referred to as the “District”), leases approximately 26,955 spare feet of office space located in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. The space is used as a client service center. Pursuant to the District’s current lease, the lease will expire on April 30, 1997. The current lease (hereinafter referred to as the “Existing Lease”) was still in effect at the time of the formal hearing of this matter. The Existing Lease also provides for a five-year renewal. For the first two years of the renewal period, the Existing Lease provides for a rental rate of $11.50 per square foot. For the third and fourth years of the renewal the rate is $11.75 and for the last year, $12.00. In June of 1995, the District submitted a Letter of Agency Staffing (hereinafter referred to as a “LAS”) and a Request for Prior Approval of Space Need (hereinafter referred to as a “RSN”), to the Department of Management Services. Pursuant to the LAS and RSN, the District sought approval from the Department of Management Services to seek a new lease of 26,872 square feet of office space in Palm Bay. The reasons given for seeking approval of a new lease set out in the RSN were as follows: New Service Center in Brevard County(Palm Bay Area). The existing lease is up! 4/30/97. The current space does not adequately provide for : (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage. The June of 1995, RSN was approved. The District, however, did not immediately seek the approved space. The evidence failed to prove why. In July of 1996 the District submitted another Request for Space Need (hereinafter referred to as the “Second RSN”). The same amount of space was sought and the same justification for seeking new space was described in the Second RSN. The Second RSN was approved by the Department of Management Services on or about July 8, 1996. The RSN and the Second RSN were prepared by Jim Birch. Mr. Birch is the District’s Facilities Services Manager. The reason for seeking a new lease set out in the RSN and the Second RSN was provided to Mr. Birch by Bill Rawlings and Philip Penley. Mr. Penley is the District’s Sub-District Administrator for Brevard County. Mr. Rawlings is the Program Administrator for Brevard County. The Existing Lease was first entered into in 1977. The amount of space leased has increased over the years and is located in more than one building. Mr. Penley decided to request approval to seek new space in the hopes that the client service center in Palm Bay could be moved under one roof and in the hopes that more ideal space could be obtained. The representation in the RSN and the Second RSN that the existing space “does not adequately provide for: (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage” is misleading and incorrect. The programs located in the existing space in Palm Bay can, in fact, be carried out without relocating. The Invitation to Bid. The District released an Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as the “ITB”), between July 16 and July 19, 1996. The ITB provided that the “Project Contact Person” was Mr. Birch. The ITB sought bids on proposed lease number 590:2622, for approximately 26,872 square feet of office space in an existing building. The ITB sought office space in Palm Bay. The building was to be used as the District’s client service center. The term of the lease was to be ten years with five one-year optional renewal periods. The ITB scheduled a pre-bid meeting for August 8, 1996. Attendance at the meeting was not mandatory. The ITB specified, however, that “information and explanations provided at this meeting must be complied with by the bidder ” A representative of Petitioner, Executive Ventures (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”), attended the pre-bid meeting on August 8, 1996. During that meeting, the lessor under the Existing Lease asked questions about the renewal terms of the Existing Lease. Executive’s representative informed Executive of the discussions soon after the meeting. Executive was, therefore, aware of the existence of the Existing Lease and the fact that it could be renewed prior to submitting a bid in response to the ITB. The ITB provided that bids could be submitted at any time up to 10:00 a.m., September 12, 1996. Bids were to be opened at the close of the bidding period. The ITB provided that all bids received were to be evaluated first for technical responsiveness. Nonresponsive bids were to be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids were to be presented to a bid evaluation committee “for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award.” The ITB informed potential bidders that the District reserved the right to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. The first page of the ITB provides that “[t]he Florida Department of [Children and Families] reserves the right to reject any and all bids and award to the bid judged to be in the best interest of the state.” At page A1-5-8 of the ITB the following is provided concerning the rejection of bids: ITB. REJECTION OF BIDS 1. The department reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification which shall be communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail. [Emphasis in original]. . . . . Bids Submitted in Response to the ITB. A total of four bids were submitted in response to the The bids were opened on September 12, 1996. A bid tabulation sheet was prepared by Mr. Birch. The annual rental rates per square foot for the ten years of the lease were included on the tabulation as required by the ITB. Pursuant to the ITB, no other information was provided at the time the bids were opened and tabulated Executive submitted one of the four bids. Executive’s bid consisted of 90 to 100 pages. Executive expended a good deal of effort and incurred expenses in the amount of approximately $17,000.00 in preparing its bid. The suggestion that Executive incurred unnecessary expenses is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The rental rates per square foot bid by Executive for the term of the proposed leased are as follows: Year Rate 1 $14.56 2 15.00 3 15.53 4 16.08 5 16.73 6 17.40 7 18.10 8 19.01 9 19.96 10 20.96 The District’s Decision to Reject All Bids. Mr. Birch had expected to receive rental rate bids in the range of $12.00 to $13.00. Mr. Birch’s expectation was based upon what he had been told to expect by John Stewart and Mr. Penley. Mr. Stewart is the District’s General Service Manager. Upon tabulating the bids, Mr. Birch discovered that the bids were higher than expected. He realized that the bids were $3.00 per square foot higher than the Existing Lease. Mr. Birch contacted Mr. Stewart and informed him of the difference in rates. Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Penley of the rates that had been bid. Mr. Penley informed Mr. Stewart that the bid rates were too high. Mr. Stewart then informed Sid McAlister, the Deputy District Administrator, and Paul Sneed. Mr. McAlister and Mr. Sneed told Mr. Stewart that the rates bid were excessive. Mr. Stewart subsequently directed Mr. Birch to notify the bidders that all bids were being rejected. Had the bids received in response to the ITB been accepted, the District would have been required to pay an additional approximately $80,000.00 in rent during the first year of the lease. The amount of rent required in the second year would be in excess of $80,000.00. The decision to reject all bids was based upon a realization of the impact the rates contained in the bids would have on the District’s budget if the lowest bid were accepted in relation to the impact on the District’s budget of the rates of the Existing Lease. The District realized that the increase in rent would have a substantial negative impact on its budget. It was also suggested that the impact on the District’s budget as a result of the newly enacted Federal “Welfare Reform Act” was also considered. In particular, the impact of the Welfare Reform Act’s “Work and Gaining Economic Self Sufficiency” or “WAGES” program was considered. The Welfare Reform Act and, consequently WAGES, was signed into law in August of 1996. WAGES was effective October 1, 1996. Among other things, WAGES establishes time limits for the District’s clients' receipt of cash benefits. It also results in the integration of programs of the District and the Department of Labor. This integration of programs will have impacts on the District’s space needs, staffing levels and the ability to pay rental rates in the future. Mr. Penley was aware of WAGES. It was suggested that at the time the ITB was issued little was known about the impact on the District that WAGES would have and that it was not until the bids were received that Mr. Penley had sufficient information concerning WAGES to be concerned about the impact of WAGES on the District’s budget. The weight of the evidence in this case failed to prove that when the decision of the District to reject all bids was made that the decision was based upon WAGES. While the impact of WAGES was of greater concern at the time of the formal hearing, the evidence failed to prove that the District’s concern about WAGES as explained at the formal hearing was taken into account at the time the bids were rejected. Notice of the District’s Decision to Reject All Bids. On September 13, 1996, the day after the bids were opened, the District sent a letter to Executive and the other bidders informing them of the decision to reject all bids: This is to give notice that in the best interest of the State of Florida and the Department of [Children and Families], that any and all bids are hereby rejected. The letter was signed by Mr. Birch. The letter informing Executive of the decision was sent by certified mail. “Strong justification” for the rejection was not “communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail.” After receiving the September 13, 1996 rejection letter, Executive was informed during a telephone call with Mr. Birch that all bids had been rejected due to excessive rental rates and budgetary constraints. The District failed to comply with the requirement of the ITB that it inform bidders by certified mail of the reason why it rejected all bids. The appropriate remedy for this error, however, would not be to require that the District now evaluate the bids. The appropriate remedy for the error would be to require that the District send out a corrected notice by certified mail containing the explanation of the reasons for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. This remedy would only be appropriate, however, if Executive had sought such a remedy AND the evidence had proved that Executive had been prejudiced by the failure to provide the explanation of the District’s justification for rejecting all bids contemplated by the ITB. Evidence to support such a finding was not presented. In fact, the evidence proved that Executive was not prejudiced by the District’s error. Executive was given additional information concerning the bid rejection during a telephone conversation and it had an opportunity to explore the reasons for the rejection through discovery prior to the formal hearing of this case. Executive, therefore, had the opportunity to determine the specific justification for the rejection in preparation for the hearing on this matter. Zone Rates. The Department of Management Services establishes maximum rental rates which agencies can agree to pay without obtaining approval of the Department of Management Services. The rates are established for geographic zones on what is referred to as a “Zone Rate Schedule”. Zone Rate Schedules may be obtained from the Department of Management Services or other agencies by potential bidders. At all times relevant to this proceeding Executive was aware of the Zone Rate Schedule applicable to Palm Bay. Rental rates which do not exceed the zone rate by more than 10% may be accepted by an agency without further approval from the Department of Management Services. Any rate in excess of 10% over the zone rate must be approved by the Department of Management Services before an agency may accept it. The rental rates submitted by Executive in response to the ITB exceeded the zone rate but not by more than 10%. Individuals involved with the District’s decision in this matter either were not aware of the Zone Rate Schedule or gave it no consideration in deciding to reject all bids. The evidence also failed to prove that agreeing to pay a rate included on a Zone Rate Schedule for which approval from the Department of Management Services need not be obtained is necessarily in the “best interest of the state”. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that the District did not have a reasonable basis for rejecting all bids despite the fact that the rates bid by Executive were within the Zone Rate Schedule plus 10%. Executive’s Challenge. Executive filed a Protest dated September 25, 1996, challenging as arbitrary the Department’s decision to reject all bids. In its Protest Executive alleged the following “facts” in support of its argument that the District’s rejection of all bids was arbitrary: The District failed to “communicate to each rejected bidder any justification whatsoever for rejecting any and all bids.” The District had decided to “reject any and all bids if the bid rental per square foot exceeded the rental they were paying under their present Lease, since such Lease had an option to renew for an additional five years. The present Lease renewal failed to comply with the requirements and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid.” The District, “at all times, knew that if such bids exceeded the square foot rental of the present Lease, that they intended to reject all bids and renew the existing Lease, although the existing Lease failed to meet the bid specifications.” The District “violated the competitive bidding procedure by failing to include in their Invitation to Bid a provision that any bid exceeding a specific dollar amount per square foot would be rejected in favor of the existing Lease. ” Although the evidence proved the first fact cited in finding of fact 51, that fact does not support a conclusion that the District’s decision was arbitrary. As to the other facts alleged by Executive in its Protest cited in finding of fact 53, the evidence simply failed to prove those alleged facts. At hearing, Executive presented the testimony of Mary Goodman, a consultant and former Chief of the Bureau of Property Management, Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman was accepted as an expert witness. Ms. Goodman opined that the District’s actions in this matter were arbitrary. Ms. Goodman’s opinion was based in part on her conclusion that the submittal of the RSN and the Second RSN constituted a “determination by the Department to not renew the existing lease.” The evidence failed to support this contention. Executive has failed to cite any provision of Florida law which supports this contention. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the assumption that the District had established a rental rate cap which it failed to inform prospective bidders of. The evidence failed to support this assumption. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the fact that the bid submitted by Executive was within the Zone Rate Schedule for the area. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the fact that the bids were within 10% of the Zone Rate Schedule rates means that the decision to reject bids that would have cost the District approximately $80,000.00 the first year in additional rent was arbitrary because the rental bids did not require approval of the Department of Management Services. Executive has cited no provision of Florida law that requires agencies to accept bids simple because they do not require approval from the Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on her conclusion that the District should have known of its budgetary constraints before issuance of the ITB. Ms. Goodman, however, acknowledged that she knew nothing specifically about the District’s budget. Finally, Ms. Goodman based her opinion on the District’s failure to provide the notice of the District’s reason for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. As discussed, supra, the evidence failed to support this conclusion. The evidence failed to prove that Executive filed the action for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Children and Families dismissing the Protest filed by Executive Ventures. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Smith, Esquire SMITH, GRIMSLEY, BAUMAN, PINKERTON, PETERMANN, SAXER, WELLS Post Office Box 2379 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Eric D. Dunlap Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard A. Doran General Counsel Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid specifications, together with other applicable authority, require that a bid, in order to be responsive, contain any written list of subcontractors.
Findings Of Fact On September 26, 1989, Respondent issued a document entitled, Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, West Orange High School, Winter Garden, Florida, Engineers Project No. 89-016. As amended by three addenda, the above-described specifications shall be referred to as the "ITB." Respondent duly advertised for bids ore September 26, October 3, and October 10, 1989. The advertisement did not state that Respondent reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. In response to the ITB, Florida Mechanical, Inc. ("FMI") and B & I Contractors, Inc. ("B & I") timely submitted bids. For the base work and alternate 1, which Respondent ultimately decided to select, FMI bid $1,439,000, B & I bid $1,438,000, and a third bidder, S. I. Goldman, Company bid $1,621,000. These bids are recorded on a Bid Tabulation Sheet prepared by the engineer retained by Respondent for the project. The Bid Tabulation Sheet contains eight columns. Four columns record bid amounts for the base work and various alternates. The remaining columns are entitled, "Bidder," "Bid Bond," "Addenda," and "Subs." Each of the three bidders were named in one of the rows beneath the "Bidder," column. Each bidder had one "X" in its "Bid Bond" column and three "X"s in its "Addenda" column. However, only FMI and S. I. Goldman Company had "X"'s in their "Subs" columns. By resolution adopted on November 29, 1989, Respondent directed that all bids were rejected and that the Superintendent would correct any ambiguities and uncertainties in the ITB and solicit new bids. The resolution noted that Respondents staff had recommended that, if any bid were accepted, it should be that of B & I. However, [FMI] submitted with its bid a list of Major Sub-contractors of the form displayed in the [ITB], and B & I did not submit wish its aid a list of Major Sub-contractors[.] The resolution concluded that Respondent based on advice of staff and counsel, found that the [ITB is) ambiguous and/or uncertain as to whether or not a bidder must submit along with his bid a list of Major Sub-contractors, (b) that because of such ambiguity and/or uncertainty, it would be unfair and/or improper for [Respondent] to accept either of the bids received by it, and (c) that as a result thereof [Respondent] should reject all bids received by it for ,the Project and should solicit new bids for the Project as soon as is reasonably feasible after correction by [Respondents] staff of any ambiguity and uncertainty as aforesaid in the [ITB]. FMI and B & I each timely filed a notice of intent to protest and formal written protest of Respondent's decision to reject each company's respective bid. S. I. Goldman did not protest the decision and is not a party to the subject case. At a meeting on December 12, 1989, Respondent elected to refer the bid protests to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing., At the beginning of the hearing, the parties filed a written stipulation, which stated that the only issue for determination was which Petitioner should be awarded the contract and not whether Respondent should seek further bids or award the contract to another bidder. The stipulation also stated that the Petitioners and Respondent agreed to abide by the recommendation of the hearing officer. At the hearing, the parties further stipulated that the sole issue for determination is whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. In addition, the parties stipulated that both Petitioners had standing and the protests were timely and sufficient. The ITB requires that each bidder familiarize itself with all federal, state, and "Local Laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the work." Under the section entitled, "Preparation and Submission of Bids," the ITB states: "Each bidder shall use the Bid Form that is inserted herein, and may copy or reproduce the form on this own letterhead." Among other requirements, the ITB requires two bonds. The first is a "bid guarantee" of at, least five percent of the amount of the bid. The form of this guarantee may be cash or a Bid Bond." The other bond described in the ITB a 100% public construction bond. The surety on this bond must have been admitted to do business in Florida, must have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operation for at least five years, and must have at least a Bests Financial Rating of "Class VI" and a Bests Policyholder Ration of "A." The Bid Form contained in the ITB is two pages. Among other things, the Bid Form requires that the bidder receiving written notice of acceptance of its bid must provide the prescribed payment and performance bond and execute the contract within ten days after notification. The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "Form of Bid Bond." The provisions on this page identify the A.I.A. document to use and state that the Bid Bond "shall be submitted with the Bid Proposal Form." The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "List of Major Subcontractors." The List of Major Subcontractors states: Bidders shall list all major subcontractors that will be used if a contract is awarded. Additionally, bidders shall identify in the appropriate box whether or not that trade specialty is minority owned. Another paragraph defines minority ownership. The remainder of the form consists of ten rows for the "bidder" and nine major subcontractors, such as concrete, electrical, HVAC, and controls, and blanks where the bidder can indicate which of these entities are minority owned. The next document in the ITB is the Owner-Contractor Agreement, which is followed by tie Form of Construction Bond, General Conditions, and Supplementary General Conditions. Section 7.11 of the Supplementary General Conditions establishes certain requirements to be performed after the submission of bids. This section provides: Pre-Award Submittals: Before the Contract is awarded the apparent low bidder shall provide the following information to the owner. A copy of the Contractors current State of Florida General Contractor's or Mechanical Contractors License. Pre-Construction Meeting. After the Notice to Proceed and within eight (8) business days of the Owner [sic], the Contractor shall meet with the Owner, Engineer and Subcontractors that the Owner may designate... The Contractor shall provide the following to the Owner. * * * 2. A written list of all Subcontractors, material men and suppliers with such information as requested by the Owner or Engineer. * * * The remaining documents in the ITB are the technical specifications for the job. The three addenda supply additional technical information not relevant to this case. Respondent has promulgated rules with respect to the bidding process ("Rules"). The ITB does not refer to the Rules, which define and use many terms that are found in the ITB. For instance, Rule 1.1.25 defines the phrases, "Performance and Payment Bond," which is the same phrase used in the Bid Form in the ITB. The Rules define several other capitalized terms that are also used in the ITB, such as Bid Bond, Bid Guarantee, Bidder, and Contractor. Rule 4.1 similarly states that the bidder is familiar with federal, state, and "Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations that in any manner affect the Work." Rule 6.1 describes the process by which a bidder is to prepare and submit bids and the Bid Guarantee in language similar to that contained in the ITB. Rule 6.2 discusses the listing of subcontractors. Rules 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 state: General Contractor shall include as an integral part of his bid a List of Subcontractors he proposes to use. The Bidder shall enclose this list in a 4" x 9" envelope, sealed and marked "List of Subcontractors" and identified ... The Bidder shall enclose said envelope with his bid proposal in the mailing envelope. The List of Subcontractors enclosed with tee Proposal of each Bidder will be examined by the ... Engineer before the Proposal is opened and read. In the event that the form is not properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened... Rule 6.3 requires a Statement of Surety as another "integral part" of each bid. Rule 6.3.3 states: The Statement of Surety will be opened examined by the ... Engineer prior to the opening of the Proposal.... Although similar to Rule 6.2, Rule 6.3 lacks the warming that if the Statement of Surety is not "properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened." Rule 19.1 sets forth the requirements, for the surety. These requirements are different than those set forth in the ITB. Rules 19.1.1 and 19.1.2 require, as does the ITB, that the surety be admitted to do business in the State of Florida and shall have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operations for at least five years. However, Rule 19.1.1 requires that the surety be represented by a reputable and responsible surety bond agency licensed to do, business in the State of Florida and have a local representative in the Orlando area. Rule 19.1.3 requires minimum Bests ratings of "A" in "management," and, as to "strength and surplus," "AAA+" in financial rating and $12,500,000 minimum surplus. Rule 19.1.3.3 also requires that the surety be listed on the U.S. Treasury Departments Circular 570. The bids of FMI and S. I. Goldman Company contained a completed List of Major Subcontractors. The bid of B & I did not. No bidder included a Statement of Surety with its bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order awarding the subject contract to Florida Mechanical, Inc. ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of FMI All of FMI's proposed findings have been adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of B & I 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: adopted, except that the staff recommended that, if the bid was to be awarded, that it be awarded to B & I. 6: adopted in substance. 7: rejected as conclusion of law and, to the extent fact, subordinate. 8-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as unsupported by the greater height of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as subordinate. 22: rejected as beyond the scope of the issues and irrelevant in view of the stipulation. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the issue to be addressed would not be whether the intended agency action of Respondent was lawful (i.e., not arbitrary, fraudulent, dishonest, or otherwise improper), but rather whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Schott, Superintendent The School Board of Orange County, Florida P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802 Charles Robinson Fawsett, P. A. Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 James F. Butler, III Smith, Currie & Hancock 2600 Peachtree Center Harris Tower 233 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30043-6601 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esq. Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue P.O. Box 305 Orlando, FL 32803
Findings Of Fact On or about March 8, 1984, Elizabethan Development, Inc. (Elizabethan) submitted a bid in response to an invitation to bid on lease number 590:8032. This bid was a "flat bid" providing for the same cost of $10.05 per square foot for each of the ten years under the basic lease, and the same amount during the five year renewal period. The annual rental costs under Elizabethan's bid for 13,424 square feet of leased space would have been $134,911.20 per year. On or about March 7, 1984, Kenneth R. McGurn (McGurn) submitted a bid in response to an invitation to bid on lease number 590:8032. As submitted, McGurn's bid contained three different proposed rental rates, but he subsequently withdrew two of these proposals. His remaining bid was a "front- end loaded bid" providing for a higher cost per square foot in the early years under the lease, and a lower cost at the end of the ten year term of the basic lease which would then be lowered even more during the five year renewal period. Prior to submitting his bid, McGurn contacted Respondent and was told that a front-end loaded bid was acceptable, and further that it would be evaluated using an "average cost" methodology. Specifically, McGurn's bid called for a cost of $13.00 per square foot in years one through nine, $6.00 per square foot in the tenth year, and 3.00 per square foot during each year of the five year renewal period. The annual rental costs for 13,424 square feet of lease space during the first nine years would be $174,512, during the tenth year $80,544, and during the renewal period $40,272. By adding these annual rental costs and then dividing by the fifteen year term of the basic lease plus renewal periods, the average annual rental costs under McGurn's bid were determined to be $123,501. The bids submitted by Elizabethan and McGurn were for "turnkey" construction of administrative offices and clinics for Respondent's Children's Medical Services in Alachua County. A third bid was also received for this lease from Hobco, Inc. All bids were submitted timely and were then reviewed by Respondent for responsiveness and to determine which was the lowest responsive bid. Respondent determined that McGurn had submitted the lowest responsive bide, and on May 7, 1984, informed the three bidders of its intent to award lease number 590:8032 to McGurn. However, since the initial rental rate proposed by McGurn of $13.00 per square feet exceeded the approved zone rate by more than ten percent, the matter still had to be presented to the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as head of the Department of General Services, for their approval prior to an actual award. On September 6, 1984 the award of the lease was considered by the Governor and Cabinets, and following discussion about the front-end loading in the McGurn bid, Respondent and staff of the Department of General Services were directed to reevaluate the bids, including utility costs associated with each. Respondent also began negotiations with McGurn to modify his front-end loaded bid in order to provide a flat rate equal to the average square foot cost over the fifteen year period of the front-end bid. On September 14, 1984, McGurn informed Respondent that he was modifying his bid "to provide that the average bid amount of $9.20 per square foot is paid equally over the 15 year period." This brought the rental rate under his bid within ten percent of the approved zone rate and obviated the necessity of obtaining the approval of the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as head of the Department of General Services, before Respondent could make an award. Nevertheless, Respondent proceeded to prepare to report back to the Governor and Cabinet on this item at their next meeting, September 20, 1984, and developed the reevaluation of utility costs under these bids that had previously been requested. George A. Smith, a representative of Respondent, testified that prior to the meeting on September 20 it was his impression that the item would be pulled from the agenda since the modified average bid amount of $9.20 per square foot was within ten percent of the approved zone rate, and he so advised McGurn. As a result, McGurn did not attend the meeting of the Governor and Cabinet on September 20, 1984. At the meeting, both Respondent and staff of the Department of General Services asked that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. After discussion, the item was withdrawn with an indication from a representative of Respondent that all bids would be rejected and the lease rebid. Thereafter, Respondent did reject all bids, and Petitioners timely filed their requests for a hearing. The discussion which took place at the Cabinet meeting on September 20, 1984 included the methodology used by Respondent in evaluating these bids. Specifically, thee Respondent's practice of using the "average cost" method to evaluate bids was questioned and an alternative, "present value", was discussed. This discussion did not result in any formal action at the September 20 meeting concerning the methodology to be used by state agencies in evaluating bids, but did surface an issue which was felt to be worthy of further review and examination. The discussion did contribute to Respondent's decision to reject all bids, which was the course of action that it considered to be in the best interest of the state. A representative of Respondents reported to the Governor and Cabinet during this discussion that using the present value method of evaluating bids with a prevailing interest rate of 11.44 percent, the third bidder Hobco, Inc., would actually have been the low bidder. By this time, however, Hobco had withdrawn from the bid process. The Invitation to Bid to which Petitioners responded contained the following provision: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waiver any minor informalities or technicality in bids received, and to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and best; and, if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent issue a Final Order rejecting all bids and otherwise denying the relief sought by Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 21th day of October, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 84-4440 and 55-0842 Rulings on Petitioner McGurn's Proposed Findings of Fact: (Petitioner has not complied with Rule 22I-6.31(3) by failing to include citations to the record supportive of proposed findings. Nevertheless, rulings thereon have been made.) 1-3 Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. Hearsay alone is not sufficient to support a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2, 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 as to the "responsiveness" of McGurn's bid, but otherwise rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in Finding of fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, except for the statement that "such agreement by Kenneth R. McGurn removed the objections of the front end load . . ." since this is argument rather than a proposed finding of fact and is also not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Adopted in Finding of Fact 6, 7 with the exception of the statement after the word "notwith- standing" which is rejected as argument which is not based upon competent substantial evidence in this record. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 with the exception of the phrase "an arbitrarily selected date" which is argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 16-17 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in this record. 8 Rejected as immaterial and not based on competent substantial evidence in this record. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1-3. Adopted in Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 5,6 Rejected as unnecessary other than as adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 11,12 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. The record does not establish that the "Governor and Cabinet strongly recommended" any action, only that a discussion took place during which Respondent independently announced its decision to reject all bids. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 15,16 Rejected as argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: James J. Traviss, Esquire Post Office Box 1396 Winter Haven, Florida 33882-1396 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire Post Office Box 2900 Gainesville, Florida 32602 David P. Gauldin Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the bid for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Lease No. 590:1871 to provide office space in Dade County, Florida, should be awarded to either Petitioner or Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Robert Litowitz (hereinafter "Litowitz"), in response to an invitation to bid advertised by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"), timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property located at 11401 SW 40th Street (also known as Bird Road), Miami, Florida. This lease was to be for a five-year term with two one-year renewal options. The net square footage for the lease required by HRS was 14,781 + 3 percent with the geographical boundary designated by the invitation to bid being described as follows: All bid should be for existing office space located within the following boundaries: On the North, S.W., 48th Street. On the South, S. W., 88th Street. On the East, Palmetto Expressway, and on the West, S.W., 117th Street. This description contained an error in that the western boundary line should have been 117th Avenue not 117th Street. This minor discrepancy was noted at both of two pre-bid conferences conducted by HRS. The Intervenor, James C. Colross (hereinafter "Colross"), also timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property described as Building "B," 9495 Sunset Drive (Southwest 72nd Street), Miami, Florida. Prior to the bid opening date, February 17, 1987, employees of HRS conducted two pre-bid conferences. At these conferences the bid package was reviewed and explained to all potential bidders present. Litowitz attended the pre-bid conference held the last week in January 1987. At this pre-bid conference Litowitz received the bid package and advised employees of HRS that he would be submitting property located on Bird Road for consideration for lease No. 590:1871. Linda Treml was the HRS employee who served as the contact person for the bid for Lease No. 590:1871. Ms. Treml conducted the pre-bid conferences and answered questions from potential bidders regarding the bid submittal forms. Several months earlier, perhaps during the summer 1986, Litowitz had met with Linda Treml regarding the possible lease of the Bird Road site, Ms. Treml had advised Litowitz that, at that time, HRS was not looking for space but that Litowitz would be added to their mailing list for future bid opportunities. Ms. Treml toured the Bird Road property with Litowitz as a courtesy visit for his inquiry. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required the proposed space be in an existing building. "Existing" was defined to specify the entire space to be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage. Both the Colross and the Litowitz properties met this definition for an existing building at the time of the bid submittals. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required a minimum of 90 parking spaces to include a minimum of 80 full size spaces and 4 spaces meeting the Standards For Special Facilities For Physically Disabled found in Chapter 130-1, Florida Administrative Code. The required parking spaces did not have to be reserved for the exclusive use of HRS. Colross offered 62 exclusive spaces on site with 50 additional exclusive parking spaces located one block from the proposed facility. The Colross site plan for Building B (the bid property) established over 90 non-exclusive parking spaces available on site. The Litowitz property also had 90-plus non-exclusive parking spaces on site. HRS requested a clarification for the 50 exclusive spaces offered off-site by Colross. The verbal clarification was reduced to writing to confirm such spaces, if needed, would be at no cost to HRS. This written confirmation was not issued until March 31, 1987. HRS established a bid evaluation team to review the bids submitted for Lease No. 590:1871. This team, comprised of Janet Robinson, Dorea Sowinski, and Grace 0abolish, visited both the Litowitz and Colross properties. Subsequent to the site tours, they met in a conference room at Janet Robinson's office to discuss the bid evaluation process. This team was to make a recommendation as to which bid was the lowest and best. The recommendation was to be made based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the bid submittal form. No other criteria were to be employed by the evaluation team. HRS has no guidelines which specified how each team member is to apply the evaluation criteria. The team recommendation would then be reviewed by George Smith and his superiors. Linda Treml advised the evaluation team not to consider the Litowitz property because it was outside the geographical boundary established by the invitation to-bid. The Litowitz property located on Bird Road is, in fact, outside of the advertised boundaries. The bid advertisement required the property to be considered for Lease No. 590:1871 to be within the stated geographical area. HRS did not, by act or omission, encourage Litowitz to prepare and submit a bid for a property known to be outside the defined boundary. HRS did not advise Litowitz that a property outside of the defined boundary would be disqualified. The bid evaluation criteria assigned a weighing value of 10 percent to the proximity of the offered space in the central or preferred area of the map boundaries. Litowitz mistakenly concluded that even though his property was not within the boundaries that he would lose only the 10 percent weighing factor when his property would be evaluated. HRS did not, by act or omission, affirm this erroneous interpretation. Because the Litowitz property was not within the defined geographical boundary, HRS disqualified the Litowitz bid. Accordingly, the Colross bid was the only bid left for consideration and was selected for Lease No. 590:1871. The interested parties were notified of this selection on or about March 19, 1987. The Colross bid included a higher rental fee than the Litowitz bid. HRS rejected a third bid for Lease No. 590:1871 submitted by Brookhill Capital Resources (hereinafter "Brookhill") since it was missing certain documents which had to be submitted by the time of the bid opening. The Brookhill bid included a lower rental fee than the Litowitz bid. The Brookhill property was within the advertised boundary. HRS selected the Colross property and deemed it the lowest and best bid since the Litowitz and Brookhill properties had to be disqualified. Members of the bid evaluation team preferred the Colross property for Lease No. 590:1871. HRS did not waive the boundary requirement for Lease No. 590:1871. Employees of HRS completed a bid synopsis which listed data on all three bidders for lease no. 590:1871 even though two of the bidders, Litowitz and Brookhill, had been disqualified, HRS reserved the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection would be in the interest of the State of Florida. Janet Robinson as the managing administrator of the disability determination office set the geographical boundaries for the invitation to bid. The boundaries were established in consideration of the needs and desires of the employees of the disability determination office.
The Issue The Department of Corrections sought bids for construction of a health services building for a correctional facility. A discrepancy existed between the written specifications and the architectural drawings for the project. An addendum was issued to clarify the matter. The low bidder (Intervenor) did not acknowledge receipt of the addendum until several hours after the opening of bids. The Department accepted the Intervenor's bid. The Petitioner timely protested the action. The issue in this case is whether, in accepting the Intervenor's bid, the Department acted contrary to the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1990, the Department of Corrections (hereinafter "Department") issued an Invitation To Bid ("ITB") for PR-35-JRA, Project #90015, consisting of the construction of a Health Classification Building at the Columbia County Correctional Institution. In relevant part, the ITB requested price proposals for said construction, provided that the bid would be awarded to the responsive bidder submitting the lowest cost proposal, provided that "in the interest" of the Department, "any informality" in bids could be waived, and provided space on the bid form for acknowledgment of receipt of all addenda to the ITB. Bids were to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 11, 1990, the time scheduled for bid opening. Documents issued with the ITB included architectural drawings and written specifications for the building. The architectural firm of Jim Roberson and Associates, (hereinafter "JRA") had been employed by the Department to prepare the drawings and specifications. JRA was responsible for preparation and distribution of related addenda. Further, a JRA representative presided over the opening of bids on behalf of the Department. Following release of the ITB and supporting documents, JRA became aware of a conflict between sink faucets required by the drawings and those required by the written specifications. The specifications provided that sink faucets operated by hand levers or foot pedals were to be installed in the facility. The architectural drawings JRA indicated that sink faucets were to operate by means of "electric-eye" activators, rather than by hand levers or foot pedals. On September 10, 1990, JRA issued an addendum (identified as Addendum #2) 1/ to clarify that "electric-eye" type operators were to be included in the bids. The addendum was sent by telephone facsimile machine to all anticipated bidders. In part the addendum provides as follows: "This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Specifications and Drawings, dated 31 July 1990, as noted below. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to Disqualification." On September 11, 1990, the eight bids submitted in response to the ITB were opened by the JRA representative. The Intervenor, Custom Construction (hereinafter "Custom"), submitted the lowest bid at $898,898. The Petitioner, David Nixon (hereinafter "Nixon"), submitted the next lowest bid at $900,000. The bid form provided by the Department as part of the ITB materials to prospective bidders provided space for acknowledgment of addenda to the ITB documents. Upon opening the bid submitted by Custom, the JRA representative officiating at the opening noted that the Custom bid failed to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the appropriate space on the bid form. 2/ Robert L. Harris, president of Custom Construction, attended the bid opening. When the JRA representative noted the lack of acknowledgment of Addendum #2, Mr. Harris stated that he was unaware of the addendum. At hearing, Mr. Harris testified that his secretary told him that Addendum #2 was not received by his office. The JRA representative testified that his review of JRA's FAX transmission records indicated that the FAXed Addendum #2 was received by all bidders. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Addendum #2 was transmitted to and received by, all bidders. Upon leaving the bid opening, Mr. Harris immediately contacted his plumbing subcontractor, Jerry Stratyon, and discussed the situation. Approximately two hours after the bid opening, and after talking with Mr. Stratton, Mr. Harris notified JRA, in a letter transmitted by FAX machine to JRA, that his bid price did include plumbing fixtures required by Addendum #2. Mr. Harris concluded the letter, "[w]hen can we start work. I know you don't want the alternate." On October 8, 1990, JRA recommended to the Department, that the Custom bid be accepted. The letter of recommendation, in part, provides: The apparent low bidder however, did not verify receipt of Addendum No. 2 on the Bid Proposal. Our office did receive a, facsimile after the bid verifying Addendum NO. 2 receipt from the Contractor's Office." However, the actual letter from Custom to JRA states, not that Addendum #2 was received, but that it was included in the price bid by Custom's plumbing subcontractor. Both Nixon and Custom obtained plumbing bids from the same subcontractor, Jerry Stratton. The cost increase attendant to the requirements of Addendum #2 is approximately $2,400 over the plumbing fixtures indicated in the written project specifications. Mr. Stratton was aware of Addendum #2 and testified that the requirements of Addendum #2 were reflected in his price quotes to both bidders. Mr. Stratton provided the same price bid to Nixon and Custom. Mr. Stratton also provided bids to Nixon and Custom for HVAC work. Mr. Stratton was accepted as Custom's HVAC subcontractor. Nixon's bid indicates that another HVAC subcontractor will perform the cork should Nixon receive the contract. The ITB provided that bid modification or withdrawal was permitted on written or telegraphic request received from a bidder prior to the time fixed for opening. Mr. Harris did not attempt to either withdraw or modify Custom's bid prior to bid opening. No bid modification was permitted subsequent to the bid opening. The Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of the State and would not be unfair to other bidders. The evidence does not establish that Custom Construction's failure to acknowledge the addendum was purposefully designed to permit withdrawal of their bid subsequent to the public bid opening. The omission of acknowledgment of Addendum #2 provided Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid that was not available to other bidders. Custom could have informed the Department that the bid price did not include the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bid could have been withdrawn. Custom was therefore provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had no opportunity to, and would not have been permitted to, withdraw their aids. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order rejecting the bid submitted by Intervenor as nonresponsive and awarding the contract to the Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991.
The Issue The questions presented here concern the entitlement of the Petitioner or Intervenor to be awarded lease rights under the Respondent's proposed Lease No. 590:8026, in that Petitioner and Intervenor have claimed that entitlement to the exclusion of the other party.
Findings Of Fact Respondent invited bid proposals for the provision of approximately 32,000 square feet of office space for its District VIII operation in Fort Myers, Florida. Petitioner, Chuck Bundschu, Inc., and Intervenor, Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company, responded to the bid proposal by offering to provide the office space. Those responses may be found as part of the Composite Hearing Officer's Exhibit. Following the October, 1981, submittal of bid proposals, a bid evaluation committee was appointed by the Subdistrict Administrator for District VIII to consider the bids. In turn, he afforded guidance to that committee on the subject of the evaluation of the proposed bids offered by Bundschu and Walco, the only bidders for the project. The evaluation committee performed the task of weighing the bid proposals, in keeping with evaluation criteria which are outlined in Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual" dealing with the procurement of lease space, which criteria are set forth in a form referred to as "HRSM 70-1, page A1-4-8," which is attached to chapter four of the manual. All criteria used for the evaluation process were drawn from that form with the exception of criterion No. 7, related to staff and client marking which was a product of this bid evaluation effort. (A copy of the HRS manual and forms may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The evaluation committee's summarization utilizing the form criteria and the additional parking criterion may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, which is a replication of the original.) The HRS manual for procuring leased space is a publication of February, 1980, and establishes uniform guidelines by which bid proposals are considered by local officials who are part of Respondent's organization. Nonetheless, the exact weight to be afforded each criterion outlined in the manual is determined by the local evaluation committee. Weighing concerns the subject of awarding numerical values for beach bidder related to the various criteria with a maximum possible score being 100 points. On the basis of the evaluation performed by the committee, the Bundschu total was 88.25 points and the The Walco point total was 82 out of the possible 100 points. Consequently, the evaluation committee recommended that Bundschu be awarded the lease. Mark Geisler, in his capacity as Subdistrict Administrator, for District VIII, concurred in this evaluation as may be seen in his November 6, 1981, transmittal of the bid materials and associated evaluation, which transmittal may be found as pert of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The District Administrator, District VII, in the person of Frances Clendenin, who was acting for the District Administrator, Ivor D. Groves, Ph.D., also recommended acceptance of the Bundschu bid. This position was made known by a memorandum of November 16, 1981. A copy of that recommendation is found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The recommendations spoken to thus far were made known to Lester C. Missman, an official within the Division of General Services of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This division was, at the time of the bid proposals, and is now, headed by Dr. Homer Ooten, whose function within Respondent's organization includes the responsibility to evaluate lease proposals involving the Respondent agency and to make a final decision on the question of the lease award, based upon a review of the local subordinate unit's recommendation. By this, it is meant that the lease by Health and Rehabilitative Services as "user agency" is signed by Ooten based upon a delegation of authority to him through the vehicle of correspondence signed by the agency head. Ooten, upon considering the recommendation of the District Administrator's office, the Subdistrict Administrator and the evaluation committee, did not find fault with the criteria nor the point weighing scheme used in the evaluation process. He did question the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee on the subject of client mileage for those clients receiving services from Respondent in a move from the HRS office in the Bundschu building where they were located at the time, to the building where Walco intended to let property. This was a distance of seven/tenths (7/10) of a mile and based upon the number of clients receiving services, there would be an estimated $100,000.00 in client mileage cost increase. This item was not deemed to be an appropriate consideration by Ooten and was disregarded in his review of the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee. That cost analysis may be found as part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 2, and includes interlineations by Ooten in his opinion on the subject of the cost analysis. That analysis had indicated an overall advantage of approximately $11,000.00 in favor of Bundschu and was premised upon costs related to Item 12 in the criteria, which criterion is cost of moving. It assumed a difference of over $131,000.00 in moving costs, the majority of which costs pertained to client inconvenience ($100,000.00), discounting $120,000.00 plus dollars related to the difference in the bid amount between the Walco and Bundschu bids which bid estimate was in favor of Walco. Ooten's opinion on the subject of the priority of including $100,000.00 plus dollars in clients' travel costs, when considered in the context of point awards under Item 12 in the criteria, lead Ooten to believe that the differential in point awards would not result in a 9.25 value of Bundschu versus a zero value for Walco. In his mind, the differential would be much less. Ooten made his own evaluation of moving costs per se, and through that process determined that approximately $15,600.00 would be necessary for a move into the Walco facility whereas $5,600.00 would be involved in the Bundschu move, which required the expansion of existing space in the Bundschu facility. Based upon an evaluation of the point differential in the rental rate criterion which was a differential of 2, that is 30 points out of a possible 30 for Walco and 28 points out of a possible 30 for Bundschu, Ooten also opined the this was an unreasonable assessment in view of the fact that the Walco bid amount was more than $120,000.00 less than the Bundschu bid. This taken together with the fact that there only existed approximately a $9,000.00 difference on moving costs between Bundschu and Walco, which was in favor of Bundschu, and there having been indicated a 9.25 out of a possible 10 point difference in Item 12 on the question of costs related to moving, led Ooten to believe that the true factual status of criteria Nos. 1 and 12 was not as depicted by the evaluation committee. Per Ooten, with proper assessment Walco would have received a higher point count than Bundschu through the process of applying the bid criteria, as well as being the lower bidder from the point of view of rental rates alone. After several exchanges with the District level personnel of Respondent who had been involved in the lease evaluation process, in which, on two (2) occasions, the local officials continued to support their initial opinion of the propriety of the award to Bundschu, a decision was made at the District VIII level to support the award of the lease to Walco as may be seen in the January 6, 1982, correspondence from the District Administrator to Missman, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. On January 6, 1982, Ooten issued a letter to the District VIII Administrative Services Director indicating the authority to award Lease No. 590:8026, formerly referred to as No. 590:1472, for the benefit of Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company. Having learned of this decision and in keeping with the provision Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, Bundschu, through counsel, indicated opposition to that award on January 12, 1982, followed by a formal petition letter setting forth grounds for the opposition, which petition was filed on January 19, 1982. This series of documents is part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, through copies. Subsequently, Items 4 and 6 in the petition letter were resolved between the parties without the necessity of a hearing and this is borne out by a copy of the February 1, 1982, correspondence from counsel for the Respondent to counsel to the Petitioner, part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing by correspondence from the Assistant General Counsel for Respondent, dated February 4, 1982, a copy of which may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. There followed the intervention of Walter Lee Johnson as a party of record and the hearing was held on April 27, 1982. Petitioner's first contention deals with the idea of discounting the lease value based on the value of the "stream of future lease payments." This theory is contended for through Robert Sizemore, C.P.A., expert witness of the Petitioner. He would call for the discount of lease payments on the theory that present dollars will have a discounted value in the future, as the lease period unfolds. Taking into account the method of payment by the Respondent and the vicissitudes involved in attempting to establish the value of today's dollar at a future time, this theory of discounted dollars at a 10 percent or 12 percent rate per annum in succeeding years is not indicated. Assessment through the legislative appropriations process of sufficient funds to meet lease payment demands is not contingent upon the value of the dollar at any given point in the history of the lease. Therefore, the "stream of future lease payments" concept is inapplicable here. Likewise, trying to project the value of today's dollar at some future date is so tenuous as to be an unacceptable method to evaluate the competing lease proposals. Finally, even if this method was used, a 10 percent discount rate for inflation would leave approximately a $67,000.00 difference in the bid proposals and a 12 percent per annum discount rate related to inflation would leave approximately $52,000.00 difference in the bid proposals, in favor of the Walco bid. Petitioner has contended that Respondent failed to properly account for direct moving expenses. In that regard, the calculations made by Ooten on the question of moving expenses as reported above are accepted as fact. As a third claim, Petitioner has alleged the agency s disregard for recommendation of its evaluation committee in making the lease award. While the initial recommendations of the evaluation committee and staff were disregarded, the District Administrator eventually accepted the point of view of the Division of General Services within the Respondent's Department. Moreover, even if the local officials within the Respondent's Department had not accepted Ooten's viewpoint, the initial evaluation committee's development of criteria was flawed and the Ooten perception was correct, leading to a decision in favor of Walco. Finally, the contention by Petitioner that the agency did not seek adequate input from third parties affected by the relocation of the facility was not demonstrated through testimony. The method for review of the proposed lease was acceptable and to the extent that it required an appreciation and response to the needs of others not directly involved in the lease process, it has been amply afforded. Evaluation was in keeping with Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual, HRSM 70-1, fourth chapter" and the award is based upon concurrence of the Division Director of the General Services Division of HRS pursuant to that chapter. Through argument, counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the fact that in the initial evaluation process set forth in the sixth criterion, superior points of 2.5 for Walco as opposed to 2.25 for Bundschu had been awarded, when in fact the narrative summary of the reasons for such awards indicate an advantage to Bundschu. Even if the .25 points were allowed in the favor of Bundschu, this would not change the result.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance, acted illegally, arbitrarily, fraudulently, or dishonestly in rejecting all bids for lease #460:0119 and not awarding subject lease to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance established a requirement to lease 5371 square feet of office space in Daytona Beach, Florida, and a "Request for Space Need" was approved by the Department of Management Services on February 11, 1998. The Department of Insurance subsequently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for lease #460:0119 (Respondent's Exhibit 1). A non-mandatory pre-bid conference was held on June 1, 1998, in Daytona Beach and two prospective bidders, Petitioner and Nova Village Market partnership attended. The RFP provided that proposals which did not meet all mandatory requirements of the RFP would be rejected as non- responsive. The RFP provided for evaluation criteria are awards factors. The awards factors totaled 100 points with no minimum point total required. Ten of the points were allotted for moving costs defined as the costs of relocating communications, networks, furniture and other equipment. This factor gave the current landlord an automatic 10-point advantage since there would be no relocation costs. Moving costs provisions tend to discourage the presentation of bids because the bidders have to overcome an automatic 10-point advantage provided the current landlord. The RFP also provided that all proposals could be rejected, however, such "rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification." None of the conditions of the RFP were questioned or challenged by interested parties. Two responses were received by the Department of Insurance in response to the RFP and these were opened in Respondent's Tallahassee office on July 8, 1998, by Mr. Kip Wells of the Department. One was received from the current landlord, Nova Village Partnership, hereafter Nova, and the other from the Petitioner. The Nova proposal was deemed non-responsive. Neither Nova nor Petitioner contested the determination that Nova's proposal was non-responsive. Only one responsive proposal, the Petitioner's proposal, remained. On July 9, 1998, the Department representative, Mr. Kip Wells, called Petitioner to schedule an appointment for 9:00 a.m., on July 10, 1998, to visit and evaluate the proposed facility. No persons from the Department appeared at the scheduled appointment. At 10:45 a.m., on July 10, 1998, Kip Wells called Petitioner to say that since Petitioner's proposal was the only responsive proposal received, and that "all bids" were being rejected. Mr. Wells testified at hearing. His reason for rejecting the remaining bid was: When I saw that it was obvious the current landlord was not going to be very cooperative, I decided that one choice was not enough. If we were going to have to make a move, we needed more than one thing to choose from. So, I immediately - - since I had already set up with local people in Daytona to tell them that I was coming down to evaluate the bids, I sent them an E-mail and told them that I would not be meeting the following day to evaluate the bids. Mr. Wells decided to reissue the RFP without any moving costs criteria, and redistribute those 10 points among the other award factors. Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest and then a Formal Protest, both in a timely fashion. There is no state policy prohibiting the award of a lease to a sole bidder on a RFP. The "Leasing Policy" of the Department of Insurance states that "The Lease Administrator, with assistance from the Division employees, will establish bid or quote specifications. These specifications will include special needs for the Division(s) as well as the evaluation criteria upon which to evaluate the proposals." Neither the Department's Lease Policy (Petitioner Exhibit 3) nor the State's Real Property Leasing Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) give the Lease Administrator the authority to reject or evaluate bid responses. Neither does he have a vote in the bid evaluation process. His responsibility is to coordinate the process. Randall Baker, Manager of Private Sector Leasing of the Bureau of Property Management of the Department of Management Services (hereinafter DMS), testified. The DMS prepares a manual as a guideline for user agencies to assist in the leasing of property. The DMS manual is not binding on agencies and DMS has no review oversight; however, their comments on agencies' leases are reviewed by the state auditing authorities and failure to follow the guidelines can result in audit criticism. Baker confirmed that the agency's written procedures as outlined in the RFP were consistent with the DMS guidelines. The DMS manual states as follows regarding the receipt of only one responsive proposal: When only one responsive proposal is received it may be considered and accepted providing the following conditions are documented: Adequate competition was solicited. The rate is within established rental rate guidelines. The proposal meets stated requirements. The proposal was processed as though other proposals were received. The Petitioner's bid was responsive to the RFP and the lease rate bid by the Petitioner was less than the average rate for state leases in the Daytona area and less than the amount budgeted by the Department for this lease. The lease rate by the Petitioner was reasonably priced and competitive. Although the agency failed to complete the process as envisioned, see paragraph 20 below, this was in no way the fault of Petitioner. The Department's leasing policy requires that the lowest and best response to an RFP be determined through cost analysis and evaluation by an evaluation committee. Mr. Wells did not forward Petitioner's bid to or discuss with the evaluation committee Petitioner's bid, but unilaterally rejected it. It was clear from Mr. Wells' testimony that this was his individual decision and was based upon his personal belief that it was the best thing to do.1 At hearing, the stated justification for rejecting "all bids" was that it gave the Department the opportunity to delete the requirement of moving costs from the awards factors; however, the evidence does not indicate that the moving cost provision result in non-competitive bids. The sole responsive bidder was within the local lease price range and within budget. Neither the Respondent nor DMS has established a policy prohibiting the acceptance of a sole responsive bid if there is competition solicited. The Department of Insurance has accepted a sole bid on at least one project in the past. There was no evidence that the RFP was not an open and fair competition. The evidence shows that it was properly advertised, that all conditions were known, and that all interested parties had an equal opportunity to participate. In sum, there was adequate competition in submitting the bids. Mr. Baker testified regarding the policy of DMS. The DMS policy is that if there is one responsive bidder, there has been competitive bidding. The RFP provides that the Respondent may reject all bids if it has strong justification. See paragraph 5 above. Mr. Baker also provided examples of "strong justification for rejecting proposals." His examples include facilities which are proposed outside the required geographic area, prices considerably in excess of state guidelines and agency budgets, specification changes due to modification of the agency's program requirements, and "intervening external forces." No evidence establishing a strong justification for rejecting the Petitioner's bid was presented. Without completing the process and evaluating the Petitioner's bid, the agency never considered whether the bid was in the state's best interest. However, this was not the fault of the Respondent, and the agency's failure to follow its procedures should not inure to its benefits. Further, Because there was no minimum score required on the evaluation criteria of the RFP, there is no need to evaluate Petitioner's proposal because it is the only responsive proposal. For all the reasons stated above, the rejection of Petitioner's bid was contrary to the terms of the RFP, contrary to state policy, and arbitrary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds that: Respondent's actions in rejecting Petitioner's responsive bid were arbitrary; The Respondent did not follow the requirements set forth in the Department of Insurance Leasing Policy, nor the Department of Management Services Real Property Leasing Manual, or the Request for Proposal itself; That no adverse interest to the State or the Department would have occurred had Petitioner's responsive bid been accepted; and therefore, Petitioner's claim shall be upheld as the lowest cost and best proposal for RFP #460:0119, and that the Department of Insurance shall award Petitioner Lease #460:0119. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1998.
