The Issue Whether the decision by the State of Florida, Department of Corrections (DOC) to reject all bids received in response to Request For Proposal 93-RIVHSD- 075 (RFP) was arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, illegal or dishonest. Additionally, Intervenor challenges Petitioner's standing to bring this proceeding since Bio-Medical Applications, Petitioner's wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, submitted the bid at issue and because Petitioner would not be a party to any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP.
Findings Of Fact Standing In its response to the Request For Proposal at issue in this proceeding, Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. (BMA) provides the following regarding vendor name and address: Vendor Name: Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. Vendor Mailing Address: c/o National Medical Care, Inc. 1601 Trapelo Road Walthem, Massachusetts 02154 In the bidder acknowledgment and ownership interest portion of its response to the RFP, BMA disclosed the following: ... This bid is presented in good faith without collusion or fraud and Ernestine M. Lowrie, as signer of the bid from Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. has full authority to bind as the principal bidder. All stock of Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. is held by Bio-Medical Applications Management Company, Inc. and all the stock of the latter corporation is held by National Medical Care, Inc., 1601 Trapelo Road, Walthem, Massachusetts 02154. All of the stock of National Medical Care, Inc. is held by W. R. Grace and Company. The Dialysis Services Division of National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC) is the largest division of NMC. In each state in which NMC has an interest in dialysis services operations, Bio-Medical Applications is organized as a corporate entity and is part of the Dialysis Services Division of the parent corporation, NMC. Petitioner in this proceeding, NMC, is not currently organized and registered as a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. At the final hearing in this case, NMC's representative testified that he was not aware that NMC was registered to do business in the State of Florida but thought NMC had been operating in Florida for about 20 years. BMA is wholly owned by NMC. The Respondent agency originally expressed its intent to award the contract at issue to BMA. NMC has a substantial interest in the RFP and the contract at issue, therefore, its substantial interests will be affected by the agency's proposed action to reject all bids. NMC has alleged that the agency's decision to reject all bids was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, and fraudulent. Further, Petitioner also contends that the agency decision to reject all bids, after BMA's bid proposal has been disclosed to competitors, undermines the competitive purpose of the bid process. The Request for Proposal On August 27, 1993, the DOC issued RFP No. 93-RIVHSD-075. The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for a contract to perform peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at the Department's Broward Correctional Institution and its South Florida Reception Center. The RFP required that bid proposals be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. The RFP provided that a bidder would receive up to 50 points for its price proposal and up to 50 points for its qualitative proposal for a total of 100 possible points. The RFP also provided that the DOC reserved the right to reject all bids when the DOC determined it was in its best interest to do so. The Bid Evaluation Upon initial review of the proposals submitted in response to the RFP, the DOC originally calculated that Petitioner's subsidiary, BMA, had received 49 out of 50 possible points from its price, as well as qualitative proposal for a total of 98 points. On October 22, 1993, the DOC sent written notice to all proposers of its intent to award the contract to National Medical Care, Inc. (Petitioner). At the time it mailed its notice of intent, the DOC believed that the difference between the Bio-Medical and the lowest price proposal (received by HealthInfusion) was $156,780 over the five year term of the proposed contract. HealthInfusion and an additional disappointed bidder filed protests contesting the DOC's notice of intent. Based upon input from the protestors, the DOC learned that it had miscalculated the cost of Bio-Medical's proposal. When the DOC corrected its initial error in calculation, BMA's proposal was $340,000 higher over the first three years of the proposed contract and $972,000 higher than the lowest bidder for the entire five year contract term. The Decision to Reject All Bids On November 24, 1993, the DOC notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. In addition to the initial miscalculation of price in the bid, the DOC discovered what it considers to be other irregularities in the evaluation in this case. BMA was the existing provider at the time the RFP issued. The bid evaluators worked closely on a day to day basis with Petitioner's employees. The DOC believes the evaluators preferred that Petitioner be awarded the contract and that the evaluators were not objective. During the process of evaluation, the evaluators were provided a letter from a party representing one of the bidders which contained allegations regarding negative background information on other bidders. The DOC believes that the letter should not have been given to the evaluators and that access to the letter further affected the evaluator's ability to be objective. Admitted Facts NMC and the Respondent DOC filed a Prehearing Stipulation in which the following facts are admitted by those parties: The DOC issued Request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075 ("RFP"). The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at Broward Correctional Institution and South Florida Reception Center. Bid proposals had to be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. On November 24, 1993, the Department notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. The Department rejected all bids due to significant irregularities in the bid evaluation process and the price difference between the winning bid and the low bid was too great. (Emphasis supplied.) On December 3, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its notice of intent to protest the DOC's decision to reject all bids. On December 13, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its formal written bid protest. Burden of Proof Petitioner has failed to prove, by the preponderance of evidence, that the DOC acted arbitrarily, illegally, fraudulently or dishonestly in making its decision to reject all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order dismissing NMC's protest of its decision to reject all bids in response to request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7111BID The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner's PFOF 1 is adopted in paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order (RO). Petitioner's PFOF 2 is adopted in paragraph 9 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 3 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 4 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 5, to the extent not conclusory, is adopted in paragraph 1 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 6 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 7 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. 8-9. Petitioner's PFOFs 8 and 9 are hereby adopted. Sentence 1 of Petitioner's PFOF 10 is hereby adopted. Sentence 2 of this proposed finding is rejected as conclusory. Petitioner's PFOF 11 is adopted in paragraph 14 of the RO. 12-14. Petitioner's PFOFs 12, 13 and 14 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 15 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 16 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 17 is adopted in paragraph 26 of the RO and is a fact, in effect, stipulated to by Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner's PFOF 18 is adopted in substance in paragraph 21. To the extent not adopted in the RO, the remainder of Petitioner's PFOF 18 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 19 is adopted in paragraph 13 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 20 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 16 of the RO. 21-24. Petitioner's PFOFs 21-24 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 25 is rejected as a conclusion. Petitioner's PFOF 26 is rejected as conclusory and argumentative. This proposed finding is also irrelevant based upon facts admitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's PFOF 27 is rejected as irrelevant based upon facts admitted to by Petitioner. 28-34. Petitioner's PFOFs 28-34 are hereby adopted to the extent relevant. Based upon Petitioner's admission that the Respondent rejected all bids based on "significant irregularities," these proposals are for the most part irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 35. Petitioner's PFOF 35 is hereby adopted. 36-39. Petitioner's PFOFs 36-39 are adopted. 40-44. Petitioner's PFOFs 40-44 are cumulative and not necessary to the conclusions reached. Respondent's PFOF: 1-19. Respondent's PFOFs 1-19 are adopted in the RO. 20. Respondent's PFOF 20 is rejected as conclusory. 21-22. Respondent's PFOFs 21 and 22 are adopted in the RO. 23. Respondent's PFOF 23 is rejected as argument. 24-26. Respondent's PFOFs 24-26 are adopted in the RO. 27. Respondent's PFOF 27 is rejected as conclusory. 28-29. Respondent's PFOFs 28 and 29 are adopted in the RO. 30-32. Respondent's PFOFs 30-32 are rejected as conclusions and argument. Respondent's PFOF 33 is hereby adopted. Respondent's PFOF 34 is rejected as argument. Intervenor's PFOF: 1-21. Intervenor's PFOFs 1-21 are adopted in substance in the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 22 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 4 of the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 23 is hereby adopted. Intervenor's PFOF 24 is adopted in substance. Intervenor's PFOF 25 is hereby adopted. However, Intervenor has failed to prove that the activity of NMC is not within one of the several exceptions to the requirements of Section 607.1501, Florida Statutes. COPIES FURNISHED: Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Jennifer Kujawa-Graner, Esquire PANZA, MAURER, MAYNARD & NEEL, P.A. 3081 East Commercial Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issues in this bid protest proceeding are whether the bid of Professional Leasing & Development Corporation on state project, job number 48020-3543, was properly rejected for failure to prequalify to bid on the project; and whether the Department properly rejected the bid failure to: meet disadvantaged business enterprise ("DBE") requirements in soliciting minority subcontractors to work on the project, or make a good faith effort to meet the DBE goals set for this project?
Findings Of Fact Professional Leasing & Development Corporation ("Professional") filed a bid on state project, job number 4802 0-3543, which was opened on January 22, 1986 for work on an intersection in Escambia County. The only other bidder was Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., which the Department declared the lowest responsible bidder, and which declined to participate in these proceedings after notice. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the bids submitted by both bidders were in due form and were submitted in a timely fashion. The parties also stipulated that the Department posted its bid tabulation on March 3, 1986, designating Chadbourne as the lowest responsible bidder, and a timely protest was filed by Professional following that posting. This job is the first Department of Transportation job on which Professional has submitted a bid. It had not prequalified to bid on the job. Warnings appear on pages one and seven of the bid blank that if the bid amount is greater than $150,000, the contractor must be prequalified. The bid blank clearly states in large print on page 7 that if the contractor is not prequalified and the bid is in excess of $150,000, the bid will be rejected. The bid package submitted by Professional was for a total contract amount of $149,973.68. This amount contained errors in the prices for certain items in the bid. These resulted from Professional's errors in the extension of the unit price for items 300 1 3, tack coat; 5331 2, type s asphaltic concrete; and 5337 1 5, asphaltic concrete friction course. The errors are small, aggregating $76.32. The total amount of the bid, as corrected by the unit prices given by Professional in its bid blank, is $150,050. The bid was rejected by the Department for failure to prequalify. When preparing its bid, Professional made efforts to meet the DBE goal set by the Department of Transportation of 8 percent of the contract amount. It sought bids from two minority businesses for striping, and for guardrail and paved ditches,the second of which was a bid from a women's business enterprise which is not considered in meeting the DBE goal. Additional efforts might have been made to obtain DBE subcontract bids by the other principal in the corporation, William Stubstad, but the testimony at the final hearing did not indicate what those efforts may have been. Neither are they reflected in the bid documents. On the DBE/WBE utilization form number 1 submitted with the bid, Professional listed eight potential subcontractors; the striping subcontractor had been certified by the Department of Transportation as a DBE. Written by hand at the bottom of the form was the statement "no other local DBEs in area." Professional's bid reflected only a 3.2 percent utilization of DBE subcontractors, while the goal set by the Department was 8 percent of the contract amount. Based on this submittal, the Department found inadequate documentation of a good faith effort to meet the DBE goal and rejected the bid. Many other subcontractors are certified as DBEs by the Department for work such as signs, guardrails, landscaping and paved ditches. Professional's bid documents give no evidence that these other firms had been solicited to submit bids.
Recommendation It is recommended that the protest of Professional Leasing and Development Corporation be rejected, and the contract be awarded to Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1986. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0788BID The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: No proposed findings of fact were submitted. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Covered in Findings of Fact 1 and 5. First sentence is covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 5; the remainder of the proposed finding is covered in Conclusion of Law 1. Generally covered in Finding of Fact 4. The portion of the proposal dealing with Standard Specifi- cation 2-1, 1986 Edition, is rejected because that section was not placed in evidence at the hearing, nor was leave requested to file that specification after the hearing. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. Covered generally in Conclusions of Law 2 and 3. Covered in Conclusion of Law 6. Rejected on the grounds that Section 2-5.3.2 of the Supplemental Special Provision of the Bid Specifications was not proven at the final hearing, nor was leave requested to file them as an exhibit after the hearing. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. The portion of proposal 10 found on page 4 is covered in Finding of Fact 7; the remainder is rejected as cumulative. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected because there is no evidence in the record concerning the consistency with which the Department requires full compliance with DBE goals, and because no issue was raised in this proceeding by Professional with respect to inconsistency in Department policy, making the finding irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold Pridgen President Professional Leasing & Development Corp. 25 East Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32514 Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. 4375 McCoy Drive Pensacola, Florida 32503
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received on a contract to deliver food and supplies to the public school cafeterias in Broward County.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Invitation to Bid On September 28, 2000, the Board issued ITB 21-076B for procurement of “Mainline Foods and Supplies for Cafeterias.” Through this solicitation the Board sought to let a four-year contract, renewable for two additional one- year periods, pursuant to which the successful bidder would deliver food and supplies to the approximately 192 public school cafeterias in Broward County, Florida. Sysco is the incumbent supplier of foods and supplies for the Board’s cafeterias. The ITB listed and described the desired foods and supplies in two separate sections, Section 5.09 and Section 6.02. Bidders were required to bid on each of the 186 individual items listed in the Product Bid Sheets that comprise Section 5.09. In contrast, bidders were instructed not to quote prices for the 130 items listed in Section 6.02; rather, the ITB provided that “[t]he awardee, once selected, shall submit to the [Board] product costs and selling prices for items in Section 6.02.” This protest focuses on particular specifications of the Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 and is not concerned with Section 6.02. The Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 were composed of tables consisting of eight columns and, in total, 189 rows — one row for each item and three empty or "open" rows requiring no response. The first three columns, from left to right, set forth information that identified each item sought. At each row, Column 1 contained the “Sequence Number” that the Board had assigned to each product “for tracking purposes.” Column 2 in each row contained a description of the product to be purchased. So-called “approved brands” for each item were listed in Column 3. The ITB identified “approved brands” in several ways. The most specific identification was by brand name and product code or number, for example “Tony’s 78642.” This form of identification designated a particular manufacturer’s particular product. The term “approved branded product” will be used herein to refer to this type of specific product identification in Column 3. For many items, an approved brand was identified by manufacturer’s name only, without an accompanying product code, e.g. “Lykes ________.” The ITB instructed bidders that “[i]f a code number, name, or color is not listed by [the Board] along with an approved brand[,] the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided.” (ITB, Section 5.03.) In this Recommended Order, the term “brand-only approval” will denote a brand approval that lacked a specific product code. Finally, the ITB identified a large number of approved brands in Column 3 of Section 5.09 by the term “Distributor’s Choice,” meaning the distributor’s brand of choice. Bidders were instructed to “enter, in the space provided, the brand and code” when quoting a Distributor’s Choice. (ITB, Section 5.03.) For 84 of the 186 items listed in the Product Bid Sheets, the approved brands in Column 3 were identified exclusively as Distributor’s Choice.1 Thus, for nearly half of the Section 5.09 items, the bidder needed to select a brand and product that fit the specifications set forth in Column 2. For another 15 items, Column 3 contained brand-only approvals, meaning that the bidder was required to select an appropriate product from the approved manufacturer’s line. Brand-only approvals were combined with a Distributor’s Choice option in Column 3 for ten additional items. Consequently, there were 109 items — 59% of the total — on which the bidders were not given the option of bidding an approved branded product. Conversely, for 23 items Column 3 listed just one approved branded product, leaving the bidders no alternative but to bid on a particular manufacturer's particular product. Similarly, for 26 additional items, at least two approved branded products were listed, giving bidders a choice but not requiring them to compare the specifically designated brand- name products with the product descriptions in Column 2. In sum, bidders were obligated (and entitled) to bid an approved branded product on at least 49 items. There were 28 items for which Column 3 combined an approved branded product (or products) with either a brand- only approval (or approvals) or a Distributor’s Choice option.2 Accordingly, a bidder could, in theory, have quoted prices on as many as 77 approved branded products. At the other extreme, a bidder could have bid 137 items for which it had selected brand, product code, or both. Of the 186 items listed in Section 5.09, four are at the heart of the instant dispute. Ignoring for present purposes the sequences above and below the at-issue items, these four were described as follows in the first three columns of the Product Bid Sheets:3 1 SEQ NO. 2 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 3 APPROVED BRANDS 1009 Breakfast Pizza (F). Crust topped with cheese, gravy, scrambled eggs and bacon. Minimum size 3 oz. to meet 1 meat/meat alternate plus 1 bread serving. CN Label. Tony’s 63564 Nardone’s 80MSA-100 Size of portion oz. 1036 Pizza, French Bread, Southland Bagel Pepperoni (F): 50-50 8953S Mozzarella blend. Minimum Prestige 30215 5.45 oz. to meet 2 oz. Nordone’s _________ meat/meat alternative and 2 KT Kitchen ________ bread servings. CN label. Size portion oz. 1037 Pizza, Mexican Style (F). Tony’s 63669 Minimum 5 ounces to meet 2 Nordone’s 100MA oz. meat/meat alternate and 1 KT Kitchens 01476 ½ bread serving. With or w/o VPP. CN label. Size portion oz. 2010 Pancake and Sausage (F) Pancake batter around a link sausage on a stick. 2.5 oz. State Fair 70601 Leon’s 28002 Foster Farms 96113 Minimum weight to meet 1 oz. meat/meat alternative and 1 bread serving. CN Label. Size of portion: oz. Other provisions of the ITB are relevant to this protest as well. Section 7 of the General Conditions of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any items or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets shall be noted “BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY.” All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Section 1.03 of the ITB’s Special Conditions stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARD: A contract shall be awarded IN ITS ENTIRETY to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder (See Section 4.01) with the lowest initial product cost plus fixed fee and meeting all specifications terms and conditions of the bid. It is necessary to bid on every item on the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09) in order to have your bid considered for award. Product costs shall be stated in the spaces provided in the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09). All items shall have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item shall result in disqualification of bid submitted. Bidder shall carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. Any item that does not meet the specifications shall be disqualified. Section 1.10 of the ITB stated as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning any condition or requirement of this bid shall be received in the Purchasing Department in writing on or before October 11, 2000. Submit all questions to the attention of the individual stated in Section 1.37 [sic] of this Bid. If necessary, an Addendum shall be issued. Any verbal or written information which is obtained other than by information in this bid document or by Addenda shall not be binding on the School Board. Section 1.12 of the ITB stated as follows: BRAND STANDARDIZATION: The specified brands and product numbers listed on the Product Bid Sheets have been approved by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department and bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where “Distributor’s Choice” is indicated. If a bidder wishes to have an item placed on this approved list for future bidding, the bidder shall furnish Food and Nutrition Services Department samples of the item for testing purposes. If approved, the Food and Nutrition Services Department shall include the new item on the future list of approved items. In the event that any approved item supplied under this bid does not prove satisfactory, that item shall be removed from the approved list until such time as correction is made to the satisfaction of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. Section 1.13 of the ITB stated as follows: PRODUCT NUMBER CORRECTIONS: If the product number for the brand specified on the Product Bid Sheets is: a) no longer available and has been replaced with a new updated number with new specifications, the bidder should submit complete descriptive literature on the new product number; or b) incorrect, the corrected product number should be noted on the Product Bid Sheets, in the space provided. Section 1.35 of the ITB stated as follows: INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mr. Charles High, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (954) 765-6107 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mr. High nor any employee of [the Board] is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with Special Condition 1.10. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. Section 2.03 of the ITB stated as follows: ADDING AND DELETING ITEMS: Food and non- food items utilized by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department may be subsequently added, deleted or transferred from or to the lists in Sections 5.09 and 6.0, individually or in groups, at the discretion of SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department Section 5.02 of the ITB provided in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 2: (Product Description) This column provides bidder with descriptions of the products to be purchased, including portion or serving sizes or grades and standards, as may be applicable. Bidders should fill in the information wherever indicated on portion, serving size, etc., and provide manufacturers’ certificates of grades or compliance whenever “CR” is shown. If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. [W]hen evaluating bids, [staff] may request that a bidder furnish, within three days of request, further confirmations of grades and standards, copies of specification sheets, and other product data, as may be required. (Underlining supplied). For ease of reference, the underlined sentence above — which will prove pivotal — will be called the "Reconciliation Clause" in this Recommended Order. Section 5.03 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 3: (Approved Brands*) Prior to acceptance of a bid, all bid brands are subject to review by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department for compliance with the bid product requirements. If a code number, name, or color is not listed by SBBC along with an approved brand; the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided. Whenever quoting a “Distributor’s Choice”, a bidder shall enter, in the space provided, the brand and code. Whenever an approved brand, other than “Distributor’s Choice”, is listed, the bidder should indicate in Column 3 the brand bidding, (circle the brand). IMPORTANT: Some of the codes listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the bidder is to enter the correct code. After award, SBBC may request the awardee to obtain prices and samples for brands and codes not listed. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the requirements of Column 2 is at the discretion of SBBC. A bidder may be requested, prior to bid award, to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Section 5.11 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: CN Label: When a product is CN (Child Nutrition) labeled, it is “certified” by the packer to conform to the nutritional requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The label shows the contribution made by a given amount of product toward meal requirements. When CN label is noted in Column 2 of the Product Bid Sheets, it is understood that the CN label must be in place for the product to be bid. Particular Responses to the Invitation to Bid A. Sequence No. 1009 – Breakfast Pizza At Sequence No. 1009, Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheet contained two approved branded products: Tony’s 63904 and Nardone’s 80MSA-100. School Food quoted a price of $28,500 on the specifically approved Nardone’s product. In preparing its bid, Sysco obtained a product description from Nardone Bros. Baking Co. Inc. ("Nardone") for its 80MSA-100 product. Sysco believed that Nardone’s 80MSA- 100 failed to meet the product description set forth in Column 2 and therefore offered the other approved branded product, Tony’s 63564, at a price of $33,000. A third bidder, Mutual Wholesale Co. ("Mutual Wholesale"), offered to provide the approved Tony’s product at a price of $33,012.00. Sequence No. 1036 – French Bread Pepperoni Pizza The product description in Column 2 of the item listed at Sequence No. 1036 required that a CN label be in place for a product to be bid. A CN label signifies compliance with certain U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. The Board must obey these guidelines to obtain reimbursement for its food services program from federal funding sources. School Food offered the Prestige 30215 approved branded product in its response to Sequence No. 1036 at a price of $30,750. In preparing its response to the ITB, Sysco learned that the Prestige 30215 approved branded product had been submitted for CN label approval but lacked that approval at the time of bidding. Perceiving a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved branded product in Column 3, Sysco concluded that it could not quote a price for Prestige 30215. Instead, Sysco offered to provide another approved brand, KT Kitchen’s 01093, at a cost to the Board of $36,397.50. Like School Food, Mutual Wholesale bid on the Prestige 30215 brand name product, quoting a price of $30,000. As of November 29, 2000, the approved branded product, Prestige 30215, had obtained CN approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sequence No. 1037 – Mexican-Style Pizza In its response to Sequence No. 1037, School Food offered an approved branded product, Nardone's 100MA, quoting a price of $206,620. During its bid preparation, Sysco learned that Nardone used another code for this product — namely, "96MCSA." Sysco believed that it could not bid on "Nardone’s 100MA," even though it was an approved branded product. Thus, in its bid Sysco offered to provide another approved branded product, Tony's 63669, at a price to the Board of $229,800. In its response to Sequence No. 1037, Mutual Wholesale quoted a price of $214,020 for yet another approved branded product, KT Kitchen’s 01476. "Nardone's 100MA" is an actual product code used internally by Nardone to denote an actual, available product that is referred to externally (or "on the street") as "Nardone's 96MCSA." In other words, "Nardone's 100MA" and "Nardone's 96MCSA" refer to the same product. Sequence No. 2010 – Pancake and Sausage In response to Sequence No. 2010, School Food offered to provide an approved branded product, Leon’s 28002, at a cost to the Board of $14,858. Sysco discovered through its bid preparation research that there might be a conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product, which was unambiguously designated in Column 3, because Leon’s 28002 consisted of a "frankfurter" wrapped in a pancake, and Sysco did not consider a "frankfurter" to be a "link sausage."4 As the Board has conceded, unless a bidder knew the products well or made a comparison of the approved branded products to the product description in Column 2, it would not have perceived the possible conflict between that description and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product listed in Column 3. Around October 20, 2000, Sysco notified the Board of its concern regarding Sequence No. 2010. In so doing, however, Sysco failed to comply with Section 1.10 of the ITB, which required that questions about the bid specifications be submitted in writing on or before October 11, 2000. In violation of Section 1.10, a Sysco employee named Elaine Blaine, who was responsible for preparing Sysco's bid, left a telephone message with the Board's Purchasing Agent, Charles High, inquiring about Leon's 28002 and letting him know that, in Sysco's opinion, this approved branded product did not match the description in Column 2 of Sequence No. 2010. Mr. High returned Ms. Blaine's phone call on or around October 24, 2000, leaving a message on her voice mail to the effect that Leon's 28002 was not the correct item and advising that another brand name product, Leon's 28012, should be bid in its place. As Section 1.35 of the ITB made plain, however, Mr. High had no authority whatsoever to render an opinion such as this. Although Mr. High's communication with Ms. Blaine was improper, it had no effect on the competitive process. Clearly, Sysco could not reasonably have relied on Mr. High's unauthorized opinion, and anyway it did not do so. Thus, in short, while Mr. High's irregular contact with Ms. Blaine cannot be condoned, his ex parte advice to Sysco fortunately conferred no competitive advantage on any bidder and hence was immaterial. In the end, Sysco offered another approved branded product, State Fair 70601, in lieu of Leon's 28002, quoting a price of $20,111. Mutual Wholesale also bid on State Fair 70601, quoting a price of $20,119.50. Issuance of Addenda and Submission of Bids The Board issued two addenda to the ITB. Addendum No. 1, among other things, inserted the code number for the approved KT Kitchen’s brand name product listed in Column 3 for Sequence No. 1036, and it also changed the approved Foster Farms branded product listed in Sequence No. 2010. The addenda made no other changes to either Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, or 2010. On October 31, 2000, the Board opened the four bids that it had received in response to the ITB. Bids were submitted by Big Bamboo, Inc., Mutual Wholesale, Sysco, and School Food. Big Bamboo, Inc. failed to submit a complete proposal and thus its bid was disqualified as non-responsive. The remaining bids, which were determined to be responsive, offered, respectively, the following total annual contract prices: Mutual Wholesale $9,757,284.86 Sysco $9,656,770.21 School Food $9,263,170.42 Accordingly, School Food was the lowest bidder, its bottom line beating the closest competitor by nearly $400,000 per year. On November 9, 2000, the Board's Purchasing Department posted its recommendation that the contract be awarded to School Food. The Sysco Protest of the Recommended Award On November 13, 2000, Sysco timely filed a notice of intent to protest the recommended award to School Food. Sysco timely filed its formal written protest with the Board on November 22, 2000. Pursuant to rule, a Bid Protest Committee comprised of three administrators is required to meet with a bid protester in accordance with Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to attempt a resolution of the protest by mutual agreement. By rule, the Bid Protest Committee has been delegated the agency’s authority to perform this function. Consequently, pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, a Bid Protest Committee convened on December 1, 2000, in an attempt to mutually resolve any disputed issues arising out of Sysco's protest. Despite the fact that the thrust of Sysco's protest was an attack on the responsiveness of School Food's bid, School Food was not invited to attend the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, which apparently was not conducted as a public meeting. A court reporter was present, however, and the transcript of the committee's December 1, 2000, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee restricted its review of the procurement to consideration of whether the ITB suffered from defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, even though Sysco’s protest had raised broader issues concerning the responsiveness of School Food's bid. At the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, a Board employee named Raymond Papa, whose title is Supervisor of Field Services for Food and Nutrition Service, made the following representations concerning the sequence numbers in question: 1009 (Breakfast Pizza). Mr. Papa claimed to have erred by listing Nardone's 80MSA-100 in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1009. This approved branded product, Mr. Papa told the committee, should have been identified in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1008, which is also a breakfast pizza but has a different product description. 1036 (French Bread Pepperoni Pizza). Mr. Papa informed the committee that Prestige 30215 was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but did not have a CN label "at this time." 1037 (Mexican Style Pizza). Mr. Papa advised the committee that there seemed to be some confusion arising from the ITB's use, in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1037, of the Nardone's product code 100MA, which was the manufacturer's internal code for the approved branded product, instead of the more common "street number" (96MCSA) used in the company's literature. Mr. Papa further explained: "Apparently that code [referring to 100MA] would have given me the right product" — in fact, it would have, see Paragraph 33 above — "but it needs more clarification on my part." 2010 (Pancake and Sausage). Mr. Papa pointed out the purported conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon's 28002 brand name product identified in Column 3. He claimed to have been seeking a pancake with a sausage inside, not a frankfurter, asserting that the two meat products were substantially different. The Board’s counsel informed the committee that the specifications for Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 had created sufficient confusion to adversely affect the competition. He urged the committee to remedy this purported confusion by voting to reject all bids so that the contract could be re-advertised with revised specifications. The committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. The three members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee paid no attention to the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation to reject all bids. With little discussion, the three-member Bid Protest Committee voted unanimously to rescind the recommendation to award School Food the contract and to reject all bids on the ground that the specifications were defective and hence that revisions were needed to "level the playing field." A revised recommendation to reject all bids was posted on December 12, 2000. School Food's Protest of the Rejection of All Bids On December 15, 2000, School Food timely filed its notice of intent to protest the Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids. This was timely followed by a formal written protest, which was filed with the Board on December 22, 2000. The revised recommendation posted on December 12, 2000, accurately announced the Board's intention to reject all bids. As noted in School Food's formal bid protest, however, the revised recommendation erroneously stated that the action was taken because “no acceptable bids were received.” To remedy this problem, a corrected revised recommendation was posted by the Board on January 12, 2001. It stated that the rejection of all bids was “due to inaccuracies within the bid specifications.” On January 16, 2001, School Food timely notified the Board of its intent to protest the corrected revised recommendation. Thereafter, on January 24, 2001, School Food timely filed its formal protest of the corrected revised recommendation to reject all bids. School Food posted a bid protest bond in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with School Board Policy 3320. This bond is conditioned upon School Food's payment of the Board's litigation costs should the Board prevail. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the Board's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with School Food on February 9, 2001, in an attempt to mutually resolve any matters in dispute. The Bid Protest Committee was composed of two persons who had participated in the December 1, 2000, meeting and a third member who had not attended that earlier meeting. Sysco received advance notice of the February 9, 2001, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, and its lawyer was permitted to attend as a witness. These courtesies, tellingly, had not been extended to School Food in connection with the committee meeting that had been held on December 1, 2000, to discuss the original Sysco bid protest. As before, a court reporter was present, and the transcript of the February 9, 2001, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee was again informed of staff's opinion that the ITB contained defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037 and 2010. At the February 9, 2001 meeting, the Board's counsel argued vigorously in support of the decision to reject all bids. For the most part, his argument was an expanded version of that which had been advanced in favor of rejection at the December 1, 2000, meeting. More emphasis was placed, the second time around, on the concern that the supposedly defective specifications would or might, in some cases, result in the Board not receiving the food items that it had desired. Once again, the committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. And once more, the committee members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee failed to take account of the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation that the previous decision to reject all bids be adhered to. By a vote of two to one, the Bid Protest Committee upheld the recommendation to reject all bids. The contemporaneous comments from the members in the majority, together with other evidence introduced at hearing, reveal that the committee was persuaded that the field of play had been tilted by the purportedly defective bid specifications; its decision clearly was based on a desire to “level the playing field.” Ultimate Factual Determinations All of the purported deficiencies in the bid specifications fall squarely within the operation of the ITB’s plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause which, to repeat for emphasis, provided as follows: If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. (ITB, Section 5.02.)5 There is no evidence that the Reconciliation Clause misrepresented the Board's true intent or was the product of a mistake. The administrative law judge has determined as a matter of law that the Reconciliation Clause is clear and unambiguous; therefore, as a matter of fact, it manifests the Board's intent that a Column 2 description must yield to the identification of an approved branded product in Column 3 in the event of conflict between them. By providing in clear terms a straightforward, easily applied, bright-line rule for resolving the very type of conflict that the Board now urges justifies a rejection of all bids, the ITB reasonably ensured that no such ambiguity or uncertainty would imperil the competitive process. No reasonable bidder could possibly have been confused by the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause. All bidders, of course, were entitled to protest the Reconciliation Clause, and any other bid specifications, within 72 hours after receiving the ITB. See Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; see also ITB, Section 1.21. None did. If Sysco believed, as Ms. Blaine testified, that it could not bid on certain approved branded products listed in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, then its belief was unreasonable. Confusion that is objectively unreasonable in fact, as Sysco's was, is not evidence of deficiencies in the bid specifications or of a breach in the integrity of the competitive process. In sum, the purported "deficiencies" upon which the Board based its intended decision to reject all bids are not deficiencies in fact. Thus, the Board's professed reason for starting over — that flaws in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 put bidders to the Hobson's choice of either risking disqualification by bidding on an approved branded product that did not strictly conform to the description in Column 2 or offering a higher-priced product meeting the Column 2 description — is factually unfounded and illogical.6 It should be observed, also, that, in view of the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause, the approved branded products upon which School Food bid in response to Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 are conforming goods in every respect. That is, School Food did not "mis-bid" these items. Indeed, the Board having identified specific approved branded products; having instructed bidders that "bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where ‘Distributor's Choice’ is indicated," see ITB, Section 1.12; and having made clear, in the Reconciliation Clause, that any conflict between an approved branded product and a product description shall be resolved in favor of the approved branded product, it would be arbitrary and capricious to disqualify School Food's bid for non-responsiveness in connection with these items. See Footnote 6, supra. The evidence regarding which particular products the Board truly wanted to purchase in connection with the sequences at issue is in conflict. On the one hand, there is the ITB itself, which is strong evidence of the Board's desires. As a written expression of the Board's intent, the ITB gives voice not merely to the opinions of one person, but rather speaks for the whole Board as an organization. (The latter point is underscored by Section 1.35, which plainly stated that no single employee of the Board was authorized unilaterally to interpret the ITB.) The ITB's reliability is further enhanced by the fact that it was prepared before the bids were opened, before it was known that the incumbent vendor was not the apparent low bidder, before the first protest was filed, and before this administrative litigation commenced. On the other hand, there is Mr. Papa's testimony that he made mistakes in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, listing approved branded products that, in hindsight, he claimed should not have been listed. Casting doubt on Mr. Papa's credibility, however, is the fact that he did not discover these so-called mistakes until after the Sysco protest helpfully brought the matters to his attention. Also, in deciding how much weight to give Mr. Papa’s testimony, the trier paid particular attention to the picayune nature of the purported conflicts in the specifications. Indeed, it is seriously debatable whether there really were any conflicts in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010.7 Additionally, having observed Mr. Papa’s demeanor and having given thoughtful consideration to the substance of his testimony, the trier of fact formed the distinct impression that this witness was a bit too anxious to grasp at a plausible excuse — even these hyper-technical “conflicts” — to scuttle the process and do it over. In weighing Mr. Papa's testimony, the trier has factored in a discount for reasonably inferred bias. Further, Mr. Papa's testimony was premised on the view that Column 2 expressed the Board's true intent, taking priority over Column 3 in cases of conflict. To fully credit Mr. Papa's testimony would require that the Reconciliation Clause be turned on its head — which, incidentally, would constitute an impermissible material change in the bid specifications.8 There is absolutely no basis in this record for doing that. In resolving the conflict in the evidence regarding which goods the Board really wanted, the trier of fact has considered the totality of circumstances and has chosen to give the greatest weight to the plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause in the ITB which, when read in conjunction with the clear designations of approved branded products in Column 3 at the sequences in question, makes manifest the Board's intent. This clear provision speaks for itself and proves that the Board, as an entity, made a reasoned and conscious decision to deem approved branded products in Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheets to be the goods intended for purchase in those instances where a Column 2 product description might suggest a different desire. Neither Mr. Papa's testimony nor any other evidence persuasively calls into question the reliability and credibility of the Reconciliation Clause as an accurate expression of the Board's intent. Thus, under the evidence presented, the following items are approved branded products that, as a matter of fact, the Board wanted to purchase: Nardone's 80MSA-100, Prestige 30215, Nardone's 100MA, and Leon's 28002. Moreover, if the Board decides that one or more of these approved branded products are not what it wants after all, it has the right, pursuant to Section 2.03 of the ITB (see Paragraph 17, supra), to arrange for the purchase and delivery of different products. The argument of the Board and Sysco that the Board's exercise of its right to add and delete items would constitute an impermissible material alteration of the bid specifications is, in the context of the present circumstances, plainly wrong in fact and illogical. To explain why this is so, let us stipulate that it would be arbitrary for the Board, say, to delete several items from each bidder's proposal because, for example, one or more bidders had mis-bid those items, and then to re-tabulate the bids to determine which bidder would now be the low bidder.9 Similarly, it would be arbitrary for the Board, under the guise of adding items, to designate as approved branded products certain non-conforming goods offered by a bidder as Distributor's Choices, thereby allowing a bid that otherwise would be disqualified to be considered responsive. As a final example, it would be arbitrary for the Board to delete an approved branded product from the product list and use such deletion as the basis for disqualifying a bidder that had quoted the now-deleted item. Each of these hypothetical situations involves a material change to the specifications on which the bidders based their proposals, which is not allowed, for good reason. It is a different kettle of fish, however, for the Board to add or delete items after making an award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. When the bids are judged pursuant to the rules clearly spelled out in advance in the ITB — which would not be the case in the examples set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph — there is simply no change in the specifications, material or otherwise. In the instant case, therefore, if the Board awards the contract to School Food and decides that it does not want a hot dog pancake for Sequence No. 2010, then all it need do is delete Leon's 28002 from the product list and add the desired Leon's product or require the distributor to deliver one of the remaining approved branded products.10 Nothing about that course of action requires or effects a change in the bid specifications. To the contrary, all of the bidders were notified, upon entering this competition, that such post- award additions and deletions of product were possible. All of the bidders, moreover, could have quoted a price for the hot dog pancake, which was unambiguously designated as a conforming product. If the hot dog pancake were a less expensive item, then Sysco could have and should have bid on it. Put another way, if School Food secured a competitive advantage by bidding on the lower-priced approved branded product, it was a legitimate advantage under the plain rules of the contest — rules that applied equally to all. In a nutshell, the Board is in no reasonable danger of receiving a food product that it does not desire to purchase. The Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids is not supported by facts or logic. Indeed, the Board's analysis of the situation failed to account for the Reconciliation Clause — a clearly relevant factor. When the Reconciliation Clause is considered, together with the rest of the evidence in the record, the following become clear: The ITB's specifications were clear and unambiguous. The competitive playing field was level. The Board will obtain the goods that it intended to purchase. At bottom, the Board's decision here cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is arbitrary.11
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board award the contract advertised in the subject ITB to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. It is further recommended that the Board, pursuant to its own rules, return School Food’s protest bond and, in the Final Order, award School Food the costs Petitioner has incurred in prosecuting this matter. If a dispute arises concerning the amount of such costs, the matter may be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2001.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be determined in this proceeding is which of the bids submitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in response to its Request for Proposal for office space and facilities in Arcadia, Florida, is the lowest and best response to the invitation. The Petitioner contends that the Intervenor's bid was not responsive to the Request for Proposal, and that even if the Intervenor's bid were considered responsive, that Petitioner's bid was the lowest and best response. The Intervenor contends that its bid was responsive and that it was the lowest and best response. The Department contends that it properly evaluated the responses and that the bid should be awarded to the Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact In order to provide services as required by various federal and state statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services needs to maintain office space in or near to the city of Arcadia, Florida. The Department is presently leasing office space from C. W. Whidden, the Intervenor in this proceeding. The lease expires on November 30, 1982. The Department's space needs have expanded since the time that it entered into the lease for the existing facility. In order to meet the need for increased space and to continue with its present activities, the Department issued an "Invitation to Propose" inviting interested persons to submit bids for the required office space. Three persons responded to the invitation: Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Martin M. McAllister, the Petitioner in this proceeding; and the Intervenor. The bid acquisition has been designated by the Department as Lease No. 590:1526. The Department formed a bid evaluation committee composed of five employees of the Department's District VIII office. The facility being acquired would be located within and serve people within the Department's District VIII. Members of the bid evaluation committee individually reviewed the three bids, and met together to form a consensus. On May 14, 1982, the committee generated a memorandum in which the three bids were given points in 12 separate evaluation areas. The Petitioner's bid was given 87 points, the Intervenor's bid was given 83 points, and the bid submitted by Chuck Bundschu, Inc., was given 75 points. The committee recommended that the lease be awarded to the Petitioner. The Department's District VIII Administrative Services Director, Frances Clendenin, was among the members of the committee. She was not satisfied with the committee's evaluation, and she communicated about it with Cindi Shaffer, the Department's Facilities Services Coordinator in Tallahassee. Shaffer agreed that the committee's evaluation had not been sufficiently objective, or at least that the evaluation did not adequately reveal that objective criteria were applied. She recommended to Clendenin that tangible factors be applied. She suggested that the most tangible factor was cost to the Department; and if cost was not a factor, that the committee should set out a detailed narrative statement in support of its conclusions that one bidder or another should receive more or less points in any given area of the evaluation. Clendenin interpreted these suggestions as meaning that all bidders should be awarded the same points in any area unless a specific cost to the Department could be identified so as to justify less points being given to any bidder. The committee conducted a second evaluation and concluded, based upon criteria directed by Clendenin, that the Intervenor's bid should be given 98 points, that Petitioner's bid should receive 90 points, and that the Bundschu bid should receive 81 points. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the lease be awarded to the Intervenor. This recommendation was accepted by the Department. Petitioner filed a timely bid protest, and this proceeding ensued. Chuck Bundschu, Inc., neither protested the bid award nor appeared in this proceeding. The Petitioner has contended that the bid submitted by Intervenor is not responsive to the specifications set out in the Invitation to Propose. The Invitation sets out the following evaluation criteria: The successful bid will be the one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Provision of the adequate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. Intervenor has proposed to provide the required aggregate square footage in three buildings. Two of the buildings are presently occupied by the Department under the lease which will soon expire. They are separated only by a five- or six-foot-wide concrete walkway which is covered. To get from one building to the other, one must merely open one door, cross the sidewalk, and open another door. While these are more than one building, they effectively serve as a single location in the same sense that two floors in a single building serve as a single location. The third building in Intervenor's proposal is located across a parking lot from the other two buildings, within 100 yards of them. Intervenor proposes to meet the aggregate square footage required by the Department through three buildings. The three buildings constitute two locations, however, which are within 100 yards of each other. The proposal thus meets the bid evaluation criteria and is not unresponsive to the Invitation to Propose. The evaluation criteria set out in the Invitation to Propose delineates 12 separate areas to be evaluated and designates a weighted point value to be assigned each area. The highest number of points that could be given was 100. The first area for evaluation is "rental rate including projected operating expenses." Twenty-five points are assigned to this area. The Intervenor's bid offered the lowest rental rate. Over the 10-year period of the proposed leases, Intervenor's bid is between $84,000 and $85,000 lower than Petitioner's bid. In its first report, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor 25 points and the Petitioner 21 points. In its second evaluation, Intervenor was given 25 points and Petitioner 17 points. The second evaluation more objectively sets out the difference in rental rate between the proposals and constitutes an accurate appraisal of the difference between the rental rates proposed by Intervenor and Petitioner. Petitioner sought to establish at the hearing that the Department would incur additional operating expenses under Intervenor's proposal which would not be incurred under Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner offered the testimony of an employee of the electrical utility that serves the area to the effect that electrical utility charges would be greater for Intervenor's facility than for Petitioner's. The evidence is not, however, credible. The witness estimated Intervenor's utility charges by tracing the past history of charges for the two buildings presently occupied by the Department and assuming that the third building would incur utility expenses at the same rate per square foot. The Petitioner has proposed to construct a new building. The witness estimated utility charges that would be incurred at Petitioner's facility by utilizing accepted formulas. The comparison is not appropriate in an evidentiary sense because of the different techniques used to estimate charges for the two facilities. Furthermore, the witness's assumption that utility charges in the Intervenor's third building would be consistent with those in the other two is not valid because the third building would not be utilized on a daily basis. Finally, the theoretical computations for Intervenor's building cannot be credited because such services as heating and required equipment were not included in the estimate. Petitioner sought to establish that the Department would incur increased operating expenses under Intervenor's proposal because an additional employee would be required for Intervenor's facility. This contention is not supported by the evidence. The Department's activities are presently being undertaken in the Intervenor's two buildings that are separated only by a sidewalk, and no additional employees are required because of the configuration. Petitioner sought to establish that the Department would incur higher janitorial charges under Intervenor's proposal than under Petitioner's. A janitorial service made an estimate of the amounts that it would charge for the Petitioner's proposed building and for the Intervenor's existing three buildings. The estimate assumed that the third building would be utilized on a daily basis by the Department. The evidence establishes, however, that the building would be used on less than a daily basis and only for a portion of those days on which it is used. The janitorial service estimates are therefore based upon an unsupported assumption. The second area to be evaluated is "conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid." Twenty-five points are assigned to this area. In its initial report, the evaluation committee gave the Intervenor 20 points in this area, and the Petitioner 25 points. In its second evaluation, both bidders were given 25 points. The first evaluation reflects a concern with the fact that Intervenor's proposal was to provide the required square footage in three buildings, while Petitioner proposed to construct a new facility and to offer the square footage in a single building. The second evaluation reflected the committee's inability to assign a specific dollar amount to the inconvenience that would be caused by utilizing three buildings instead of one. Clearly, there are inconveniences that would result from use of three buildings rather than a single building. The operation would be less compact and therefore less efficient. Petitioner's proposal met the specific requirements in the Invitation to Bid with precision as might be expected from a facility which is designed specifically with the Invitation in mind. As also might be expected, Intervenor's facility, which was not developed with this specific Invitation in mind, does not conform as specifically with the requirements of the Invitation. The initial evaluation giving the Intervenor 20 points and the Petitioner 25 points for this area appropriately reflects differences in the bids offered by Intervenor and Petitioner and accurately assesses the difference through the point system. The fourth area to be evaluated is "provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building." Ten points are assigned to this area in the Invitation. In its initial report, the committee gave five points to the Intervenor and 10 points to Petitioner. In its second report, Intervenor was given eight points and Petitioner 10 points. The second evaluation reflects a more objective appraisal of the disadvantages of the three-building complex offered by Intervenor as compared to the one-building complex offered by Petitioner. The first evaluation represented too harsh a view of the inconveniences that would result from the three-building proposal. Some members of the evaluation committee felt that an additional employee would be required, which is not the case. Furthermore, the third building proposed by Intervenor, which is located across a parking lot, would be utilized only for storage of old files and as a conference room. It would not be used on a daily basis, and this minimizes the inconvenience that would result from its being located across the parking lot. It is appropriate that the Intervenor be given eight points and the Petitioner 10 points for this area of the evaluation. The fifth area to be evaluated is "susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization." In its initial report, the committee gave Intervenor three points and the Petitioner five points. In its second report, both Intervenor and Petitioner were given five points. The first evaluation too harshly downgrades the effect of three buildings, and the second evaluation gives too little weight to it. It is appropriate that Intervenor be given four points and Petitioner five points for this area of the evaluation. The twelfth area of the evaluation is "moving costs." Two points are assigned to this area in the Invitation. In both of its reports, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor two points and Petitioner no points for this area. Given the fact that no moving costs would be incurred under Intervenor's proposal, and costs would be incurred under Petitioner's, this appears to be an appropriate evaluation. The third and sixth through eleventh areas to be evaluated under the Invitation for Bid are "proximity to clients," "environmental factors," parking," "street-level space," "transportation," "dining facilities," and "proximity to other Department activities." The evaluation committee's reports varied in insignificant respects, but the evidence demonstrates that, objectively, the Intervenor's and Petitioner's proposals are equal in each of these areas. A total of 33 points is assigned to these areas under the Invitation. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bids meet the requirements in these areas set out in the Invitation, and both should be given 33 points. In its initial report, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor 83 points and Petitioner 87 points. In its second report, the committee gave Intervenor 98 points and Petitioner 90 points. The first report did not reflect an appropriate scoring because too much penalty was assigned to Intervenor's three-building configuration. The second evaluation did not adequately downgrade Intervenor's bid because of the three-building configuration. When the points set out in the above findings are added, Intervenor's bid is given 92 points and Petitioner's bid 90 points. This numerical assignment accurately reflects the differences between the bids and the advantages that would accrue to the Department for accepting one bid or the other. The reduced price of Intervenor's proposal and increased efficiency of Petitioner's render the proposals very nearly equal in value to the Department. By a very narrow margin, the Intervenor's proposal is the lowest and best bid in response to the Invitation to Propose for Lease No. 590:1526.
Findings Of Fact On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids on State Project Job No. 26000-3624. The job called for removing and replacing the roof on the DOT warehouse at Gainesville, Florida. Such bids were to be filed with the agency no later than January 23, 1985. As is pertinent here, the specifications called for the following type of flexible sheet roofing system: minimum Elastomeric sheet material, manufacturer's standard thickness but not less than 42 mils, 400 psi minimum tensil strength, 250 percent elongation (ASTM D 412), ultraviolet and ozone resistent, low temperature brittleness of -40 F (-40 C)(ASTM D 746), integral color white or aluminum. W. R. Grace and Company (Grace) is one of several companies who manufacture single-ply roof membranes that are generally compatible with DOT specifications. One of its factory representatives, John Cunningham, reviews all bid notices issued by DOT to determine what materials are required for a given project. The representative then calls DOT approved contractors in his service area who use Grace products and advises them of the requirements for the job. In this particular case, Cunningham read the specification for elastomeric sheet material and was initially confused as to whether DOT wanted a factory finish on the membrane or to have it coated in the field. This confusion arose since the specification called for an "integral color" on the material and a "manufacturer's standard thickness, but not less than 42 mils." Grace manufacturers two single-ply roof membranes, one having a 40 mil thickness with a factory applied coating (GRM-500), and one having a 50 mil thickness with a field applied coating (GRM-120). When DOT prepared the bid proposal, it was under the impression that the GRM-500 system would meet the specifications. However, if a factory applied coating on the membrane was desired, the GRM-500 system would not meet the specification as to thickness. Because of this, Cunningham contacted a DOT representative who advised that DOT wanted a factory applied coating, and that all bidders should base their bid using the GRM-500 product even though this appeared to be inconsistent with the specifications. The representative also told Cunningham it was too late to issue an addendum to clarify the matter. Based upon the above representation Cunningham telephoned each qualified contractor in his sales area who used Grace products, including petitioner Cheesbro Roofing, Inc. (Cheesbro), a roofing company located in Ormond Beach, Florida. He told them that DOT apparently wanted a factory applied coating, even though this was inconsistent with the specification as to thickness and that the GRM-500 system should be used. He also advised them that at least one bidder interpreted the specification differently, and was preparing its bid using the GRM-120 product so that the thickness specification as written could be met. Cheesbro had never bid a DOT project and was confused as to the type of product to use in preparing its bid. In an abundance of caution, Cheesbro submitted alternate bids, one with prices based on the GRM-500 system and the other using the GRM-120 system. This resulted in bids of $84,560 and $102,661, respectively. The alternate bid (using the GRM-120 product) was typed on the firm's letterhead and inserted in the bid proposal since the bid form did not contain a place to write an alternate bid. The $84,500 figure was the lowest dollar bid on the project out of twelve bids submitted. At about the same time, a second Grace sales representative, Richard Bray, contacted users of Grace products in his service area including Kent Construction Company, Inc. (Kent) of Chipley, Florida. Bray advised his customers to write their bids using the GRM-500 system. Kent had originally interpreted the specification as requiring the GRM-120 system, but, based upon Bray's representation, it submitted a bid of $86,800 using the GRM-500 system. This was the second lowest dollar bid on the project. By law DOT cannot design specifications with the object of soliciting products made by a specific manufacturer. Even so, there are only a few other manufactured roofing systems which have a factory applied coating and a thickness of at least 42 mils. However, most of the twelve bidders, including the two lowest, submitted bids using Grace products. After the bids were filed and reviewed, DOT noted that Cheesbro had submitted alternative bids. Because this is a ground for rejection, the bid was reviewed initially by a DOT technical awards committee which recommended the bid be rejected as being "irregular". That committee's decision was affirmed by the contract awards committee which reached the same conclusion. Accordingly, Cheesbro's bid, although the lowest, was rejected on February 11, 1985 and Kent's bid accepted on March 6, 1985 as being the lowest and most responsible bidder on the project. That prompted the instant proceeding. DOT bids are governed by the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1982 Edition. Section 2 - 6 of that document provides as follows: A proposal will be subject to being consid- ered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, addi- tions not called for, conditional or unau- thorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obvi- ously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. DOT has relied upon this section as authority for rejecting Cheesbro's bid. Cheesbro did not read this document before submitting its bid. According to DOT, the purpose of the section is to obtain standard bids from all contractors, and to prevent one bidder from having an unfair advantage over others through the use of alternate bids.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all bids on State Job Project No. 26000-3624 be rejected, and the project be relet for bids. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 1st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Burns, Esquire p. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida (“SBBC”) improperly awarded a contract pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 21-244H for “Photo ID Card and Printing System Supplies” (“ITB”) to Intervenor, Identicard Systems, Inc. (“Identicard"). Petitioner Plasco, Inc. ("Plasco") contends that the recommended award to Identicard is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the specifications of the ITB. The resolution of the ultimate issue turns on whether the uninitialed corrected figures contained within Plasco’s bid response for both the unit price and the total cost of Item 1(N) were a material deviation from the bid specifications requiring rejection of the bid.
Findings Of Fact SBBC desired to procure photo identification card and printing systems supplies to prepare identification cards for school district employees, students in selected schools, and outside vendors. SBBC has adopted School Board Policy 3320 which governs its purchasing of goods and services. On or about April 30, 2001, SBBC released the ITB. General Condition 1(c) of the ITB stated in pertinent part: EXECUTION OF BID: . . . If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure or use an opaque correction fluid. All corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid even when using opaque correction fluid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. . . . General Condition 2 of the ITB stated in pertinent part: PRICES QUOTED: . . . Give both unit price and extended total. Prices must be stated in units to quantity specified in the bidding specification. In case of discrepancy in computing the amount of the bid, the Unit Price quoted will govern. . . . General Condition 7 of the ITB stated in pertinent part: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder. . . . All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Special Condition 3 of the ITB states as follows: AWARD: Bid shall be awarded by GROUP to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC may need to order an individual component within a group. All items within a group must have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item within a group will result in disqualification of the group. Bidder should carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. In the event that one item in the group does not meet the specifications, the entire group will be disqualified. On June 7, 2001, Plasco, Identicard, and seven other companies submitted responses to the ITB. After receiving the bid responses, SBBC’s Purchasing Department examined and computed the figures submitted by each bidder for each item listed in the Bid Summary Sheets. For each item, a quantity figure had been supplied by SBBC in the bid specifications. The bid was structured so that the specified quantity would be multiplied by a unit price furnished by the bidder on its Bid Summary Sheets. The bidder was also required to furnish a total cost for each individual item in its Bid Summary Sheets. The bids submitted by both Identicard and Plasco contained a number of uninitialed corrections. Although such uninitialed corrections violated General Condition 1(c), the SBBC properly deemed such errors to be immaterial in every instance where only one figure per specified Item was tainted by a violation of this General Condition. For example, where a particular component of the bid required the bidder to specify a unit cost and a total cost for the quantity of goods specified in that particular component, the SBBC was willing to perform the mathematical calculation necessary to confirm the correctness of the uninitialed figure. As applied to this particular type of uninitialed correction, SBBC staff would multiply or divide the quantity specified in the ITB by the "untainted" number provided by the bidder to confirm the correctness of the uninitialed corrected figure submitted in violation of General Condition 1(c). The Bid Summary Sheet submitted by Plasco for Item 1(N) contained a different violation of General Condition 1(c), to wit, it contained two uninitialed corrected figures. The corrections were accomplished through the use of correction fluid. Plasco's Bid Summary Sheet with respect to Item 1(N) stated in pertinent part as follows: UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST * * * FARGO ACCESSORIES N. 3 each 81524 Thermal Printhead $389.35 ea $1,168.05 for Cheetah/Cheetah II/ Pro/Pro-L/Presto! Quatro/ Presto! System The Unit Price of $389.35 as well as the Total Cost of $1,168.05 for Item 1(N) set forth in Plasco’s bid was a corrected price and was not initialed by the person signing the bid on behalf of Plasco. Notwithstanding this "double correction," it was possible within the four corners of Plasco's bid to verify the unit price of the Item and thus to confirm, mathematically, a total price. The Item in question, a printhead, was the subject of four additional bid items. In each instance, Plasco bid $389.35 per printhead, a number which matched Plasco's corrected figure in Item 1(N). SBBC was not misled by Plasco's failure to initial either or both corrections in Item 1(N). Correctly using Plasco's uninitialed corrections as set forth in Item 1(N), SBBC accurately performed the calculations necessary to verify Plasco's bid; therefore the Bid Summary prepared by SBBC staff accurately reflected that Plasco was the low bidder at $93,449.68. The responses to the ITB were reviewed by school district staff on or about June 7, 2001. The so-called "double correction" in Item 1(N) was SBBC's sole basis for its decision to reject Plasco's low bid, and to recommend that Identicard's next lowest bid of $100,720.12 be accepted. At no time relevant to this case did SBBC have a written policy which compels that any bid containing two uninitialed corrections be excluded from consideration. The evidence establishes that SBBC was able to and in fact did accurately account for the individual numbers contained in Item 1(N), as well as any and all other numbers affected by the numbers supplied by Plasco in response to Item 1(N). Under the facts of this case, Plasco's error in failing to initial the corrections in Item 1(N) was immaterial. SBBC maintains that it must enforce its unwritten policy of excluding bids containing two uninitialed corrections within a single item in order to protect the integrity of the bid process. There is no evidence that the integrity of the bid process in this case was compromised in any way. No good faith argument was made that there was any type of collusion or improper conduct in connection with this bid. Instead, the evidence establishes that Plasco's bid was responsive and responsible in all material respects, inasmuch as SBBC staff was able to accurately ascertain, to the penny, the amount of Plasco's low bid. Plasco timely filed its Notice of Protest with SBBC on June 18, 2001. Plasco timely filed a Formal Written Protest with SBBC on June 27, 2001. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and School Board Policy 3320, SBBC provided an opportunity for Plasco to meet with the agency’s Bid Protest Committee in an attempt to resolve the protest by mutual agreement. The Bid Protest Committee conducted a duly-noticed public meeting with Petitioner Plasco on July 9, 2001. Upon consideration, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest of Plasco and upheld the recommendation to award the bid to Identicard.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a Final Order awarding the ITB to Plasco, and, upon submission of documentation contemplated in the parties' stipulation regarding costs, assess costs of this action in Plasco's favor in its Final Order pursuant to School Board Policy 3320, VI (n). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell W. Berger, Esquire David L. Ferguson, Esquire Berger Singerman 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Steven H. Feldman, Esquire Broward County School Board K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, P.A. Bank of America Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Dr. Franklin Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Florida A&M University's intended action to reject all bids and re-advertise the project to construct "Utilities Improvement-Central Chilled Water Plant, Phase V", known as BR-389, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Neel Mechanical Contracting, Inc., is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in Florida and licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Its business is air conditioning, and it specializes in larger projects such as the one at issue herein. Robert C. Sullivan is the President of Neel Mechanical. Thomas Gregory Lang is a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical and the chief estimator for Neel Mechanical; Mr. Lang is the person primarily responsible for preparing Neel Mechanical's bid proposal for Project BR-389. The Florida Board of Regents is a corporate body consisting of the Commissioner of Education and thirteen citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by three members of the Cabinet; it is subject to the general supervision and control of the Department of Education. Sections 240.203(2), 240.205, and 240.207(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a member of the State University System, is charged generally with overseeing the state universities, and has the authority to approve and execute contracts for "construction for use by a university when the contractual obligation exceeds $1 million." Sections 240.209 and 240.205(6), Florida Statutes (1999). 4/ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ("FAMU") is a public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, and is one of ten universities in Florida's State University System. Section 240.2011, Florida Statutes (1999). The university president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for its operation and administration. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Frederick S. Humphries was president of FAMU, and Samuel J. Houston was the Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. Mr. Houston has primary responsibility for supervising the bid process and the staff that prepared the bid documents and evaluated the bids for Project BR-389. Mr. Houston acts in this capacity on behalf of President Humphries and the Board of Regents. Mr. Houston also is ultimately responsible for the administration of Project BR-389. Bayou Mechanical, Inc. ("Bayou Mechanical") is a mechanical contractor which submitted a bid on Project BR-389. Call for Bids In Volume 25, Number 13, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, dated April 2, 1999, FAMU, on behalf of the Board of Regents, issued a Call for Bids on Project BR-389, which involves construction of a chilled water plant on the FAMU campus. The Call for Bids provided that all bidders must have a valid Florida license to do the work at the time of bid opening and a minimum of five years experience with similar projects. Project BR-389 involves a construction contract and is the fifth phase of the construction of an underground chilled water system on the FAMU campus. The project consists of constructing a portion of the system and connecting it to the existing system. The Call for Bids notified prospective bidders that sealed bids would be received at FAMU on May 4, 1999, until 2:00 p.m., after which time the bids would be opened and the bid tabulations posted. The Call for Bids further provided: "Bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual." The Call for Bids advised that these documents were available at the offices of the Architect/Engineer for the project, Bosek, Gibson & Associates, Inc. ("Bosek, Gibson"), in Tallahassee, Florida. In Addendum #2 to the Project Manual, dated April 30, 1999, the date for submission of bids was changed from May 4, 1999, to May 11, 1999. The Project Manual contains Instructions to Bidders, consisting of pages 6 of 106 through 22 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 23 of 106 through 106 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; Special Conditions of the Contract, consisting of pages I-1 through I-10 and dated October 16, 1989; Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996; Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5 and identified as the February 1999 Revision; Exhibit L, Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 2 through 16; and the Technical Specifications, which are separately identified and numbered. As noted in the Call for Bids, drawings are also included in the bid documents. Neel Mechanical, Bayou Mechanical, and Council Contracting submitted bids for Project BR-389 on May 11, 1999, the date on which the bids were opened and the price proposals were read. According to the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form that was posted from May 14 through 19, 1999, Neel Mechanical was the apparent low bidder on the base bid and on the two alternates 5/; Neel Mechanical's base bid and its bid on alternates were within FAMU's budget for the project. Bayou Mechanical submitted the second lowest bid on the base bid and the alternates; Bayou Mechanical was within the budget on the base bid but over budget on the alternates. No recommended award or intent to award was indicated on the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form. Shortly after the bids were opened, several issues were raised with respect to the bid process. First, the FAMU staff discovered that Neel Mechanical had failed to affix its corporate seal to the signature page of the bid Proposal Form and to the Bid Bond that was part of the bid submission. Second, York International Company ("York") sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, a letter advising FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid. This letter raised the third issue: Of the two manufacturers identified in the project specifications, York and The Trane Company ("Trane"), only Trane manufactured a chiller that could meet the project specifications. Fourth, Mark A. Daughtery, a project manager for Bayou Mechanical, sent a letter dated May 14, 1999, to Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson advising him that Bayou Mechanical intended to file a formal protest on Project BR-389 and identifying two issues of concern to Bayou Mechanical: Neel Mechanical's failure to affix its corporate seal to its bid submission and "the Chiller being sole sourced to Trane Company." Each of these issues is discussed in detail below. Corporate Seal The Instructions to Bidders contained in the Project Manual provide: B-16 Preparation and Submission of Bids Each Proposal shall be submitted on the form contained in the Project Manual and bid prices shall be indicated thereon in proper spaces, for the entire Work and for all Alternates. (See B-8) In the event of a discrepancy in the bid amount on the Proposal between the numeric and written quotes, the written amount will govern. Each Proposal must give the full business address of the Bidder and state whether it is an individual, corporation or partnership. Proposals by a corporation must be signed with the legal name and seal of the corporation followed by the name of the state of its incorporation and the manual signature and designation of an officer, agent or other person authorized to bind the corporation. (Emphasis added.) When it was submitted on May 11, 1999, Neel Mechanical's bid did not include the impression of its corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form signature page or on the Bid Bond submitted as part of the proposal. After the bid opening, an employee of Neel Mechanical received a telephone call from Henry Swift, FAMU's Project Manager for Project BR-389, in which he advised Neel Mechanical that its bid had not been sealed. This conversation was followed by a request from Mr. Swift, sent via facsimile transmittal to Neel Mechanical on May 13, 1999, requesting a "Letter of Clarification which confirms your status as a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, registered with the Secretary of State, etc. Finally, please be sure to sign and seal your letter with your corporate seal." A letter to Mr. Swift, dated May 14, 1999, was signed and sealed by Robert C. Sullivan, President of Neel Mechanical. The letter was received in FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction on May 19, 1999. Shortly after Mr. Sullivan sent the May 14, 1999, letter, Neel Mechanical received another telephone call from Mr. Swift in which he advised Neel Mechanical that the seal needed to be physically affixed to the bid Proposal Form. Peter Lang, a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical, had business in Tallahassee, so Mr. Sullivan asked that he take the seal to Mr. Swift's office and affix it to the bid Proposal Form. When Peter Lang arrived at Mr. Swift's office, someone brought out the file and gave him the bid Proposal Form, and he affixed Neel Mechanical's corporate seal to the signature page of the form. Neel Mechanical's corporate seal was not affixed to the Bid Bond, although the seal of the surety company was on the Bid Bond when the bid was submitted. The Bid Bond was part of Neel Mechanical’s bid submission. FAMU verified on May 13, 1999, that Neel Mechanical was authorized to do business in Florida and held the requisite Florida license to perform the work required by the project. Centrifugal chiller specifications and York's letter of "intent to protest" Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications included in the Project Manual contains the specifications for the Centrifugal Chillers - Water Cooled to be installed as part of Project BR-389. Those specifications provide in pertinent part: PART 2 - PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Available Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide centrifugal chillers from one of the following: Trane Co., The York Int'l. UNIT DESCRIPTION: * * * Refrigerant: Chiller shall be provided with low pressure refrigerant HCFC-123. The size of the chiller specified for Project BR-389 was 2200 tons. 6/ Lane Jackins is the owner of Applied Mechanical Equipment and is a manufacturer's representative for York. He reviewed the technical specifications for the chiller contained in Part II of Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications for Project BR-389 and determined that York could not furnish a chiller that met the specifications. York does not manufacture a chiller of 2200 tons that uses R123 refrigerant, although it uses R123 refrigerant in smaller machines up to 750 tons. The equipment manufactured by York in the 2,000-ton range uses R134A refrigerant, which operates at different pressures than R123. The York equipment using R134A refrigerant is of an entirely different design than that using R123 refrigerant. In addition, York does not manufacture a chiller with the voltage required by the project specifications. Three or four days before the bids were to be submitted, either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lang spoke with Mr. Jackins about York's providing Neel Mechanical with a price for the chiller. Mr. Jackins responded that York would not submit a price for the equipment because York did not manufacture a chiller that would meet the technical specifications included in the bid documents. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: B-12 Basis for Bidding - Trade Names For clarity of description and as a standard of comparison, certain equipment and materials have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base the Proposal on the particular systems, equipment or materials specified and approved substitutes as provided in Paragraph 3.19, Substitutes, of the General Conditions. After bids are received, no equipment or materials will be approved as a substitute for the specified product. Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions provides: Substitutions Substitutions for a specified system, product or material may be requested of the Architect/Engineer, and the Architect/Engineer's written approval must be issued as an addendum before substitutions will be allowed. All requests for substitutions must be submitted prior to the opening of bids, and approvals shall be granted no less than seven (7) days prior to the bid date. Substitutions requested after that date will receive no consideration. Substitutions are changes in materials, equipment, methods, or sequences of construction, design, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, air conditioning controls, or other requirements of the Drawings or Specifications. (Emphasis in original.) In the portion dealing with "SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS," Section 15010 of the Technical Requirements, "MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS," provides as follows: By submitting a bid for equipment or material other than the "Design Basis Equipment" (i.e., that which is shown on the Contract Drawings), the Contractor: Represents that he has personally investigated the proposed substitute product and determined that it is equal or superior in all respects to that specified and complies with all the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions; Certifies that the cost data presented is complete and includes all related costs under this Contract but excludes costs under separate contracts, and excludes the Engineer's redesign costs, and waives all claims for additional costs related to the substitution which subsequently become apparent; Will coordinate the installation of the accepted substitute, making such changes as may be required for the work to be complete in all respects; and, Certifies that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the Contract Documents. Neither York nor any prospective bidder on Project BR-389 requested within the time limits specified in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions that a York product be substituted for the chiller specified for Project BR-389. Mr. Lang contacted Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson a day or two before bids were to be submitted and told Mr. Allen that York was not able to provide a chiller that met the project specifications. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen responded that he "was totally surprised that they [York] didn't have a machine that was going to meet this spec." 7/ Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on pricing information it received from Trane, which manufactures a chiller that meets the project specifications. An additional reason Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on the Trane equipment was his belief that, all things being equal, FAMU preferred to have Trane equipment installed in Project BR-389 because other chillers installed at FAMU were manufactured by Trane. Mr. Lang believed that the specifications for the chiller had been deliberately drawn to require use of Trane equipment. In a letter dated May 11, 1999, the day the bids for Project BR-389 were submitted and opened, Mr. Jackins notified FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid on Project BR-389. Mr. Jackins stated in the letter: The chiller as specified is a flat specification. There is only one manufacturer that will meet the criteria as spelled out in the contract documents. This is not in the best interest of the University System of Florida or the State of Florida. An official protest outlining all the proprietary items will be forthcoming. The letter was sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, prior to the time the bids were opened. Mr. Jackins believed that the "flat specification" was not in the best interest of the university because it precluded competitive pricing for the chiller. Mr. Sullivan learned on May 11 or May 12, 1999, that York intended to file a bid protest. Believing that Neel Mechanical would be awarded the contract as the apparent low bidder, Mr. Sullivan met with Mr. Jackins and several employees of Neel Mechanical, including Greg Lang, at which time Mr. Sullivan proposed an alternative to York's filing a bid protest. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Jackins that, in his opinion, the situation could best be handled through a meeting between Neel Mechanical, Mr. Jackins, Mr. Houston, and the project engineers. According to Mr. Sullivan's plan, Mr. Jackins could present York's pricing, and FAMU, with the engineers’ assistance, could decide if they wanted to switch from the equipment specified in the bid documents to York equipment. If FAMU agreed to accept the York equipment, then, if it were awarded the contract, Neel Mechanical would purchase the York equipment rather than the Trane equipment Neel Mechanical had included in its proposal. After some discussion, Mr. Jackins agreed with Mr. Sullivan's proposed solution. Post-bid activity from the perspective of Neel Mechanical Immediately after the bids were opened, Craig Allen, an employee of Bosek, Gibson telephoned Mr. Lang and asked if Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen stated that "this is a standard practice of mine on bid day to call the apparent low bidder and just make sure that they haven't found some colossal error in their math or whatever that made them low." 8/ Mr. Lang told Mr. Allen that Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. After this conversation, Mr. Lang waited for the letter from FAMU awarding the contract to Neel Mechanical. He was not concerned that the award was not made immediately because, in his experience, some time always passed between bid opening and the time the winning bidder received the contract. However, in anticipation of the award of the contract, Neel Mechanical proceeded to talk with subcontractors, to start scheduling the project, and to line up equipment that it would need to purchase for work on the project. Neel Mechanical employees also made several visits to the site of the project. At some point after the bids were opened, Mr. Sullivan heard that the procurement officials at FAMU were discussing with FAMU's legal department the issues of Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal to its bid and the ramifications of York’s threatened bid protest. Mr. Sullivan responded by telephoning the office of FAMU's general counsel. He spoke with Faye Boyce about these issues and told her that he considered his failure to affix the corporate seal to Neel Mechanical's bid to be insignificant. He also advised her that he had worked out an arrangement with the representative of York whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would talk with the engineers about the York chiller so a decision could be made whether they wanted to use the York equipment or stay with the Trane equipment which met the project specifications. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Boyce, Mr. Sullivan received the impression that she had looked into the issues he had raised in their previous telephone conversation. Mr. Sullivan could not recall Ms. Boyce's exact words, but had the impression from their conversation that the contract award to Neel Mechanical had been approved and that confirmation would be sent out shortly. At some point after Mr. Sullivan's conversation with Ms. Boyce, Greg Lang telephoned Henry Swift to find out the status of the contract award. Mr. Swift told Mr. Lang that, in Mr. Lang's words, "the problem had been reviewed and found to be insignificant, and . . . that the letter of intent to award had already been made." 9/ According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift told him that FAMU would notify the bidders of the intent to award the contract to Neel Mechanical. On the basis of this conversation, Mr. Lang believed that Neel Mechanical would receive a letter "just any day." When Neel Mechanical did not receive a letter, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Swift again. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift stated that he did not know why the matter was being held up. After this second conversation with Mr. Swift, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Houston several times but did not receive a return call. Mr. Lang then wrote a letter to Mr. Houston, dated July 9, 1999, in which he inquired about the status of the contract award: It has now been almost two months since you received bids for this project, and as the low bidder we have still not received notification of your intent to award. We have had several telephone conversations with the attorney representing the regents in this matter, and we were lead [sic] to believe that we would have received information before this time. Please review this matter and call us. If there are outstanding issues which concern you, we would like to know about them and work with you to get them resolved. Post-bid activity from the perspective of FAMU Mr. Houston and members of his staff considered the omission of the corporate seal to be a minor deficiency in Neel Mechanical's bid proposal. Nonetheless, even though Neel Mechanical had been allowed to seal the bid Proposal Form, Mr. Houston asked FAMU's Office of General Counsel to conduct research and determine if the deficiency was one that could be waived. Mr. Houston was not involved in drawing up the technical specifications for Project BR-389; rather, he relied on the project engineers to be familiar with the products to be used in the project. Mr. Houston advised the project engineers that he wanted a competitive bid, and, because the chiller was a major component of the project, he instructed the engineers to prepare specifications that could be met by equipment produced by at least two manufacturers. In a letter dated May 18, 1999, Craig Allen, the engineer at Bosek, Gibson who prepared the specifications for Project BR-389, notified Mr. Houston that he was not aware until the "notice of protest" was received from York that York could not provide a chiller of the required capacity which used R123 refrigerant. Mr. Allen advised Mr. Houston that Mr. Jackins, the York representative, had indicated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Allen to discuss York's chiller selections for the project. A recommendation that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical was signed on June 8, 1999, by Phyllis Nottage, the Assistant Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction; on June 10, 1999, by Mr. Houston; on June 14, 1999, by Louis Murray, an Associate Vice President of FAMU; and on June 14, 1999, by Robert Carroll, a Vice President of FAMU with supervisory authority over the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. The recommendation was contained in a document entitled "Award of Construction Contract," which provided as follows: On May 11, 1999, bids were received for the above-referenced project within the approved budget for the Base Bid and Alternates One (1) through (2), in the total amount of $3,996,400. The requirements for the Minority Business Enterprise Plan as set forth in the project specifications have been satisfied by the Contractor. The consulting Architect/Engineer and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office recommend the award of this contract to Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. President Humphries signed the Award of Construction Contract on June 17, 1999. The preparation and signing of the Award of Contract form and the preparation of the Letter of Intended Decision were part of the bid review process, but Mr. Houston considered them preliminary, without effect until the final decision on the contract award was made and the bidders were formally advised of FAMU's intended decision with respect to the award of the contract. On June 21, 1999, Mr. Houston received a telephone call from Kenneth Ogletree, Director of the Board of Regents’ Office of Facilities Planning, 10/ in which Mr. Houston was advised that the Board of Regents had received an inquiry from a legislator in reference to Project BR-389 and requesting that Mr. Houston prepare a response to the legislator's inquiry. Mr. Ogletree sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Carey Huff, President of Bayou Mechanical, to Durell Peaden, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and a State Representative from District In the letter, Mr. Huff complained that Neel Mechanical, although apparent low bidder for Project BR-389, had failed to seal the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond and that, therefore, Neel Mechanical's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Carey requested that Representative Peaden contact FAMU so that Bayou Mechanical would be awarded the contract for the project as lowest responsive bidder. Mr. Carey stated in his May 28, 1999, letter to Representative Peaden that the college had refused to allow Bayou Mechanical to examine Neel Mechanical's bid but that Mr. Houston had informed them that Neel Mechanical had failed to seal its bid properly. 11/ Mr. Ogletree also sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter from Representative Peaden to Dr. Adam W. Herbert, Chancellor of the State University System. In his letter, Representative Peaden asked that Dr. Herbert look into the matter and "see that all equity was followed in the bid process." In response to the Board of Regents' request that he respond to Representative Peaden's inquiry, Mr. Houston prepared a letter dated June 22, 1999. In this letter, which was directed to Mr. Ogletree, Mr. Houston stated that FAMU wished to award the contract for Project BR-389 to Neel Mechanical as the low bidder on the project. Mr. Houston stated that FAMU considered Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond to be a minor discrepancy. Mr. Houston further stated that FAMU's Office of General Counsel agreed with the conclusion regarding the corporate seal issue and recommended that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical. Finally, Mr. Houston advised Mr. Ogletree that President Humphries had signed the "Award of Construction Contract" form and that Mr. Houston's office was preparing "Letters of Intended Decision" to be sent to the bidders. The final decision on the contract award had not been made on June 10, 1999, when Mr. Houston signed the recommendation that the contract for Project BR-389 be awarded to Neel Mechanical, nor had it been made on June 22, 1999, when Mr. Houston wrote his letter to Mr. Ogletree. Rather, on June 22, 1999, the issues raised with respect to the bid process for Project BR-389 were still being reviewed by Mr. Houston and his staff and by FAMU's Office of General Counsel. The decision to reject all bids on Project BR-389 was made on June 24, 1999. On that date, Mr. Houston met with Vice President Murray, FAMU's attorney, and the Assistant Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction, and the issues relating to the bidding process for Project BR-389 were reviewed. Mr. Houston identified these issues as Neel Mechanical's failure to seal its bid Proposal Form and its Bid Bond; potential protests from York and from Bayou Mechanical; and the problem relating to the technical specifications for the chiller. Of these issues, Mr. Houston considered the most serious the fact that, of the two manufacturers listed in the bid specifications, only Trane could provide the chiller for Project BR-389. The chiller was a major part of the project, and Mr. Houston wanted at least two sources for the chiller in order to encourage competition so that FAMU would get the lowest possible price for the project. Mr. Houston was also concerned that the specifications for the chiller created a de facto "sole source" bid and that the bid solicitation would, therefore, be illegal because FAMU didn't satisfy the statutory requirements necessary for it to specify that the chiller be purchased from a sole source. 12/ FAMU's attorney advised the participants at the June 24, 1999, meeting that the legal department had found no precedent within the State University System for waiving the requirement in the bid documents that the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond be sealed with the bidder's corporate seal. The participants at the meeting considered all of the outstanding issues and decided that it would be in the best interests of FAMU to reject all bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. After the decision to reject all bids was made, Mr. Houston marked an "X" through the Award of Construction Contract form signed by President Humphries, and he prepared letters notifying the bidders of the intent to reject all bids for Project BR-389. Neel Mechanical's bid protest In a letter to Neel Mechanical dated July 6, 1999, Mr. Houston stated: Bids on the above referenced project were opened May 11, 1999. However, we regret to inform you that all Bids have been rejected as in the best interest of the University. This project is presently being re-advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University apologizes for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We trust that you will cooperate with our course of action and look forward to receiving a proposal from you at the next opening. Thanks for your continued interest in the State University System's Construction Program. The envelope containing Mr. Houston's July 6, 1999, letter was post-marked July 9, 1999, and the letter was received by Neel Mechanical on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: Rejection of Bids The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the Owner such rejection is in the best interest of the Owner. Paragraph B-1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides that the Board of Regents is the owner of the project. On July 13, 1999, after Neel Mechanical received the letter from Mr. Houston notifying it that all bids on Project BR- 389 had been rejected, Mr. Sullivan and Greg Lang went to Mr. Houston's office to urge him to rescind the decision and award the contract to Neel Mechanical. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Houston that they felt that the issue regarding the corporate seal was insignificant. At this time, Mr. Sullivan also told Mr. Houston that he and York had reached an agreement whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would present the York product to the University and let the University decide if it wanted to go with the Trane chiller or switch to a York product. Mr. Sullivan thought that Mr. Houston was sympathetic to Neel Mechanical but that the decision had been made by the administration and the legal department. Mr. Sullivan also got the impression that the decision to reject all bids was based on the corporate seal issue. On July 13, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Notice of Intent to Protest Bid to Samuel J. Houston, Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction at Florida A&M University and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. There is no dispute that the Notice of Intent to Protest Bid was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 13, 1999. On July 23, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings to Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. Also on July 23, 1999, a copy of the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was sent by United States Mail to the Board of Regents, Office of General Counsel, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1454, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950. There is no dispute that the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 23, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual dated October 16, 1989, provide: Bid Protest To be considered, a bid protest must be received by the Director, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1601 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, as provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Failure to file a notice of protest in this manner shall constitute a waiver of the Bidder's right to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. * * * B-26 Special Conditions Bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. (Emphasis added.) Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996, provides in pertinent part: (This supplement revises portions of the Project Manual for State University System projects dated October 16, 1989, and supersedes any other previously issued supplements related to the referenced topics.) Revise the Instructions to Bidders Section of the Project Manual as Follows: * * * Revise Paragraph B-22, Bid Protest, to read as follows: B-22 Bid Protest Any person who is affected adversely by the Board of Regents decision or intended decision shall file with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and State legal holidays, after receipt of the bidding documents if the protest is directed toward the bidding conditions or after the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision on contract award or bid rejection if the protest is directed toward contract award or bid rejection. Thereafter, a formal written protest by petition in compliance with Section 120.53(5), and Section 120.57, F.S., must be filed with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, within ten (10) days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Failure to file a timely notice of protest of [sic] failure to file a timely formal written protest petition shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. Any protest filed prior to receipt of the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision will be considered abandoned unless renewed within the time limit provided for protests. (Emphasis added.) Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5, provides in pertinent part: SUPPLEMENT TO PROJECT MANUAL ISSUED BY FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING PARAGRAPH B-26, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (February 1999 Revision) B-26 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - This supplement modifies paragraph B-26 by adding and clarifying bidding requirements and instructions. * * * PROTEST PROCEDURES: This paragraph supersedes the paragraph (No. B-22) under the general terms and conditions whereby the notice of intended protests or written formal protests including bonding requirements from bidders must be submitted to: Mr. Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, FL 32307. A bid tabulation with the recommended award(s) will be posted at the address indicated in Paragraph B-26, sub- paragraph 6 (Posting of Bid Tabulation). Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the award or intended award which is filed before the bid tabulation posting is null and void. To be considered, a notice of protest or formal written protest must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the specifications issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to any amendment issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added.) The instructions regarding the filing of bid protests in Supplement K supersede the instructions in Supplement J, which is dated February 13, 1996, and in the Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual, which are dated October 16, 1989. Summary The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is sufficient to establish that it timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings by hand-delivering the documents to Mr. Houston, at his office on the FAMU campus. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that FAMU acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in deciding that it was in the best interest of FAMU to reject all of the bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. First, FAMU's concerns that, by inadvertently including a technical specification that could be met by only one manufacturer, it had limited competition with respect to the chiller to be used in Project BR-389 and had inadvertently put out an illegal "sole source" specification were legitimate concerns. Mr. Houston instructed the engineer who prepared the technical specifications that he wanted the specifications drawn so that at least two manufacturers could provide the product, and the engineer prepared specifications relating to the "available manufacturers" which clearly contemplated that a chiller meeting the technical specifications could be provided by both York and Trane. FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered as one factor underlying the decision to reject all bids the lack of precedent in the State University System for waiving the requirement that the bid Proposal Form and Bid Bond carry the corporate seal of a corporate bidder. The evidence submitted by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the corporate seal issue was ultimately the only or even the major factor on which FAMU's decision to reject all bids was based. Mr. Houston identified the possibility that bid protests would be filed by York and by Bayou Mechanical as factors which FAMU considered in deciding to reject all bids. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as a whole permits the inference that the focus of the concern about the potential bid protests was not on avoiding the protests but on the validity of the issues raised by York and Bayou Mechanical. Accordingly, FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered these potential bid protests as one factor contributing to the decision to reject all bids. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish that the "Award of Contract" form executed by President Humphries on June 17, 1999, or Mr. Houston’s June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Ogletree bound FAMU to award the contract to Neel Mechanical or that the subsequent decision to reject all bids defeated the purpose of the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and denying Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's bid protest should be dismissed for failure to state with specificity the underlying facts of the protest or facts sufficient to form a basis for a bid protest.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed a bid protest of Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 13- 550-002-A for raised pavement markers. Petitioner was disqualified from award of the bid due to the failure to meet the requirement that the products bid must be on the Florida Department of Transportation Qualified Products List at the time of the bid opening. Petitioner's Formal Protest contains no specific allegations of fact and as such is not in conformance with Rule 60Q-2.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 20, 1995, the Hearing Officer, sua sponte, entered an order requiring Petitioner to file an amended Formal Protest stating with specificity the facts and law which form the basis for its protest. The document filed by Petitioner in response to the order in essence: States there are on-going discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation, ("FDOT") District V Secretary and the Florida Department of Transportation Secretary that should preempt any further litigation. Complains that Section 316.0745(4), of the Florida Statutes is being improperly interpreted by FDOT so that the State is being forced to purchase a highway safety product at a cost far in excess of prudent purchasing practices. Alleges that the Petitioner meets all the qualifications of laboratory and field testing required by the Florida Department of Transportation Materials Laboratory . . . The formal protest filed in this case by Pac-Tec does not provide such notice to the Department of Management Services. Therefore the Department of Management Services cannot prepare an adequate defense to the protest. The response does not cure the deficiencies in the formal protest.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order dismissing the Formal Protest filed by Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy Horne, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 279 Astor, Florida 32101 Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services under Invitation to Bid No. 12-039T – Refuse Services (the ITB) Respondent School Board of Broward County, Florida (the School Board) acted contrary to a governing statute rule policy or project specification; and if so whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition. Specifically, Petitioner Ace Waste Services, LLC (Petitioner) challenges the determination that the bids submitted by the apparent low bidder, the apparent low second low bidder, and the apparent low third low bidder were responsive and responsible bids meeting the specifications contained in the ITB.
Findings Of Fact School Board Policy 3320 entitled "Purchasing Policies" is the agency's rule governing the purchasing of goods and services. On October 7, 2011, the School Board issued the ITB which was entitled "Refuse Services." On October 18, 2011, the School Board issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITB. The refuse services were to be provided to 58 district school sites, which were collectively referred to as Group 1. The Bidder Acknowledgement found at Section 1.0 of the ITB states in pertinent part as follows: I agree to complete and unconditional acceptance of this bid all appendices and contents of any Addenda released hereto; I agree to be bound to all specifications terms and conditions contained in this ITB . . .. I agree that this bid cannot be withdrawn within 90 days from due date. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 3(b): MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications delivery schedules bid prices and extensions and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services. Failure to do so will be at Bidder's risk. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 35: PROTESTING OF BID CONDITIONS/SPECIFICATIONS: Any person desiring to protest the conditions/specifications of this Bid/RFP or any Addenda subsequently released thereto shall file a notice of intent to protest in writing within 72 consecutive hours after electronic release of the competitive solicitation or Addendum and shall file a formal written protest with ten calendar days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Saturdays Sundays legal holidays or days during which the school district administration is closed shall be excluded in the computation of the 72 consecutive hours. If the tenth calendar day falls on a Saturday Sunday legal holiday or day during which the school district administration is closed the formal written protest must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. ET of the next calendar day that is not a Saturday Sunday legal holiday or days during which the school district administration is closed. Section 120.57(3)(b) Florida Statutes as currently enacted or as amended from time to time states that "The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based." Failure to file a notice of protest or to file a formal written protest within the time prescribed by [section 120.57(3)(b)] or a failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter 120]. The failure to post the bond required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI within the time prescribed by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI as currently enacted or as amended from time to time shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter 120]. Notices of protest formal written protests and the bonds required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI shall be filed at the office of the Director of Supply Management and Logistics 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 323 Sunrise, Florida 33351 (fax 754-321-0936). Fax filing will not be acceptable for the filing of bonds required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 36: POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS: Any person who files an action protesting an intended decision shall post with the School Board at the time of filing the formal written protest a bond payable to the School Board of Broward County Florida in an amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Board's estimate of the total volume of the contract. The School Board shall provide the estimated contract amount to the vendor within 72 hours excluding Saturdays Sundays legal holidays and other days during which the School Board administration is closed of receipt of notice of intent to protest. The estimated contract amount shall be established on the award recommendation as the "contract award amount." The estimated contract amount is not subject to protest pursuant to [section 120.57(3)]. The bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against the protestant in an Administrative Hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond the School Board may accept a cashier's check official bank check or money order in the amount of the bond. If after completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings the School Board prevails the School Board shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or judgment including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings but excluding attorney's fees. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protestant the bond shall be returned. If the protestant prevails then the protestant shall recover from the Board all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or judgment excluding attorney's fees. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 1: INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE: The School Board of Broward County Florida (hereinafter referred to as "SBBC") desires bids on REFUSE SERVICES for solid waste removal as specified herein. Prices quoted shall include pick up at various schools departments and centers within Broward County Florida. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 3: AWARD: In order to meet the needs of SBBC Bid shall be awarded in its entirety to one primary and one alternate responsive and responsible Bidders meeting specifications terms and conditions. The lowest Awardee shall be considered the primary vendor and should receive the largest volume of work. Therefore it is necessary to bid on every item in the group and all items (1-58) in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC reserves the right to procure services from the alternate Awardee if: the lowest Bidder cannot comply with service requirements or specifications; in cases of emergency; it is in the best interest of SBBC. After award of this bid any Awardee who violates any specification term or condition of this bid can be found in default of its contract have its contract canceled be subject to the payment of liquidated damages and be removed from the bid list and not be eligible to do business with this School Board for two years as described in General Conditions 22 and 55. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 7: ADDING OR DELETING SITES: SBBC may during the term of the contract add or delete service wholly or in part at any SBBC location. When seeking to add a location SBBC shall request a quote from both Awardees. The lowest Bidder shall receive an award for the additional location. If additional service is requested for an existing site already receiving service the current service provider will be contacted to provide a new quote based on the pricing formula submitted in response to this ITB or a subsequent quote. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 11: RECEPTACLES: The Awardee shall furnish receptacles in good repair. . . .The Awardee shall furnish any and all equipment materials supplies and all other labor and personnel necessary for the performance of its obligations under this contract. Design of all equipment is subject to the approval of the Manager Energy Conservation Utility Management or his designee and must be replaced upon notification without additional cost to SBBC. DESCRIPTION: All receptacles used for solid waste referenced in Group 1 on the Bid Summary Sheets and the Tamarac location listed in Section 5 Additional Information unless otherwise indicated shall be provided by the Awardee at no additional cost. Bin receptacles shall be provided for SBBC use in the cubic yard capacities as indicated on the Bid Summary Sheets. Receptacles shall be bin-type units steel or plastic lift-up lids NO SIDE DOORS unless specifically requested for 8 cu. yd. fitted for automatic loading on casters where necessary for chute operations. (Receptacles not on casters must have a 6" – 12" clearance from ground to bottom of bin for easy cleaning underneath.) TWO AND THREE YARD CONTAINERS: It will be necessary for The Awardee to supply the two (2) and three (3) yard containers to hold compacted refuse at a ratio of approximately 4:1. These containers are designed for front-end loading. THESE UNITS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE BID SUMMARY SHEET BY A SINGLE ASTERISK (*) NEXT TO THE CONTAINER SIZE. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 20: SMALL IN-HOUSE COMPACTION UNITS(approximately two yards): The following schools have in-house compaction units which will need to be provided by the Awardee. Waste is compacted at an approximate ratio of 3:1. Collins Elementary Oakridge Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Revised Special Condition 14: PRICING – ALL INCLUSIVE COST GROUP 1 ITEMS 1– 58: Bidder shall submit fixed monthly costs where indicated on the Bid Summary Sheets for each location based on 4.33 weeks per month. (This number is derived by dividing 52 weeks by 12 months). Monthly costs stated shall be an all-inclusive cost for providing receptacles refuse removal and disposal including but not limited to all necessary labor services material equipment taxes tariffs franchise fees maintenance and applicable fees. SBBC agrees to pay the Broward County Disposal Adjustment (tipping fees) in effect at the time. Increases to this fee will be paid as assessed by Broward County. Any decreases in these rates shall be passed on to SBBC as well. No bid specification protest was filed by any person concerning the original ITB or Addendum No. 1. Nine companies submitted timely responses to the ITB. Each bidder submitted a monthly bid and an annual bid. The School Board thereafter ranked the respective bids. Intervenor was the apparent low bidder with a monthly bid of $39,576 and an annual bid of $474,918.38. All Service was the apparent second low bidder with a monthly bid of $40,540.90 and an annual bid of $486,490.80. WSI was the apparent third low bidder with a monthly bid of $47,671.71 and an annual bid of $572,060.52. Petitioner was the apparent fourth low bidder with a monthly bid of $50,177.73 and an annual bid of $602,132.76. On November 2, 2011, the School Board's Purchasing Department posted the agency's intended recommendation for award of the ITB. The intended decision was (A) to award to Intervenor as the primary vendor for Group 1 (1 through 58); and (B) to award to All Service as the first alternate for Group 1 (1 through 58). On November 4, 2011, Petitioner timely filed its Notice of Protest with the School Board's Purchasing Department. On November 14, 2011, Petitioner timely filed its Formal Bid Protest with the School Board's Purchasing Department and delivered the required bid protest bond. The School Board formed a Bid Protest Committee that met with Petitioner on December 19, 2011, to consider Petitioner's formal written protest in accordance with section 120.57(3)(d)(1) and School Board Policy 3320. The parties were unable to resolve the protest by mutual agreement and the School Board sent Petitioner a notice of non-resolution of dispute. Section 1 of the ITB precludes a bidder from withdrawing its bid within 90 days of its submission to the School Board. At the time of the formal hearing 106 days had passed since the submission of bids. No bidder, including Intervenor, has indicated that it committed an error in calculating its prices submitted under the ITB or asked the School Board to excuse it from the prices it offered under the ITB. To the contrary, Intervenor's counsel represented at the formal hearing that Intervenor was standing by its bid. Generally, compacted waste is heavier and more expensive to dispose of than non-compacted waste. The ITB identifies the number and size (in cubic yards) of the receptacles to be placed at each location and the number of pick-ups per weeks to occur for each receptacle. The ITB also informs the bidders whether a receptacle was compacted or non-compacted. If compacted the ITB set forth the ratio of compaction. Bidders were also asked to bid a monthly cost and any applicable fees charged by the facility receiving the waste to arrive at total monthly cost for each receptacle to be furnished. The bidders were required to provide a total monthly bid for the services and a total annual bid for the services. The bidders were to use the information set forth in the ITB to calculate their bids. Petitioner asserts that the bids submitted by Intervenor, All Service, and WSI were not responsible bids because those bids failed to factor in the higher costs of disposing of waste that had been compacted. Petitioner contends that the reference to compaction ratios constitute specifications by the School Board to require all bidders to calculate their pricing utilizing the compaction ratios. Petitioner describes the referenced compaction ratios as "multipliers" that needed to be used by the bidders in calculating their prices for handling and disposing of compacted waste. Petitioner is seeking to impose its interpretation of the ITB as requiring each of the bidders to calculate its bid using the same pricing methodology that Petitioner employed. There is no ambiguity in the ITB, and there is no factual basis to conclude that all bidders were required to prepare their bids in the same fashion as Petitioner. There is nothing set forth in the ITB that required the School Board to interpret its reference to the compaction ratios as being a specification of a "multiplier" for pricing as opposed to a description of the capacity of the receptacles to be used at each of the school locations. At no point is the word "multiplier" used in the ITB to specify that the bidders were required to engage in mathematics involving multiplying their prices against some unit price the bidders were specifying in their bids. The ITB specifies the frequency with which the varying container sizes needed to be picked up at each of the 58 schools with the weight or volume of the container not being a factor in setting the specification of how often the container is to be picked up by the awardee. No adjustments were to be made to the prices paid by the School Board based on the weight of the container when removed. The School Board did not specify in the ITB that a bidder was required to charge the same monthly cost at each school for a similarly-sized refuse container nor did the School Board require different pricing for compacted waste as compared to non-compacted waste. Petitioner's assertion that the bidders were required to use those ratios as a multiplier when bidding on the cost of disposing of compacted waste is rejected as being contrary to the plain language of the ITB. The compaction ratios were provided to the bidders as information only. There is no requirement that a bidder use a particular methodology in determining its bid amounts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County Florida enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, dismisses the protest filed by Petitioner Ace Waste Services LLC, and upholds the award of the procurement to Choice as primary awardee and to All Service as alternate awardee. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March 2012, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. S Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March 2012.
