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.
The Issue This case is a bid protest filed by Petitioner, L. Cobb Construction ("Cobb"), to contest the award of a contract by Respondent, Hardee County School Board ("School Board"), to another bidder to the exclusion of Cobb. The issue is whether Cobb's bid was responsive to the bid criteria; and whether the School Board's award of the bid to another party should be deemed clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, including the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Cobb is a construction company with decades of experience and has been involved with projects for the School Board in the past. The School Board is responsible for bidding out all construction projects and must determine the best qualified bidder at the lowest price. The parties agreed to the following facts as set forth in their Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: A "Bid Proposal for Roof Removal and Replacement" advertisement was placed in the Herald-Advocate newspaper on October 21, 2010. (The roof replacement will be referred to herein as the "Project.") A mandatory pre-bid meeting at Wauchula Elementary was held for potential roofing contractors on October 29, 2010. The meeting was led by roofing consultant Scott Bonk and Associates ("Bonk"). The School Board received Cobb's bid on the Project at 12:34 p.m., on November 15, 2010. School Board officials began opening all bids for the Project at 1:00 p.m., on November 15, 2010. Project bids were received from Cobb, Advanced Roofing, Crowther Roofing, Hamilton Roofing, Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal, Southern Roofing, and THL Roofing. Bonk was present at the time the bids were opened. Bonk sent an email to Rob Krahl on November 16, 2010, concerning Cobb and Latite's bids. Bonk advised Krahl that the Cobb bid did not meet the specified components, but that the Latite bid met all components and timeframes for the Project. Bonk recommended Latite as contractor for the Project. The School Board approved the recommendation of Latite, whose bid was $152,065 for the replacement of the roofs on building Nos. 5 (the exceptional student education or "ESE" building) and 6 (the media center). On November 17, 2010, Deputy Superintendent Woody Caligan faxed School Board Policy 6.07(5), entitled Bid Disputes and Procedures, to Cobb. A Notice to Proceed letter was faxed to Bonk on the same date, authorizing Latite to commence the Project. A denial letter was also faxed to each of the other bidders. On November 18, 2010, Cobb hand-delivered a Notice of Protest to Rob Krahl at the School Board. On November 26, 2010, Cobb mailed a cover letter and three original Letters of Protest, along with a cashier's check for the protest bond, to Rob Krahl. On November 29, 2010, Cobb faxed a copy of proof of postage, School Board Rule 6.07(5), its Letter of Protest, and a copy of its previously-issued cashier's check to Wood Caligan after Caligan indicated that he had not received the mailed version. The School Board is the governing entity of the school district of Hardee County, Florida. David Durastanti is the superintendent of schools for Hardee County; Woody Caligan is the deputy superintendent. Rob Krahl is an employee of the School Board and is responsible for facilities and construction projects for the school system. Barbara Spears is a School Board employee serving under Krahl. Joann McCray serves as secretary to the superintendent. Greg Harrelson is the chief financial officer for the school district. Harrelson's duties include the receipt, review and award of bids for the school district. A document entitled, "Project Manual," was issued by Bonk relative to the request for bids on the Project. The Project Manual contained the specifications for the Project, including a section entitled, "Bid Form" (comprised of pages 20 through 22). The Bid Form is the critical portion of the Project Manual for purposes of the instant proceeding. The Bid Form had several blanks to be filled in by the bidding party. The bidder was to fill in the contractor's name, a projected cost for the replacement of both roofs (the ESE building and the media center), a total cost line, a line for the amount of the payment, and a line for the performance bond amount. Following those blanks, there was a section that forms the crux of the dispute in this case. That section provided a space for identification of materials proposed by each bidder. It appeared as follows: The base bid price is based on the following: Manufacturer's Name Base Sheet Intermediate Ply Granulated Ply Insulation Manufacturer The responses by Cobb to this section of the Bid Form were deemed inappropriate by Bonk. Latite's responses to this section were deemed appropriate and compliant with the bid requirements. Cobb's responses were as follows: Manufacturer's Name: GAF Base Sheet: GAF-Ruberoid Modified Base Intermediate Ply: GAF-Ruberoid Granulated Ply: GAF-Ruberoid Mop Plus Insulation Manufacturer: GAF Latite's responses were as follows: Manufacturer's Name: Soprema Base Sheet: Sopra 6 Intermediate Ply: Elastophene 180 Sanded Granulated Ply: Elastophene FR 6R Insulation Manufacturer: GAF (Made by Atlas) These responses indicate the primary differences between Cobb and Latite's bids. Another important factor (and distinction between Cobb and Latite's bids) was the roof insulation material proposed by each. Cobb proposed using Perlite; Latite proposed Sopra Board. These will be discussed more fully herein. GAF, referenced by both Cobb and Latite in their responses, is the largest roofing manufacturer in the United States. The company is 125 years old and is based in Wayne, New Jersey. A representative of GAF testified at final hearing. At about the time bids were submitted for the Project, a representative from Bonk's office called GAF to discuss specifications about various GAF products. There were at least two conversations, one of which was generic in nature and one which somewhat addressed the Project specifically. Bonk determined from the discussions with GAF that neither the Ruberoid Mop Plus proposed by Cobb for its granulated ply, nor the Ruberoid Modified Base Sheet portion of the bid was available in Florida. Further, Bonk learned that the Perlite product proposed for the roof insulation by Cobb was inferior to the Sopra Board proposed by Latite. A letter setting forth his findings was sent to the School Board on November 16, 2010. The Project Manual set forth certain specifications to be used by bidders concerning materials to be used for the Project. The roofing system specifications contained a direction that "[s]hould Soprema products be used, the following membrane sheets are required," and then went on to list the various products that could be used. Latite proposed the use of Soprema products and most of its materials were Soprema brand (except for its insulation, where a GAF brand product was proposed). Cobb, on the other hand, bid GAF products for each of the major Project components. By using Soprema products, Latite ensured compliance with the basic specifications set forth in the Project Manual. Generally a project bid sheet will contain an ASTM product code number which allows contractors to look at comparable materials from different manufacturers. The Project Manual in this case did not include ASTM codes. Any bidder proposing to use materials made by a company other than Soprema, therefore, would be required to independently determine comparability with the Soprema brand product. Cobb's proposed materials list included non-Soprema manufactured products. The GAF products proposed by Cobb may generally have been comparable to the Soprema products, but the evidence is not persuasive as to that fact. Although the GAF representative testified that its products were of high quality and would likely satisfy the requirements for the Project, there was some question as to whether the items set forth by Cobb in its bid were sufficiently described. Bonk made some inquiry into the matter by contacting GAF, but the hearsay and nebulous nature of those discussions does not provide sufficient detail for formulation of a finding of fact as to whether the products were of comparable quality. Cobb proposed a product for the top membrane ply that was constructed using polyester material. The Project Manual called for ply with fiberglass construction. Both are quality products, but the polyester material has a tendency to shrink, especially if it is installed incorrectly. Of the six other entities submitting a bid for the Project, all of them proposed use of Soprema products or materials that were deemed equal in quality. Cobb's bid was the only bidder whose proposed products were deemed insufficient. One other bidder was also rejected due to time frame issues. None of the other bidders filed a protest or challenged the final decision of the School Board. The School Board's stated rationale for rejection of Cobb's bid was that the generic description of Cobb's proposed building materials made it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether they met the standards set forth in the Project Manual. This rationale is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is based on sound reasoning. Cobb's bid, although more generic than the School Board would have liked, was nonetheless a viable bid. Cobb would have been able to explain and make his bid more specific had he been given the opportunity. However, the School Board did not owe Cobb the right to alter, amend, or explain its bid more fully after the bid process was complete. To do so would give Cobb an inequitable advantage, vis-à-vis, the competing bidders. It is very likely that Cobb could effectively and professionally complete work on the Project. However, its bid was not exactly in accordance with the requirements of the Project Manual and was justifiably rejected in favor of Latite's bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Hardee County School Board, upholding its award of the contract to Latite Roofing Company and denying the protest by Petitioner, L. Cobb Construction. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984 Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "the Department") has served as the distributing agency for United States Department of Agriculture surplus foods to be distributed to needy people in the State of Florida. These foods are butter, processed cheese, non-fat dry milk, cornmeal, rice, flour, and honey. The Department contracts with companies in the food storage and distribution business-to store the surplus food and distribute it to emergency feeding organizations. The emergency feeding organizations then distribute the food to needy persons. Each year the Department enters into contracts for various regions within the State. Petitioner Wales Industries, Inc. (hereinafter "Wales"), Intervenor Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses, Ltd. (hereinafter "Mid-Florida"); and Gulf Cargo Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Gulf Cargo"); have all been awarded contracts with the Department over the years for storage and distribution of the surplus foods in the various regions of the State. On or about June 12, 1987, the Department issued an Invitation for Bid (hereinafter "IFB 87-1") which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on July 10, 1987 for a contract for the storage and distribution of the surplus foods for the period of October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. A bidder under IFB 87-1 would be required to store the above-described commodities in dry, chilled, and frozen storage. The provider must also be able to ship the commodities under dry, chilled, and frozen conditions to emergency feeding organizations throughout the state. The bid evaluation criteria set forth in Paragraph E of IFB 87-1 provide, in part, as follows: c. The bid will be awarded to the Bidder submitting the lowest delivered price per CWT for dry, cold, and frozen donated foods inclusive for each Region, combination of regions, or statewide as bid. The bid price for pick-up at the Provider's warehouse is informational, but is not a consideration in award of the bid. Paragraph numbered eight of the General Conditions of IFB 87-1 notifies actual or prospective bidders who dispute the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions therein or of the bid selection or contract award recommendation that they must file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, or be deemed to have waived their right to do so. IFB 87-1 included an estimate of the number of cases and weights of commodities to be handled by a provider per region. This information was characterized as "History of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" but this characterization was amended to "Estimates of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" by letter of amendment dated June 18, 1987. IFB 87-1 provides elsewhere that these distribution rates are subject to change. By further letter of amendment dated June 23, 1987, the Department notified prospective bidders that bids based upon combinations of regions were acceptable, and revised bid sheets with blanks for the dollar bid for each of the three types of commodities were provided to prospective bidders with the letter of amendment. On June 26; 1987; the Department conducted a bidder's conference for IFB 87-1. Representatives from Wales and Mid-Florida attended the bidder's conference and asked questions of the Department's representatives concerning IFB 87-1. Wales, Mid-Florida, and Gulf Cargo (among others) submitted sealed bids by the deadline at 2:00 p.m., July 10, 1987. Gulf Cargo submitted a bid for Region I only. Wales submitted individual bids for each of Regions I through VI. Mid- Florida submitted individual bids for Regions II through VI and two bids combining various regions except for Region I. Gulf Cargo was awarded a contract for Region I, and Mid-Florida was awarded a contract based on its combined bid for Regions II through VI. The bid awards were announced on July 17, 1987. Wales' notice of intent to file formal written protest is dated July 23, 1987. Wales filed its formal written protest on July 31, 1987. The volume and type of surplus foods distributed through the program is solely dependent upon the commodities made available to the Department by the federal government. There is no guarantee that the State of Florida will receive any particular amount or mix of the commodities distributed through the program. Therefore, the data supplied by the Department to prospective bidders regarding the volume and type of surplus foods to be stored and distributed is based upon actual historical data and is the most accurate data available. Neither IFB 87-1 nor the contracts for previous years under this program guarantee the successful bidder any amount of revenue or any volume of goods to be handled. The method of bid evaluation that was set forth in IFB 87-1, which was emphasized at the bidder's conference, and which was memorialized in the Department's June 29, 1987 listing of questions and answers from the bidder's conference and sent to all prospective bidders was the same the Department would average the bid prices for each type of commodity, i.e., frozen, dry and chilled. The averaging method utilized results in the lowest cost accruing to Use State and actually resulted in a lower bid price for the 1987-88 contracts than the 1986-87 contracts. The actual cost to a provider of storing and transporting frozen, chilled, and dried commodities varies according to the facilities and equipment owned by each prospective bidder. The averaging method utilized by the Department for IFB 87-1 permits bidders to develop competitive bids based upon the bidder's individual costs, storage facilities and equipment; and the bidder's anticipation of the volumes and types of commodities likely to be received from the federal government. The information provided in IFB 87-1 as to drop sites for delivery by the providers was sufficient for prospective bidders to develop competitive bids. The requirement contained in IFB 87-1 that the provider would be responsible for providing off-loading facilities in Dade, Broward, and Duval counties did not prevent the formulation of competitive bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest filed by Wales Industries Inc.; awarding the 1987-88 contract for Region I to Gulf Cargo Services, Inc.; and awarding the 1987-88 contract for Regions II-VI to Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses Ltd. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3317BID The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, the Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Mid-Florida's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-15 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; Wales' proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause; and Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 5-8, 10, and 11 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Powers Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Martin R. Dix Esquire Barnett Bank Building Suite 800 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32399-0700 Harold T. Bistline Esquire Building 1, Suite 10 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The Issue in this case is whether the subject bid protest should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1991, Respondent issued Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, Apopka School, Apopka, Florida. The specifications were contained in a spiral-bound book, which contained bidding and contract requirements and technical descriptions of mechanical systems and electrical systems. A set of drawings dated January 22, 1991, accompanied the spiral-bound book. Collectively, these documents constitute the invitation to bid (ITB). 1/ The ITB announced that Respondent would receive bids for the replacement of air conditioning and related systems until February 11, 1991, which evidently was later extended to February 19. The ITB scheduled a pre-bid conference on January 31, 1991. Section A-3.6 of the ITB provides: For clarity of description and as a of comparison, certain equipment, materials, etc., have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base his Proposal on the particular system, equipment or material specified. After the contract is let, other equipment, materials, etc., as manufactured by other manufacturers may be accepted only if, in the opinion of the Engineer, same is equivalent in quality and workmanship and will perform satisfactorily in its intended purpose. Section A-3.8 of the ITB states: Except as provided in Paragraph A3.(3, above each bidder represents that his bid is based upon the materials and equipment described in the [ITB]. Prior approval of substitution of other materials and equipment will be considered if written request is submitted to the Engineer for approval at least twelve days prior to the date for receipt of bids. If the Engineer approves any such proposed substitution, such approval will be set forth in an Addendum and will be forwarded to all bidders . . .. If any bidder is unable to procure written approval of any substitution from the Engineer prior to the opening of bids, he shall base his bid on the Exact items specified; if said bidder wishes to bid substitutes, he must then do so as alternates to the base bid, and so note. Each such alternate submitted shall include a complete description of the proposed substitute, the material or equipment for which it is to be substituted, drawings, cut sheets, performance or test data other data or information necessary for a complete evaluation. If additional information is required by the engineer for a complete evaluation, in his sole judgment, the Contractor shall submit such additional information as required within five (5) days of such notification, or the Alternate will not be considered. Alternates requested on the Bid Proposal Form which are approved for construction will be incorporated into the contract with the successful bidder. Alternates offered by the Bidder may be accepted and incorporated into the contract with the successful bidder. Any Substitutions which are felt by the Bidder to offer significant additional value and advantage to the Owner are encouraged to be submitted as Alternates with the Bid Proposals. Section A-14.1 contains the bid form. The first blanks are reserved for the Base Bid. Alternate #1 is for the installation of a variable air volume system, which permits localized control of air flow and temperature. Alternate #2 is for reciprocating chillers. The remaining alternates are irrelevant to this case. The bid form states that Respondent may "award such alternates that in its judgment will be for the best interest of [Respondent]." Section 1.01 of the General Requirements, which are part of the ITB, describe the work of the contract as Installing "nominal 200 ton air cooled reciprocating chillers" and related equipment. Section 1.03 A. of the Basic Mechanical Requirements, which are part of the ITB, states that the "plans and specifications are a general description of the work to be performed." Sections 2.01 under "Pumps" and "Motor," which are parts of the ITB, list several "acceptable manufactuiers" for pumps and motors. Elsewhere the ITB also lists varibus acceptable manufacturers for different types of equipment. Sometimes, as in the case of motors, the specifications describing the particular item of equipment expressly allow substitutions upon "prior approval of required submittal data by Engineer." Sometimes, as in the case of pumps, the specifications describing the particular item of eguipment are silent as to substitutes. Section 2.01 of Air Cooled Water Chillers, which is part of the ITB, describes "acceptable manufacturers" as follows: Base Bid: Bohn Heat Transfer/Wickes Manufacturing Co., air cooled screw chilled. Alternate Bid: Carrier Corp, air cooled reciprocating chiller. Other Alternates: Only as approved by Engineer. Section 2.02 B. requires that the contractor provide "three (3) nominal 200 ton air cooled water chillers" meeting certain technical specifications not relevant to this case. Section 2.03 A. sets forth requirements for reciprocating chillers, and Section 2.03 B. sets forth requirements for screw chillers. On page M-8 of the drawings included in the ITB, the "air cooled chiller schedule" notes "Bohn" as the manufacturer and provides a model number for the Bohn chiller. The schedule states that the cooling capacity of the chiller is 194.7 tons. The cooling capacity stated in the schedule was intended to describe the cooling capacity of the Bohn model air chiller noted in the schedule. The capacity of a chiller depends upon various factors, including ambient air temperature. Under certain operating conditions, the Bohn chiller noted IA the schedule operates at a 200 ton capacity, and no evidence suggests that this model chiller was not a nominal 200 ton chiller. General Note 13 on page M-7 of the drawings states: This contractor shall base his proposal upon the equipment as scheduled or specified, using the manufacturers and model numbers as called for in the specification and scheduled on the drawings. (Add alternate design is separate). If more than one manufacturer of equipment is specified, any one of the manufacturers of equipment may be used in this contractor's proposal. If this contractor wishes to use equipment not specified he must, at the time of bidding, submit separately on letterhead stationery of the bidder, the equipment he would substitute and the cost to be added or deducted from his proposal. On February 11, 1991, Respondent issued Addendum #2 to the ITB. 2/ Among other things, Addendum #2 adds to Section 2.01 A. of Air Cooled Water Chillers: "ADD Trane Co. Model No. RTAA-200 as an approved Base Bid unit for the air cooled screw chillers. Petitioner picked up the ITB on February 18, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted timely bids by the deadline of February 19. Each bidder was qualified and each bid was responsive. 3/ Petitioner's base bid was $1,539,000. Alternate #1, which was the variable air volume system, added $120,307. Alternate #2, which was the reciprocating chiller, subtracted $41,424. Next to Alternate #2 on the form, Petitioner wrote in, "Carrier." With Alternate #1 only, Petitioner's bid was $1,659,307. Alternate #1 and 2 were $1,617,883. With Alternate #2 only, Petitioner's bid was $1,497,576. Intervenor's base bid was $1,547,300. Alternate #1 added $109,000. Alternate #2 subtracted $25,000. With Alternate #1 only, Intervenor's bid was $1,656,300. Alternate - 1 and 2 were $1,631,300. With Alternate #2 only, Intervenor's bid was $1,522,300. Following review of the bids, Respondent's Engineer sent a letter dated February 25, 1991, to Respondent's director of construction. The letter recommends the acceptance of Alternate #1 because the cost is within Respondent's budget and the benefit of increased comfort is worth the cost. The Engineer's letter also recommends that Alternate #2 (as well as Alternate #3 regarding a certain type of dampers) be rejected. The letter explains: "Discussions with [Respondent's] personnel in the days prior to bid time indicate that the use of these chillers has liabilities attached (principally noise and maintenance requirements) in excess of the savings in first cost. The Engineer's letter concludes that Respondent should award the contract to Intervenor because of its apparent low bid of $1,656,300 on the Base Bid with Alternate #1. The Engineer notes that the award would result in the installation of an "essentially identical system" as that installed in another high school in the district, which would save costs in training and parts inventory. Following Respondent's decision to award the contract to Intervenor, Petitioner timely filed a written protest and formal written protest concerning Respondent's intended decision to award the contract to Intervenor. Although the record is not entirely clear, it does not appear that Petitioner filed, within three days of receipt of the ITB, a written protest of the specifications. A chiller cools water used for air conditioning. An important part of the chiller is the compressor. The reciprocating compressor operates with pistons in a back-and- forth movement. The screw compressor operates with a screw that churns continually in one direction. Reciprocating compressors, which are the older technology, contain more components, including motors, than the screw compressors, which have been available for abort ten years. The life expectancy of the screw compressor is about three to four years longer than that of the reciprocating compressor. Evidently, little data are yet available comparing the life cycle costs of the reciprocating and screw air chillers. Given the mechanical actions and numbers of parts of the compressors, as well as Respondent's experience with, screw compressors, Respondent's projection of lower costs with the screw chiller is not unreasonable. Respondent included the reciprocating chiller alternate in the ITB because of concerns that the project would cost more than Respondent had available to spend. The same motivation prompted the inclusion of Alternate #1 for the variable air volume system. Once the bids were received, Respondent determined that it could afford the enhancements of a screw chiller and variable air volume system and consequently selected the lowest bid for this package.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Lake Plumbing, Inc. ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Intervenor was properly qualified to complete the construction project contemplated by Invitation to Bid No. DCF-03211120 (ITB)
Findings Of Fact The Department issued the ITB for a construction project, involving the re-roofing of Buildings 1 and 2 at 12195 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida. The ITB was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 24, 2008. The ITB outlined the terms and conditions for responsive bids. The ITB indicated, among other things, that all sealed bids were required to be submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, by January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. Leo Development submitted its sealed bid at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. FBM submitted its sealed bid by the date and time, but at a different location—the offices of Russell Partnership— contrary to the ITB. All other bidders submitted their sealed bids at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. The Department’s architect of record on the project, Russell Partnership, and one of its principals, Terry Holt, performed the examination and bid tabulation. Mr. Holt, a registered architect for approximately 36 years, was very familiar with the procurement process and had extensive experience in determining whether a bidder was licensed by DBPR in order to complete the work contemplated for a project. The sealed bids submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, on or before January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. were as follows: All Time Roofing, with a bid of $73,400.00; Taylor Roofing, with a bid of $59,708.00; Leo Development, with a bid of $54,109.00; John W. Hunter Enterprises, with a bid of $75,000.00; and Trintec Construction, with a bid of $75,500.00. 9. FBM’s bid was $71,600.00. Mr. Holt determined that Leo Development was the lowest bidder. FBM’s bid was not considered as being non-responsive. Additionally, Mr. Holt reviewed Leo Development’s website to ascertain as to whether any factors existed to disqualify Leo Development. The website failed to reveal any basis for Mr. Holt to disqualify Leo Development. Having discovered no basis to disqualify Leo Development as the lowest bidder, Mr. Holt submitted the list of bidders, with their bids, to Bill Bridges, the Department’s senior architect and a registered architect for approximately 25 years. Mr. Bridges was the person responsible for oversight of the ITB process. As Leo Development was the lowest bidder, Mr. Bridges reviewed the website of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (Division of Corporations) in order to ensure that Leo Development was registered with the Division of Corporations. His review revealed that Leo Development was a fictitious name properly registered to Leo Premier Homes, LLC. Further, Mr. Bridges performed a license background check on Leo Development in order to ensure that Leo Development was licensed by DBPR. Mr. Bridges reviewed DBPR’s website, which revealed that Frank Anthony Leo was the owner of Leo Development and that the following licenses were issued by DBPR: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Development; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development. Mr. Bridges confirmed and was satisfied that Leo Development was properly licensed to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Mr. Bridges recommended that Leo Development be awarded the ITB as the lowest responsive bidder. FBM filed a written protest (Initial Protest) of “its exclusion from the bid tabulation.” The Department issued a Final Order Rejecting Bid Protest (Final Order) on February 19, 2009. The Final Order provided in pertinent part: FBM was determined non-responsive because the bid was not presented at the time and place specified in the ITB. . . FBM’s formal written protest alleges that FBM, on the date of the bid submission/bid opening, was misdirected as to the location of the bid opening. . . . FBM’s protest must be rejected because it does not state a claim that could entitle it to relief. . . In the context of a bid protest proceeding . . . the protest must adequately allege that the protestor could obtain the contract award or otherwise benefit should the protest be successful. . . Assuming all of FBM’s factual allegations are true and that those facts entitle FBM to have its bid considered, FBM would still be entitled to no relief. Had FBM’s bid been accepted, FBM would have been the third lowest of six bidders. FBM’s formal protest does not allege that the lowest and second lowest bids were deficient in any manner. FBM was not injured in fact, because it still would not have received the contract award. Accordingly, FBM’s formal written protest is REJECTED. No appeal was taken by FBM of the Department’s Final Order rejecting FBM’s Initial Protest. Among other findings, the Department’s Final Order on FBM’s Initial Protest found that, taking FBM’s allegations as true, FBM would have been the third lowest bidder. FBM would not have been the second lowest bidder. The parties agree that the holder of a certified building contractor’s license and a certified roofing contractor license would be permitted to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Subsequent to the opening of the sealed bids, Leo Premier Homes, LLC, registered the fictitious name of Leo Roofing & Construction with the Division of Corporations. After the registration with the Division of Corporations and after the Department’s Final Order, licenses were issued by DBPR. As to the licenses issued, the record of the instant case provides2: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Roofing & Construction; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction. The licenses reflect the same license numbers, as before, and only the fictitious name is different on each license to indicate Leo Roofing & Construction.3 The contract for the ITB was entered into between the Department and Leo Development. In these proceedings, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $1,311.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing FBM General Contracting Corporation’s Protest and awarding costs in the amount of $1,311.05 to the Department of Children and Family Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On December 24, 1986, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified and interested contracting firms that it was accepting bids from firms interested in providing construction and maintenance services on State Job No. 08150-3412. Such bids were due on or before January 21, 1987. The job description read as follows: At State Bridge Nos. 080025 and 000026 over the Withlacoochee River North of Tampa. Work consists of Furnish and Install Integral Pile Jackets (port. cement grout filled); Remove and Replace Sections of Bridge Deck; Floating Turbidity Barrier; and Incidental Items. Length 0.066 Mile. (B.I. 1144013) Stated in plainer language, the project called for repairs to two bridges on I-75 which span the Withlacoochee River southwest of Ocala in Hernando County. The bidders were also provided with a copy of the specifications and bid form dated November 4, 1986 regarding the contract. In response to this offer, petitioner, CSA Marine Services, Inc. (CSAMS), a contractor with offices at 759 Parkway Street, Jupiter, Florida, filed a bid proposal by the established deadline. Its bid totalled $123,347.59. Also filing a bid proposal was Seig and Ambachtsheer, Inc. (SAI), a contractor in Orange City, Florida. Its bid price was $137,209.50. The bid form itself was prepared by DOT and merely required the contractor to fill in the blanks where appropriate. The first two columns were labeled "item number" and "approximate quantities" and were already completed by DOT. For those items having a quantity of only one, the words "lump sum were written in the second column. Where quantities exceeded one, they were expressed in such terms as linear feet, cubic yards and pounds together with the approximate numerical quantities. The third column was labeled "item description and unit or lump price (written in words)." The fourth column read "unit price (in figures)" and required the bidder to indicate the unit price of each line item in figures. The fifth or final column was labeled "amounts" and required the bidder to reflect the lump sum price of each line item in figures. Columns three through five were filled in by CSAMS where necessary. The total price of the bid was to be listed on a bid blank which was attached to the bid form. On its face, the third column on the form offered petitioner the option of either using a unit or lump sum price. In addition, section 2-5.1 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1986 Edition, which governs the awarding of contracts and has been incorporated as a part of the bid documents, provides as follows: Proposals shall be submitted on the form described in 2-2. Unit or lump sum prices for all bid items shall be shown in words and figures, and all extensions shall be carried out. Notwithstanding the form and instructions, according to a DOT representative, a lump sum price may be used only when the quantity in column two is one item. If more than one item is reflected in column two, then DOT expects a contractor to use the unit price. However, there is no written rule, instruction or provision in the specifications that sets forth this requirement. CSAMS properly opted to use lump sum price under column three on at least two line items even though the quantities exceeded one. Of particular interest was line item 8400-3-4 which, according to column two, required 20.800 cubic yards of concrete for a "superstructure." Relying upon the optional language on the form, petitioner wrote the words seven thousand, one hundred, fifty five dollars and 00/100 cents" in column three (which was a lump sum price), and a unit price of $344.00 in column four. It then used the figure of $7,155 in the final column of that item, which is the approximate sum of $344 times the quantity (20.800). Because of the volume of bid lettings each month, DOT uses a computer to total the numbers in each line item for each bid. If the amount in column five does not agree with the figures in columns three and four, the computer flags the item, and a manual review of the line item is made. While reviewing line item 8400-3-4 of petitioner's bid form, the computer found the numbers did not agree. More specifically, when 20.800 in column two was multiplied times $344.00 in column four, it equalled $7,155.20 and not $7,155.00 as reflected in column five of petitioner's bid form. This twenty-cent disagreement arose because petitioner had rounded off the unit price from $343.99038 to $344.00 in column four. The disagreement prompted a manual review of petitioner's bid form and a recalculation of the line item. On January 30, 1987 DOT bureau chief J. Ted Barefield prepared a letter to CSAMS styled "Notice of Switch in Apparent Low Bidder" indicating in part: Due to mathematical error(s) on the bid of CSA Marine Services, Inc. and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., the apparent low bidder, whose bid amount was $123,347.59 is now $265,016.59. Therefore, the apparent low bidder is Seig & Ambachtsheer, Inc. The change in amount was the result of DOT increasing the unit price in column four from $344 to $7,155 (to agree with column three) and multiplying the quantity (20.800) times the sum specified in words in column three ($7,155) to arrive at a total in column five of $148,824. This caused an increase of $141,669 over the original bid price. In making the above change, DOT relied on Section 3-1 of the 1986 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Section 3-1 provides in relevant part as follows: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price for any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, in which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. (Emphasis added) Here, because of the twenty-cent discrepancy in the entries for line item 8400-3-4, DOT used the "unit price as shown in words" in column three to recalculate the item since the extension ($7,155.00) and the unit price shown in figures ($344.00)" did not agree. In doing so, DOT did not first evaluate the price written in words to see if it was a lump sum or unit price. After receiving the above letter, CSAMS and DOT representatives met in early February 1987 to discuss the CSAMS proposal. It was represented to CSAMS that it should have used a unit price in words in column three rather than a lump sum price. Petitioner was also provided with a copy of a letter previously sent to it on September 6, 1985 by DOT which noted the following irregularity on a bid: "Unit prices as written in words and figures do not agree (Item 8457- 70)." However, the letter did not contain explicit advice as to DOT's unwritten policy. On February 5, 1987 Barefield wrote a second letter to CSAMS indicating that there were several discrepancies in its bid proposal. These included: (a) the name on the cover sheet (CSAMS and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.) did not agree with the name (CSAMS) in other parts of the bid, (b) unit prices as written in words and figures did not agree, (c) an incomplete affidavit was filed, and (d) an incorrect MBE Certification and incomplete Utilization Sheets were submitted. The latter two errors were related to the discrepancy in the names. However, the letter stated that "no further action is requested by you at this time," and that the letter was to serve as a reminder that in the future the irregularities could cause petitioner's bid to be rejected. Petitioner's bid was accepted as being appropriate but with the substantially higher bid price of $265,016.59. The error made by CSAMS is a common one. Indeed, it was stated the same mistake is made by contractors on "several bids during each letting." Even so, DOT has not considered providing some special instruction or rule to clarify this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner be awarded the contract on State Job No. 08150- 3412. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1987.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 24th day of September 2002.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February 1996.
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether the Petitioner's notice of bid protest filed on June 5, 1996, was timely under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Petitioner has waived its right to participate in bid protest proceedings; and (2) if Petitioner's bid protest was timely filed, whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioner's bid.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a general contractor which operates in Alachua County and surrounding areas. The Respondent is the governing body of the school district in Alachua County. In April and May, 1996, the Respondent publicly advertised an Invitation to Bid on the Project which consists of hard courts for basketball, driveway paving and new drainage provisions. Petitioner and three other bidders timely submitted sealed bids to the Respondent at its office located at the E. Manning, Jr. Annex, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's bid proposal included a Contractor's Qualification Statement setting forth Petitioner's experience and financial qualifications to act as the general contractor for the Project. There is no evidence that Petitioner is disqualified as a responsible bidder because: (a) it colluded with other bidders; (b) it based its proposal on bid prices which were obviously unbalanced; (c) it included any false entry in its bid proposal; or (d) it failed to completely fill out the required list of subcontractors. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth any other specific conditions which would disqualify an otherwise responsible bidder. However, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all bids when it determines that such rejection is in its interest. Respondent publicly opened the bids and read them aloud at 2:00 P.M. on May 9, 1996 as required by the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not attend the opening of the bids. The Invitation to Bid specified that the bids would be "tabulated and evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County or member or members of his staff or other individual or individuals designated by him." Edward Gable is Respondent's Director of Facilities. The Superintendent designated Mr. Gable to evaluate bids received for facility projects and to formulate recommendations to Respondent. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth a time certain in which Respondent will notify bidders of its decision or intended decision. However, it does state as follows: At the next regular or special meeting of the Board or at the designated meeting thereafter, the bids, as so opened, tabulated and evaluated, and the recommend- ation of the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County regarding them shall be presented to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the law and the State Board of Education Regulations. In Section 19.1 of the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent informs bidders that it will award the contract to the lowest bidder as soon as possible provided that the lowest bid is reasonable and in Respondent's best interest. The Invitation to Bid provides bidders with the following notice relative to Respondent's decision or intended decision concerning a contract award: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. Notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statues, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written "Notice of Protest" within seventy-two (72) hours after posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days after filing the 'Notice of Protest.' Section 17.1 of the Instructions to Bidders contains the following language concerning Respondent's decision or intended decision: 17.1 The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. For any other decision, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Section 18.1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the Planning and Construction Department, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, following the bid opening, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute as (sic) waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders distinguish between a protest concerning a contract award and a protest related to the specifications contained in an invitation to bid or in a request for proposals. In the latter context, a bidder must file a written protest within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of the project plans and specifications. This case does not involve a protest of a bid solicitation. By virtue of the above referenced provisions in the Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent gave all bidders sufficient and reasonable notice that a posted tabulation together with its recommendation constituted Respondent's intended decision. The bid specifications in the instant case required bidders to submit a bid on a base contract for certain school facility improvements with alternate bids relative to additional improvements in the event Respondent decided to include such features in the Project. Petitioner's base bid was $135,000; it was the lowest bid submitted. The next low bid was from Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson) at $133,345. Two additional bids were higher than Watson's bid. On the morning of May 30, 1996 one of Petitioner's employees, Roger "Dave" Williams" phoned Mr. Gable to inquire about the status of the bid award. Mr. Gable was unavailable to take the call. Mr. Williams left a message for Mr. Gable to return the call. Next, at approximately 10:00 a.m. on May 30, 1996, Mr. Williams called a member of Mr. Gable's staff who stated that, as far as he knew, Respondent had not made a decision on the contract. Mr. Gable completed his evaluation and posted the bid tabulation on May 30, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Included on the bid tabulation was the following statement: RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Board reject the low base bid as submitted by D. E. Wallace Construction Corporation, Alachua, Florida, due to past unsatisfactory contract performance. It is recommended that the Board accept the base bid of $133,345. and award a contract for construction totaling $133,345. to Watson Construction, Gainesville, Florida. Completion of this project shall be within ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the date indicated in the 'Notice to Proceed.' The bid tabulation clearly notes that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Respondent regularly posts notices of intended decisions concerning bid awards on a bulletin board in the main hallway of the E. D. Manning Annex. A title at the top of the bulletin board identifies it as the location for bid postings. Respondent posts a copy of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and a copy of the Respondent's Policy DJC--Bidding Requirements below the title of the bulletin board. Respondent has adopted Policy DJC as a rule through a formal rulemaking process. Policy DJC states as follows in pertinent part: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award. For a bid solicitation, notice of a decision or intended decision shall be given by United States mail or by hand delivery. For any other Board decisions, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall contain the following two paragraphs. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written notice of protest within 72 hours after the posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within 10 calendar days after filing the notice of protest. . . . Failure to file a timely notice of protest or failure to file a timely formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Immediately below Policy DJC is a space where Respondent always posts its bid tabulations which include the recommended action on each project and notice that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The bottom of the board, in large letters, contains the following words: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." This permanent bulletin board, read as a whole, contains more than enough information to provide bidders with notice of an intended decision and the time frames within which a disappointed bidder must file a written protest. Although he was not required to do so, Mr. Gable telephoned Petitioner's office on the afternoon of May 30, 1996 to advise its president, D. Wallace, of the recommendation. Petitioner was not available to accept that call. Mr. Gable placed another courtesy telephone call to Petitioner on the morning of May 31, 1996. During that conversation, Mr. Gable informed Mr. Wallace of the recommendation for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid and accept the next lowest bid. Petitioner's representative inspected the posting board in the afternoon on May 31, 1996. On June 3, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner by facsimile transmission a copy of the agenda for Respondent's June 4 meeting, items H.1. of which was: H.1. Bid Award for Project SBAC CB436 - Newberry High School Site Improvements. Bids for the construction of this project were received on May 9, 1996. Recommendation will be presented. The seventy-two hour window in which a bidder may file a protest does not include Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Therefore, the time in which a bidder could have filed a protest of Respondent's intended decision in this case, expired June 4, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. No bidder had filed a written protest at that time. Respondent held a regular meeting on June 4, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent considered the bid award for Project SBAC CB 436, Mr. Gable presented the recommendation that the Board reject Petitioner's bid and accept Watson's bid due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory contract performance. Petitioner's counsel spoke against the recommendation. At that time the Petitioner had not filed any written notice of protest. After discussion, Respondent voted to award the contract to Watson. Respondent and Watson executed a contract for the construction of the Project on June 4, 1996. The next day, on June 5, 1996, at 3:40 p.m., Petitioner filed with Respondent, by facsimile transmission, a Notice of Protest challenging the award of the contract for the Project to Watson. The filing of this protest was untimely. Therefore, Petitioner waived its right to protest Respondent's decision or intended decision on the Project. The basis of Respondent's intended decision and ultimate final decision to reject Petitioner's low bid was due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory performance. The following facts support a finding that Petitioner was not a responsible bidder. Respondent awarded Petitioner the contract for a previous construction project, Project SBAC CA 149, Additions and Renovations for Terwillegar Elementary School. That project included the construction of a number of school buildings. The contract amount was approximately 5.1 million dollars. The last building in the Terwillegar project became "substantially complete" in September, 1995. In January, 1996, Mr. Gable wrote a letter to Petitioner, informing him of the outstanding punch list items for the Terwillegar project. A contractor must complete punch list items and have them approved prior to "final completion." In the Terwillegar Project, the contract provided for compilation of items on the punch list within thirty (30) days from "substantial completion." As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to Mr. Gable's letter about the Terwillegar punch list, nor had it completed the punch list. Many of the items on the list were minor, but some of the items involved the safety or integrity of the building structure. The Terwillegar project contract also contained a project closeout section which listed a variety of documents and other materials that Petitioner had to provide to Respondent as part of the "final completion." Included in the Terwillegar project's closeout were items such as insurance change-over requirements, warranties, workmanship bonds, maintenance agreements, final certifications, a final payment request, consent of surety, maintenance manuals, record drawings, record specifications, record project date, and operating instructions. As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not provided any of the Terwillegar project closeout materials to the Respondent. The delay in project closeout, after substantial completion, is completely unacceptable to the Respondent. Prior to the opening of bids in this case, Petitioner filed a civil suit against Respondent seeking approximately $1,500,000 representing the unpaid contract balance, subcontractors' and material suppliers' claims for labor and material, and other delay-related damages on the Terwillegar project. Petitioner's claim that Respondent's intended decision and/or final decision was based on personal animosity and bias against Mr. Wallace is contrary to more persuasive evidence. Specifically, Petitioner's Exhibit 6 is not persuasive evidence of bias. The Petitioner's president, D.E. Wallace, has over 30 years in the construction field, including 22 years as an owner/operator of a general contractor company. He has completed more than 100 projects in north Florida in the past eighteen (18) years, including 30 school board construction projects. Mr. Wallace has worked on approximately nine (9) school board projects in Alachua County. He holds himself out as being "completely familiar and knowledgeable in government and building codes, ordinances, regulations, etc."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's protest as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601-5498 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
