The Issue The issues are whether Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool (MPP), is the lowest qualified bidder on Contract No. R- 2119 or whether Suwannee Valley Medical Personnel Corporation (Suwannee) is entitled to the award of Contract No. R-2119 or is entitled to have all bids rejected and the contract relet for bids.
Findings Of Fact The ITB on Contract No. R-2119 was developed jointly between the Department's Central Office and the Region II contracting staff. The Region II staff sent a draft of the ITB to the Central Office, where it was reviewed by Gerald Ellsworth, the Department's Human Service Program Specialist. Mr. Ellsworth is responsible for reviewing the Department's contracts and plans, as well as for development of the Department's proposed invitations to bid and other related types of documents. Mr. Ellsworth has considerable experience in drafting and reviewing governmental contracts for purchasing of services at the state, local and federal government levels. The ITB was also reviewed by the Department's legal office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Correctional Medical Authority, with regard to both the specifications and the contract language in the ITB. The Department properly published the ITB on or about June 28, 1989. The ITB was published under cover of a formal State of Florida Invitation to Bid for Contractual Services, Form PUR: 7031 (Rev. 10/18/88), containing the State of Florida standard general conditions for bids for contractual services. Among those conditions were detailed requirements regarding the sealed nature of bids, requirements for the execution of bids, requirements regarding the opening of bids and conditions regarding prices, terms and payment, interpretations and disputes, conflict of interest, awards, governmental restrictions, default, legal requirements, advertising, assignment, liability, facilities, cancellation and public records. The same general conditions on the first page of the ITB specifically provided an exclusive mechanism for the bidders to resolve questions and disputes regarding the conditions and specifications of the ITB: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis added.) The body of the ITB stated that the Department was soliciting bids for registered and licensed practical nurse services in the Department's Region II, on all shifts, for the care and treatment of inmate patients, as further defined in the ITB's section entitled "Responsibilities of Successful Bidder; Scope of Work." The ITB also contained detailed requirements regarding Nurse Professional Qualifications, Quality Management Standards, Scheduling of Nurses, Records, Invoicing, Insurance, Legal Requirements, Conflict of Interest, Unsatisfactory Performance, Brokering of Contract, Subcontracts, Verbal Instructions, detailed procedural requirements regarding the submission, review and evaluation of the bids, a description of the institutions covered and a copy of the sample contract. One of the procedural requirements in the body of the ITB repeated that: All inquiries from Bidder's [sic] concerning this Invitation to Bid shall be submitted in writing to the office identified on the cover of this Invitation to Bid. Such inquiries shall be received by the office on or before the date indicated above in the Calendar of Events as the "Last Day for Written Inquiries" [July 10, 1989]. (Emphasis added.) The ITB contained a "Bid Price Sheet" which contained separate blanks for RN and LPN services, separate blanks for each service for weekdays and weekend/holidays, and separate blanks for each of these categories for each of the three geographic areas of Region II, in each of the three years of the contract. That Bid Price Sheet stated that prices quoted "shall be firm net prices regardless of travel involved. . . " The body of the ITB specified that bidders must submit "all costs in the format specified on the Price Quote Sheet provided." (Emphasis added.) Further, the "Proposal Evaluations" section of the ITB specified that the figures to be inserted in the blanks on p. 15 were to be "hourly rates" for each type of nursing service. The next paragraph of this section of the ITB, however, stated that "Total cost, and cost breakouts on the Price Quote Sheet shall be clearly stated." The undisputed testimony of Gerald Ellsworth established that the intent of these provisions of the ITB was to require the bidders to state the total cost (i.e., net firm price) for each hour of nursing services in a particular geographic area at a particular point in time. Even though the ITB set forth an estimate of the hours that would be required under the contract, this information was clearly only in the nature of an estimate, and it was never the intent of the ITB to require the bidders or the Committee to project or evaluate, respectively, the total cost of the contract (as opposed to the total cost of each hour of service) by multiplying the bidders' bid costs for each hour of service by the corresponding estimate of hours needed over the three- year life of the contract for each of those categories. The primary reason for this focus upon the cost of an hour of service, rather than the cost of the entire contract, is that the estimated hours needed, as indicated by the ITB, are only estimates. Actual demands for service and workloads are likely to vary considerably, both by type of nursing position and geographic area. These demands could also vary as a result of factors such as the vacancy levels in the Department's own staff of employee nurses or changes in administrative personnel at a given institution. The ITB called for a mix of both objective and subjective evaluation of materials submitted by the bidders. The cost data, submitted in response to p. 7, para. E; p. 12, para. F.2.e; and p. 15, para. 7 was entirely objective, as was the Committee's role in evaluating that data. On the other hand, the information required from bidders under p. 12, para. F.2.a ("Project understanding and statement of work and reference from clients"), and p. 12, para. F.2.b ("Nurse Professional Qualifications"), called for a mix of both subjective and objective information and evaluation. The former, referred to throughout the testimony as "Criterion A," required the bidder to submit "a narrative statement of work to be performed, and references from clients in accordance with the specifications appearing at p. 4, para. 2.A. The latter, referred to in the testimony as "Criterion B," required bidders to: submit professional qualifications, experi- ence, and CPR certification for Department reviewers which documents the Bidders [sic] capability to provide registered and licensed practical nurse personnel that meet the training specifications. as set forth at pp. 4-5, para. 2.B. Within Criterion B, for example, an entirely objective requirement is the proof of the bidders' nurses' CPR qualification. A subjective element of this same criterion would be the quantity and quality of documentation of available nurses. The ITB required the Committee to award points to the respective bidders based on a formula which takes into account each of these objective and subjective criteria. That Formula, at its first level, assigned a point value of 20 points for Criterion A (Project understanding and statement of work, and references from clients), 30 points for Criterion B (Nurse Professional Qualifications) and 50 points for Criterion C (Bid Cost). Specifically as to Criterion C (Bid Cost), this criterion was entirely objective and did not require any subjective analysis by the Committee. The ITB specified that the lowest bidder "shall" be awarded 50 points, based on the average of the three years' quotes for cost of hours of nursing services. The ITB specified that the remaining bidders "shall" be awarded points for bid cost based on the following formula: Points Awarded Equals 50 x (1-A/B) where A equals the difference between the respective bidders' average bid and the lowest average bid, and B equals the lowest bidder's average bid. Unlike Criterion C, the Committee members' evaluation of the bidders' responses to Criteria A and B was left to their judgment and discretion. While the ITB set forth factors that were to be taken into consideration by the Committee members under these criteria, there was no required method by which an evaluator was to assign points for Criteria A and B. Specifically, there was no requirement in the ITB that the evaluators rank the bidders under Criteria A and B. An evaluator was free, for example, to give all bidders full point credit under either criterion, or to assign them any variation of points. This type of point system for mixed weighing of subjective and objective criteria is not unusual in governmental purchasing contracting and competitive bidding and is, in fact, normal procedure. The bid criteria set forth in the ITB, as well as the system set forth therein for evaluation of those bids by a mix of subjective and objective criteria, is rational. Further, and specifically, the ITB's requirement that costs be quoted as a rate per hour of service, by geographic area and point in time, is rational. It would be irrational to evaluate bid cost under this ITB by multiplying each bidder's price quotes for individual hours of service, broken down by geographic area and point in time, by the corresponding estimates of hours needed, set forth at p. 3 of the ITB, and then comparing the resulting "total cost" of the contract under each bid, since the estimated hours were intended to be no more than estimates, and the Department recognizes that these hours are subject to significant variation over the term of the contract. This probable variation would make the latter calculation entirely meaningless and baselessly speculative. It was not the intent of the ITB to find the "lowest and best" bidder. Instead, the intent of this ITB was to find the lowest bidder who met the qualifications and specifications set forth in the ITB. This is not the same as "lowest and best." The Bidders and Their Bids Medical Personnel Pool MPP, the successful bidder on Contract No. R-2119, timely submitted its bid for that contract. MPP's bid showed that MPP is a nationally recognized health care provider, with over twenty years of experience in serving the health care needs of both home health clients and facility clients. Its franchise office in Gainesville, Florida, is one of four offices operated in the Region II area by Mr. Ed Bixby, a former vice president of MPP's parent company, Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Bixby personally has over fifteen years of experience in medical staffing. All MPP offices follow the same national corporate standards for quality assurance, office operation and general business practice. Further, MPP is a financially sound and viable business, with an ongoing corporate recruitment program that regularly attracts new employees. MPP's client service representatives are on-call and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet the Department's staffing needs. The agency has been managed since October 1987, by Mr. Duane Gorgas, who has seventeen years of experience in facility clinical laboratory medicine, and who is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a clinical laboratory supervisor. MPP demonstrated compliance with Criterion B of the ITB by showing that each of its nurses is carefully and personally screened and tested for nursing skills prior to being sent into the field. In addition, MPP personally verifies all nurses' licenses with the Department of Professional Regulation, as well as their CPR certifications. A minimum of one year's documented current clinical experience is required prior to a nurse's being sent into the field. Further, MPP is itself an approved provider of nursing and other professional continuing education programs (DPR Provider No. 27M0938) and provides continuing education directly to its employees on a regular basis. MPP's Gainesville franchise already provides RN's and LPN's to correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes throughout sixteen counties in north central Florida. A list of the prisons and county jails currently and historically staffed by MPP in both Regions II and III was included in the bid, and includes thirteen corrections facilities in those two regions. A broad range of references from these and other clients, both institutional and personal, was included as Attachment II to MPP's bid. Copies of the licenses of 48 experienced MPP nurses, qualified and available to provide the services called for under Contract No. R-2119, were attached to the bid as Attachment III. Suwannee Suwannee's bid was also timely submitted. Whereas Suwannee now protests that the Department's manner of determining bid costs as net cost per hourly unit of service is irrational, that contention is belied by Suwannee's own bid. In the first place, Suwannee did not quote cost as a multiplication of hourly rates times total estimated hours anywhere in its bid, even though its president, Mr. Fortner, now contends this is the only rational way to quote or determine bid cost under the ITB. Further, Mr. Fortner expressly conceded that the ITB did not call for any such calculation of "total cost" by multiplication of rates by estimated hours. Even so, Suwannee has waived any objection or question it may now have as to the method of determining bid cost. Mr. Fortner conceded that he was fully aware of the standards set forth at pp. 1 and 11 of the ITB, requiring that questions or objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB be submitted in writing in a timely manner prior to July 10, 1989. Mr. Fortner nevertheless conceded that he failed to submit any such questions or objections regarding the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, until the filing of his protest after the award of the bid to MPP, and long after July 10, 1989. Having failed to file any timely written objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, therefore, Suwannee has waived any objections to the Department's method of calculating bid costs by averaging each bidder's unit net price for an hour of service by geographic area and point in time, as opposed to Suwannee's after- the-fact preferred method of multiplying these rates by estimated hours to determine Suwannee's definition of "total cost." Suwannee's bid, as supported by its president's testimony, showed that Suwannee was only incorporated in late July 1988, less than a year before the ITB was published. Prior to that time its then-22-year-old president's business experience consisted of operating a video store. Mr. Fortner conceded he had no prior experience whatsoever in providing any sort of nursing or medical services. Prior to the bid letting, Suwannee's sole experience in attempting to staff a correctional facility was at Baker Correctional Institute. Mr. Fortner testified that his first client was Lake City Medical Center, yet no reference from that facility appears in his bid. On the other hand, MPP's bid contains a highly favorable reference from Lake City Medical Center's director of nursing, indicating a completely satisfactory contractual relationship with MPP since 1987. Whereas MPP directly provides continuing education to its nurses under its own provider number, Suwannee takes the position that continuing education requirements are the nurses' responsibilities, and that they must meet these requirements at their own expense. Further, while Mr. Fortner stated that he believes Suwannee tests its nurses, he admitted he did not know how, and Suwannee's bid was silent on this aspect of Criterion B of the ITB. Suwannee's bid was also silent on screening of new nurse applicants. Suwannee has only recently hired a full-time director of nursing. Whereas MPP submitted qualifications for 48 nurses to staff the estimated hours under contract, Suwannee proposed to staff the same number of estimated hours with only 31 nurses. Mr. Fortner testified that the number of licenses in Suwannee's bid constitutes the full complement of nurses he deems necessary to provide the number of hours of service estimated in the ITB. The Bid Evaluation Process Objective Evaluation of Criterion C Initially, because of a confusing misprint in the ITB regarding the mathematical formula for calculating points to be awarded to bidders, other than the lowest average cost bidder, under Criterion C (bid cost), some of the four Bid Evaluation Committee members calculated the ranking of bidders under that criterion differently. That calculation was corrected by Dr. Rechtine, the Committee chairperson, however, in consultation with officials of the Region II office. The correction did not alter the ultimate overall ranking of the bidders, although it made slight differences in the points awarded individual bidders by some members of the Committee, and in one case the second and third bidders under Criterion C were reversed on one evaluator's tally sheet. All four of the Committee members testified that they agreed with the corrected calculation of points to be awarded each of the bidders under Criterion C. At no time was any other part of any Committee member's points awarded altered or changed. Subjective Evaluation of Criteria A and B Steven Smith Committee member Steven Smith, Regional Health Services Administrator for Region II, responsible for assisting institutions in the region with health service issues, including contracting for health services, evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Mr. Smith thoroughly reviewed the entire bid document of each bidder and made judgments as to the merits of each bid. His evaluations were based on how the bidders presented their respective documents, including the presentation and content of the narratives. While he did not assign any greater weight to either MPP's or Suwannee's references, Mr. Smith felt that MPP better articulated its understanding of the nature of the work. Mr. Smith was particularly impressed with MPP's understanding of the Department's court-ordered duty to improve access for inmates' to nursing services, which Mr. Smith felt was indicative of MPP's understanding of the contract's service requirements. He was also impressed with MPP's documentation of its 24-hour coverage. In sum, Mr. Smith felt MPP's bid was much clearer than Suwannee's. Cynthia Vathauer Committee member Cynthia Vathauer is a Department accountant, in charge of the inmates' welfare fund, who has previously served as an evaluator of competitive bids. Ms. Vathauer evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Ms. Vathauer reviewed the ITB and next performed a detailed analysis of whether the bid components called for by the ITB under Criteria A and B were present in each bid. Her review of the bids under Criteria A and B consisted of listing all of the required components under each criterion and then checking off whether each bidder had adequately provided the required components, making notes where there was partial or questionable compliance and deducting points from the total allowable for each criterion which was missing or incomplete. Whereas Suwannee contends Ms. Vathauer made "no analysis" of the bids under Criteria A and B, simply because Ms. Vathauer stated that she did not read these components of the bids in detail for comparative content, this allegation is not supported by the weight of the competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Vathauer's detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the factors called for by the ITB, supported by her contemporaneous notes, shows that Ms. Vathauer made a rational and reasoned analysis of the bids under those criteria, fully supporting her allocation of points to the bidders under those criteria. She admitted candidly that she was not familiar with the clinical or operational aspects of health service provision. Thus, for example, rather than attempt to compare the relative quality of nurse evaluations (which, incidentally, was not required under the ITB), Ms. Vathauer based her judgment of compliance with this criterion on the presence or absence of valid copies of actual licenses. Dianne Rechtine, M.D. Dianne Rechtine, M.D., is the medical executive director at North Florida Reception Center and acting medical services director for Region II. Dr. Rechtine also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids under the standards of the ITB. Dr. Rechtine read the respective bids and, with respect to Criteria A and B, assigned points based on her evaluation of those bids. Her notes of how she allocated points under these criteria appear as Joint Exhibit No. 4D and show that Dr. Rechtine actually scored Suwannee higher than MPP under Criterion A and the same as MPP under Criterion B. Suwannee has not been heard to assert that Dr. Rechtine's analysis under these criteria was other than rational and reasoned. Thus, it is found that Dr. Rechtine's analysis and evaluation of the bids was in fact rational and reasoned. Peggy (Richardson) Patray Since Peggy (Richardson) Patray was not called to the witness stand, MPP offered into evidence, without objection, her deposition testimony, taken prior to MPP's intervention and without benefit of cross-examination by MPP or its counsel. Nevertheless, that deposition and Ms. Patray's own evaluation notes appearing as Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate that Ms. Patray, a registered nursing services consultant employed by the Department and previous nursing supervisor at New River Correctional Institute, carefully reviewed the ITB and analyzed and evaluated the bids under Criteria A, B and C prior to awarding points to the bidders. Ms. Patray looked at the types of facilities from which references were obtained and considered, for example, related jail-type experience to be a positive factor. Ms. Patray actually scored Suwannee superior to MPP under Criterion A for reasons related to the bidders' statements of understanding of work. She scored the two bidders evenly under Criterion B, even though she was favorably impressed by one (at the time of her deposition, she could not recall which) bidder's emphasis on pre-employment screening and in-service training, when contrasted with the other bidder's leaving of this responsibility to the individual nurses. Finally, Ms. Patray testified that she was favorably impressed with MPP's sources of references, as opposed to Suwannee's, and that there was not enough information in Suwannee's bid, in her opinion, regarding nurse professional qualifications. In sum, Ms. Patray's testimony and notes in Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate clearly that she also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids of the parties under the terms and conditions of the ITB. Suwannee's Allegations There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support Suwannee's allegations that political or media pressure adverse to Suwannee influenced the decision to award Contract No. R-2119 to MPP. Each Department witness who testified in this proceeding testified that no such political pressure was brought to bear upon them or even attempted. The competent, substantial and unrebutted evidence of record demonstrates clearly that no such pressure or influence occurred or was attempted. In the same vein, Suwannee has alleged that the Committee improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors or information outside of the ITB and the bid documents. The only evidence of record of Committee members having considered information outside of the ITB or the bids was the testimony of several of the Committee members that they either were aware of or considered allegations of past difficulties with MPP, not Suwannee. For example, Mr. Smith testified that he was aware of one past problem with MPP, but none with Suwannee. In any event, he did not consider anything outside of the bid documents in his review. Ms. Vathauer said nothing relating to this issue. Dr. Rechtine testified that she was aware of, and had considered, past problems with MPP, that she had received favorable input as to Suwannee and, to the extent that this knowledge affected her evaluation, she agreed that it did so to the advantage of Suwannee (scored 20 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B), and to the disadvantage of MPP (scored 12 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B). Finally, even Ms. Patray testified that she had received some negative reports on MPP, whereas she mentioned no such information regarding Suwannee. In sum, there is no evidence of record to support Suwannee's allegations that the Committee members improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors outside the bid documents. Any error which may have occurred in this regard was entirely harmless as to Suwannee, and if it had any effect at all, it worked to Suwannee's benefit. Results of the Bid Evaluation Process The result of the bid evaluation process was that MPP received 88 overall points under the formula set out in the ITB, Suwannee received 85.62, Quality Care received 73.05 and Upjohn received 58.87. MPP was also the low bidder on cost, i.e., Criterion C. The weight and preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that Contract No. R-2119 should have been awarded to MPP, as it was, and that there is an ample, rational, reasoned and logical basis in the record supporting the decision of the Department to award the contract to MPP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding Contract No. R-2119 to Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Office 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4566BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Suwannee Valley Medical personnel Corporation 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (page 5). Proposed findings of fact 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6, 17, and 19 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Corrections Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3); 3 (19, 25); 4 (page 5); 6 (11); 7 (12); 8 (16); 9 (46); 14 (44); and 15 (45) Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, and 10-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Medical Personnel Pool Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 16-50 (1-35) and 53-63 (36- 46) Proposed findings of fact 12-15 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 51 is included on page 5 of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 52 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Older COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Attorney at Law Haben & Culpepper 306 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Drucilla E Bell Perri M. King Attorneys at Law Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Thomas D. Watry Attorney at Law Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact In May, 1987, the Department contracted with B.P. Associates, then owner of the Bay Plaza facility, to lease space at that facility located in Brandon, Florida. A part of the bid conditions required extensive physical renovations of the facility which were being supervised by Coldwell Banker, a real estate brokerage and management firm serving as property manager and construction supervisor. Construction was begun in December, 1987. Mr. Burrwood Yost was hired by the Department as its Facilities Services Manager for the Tampa Region in March, 1988. Mr. Yost soon became dissatisfied with the work being accomplished under Coldwell Banker's supervision and the company's responsiveness to maintenance problems arising at the facility, which the Department had asked to be corrected. As a result of this dissatisfaction with Coldwell Banker's demonstrated inability to properly perform, Mr. Yost recommended that the bid award to B.P. Associates be withdrawn and that the procurement be relet. On June 17, 1988, the bid award to B.P. Associates was withdrawn. On June 1, 1988, however, shortly before the withdrawal of the prior award, ownership of Bay Plaza was transferred to Northern which immediately substituted a new property manager and construction supervisor for Coldwell Banker. The new management firm was Grubb and Ellis, which took over on September 1, 1988. New bids were solicited by invitation to bid on July 15, 1988 which called for approximately 27,122 square feet of leased space to be available by April 1, 1989. The bid invitation clearly stated that "all bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form." This form outlined the bid procedure, listing award factors to be considered and specifying the precise amount of weight each factor would be given. Past performance was not listed as a basis for evaluation on the bid invitation form and Mr. Yost admits that past performance was not to be considered as a factor. Five bids were received of which three were deemed responsive. These were Bidder C, Northern; Bidder D, Turner Development Corporation; and Bidder E, Alderwood B. Northern's bid was the lowest of the three responsive bids by more than $2.00 per square foot over the life of the lease. Alderwood was the second lowest. Each of the bids was evaluated by a bid evaluation committee consisting of seven representatives from the various Department program offices that were to occupy the leased space. The chairman of the committee, Ms. Chipman, was placed thereon at the request of Mr. Yost, and was actually a supernumerary since the committee a originally constituted by Mr. Akridge, the Department's Facilities Services Manager Assistant in Tampa, was made up of only six members. A 100 point bid evaluation scale, which was included in the bid package furnished to each bidder, was to be utilized by the committee to evaluate each bid. Prior to beginning their evaluation duties, the committee members were walked through each proposed site, and in the briefing given by Department authorities, specifically advised that prior performance was not a criteria and should not be considered. When the committee members' evaluations were computed, Northern's bid for Bay Plaza received a score of 83.5. Alderwood's bid for its property was given a score of 87.9. Each evaluator rated Alderwood highest and the evaluation committee concluded that, consistent with the overall criteria which called for the lease to be awarded to the lowest and best bid that met program needs, Alderwood's bid was lowest and best. Consequently, the committee recommended that Alderwood receive the award even though Northern's bid for Bay Plaza was lowest in terms of total dollars involved. The bids were evaluated based on three major evaluation criteria. These were Fiscal Costs, Location, and Facility. The Fiscal Cost element was further broken down into three subcategories; rental rates, renewal rates, and moving costs. Northern received 25 points of the 25 available for rental rates because it offered the lowest rental rate. When reduced to present value, Northern's bid for the entire term of the lease was more than $600,000.00 below the next lowest bid and for the first nine years of the lease alone, was $336,799.00 lower. Alderwood was awarded 21.5 points for its rental rate submission. In the area of renewal rates, Northern was awarded 7 of 7 possible points and Alderwood was awarded 2. These awards were not computed by the committee or assigned by them. Instead, the scores were computed on the basis of a present value analysis accomplished in Tallahassee and were entered on the score sheet by Mr. Akridge, the Department's local supervisor for this procurement. Considering the moving costs, however, Alderwood outscored Northern by 3 to 2.7 points. This difference was attributed to an additional moving cost for the Bay Plaza site as opposed to the one move cost if the Alderwood site were chosen. To have the rehabilitation work done at Bay Plaza would have required a move to another location while the work was being done and another move back when it was finished. In the Alderwood case, the Department would move only once. The "Location" criteria also had three subcategories for consideration. They were, general area, in which both bidders received the maximum 10 points; public transportation at 5 points, and environmental factors at 15 points. In the area of public transportation, Alderwood received the full 5 points with Northern receiving 1.1. Department personnel considered the fact that bus service was available through the site at Alderwood, the stop being within wheelchair and walking distance of the building, as being more significant and of higher value than the proposed bus service envisioned in 1989 for Northern's facility which, at the time of the bidding, was not served by a bus. Bus company officials stated an intention to provide bus service to the area in the future. The environmental factors subcategory related to the physical characteristics of the building and the surrounding area and the effect of these factors on the "efficient and economical conduct of Department operations." In this subcategory, Alderwood received a higher score than did Northern's building because the committee was of the opinion the Alderwood facility would be more energy efficient. Current Department occupants of Northern's facility at Bay Plaza contended that because of the large expanses of glass, there would be more heat generated in the building in the afternoon. No official energy efficiency assessment was done of either building because both occupied less than 20,000 square feet. Consequently, the committee analysis here was based on the experience of some committee members and was neither scientific nor professional. The committee was also concerned with the potential for theft because of the large amounts of glass and was of the opinion that the Bay Plaza layout was "confusing." Neither of these judgements carry much weight, however. Another environmental factor considered by the committee concerned the parking availability at each facility. The committee was of the opinion that the layout at Northern's facility was not good. It was long and extended. Staff also was concerned that the several access doors to the Northern facility could cause clients to become confused. More important, however, was their concern that due to the several entrances to the building, it would be difficult to control entry. Alderwood's facility, on the other hand, provided a central entrance for each building and it was felt this would allow tighter security control for the safety of the building occupants. The committee was also impressed by the fact that Alderwood's facility provided a play area for clients' children, and felt that Alderwood's landscaping was more appealing. The rating of Alderwood's handicap access as high, is important. Turning to the third major bid criterion, Facility, Northern's facility was awarded 16.3 points of a possible 20 for layout/utilization while Alderwood's was awarded 18.7 points. For the subcategory, single building, Northern's facility received 6.7 points out a possible 10 and Alderwood's facility was awarded 8.1. As for the final subcategory, street level, both facilities were awarded 5 points. As for layout/utilization, one committee member, Chipman, awarded Alderwood more points because it provided a separate entrance for each program, because it provided covered walkways for weather protection, and because there was less of a "maze" effect in that facility due to its square configuration. This last factor was of concern to other committee members who rejected the idea of clients having to walk through offices to get to the different programs. The wider hallways and better access for handicapped, as was stated previously, were also considered positive factors for Alderwood. Neither facility offered the single building which was a desired characteristic, Mr. Akridge, however, advised the committee in his preparatory briefing that since neither bidder offered a single building facility, the committee could award points on the layout of the multi-unit facility based on the relationship of the individual components to each other. At least two committee members, Chipman and Collins, rated Alderwood's facility better and awarded more points because they felt the layout of that facility allowed a more advantageous grouping of programs within the units. There is substantial evidence, however, that the information furnished the committee was neither complete nor in all cases accurate. Once the committee completed its evaluation, Mr. Akridge tabulated the scores and prepared a "request for bid award" letter dated September 21, 1988 for transmittal to Department officials in Tallahassee. The letter was prepared to report the committee recommendation for the award to Alderwood and to explain why the recommendation was made to award to that bidder as opposed to the low bidder. Review of this letter clearly reflects that Mr. Akridge and the committee were concerned with past performance at the Bay Plaza facility. When Mr. George Smith, a senior management analyst for the Department in Tallahassee received Mr. Akridge's letter, recognizing the possible appearance of consideration of an improper factor, he requested that Mr. Akridge seek and provide more justification for the committee's findings. While Mr. Smith contends he did this because of his concern over costs, the fact remains that Akridge's letter of September 21 did mention past performance which was an invalid consideration. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Akridge to prepare another memo giving additional information about such things as bus service, the difference in rental rates, the building layouts and locations and those factors which the users of the proposed facility, those individuals who were on the committee from the using organization, felt were important to them in the effective accomplishment of their jobs. Mr. Smith clearly indicated he recognized that past performance is not a valid point for consideration and that it would play no part in his analysis of the bids preparatory to making final recommendation for award. In response to Mr. Smith's direction, Mr. Akridge prepared another memorandum dated September 30, 1988. Though by far the greatest portion of this memo is a detailed comparison of the two facilities and the concerns of the committee regarding them, the first paragraph, (1 A) refers to the failure of the former leasing agent to obtain state fire marshal approval and a reference to concern that in light of the fact that Northern is an absentee owner, there might well be a return to slow response times experienced under the prior management contract. Though Mr. Smith recognized that the September 30 memorandum again made reference to prior performance, experienced as he was in the procurement of facilities, he also recognized that "that was not a part of the evaluation criteria" and "basically, just disregarded that." Thereafter, the award was made to Alderwood. Petitioner contends that whether consciously or unconsciously, past performance of Northern's predecessor in ownership influenced the evaluation and bid review process thereby placing Northern at a competitive disadvantage to Alderwood. There is evidence in the record to indicate this conclusion, may be justified. Mr. Yost, the Facilities Services Manager, admits that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the prior management of the Bay Plaza facility and it was because of this dissatisfaction that the decision was made to recommend withdrawal of the prior award and a new bid invitation. Though he claims he deliberately kept himself out of the re-bid process, the evidence indicates that he oversaw it from the beginning and was present and/or involved in almost every part of it. The invitation to bid utilized his name; he attended the pre-bid conference and injected himself into the process by answering questions of bidders; he personally reviewed each bid upon receipt with Mr. Akridge; and, though he turned the committee selection over to Mr. Akridge, specifically requested that a nominee of his own choosing, Ms. Chipman, be appointed. Ms. Chipman, to whom Mr. Yost had previously spoken regarding his dissatisfaction with the prior Bay Plaza operation, was appointed as the seventh member of a committee originally scheduled to have only six members and served as the chairperson thereof. It is also significant to note that while the committee was in session evaluating the bids, Mr. Yost came into the committee room and met with the members while the deliberation process was going on. This creates a definite appearance of impropriety. After the protest was filed by Northern's agent, on November 8, 1988, Mr. Akridge, on behalf of the Department, met with members of the evaluation committee and representatives of Alderwood. During this meeting, the Department representatives explained to Alderwood how they wanted the layout of the facility to be accomplished and directed the architect who was present to prepare preliminary design plans. This appears to have been in contravention of provisions of a Department rule, (10-13.011(2)(a), F.A.C) which calls for the contract award process to be stopped until the protest is resolved. The evaluation criteria, found on page 16 of 17 of the Bid Submittal Form at subparagraph 1A, states that rental rates for the basic term of the lease, evaluated testing a present value methodology at a discount rate of 8.31 percent, would constitute 25 percent of the total evaluation criteria. This requirement was not appropriately applied in this case. The points included on each committee member's evaluation form for this category do not correlate to the present value rates furnished by the Department. Whereas Alderwood's bid was 21 percent higher than Northern's when reduced to present value, Alderwood received 86 percent of the rental rate points given Northern instead of 79 percent of Northern's points as it should have received. As a result, Northern did not receive the appropriate weight for its rental rates points as compared to it's competitor, Alderwood. In addition to the above, there are several examples indicating that points given by the committee were awarded based on inaccurate assumptions, unreliable information, or speculation. These include a failure to recognize that the windows at Bay Plaza are tinted; an inaccurate belief by one committee member that Alderwood's buildings are closer together than Northern's; a failure to properly apportion points by a committee member in the area of public transportation on the mistaken belief that Northern's facility would not have bus service; a mistaken belief that hallways at the Northern facility could not be widened when, in fact, Northern had agreed to renovate the entire facility including the hallways to whatever design the Department requested, (in this regard, Mr. Akridge properly advised the committee it should assume for the purpose of evaluation, that Northern would widen the Hallways if requested) ; the possible improper award of points for moving costs when no information on actual costs was available; a failure by the committee to recognize that major construction planned for in front of the Alderwood facility would hinder what the committee considered that building's better access; a failure to recognize that bid specifications required a security system be installed in any facility leased which would minimize if not eliminate the theft risk; and a lack of information regarding crime rates, police patrols, night lighting, and the nearness of police facilities to the buildings in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the intent to award lease no. 590:1853 to, Alderwood B. Partners, Limited, be withdrawn; that a new evaluation committee be appointed to review the bids submitted by the responsive bidders; that this committee be properly briefed as to the requirements of their task and the appropriate standards to be applied thereto; and that the Department thereafter issue an award to the lowest and best bidder as determined by this evaluation committee. RECOMMENDED this is 15th day of March, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalpachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5325BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but more in the form of argument than as Finding of Fact. The paragraph is redundant to other evidence already considered. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and as to substance, incorporated herein. BY THE RESPONDENT; & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein with comment. Redundant to 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein though 17 is redundant to 16. Accepted and incorporated herein as to the fact that bus service is planned for the Bay Plaza facility in 1989. Accepted with the exception of that portion dealing with Mr. Yost's having nothing to do with the evaluation of the bid which is rejected. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted with the exception of the disclaimer of Mr. Yost's participation in the selection of committee members. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted with the exception of the last sentence which is not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. First sentence rejected as a recitation of testimony. The second sentence is accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a recitation of evidence contained in Mr. Smith's deposition. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Brown, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Richard Candelora, Esquire Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P.A. Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601 Jack D. Farley, Esquire DHRS District Six Legal Office 400 West Buffalo Avenue, Room, 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire DHRS General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Kelly Services is the lowest responsive bidder on Bid No. 89-23 and should be awarded the bid.
Findings Of Fact On June 2, 1988, the School Board of Bay County issued Bid Request No. 89-23 for garbage collection services at thirteen locations. A quotation sheet was included in the bid package. The quotation sheet indicated the thirteen locations with a blank next to each location and a dollar sign in front of each blank where each bidder was to indicate its average monthly total charge for each location. There was also a quotation schedule where the bidder was to indicate the calculations which went into the total bid for each location. The bid request provided: The Board reserves the right to waive formalities and to reject any and all bids or to accept any bid or combination of bids deemed in the Board's best interest and the decision of the Board will be final. Bidders desiring that their bid be considered on an all-or-none basis, either in whole or part, shall so indicate. It is the intent of this bid request to secure prices and establish contracts for garbage collection services for the twelve schools specified herein and the District Maintenance Department. Awards will be made by location and will be based on an average monthly total charge as calculated on the quotation sheet. The bids were opened at 10:00 am., June 13, 1988, at the offices of the Bay County School Board. Three completed bid packages were submitted. Kelly Services, Argus and M&O each submitted a completed bid quotation sheet containing the bid for each location. M&O also submitted a letter which stated: We would like to submit this bid on an all- or-nothing basis as specified in paragraph four of the cover letter to the bid. For an estimated cost of $3,391.84. The quotation sheet and quotation schedule submitted by M&O did not reflect the all-or-nothing bid amount. Instead, the quotation sheet and quotation schedule showed a total bid of $3,738.24 when calculated by location. Based on the bids submitted by each bidder as shown on the quotation sheet add quotation schedules, Kelly Services was low bidder on five locations (Callaway, Tyndall, Waller, Southport, and Cedar Grove) ; Argus was low bidder on six locations (Parker, Hiland, Haney, Mosley, Beach and Merritt Brown); and M&O was low bidder on two locations (West Bay and the District Maintenance Department). Prior to the deadline for submitting bids, John Harrison, Purchasing Agent for the Board, responded to an inquiry from M&O by advising M&O that it could submit two bids, one as specified in the Bid Request by location and one as an all-or- nothing bid. No other bidders were advised that they could submit two bids. At the bid opening, M&O did not submit a quotation sheet or schedule for its all-or-nothing bid. A bid which did not have a breakdown per dump per container per facility would not be acceptable to the Board and does not meet the specifications in the Bid Request. The breakdown per dump per container per location is necessary to verify proper invoicing for specific locations on months when there is a change in the number of dumps or containers at that location. After opening the bids, the Board compiled the low bid for each location and then totaled that list. That total of $3,606.09 was greater than the all-or-nothing bid by M&O. Because M&O's all-or-nothing bid failed to meet the specifications by not having a location breakdown the Board contacted M&O to determine if its "estimated" bid was firm and to request a breakdown on the quotation schedule form for the all- or-nothing bid. On June 15, 1988, two days after the bid opening, M&O submitted a letter to the Board clarifying that its all-or- nothing bid was a firm bid for each location and M&O submitted a quotation schedule for each location per dump per container (see page 7 of Joint Exhibit 1 and the last page of Joint Exhibit 2). The charge for each location in this quotation schedule is different than the quotation schedule submitted by M&O at the bid opening and is for the most part lower per location than either M&O's first quotation schedule or the low bids taken from the quotation schedules submitted at the bid opening. Based on the letter and all-or-nothing quotation schedule filed by M&O on June 15, 1988, the Board determined to award the bid for garbage collection services to M&O for the all- or-nothing bid of $3,391.84.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Bay County enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and readvertising the bid request for garbage collection services as specified in Bid Request No. 89-23. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 13th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3768BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Kelly Services: 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 4-6(3); 7-11(7-11); and 12 (9) Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Bay County: Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 3(10&11); and 5(8). Proposed findings of fact 6, 7, and 9 are irrelevant. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 2 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. The remainder of proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 3. Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected as being argumentative, conclusory and unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Argus Services, Inc.: Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1-3); 6-8(5); 9 & 10(6) 11(3); and 12(11). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 5 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 13-17 are rejected as constituting argument and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey P. Whitton Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1956 Panama City, Florida 32402 Franklin R. Harrison Attorney at Law 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Scott W. Clemons Attorney at Law Post Office Box 860 Panama City, Florida 32402 School Board of Bay County Post Office Drawer 820 Panama City, Florida 32402-0820 M&O Sanitation, Inc. 266 N. Star Avenue Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, John Marks, committed the following violations as alleged in the Ethics Commission's two Orders Finding Probable Cause, both dated June 20, 2012: As to DOAH Case No. 12-2508EC, whether Respondent violated section 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on September 15, 2010, on a measure that would inure to the special private gain or loss of the Alliance for Digital Equality ("ADE"), a principal by which Respondent was retained. As to DOAH Case No. 12-2509EC, whether Respondent violated s ection 112.3143(3)(a), Florida Statutes, by voting on March 28, 2007, September 19, 2007, June 13, 2007, and June 18, 2008, in connection with matters that inured to the special private gain or loss of Honeywell, a principal by which Respondent was retained.
Findings Of Fact At the time of the hearing, Respondent was serving as Mayor of the City, a position he has held since March 2003. The City has a commission/manager form of government. The City Manager is the chief executive officer in control of the day-to- day operations of the City government. The City Commission ("Commission") is the legislative arm of the government. The Mayor is a voting member of the Commission. He presides at Commission meetings, but otherwise has no more power than any other member of the Commission. As Mayor and a member of the Commission, Respondent is subject to the requirements of section 112.3143(3)(a), which, among other things, prohibits a local public officer from voting in an official capacity upon any measure that he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he or she is retained. Facts as to DOAH Case No. 12-2508EC Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the BTOP was established as a grant program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") within the U.S. Department of Commerce. The BTOP funded projects to bring broadband internet infrastructure and service to underserved communities in both rural and urban areas. In 2009, the City made an application for a BTOP grant toward establishing the City as a hub for providing technology services to surrounding cities and counties. The City would establish a shared services platform to bring information technology services to smaller communities unable to obtain such services on their own. This application was turned down. The City's BTOP application had been prepared by Donald DeLoach, the City's chief information systems officer, and Carrie Blanchard, Respondent's chief of staff. After the grant application was rejected, Respondent suggested to Ms. Blanchard that ADE had experience in putting together such grants and that she "might want to consider them for something in the future." ADE is an Atlanta-based not-for-profit organization established to assist in the development and deployment of broadband technology to underserved communities. Between April 2007, and October 2010, Respondent served as a member of ADE's "Board of Advisors," a body separate from ADE's Board of Directors. Respondent advised ADE's staff on telecommunications and broadband technology issues but was not involved in the operational aspects of the company. For his continuing availability as a consultant, Respondent was paid $2,000 per month by ADE. Respondent's annual CE Form 1, Statement of Financial Interests, disclosed ADE as a primary source of income for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Ms. Blanchard passed Respondent's recommendation on to Mr. DeLoach, who testified that they took a look at the company and liked what they saw. They decided to involve ADE in the new project that was taking shape for the City's second BTOP application. Both Ms. Blanchard and Mr. DeLoach testified that Respondent was not involved in preparing the second BTOP application, and that they felt absolutely no pressure from Respondent to use ADE in the project. ADE was contacted and agreed to participate in the project. Claire Lawson of ADE spoke with Mr. DeLoach and Ms. Blanchard on numerous occasions to clarify points in the application regarding ADE's participation. In March 2010, the City submitted its BTOP grant application to the NTIA. The executive summary of the proposed project described its intent as follows: The Apalachee Ridge neighborhood and the Southside of Tallahassee have been historically underserved in terms of technology and access to broadband. Many of the area's residents are minority, low- income families with limited opportunities to access the wide variety of advantages offered by a high-speed internet connection. By enhancing the technological outreach and skills training at the existing Apalachee Ridge Technology Center in combination with targeting at-risk student populations throughout Leon County this project will expose and train a group of underserved individuals and thereby increase the adoption and utilization of broadband technology. The BTOP grant application identified three "partners" that would contribute products or services to the proposed project: Florida State University, the Go Beyond Foundation, and ADE. Throughout the application, ADE and its "Learning Without Walls" initiative are promoted as a central and essential part of the proposed project. The BTOP grant application included a letter to Ms. Blanchard from Julius H. Hollis, ADE's Chairman and CEO, expressing support for the application and confirming ADE's involvement in the project, including "an in-kind contribution of computers to support your application." If the grant were awarded and implemented as proposed, ADE would have been obligated to provide $36,109 worth of software and $40,000 worth of computer equipment. Mr. Hollis was the person who hired Respondent to work for ADE. On or about August 19, 2010, the NTIA awarded the grant to the City. The award documents stated that the grant required compliance with various federal regulations including 15 C.F.R. § 24.31(d), which provides, in relevant part: (d) Programmatic changes. Grantees or subgrantees must obtain the prior approval of the awarding agency whenever any of the following actions is anticipated: * * * (3) Changes in key persons in cases where specified in an application or a grant award.... On September 15, 2010, an agenda item was placed before the City Commission regarding this matter. The "recommended action" was to "[a]pprove the City's participation in the BTOP grant and allow the City Manager to execute the agreement with the [NTIA]." Respondent passed the presiding officer's gavel to Commissioner Lightsey so that he could make the motion that the Commission adopt the recommended action. In his comments, Respondent mentioned that he was familiar with ADE because he "had helped them out a little bit" and that ADE was a "solid non-profit organization." Respondent voted in favor of the motion, which passed unanimously. James English, the City Attorney,2/ testified that there is nothing in the City's charter or ordinances that required this matter to go before the City Commission for a vote. Other, smaller grants do not come before the Commission for a vote but are handled administratively by the City Manager. Mr. English stated that this item was put to a vote because it was a "good-news story and something you'd want to have on the agenda. It's a public meeting and it's on live television and we celebrate . . . [It was] totally non-controversial, a happy event, a unanimous vote." Mr. English stated that, while it is "customary" to bring such items to the Commission, it was not necessary to do so. He did concede that had the Commission voted not to accept the grant, the City Manager could not have moved forward in the contracting process. The September 15, 2010, Commission vote did not establish a contract between the City and any of its partners in the BTOP grant application. The purpose of the vote was simply to accept the grant from the NTIA. Before they could enter a contract with the City, the grant partners still had to demonstrate that they were in compliance with federal regulations and that they were financially able to fulfill their obligations as outlined in the grant application. Ms. Blanchard testified that the City Commissioners were usually thorough in reviewing the details of proposed contracts. She testified that as of the September 15, 2010, vote no contractual details had been provided to the Commissioners because none had yet been outlined by staff. In her briefing of Commissioner Andrew Gillum prior to the vote, Ms. Blanchard confined herself to a general description of the roles to be played by each partner in the grant application.3/ Three of the Commissioners at the time of the September 15, 2010, vote, Mark Mustian, Gil Ziffer, and Debbie Lightsey, testified that they had made no commitments or decisions regarding contracts with any of the partners as of the time of their vote. Respondent proffered that Commissioner Gillum would have given the same testimony. The proffer was accepted without objection from the Advocate. Mr. English testified that none of Commissioners had indicated to him that they had decided to vote for any particular partner named in the grant application. Mr. English testified that about one month after the September 15 vote, he attended a meeting of city staff to commence contract negotiations with the partners named in the grant application. This was the first face-to-face meeting between City representatives and those from ADE's Atlanta home office. At this meeting, the ADE representatives advised Mr. English that ADE could not be the contracting party because it was a 501(c)(4) corporation engaged in a lobbying activities that rendered it ineligible to accept federal funds. Someone at the meeting mentioned Partners for Digital Equality ("PDE"), a separate 501(c)(3) corporation that was closely affiliated with ADE. As a 501(c)(3), PDE would be eligible to participate in the grant. Mr. English observed that all of the ADE people at the table during the meeting also appeared to be involved with PDE, and verified that PDE could step into the role envisioned for ADE in the BTOP grant application. Mr. English concluded that the City would be dealing with more or less the same people under a different corporate umbrella. The decision was made to replace ADE with PDE for purposes of the City's negotiating contracts with its partners for the BTOP grant. An item was placed on the agenda for the December 8, 2010, City Commission meeting recommending that the Commission "[p]rovide authority for the City Manager to negotiate and execute three year contracts with Go Beyond Foundation not to exceed $600,187, and [PDE] not to exceed $761,609, in accordance the provisions [sic] of the grant." Mr. English testified that shortly before the December 8, 2010, Commission meeting, Respondent advised him that he was affiliated with ADE. Mr. English described the conversation as follows: He approached me, as you commonly do on conflict questions, and said, “Look, Jim, I am on the Board of Advisors or Board-- on the Board of ADE.4/ This vote is coming up again, the December vote. Is that a problem, is that a conflict? It's a not-for profit.” And I advised him at that point I would say, yes, it's a conflict, don't vote. Mr. English understood that the vote would be to negotiate with PDE rather than ADE, but this understanding did not change his advice to Respondent that he should abstain from voting on the matter. Following Mr. English's advice, Respondent filed a Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers ("Memorandum of Conflict"), disclosing that the agenda item providing the City Manager authority to negotiate and execute contracts with the BTOP grant partners "inured to the special gain or loss of The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), by whom I am retained as a member of its Board of Directors."5/ Respondent also noted that "ADE is a 501C(3) non-profit [sic] entity and provides a stipend to its board members." It was a few weeks or a month after his conflict discussion with Respondent that Mr. English learned Respondent was being paid by ADE. Ms. Blanchard testified that she knew at the time of the application that Respondent served on a board of ADE, but she did not know that it was a paid position. At its December 8, 2010, meeting, the City Commission voted 4-0, with Respondent abstaining, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate contracts with the BTOP grant partners. Mr. English testified that any contracts negotiated by the City Manager would have had to come before the City Commission for another vote of ratification. No contract was ever entered into between the City and any of the partners. The partners were unable to demonstrate their financial ability to meet the commitments they undertook in the grant application. Respondent also pointed to the publicity after ethics complaints were filed against Respondent as having "soured" the partners on the project. The City eventually notified the NTIA that it was waiving its right to accept the grant. In summary, Respondent knew at the time of the September 15, 2010, vote that ADE was a named partner of the City in the BTOP grant application, and that he was being paid $2,000 per month by ADE to sit on its Board of Advisors. Respondent listed ADE as a primary source of income on his Statement of Financial Interests for the years 2007 through 2010. Respondent did not conceal his involvement with ADE, but the record discloses no affirmative efforts on his part to dispel what appeared to be the general impression that his work for ADE was gratis, until his expression of concern to Mr. English just before the December 8, 2010 vote. However, the facts also indicate that at the time of the September 15, 2010, vote there was no contractual relationship between ADE and the City, and that at least two more Commission votes would be required before ADE could enter a contract and participate in the BTOP grant. Of decisive significance is the fact that, as a 501(c)(4) organization engaged in lobbying activities, ADE could not accept the federal grant money sought by the BTOP application. 2 U.S.C. § 1611. Thus, a separately incorporated affiliated 501(c)(3) organization, PDE, was substituted as the entity proposed to contract with the City and to receive the BTOP grant funds.6/ No evidence was provided to show a relationship between Respondent and PDE. Facts as to DOAH Case No. 12-2509EC Respondent entered into a written employment agreement dated June 1, 2004, with the law firm Adorno & Yoss. The firm was based in Miami, and Respondent was to open the firm's Tallahassee office. Throughout his tenure at Adorno & Yoss, Respondent was the sole attorney in the Tallahassee office. The employment agreement provided that Respondent would be a "contract partner" paid at the rate of $12,500 per month. The contract made no provision for Respondent to share in the profits of the firm. Adorno & Yoss partner George Yoss, who was Respondent's main contact with the firm, confirmed that Respondent was never a "partner" or "shareholder" in the sense of having an ownership interest in the firm. Respondent confirmed that he had no ownership interest in Adorno & Yoss. He testified that the employment agreement used the term "managing partner" because Adorno & Yoss "wanted to make the office in Tallahassee look as though it was really an operation that people can depend on." Respondent stated that Adorno & Yoss exercised no control over his relationships with the clients he represented or over the cases he handled.7/ He never had access to the books and records of Adorno & Yoss, and the firm never requested access to Respondent's books.8/ On average, Respondent spent 20-to-25 hours per week on Adorno & Yoss work. By its terms, the employment agreement was to expire on December 31, 2008. Mr. Yoss testified that Respondent remained with the firm past the expiration of the written agreement, but that in March 2009, Respondent's status was changed to "of counsel" because his financial performance was insufficient for the amount of salary he was receiving. The "of counsel" arrangement based Respondent's compensation on the amount of work he generated for the firm, rather than paying him a fixed salary.9/ On September 22, 2004, Respondent abstained from a Commission vote to approve the award of a guaranteed energy savings contract to Johnson Controls, Inc. and Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell"10/). In his Memorandum of Conflict dated September 24, 2004, Respondent stated that the measure in question "inured to the special gain or loss of Honeywell, Inc. and Johnson Controls, Inc., by whom I am retained." Respondent testified that when this vote came up, he was concerned that a law firm as large as Adorno & Yoss might have some involvement with the contracting entities. He called the Miami office for a client check. Respondent was told that the firm did not represent Honeywell, but that it did represent Bendix, a subsidiary of Honeywell. Respondent decided that it would be prudent to recuse himself from the vote. Respondent testified that he named Honeywell rather than Bendix on the Memorandum of Conflict because Honeywell was the entity with which the City was contracting. Respondent testified that in August 2006, another matter involving Honeywell was coming before the City Commission. By this time, he had met Bueno Prades, an account executive for Honeywell. Mr. Prades was involved in the sales of energy projects to entities such as the City, and introduced himself to Respondent in the course of pursuing an energy performance contract with the City in 2004. Mr. Prades made frequent sales calls on Respondent, but did not otherwise meet or socialize with Respondent. Respondent testified that in August 2006, he asked Mr. Prades to determine whether Honeywell or any of its subsidiaries was represented by Adorno & Yoss. Mr. Prades sent an email to his manager Steve Borden and Honeywell government relations manager Paul Boudreau asking them to "check into Honeywell's involvement with Adorno & Yoss and provide your input as to any potential conflict." Mr. Borden and Mr. Boudreau circulated the request to Honeywell's legal and accounting departments, which responded that there was no record of a relationship with or payment to Adorno & Yoss as to Honeywell or its subsidiaries. Mr. Prades relayed this information to Respondent. Respondent testified that the matter involving Honeywell never came to a vote in 2006 and that was the end of the matter for the time being. In an "urgent" email to Mr. Boudreau and Honeywell in- house attorney Jennifer Eastman, dated March 1, 2007, at 4:08 p.m., Mr. Prades wrote as follows, in relevant part: Need your prompt help . . . We're getting ready to go to the Commission with this project, but the Mayor recently indicated that he may have a potential conflict and may have to recuse himself on issues dealing with Honeywell. He also mentioned this last August, and Paul Boudreau conducted a search (see e-mail trail below) but found no record of Honeywell doing business with the Mayor's firm (Adorno & Yoss). We have contacted the Mayor's office to get some clarification regarding his concern, but would like your assistance in researching this matter from Honeywell's side.... Note that Mayor Marks is also on the Board of Directors of Fringe Benefits Management, a private financial services company headquartered in Tallahassee.... Does Honeywell International have any business relationship (either as a client or vendor) with Adorno & Yoss or Fringe Benefits Management? If so, to what extent are we connected-- with which A&Y office do we have a contract? Which Hwl business unit? Is the contract active? Also on March 1, 2007, at 11:35 p.m., Mr. Prades sent an email to: Kevin Madden, vice president of global sales; Vince Rydzewski, south region vice president and general manager; John Carter, national energy manager; Kent Anson, vice president in charge of Honeywell's utility business; Steve Smith, sales leader in the utility business; Kevin McDonough, a manager of the utility business; Kevin Colores, south region sales manager; Mr. Borden; and Frank Tsamoutales, an outside consultant. The email, with the subject line, "City of Tallahassee-- New issue may change strategy," stated as follows: The Mayor indicated he may have to recuse himself on a vote concerning Honeywell. In August and again yesterday,11/ a check of the Honeywell supply management system yielded no record of any business with the Mayor's law firm (Adorno & Yoss) or the firm he serves on the Board of Directors (Fringe Benefits Mgmt). Steve Borden has contacted [Respondent's aide] Alan Williams to determine why the Mayor feels there may be a conflict, and will find out by Monday [March 5]. On March 13, 2007, Mr. Borden sent an email to Messrs. Rydzewski, Tsamoultes and Prades, indicating that he had received a call from Respondent's office requesting information regarding the business relationship between Bendix and Honeywell. Mr. Borden also wrote that Ms. Eastman had informed Mr. Tsamoultes "that we have no record that the mayor's firm has any relationship with Bendix or Honeywell. I further understand that a plan is in place to deal with this issue directly with the mayor." Mr. Prades testified that his only direct meeting with Respondent concerning the Adorno & Yoss issue was in August 2006. In March 2007, he met with Respondent's aide, Alan Williams, to inform him that Honeywell had been unable to find any indication that it or any of its subsidiaries had a business relationship with Adorno & Yoss. Mr. Williams confirmed the substance of this conversation, and the fact that it occurred prior to the March 28, 2007, vote involving Honeywell. Mr. Williams passed on Mr. Prades' findings to Respondent. The City Commission's March 28, 2007, agenda included an item related to smart metering. One of the options before the Commission would be a staff recommendation to authorize City staff to negotiate a contract with Honeywell to provide contract management services for the full deployment of a smart metering network and smart thermostats for the City's utility system. This was the matter that was the subject of Mr. Prades' urgent inquiries. He believed it essential that Respondent vote on the motion. With the agenda item pending, Respondent sent Mr. English a short letter from Honeywell (no longer available and therefore not part of the record of this proceeding) stating that Honeywell "does not have any record of a conflict of interest with Adorno & Yoss." In an email sent on the afternoon of March 21, 2007, Respondent asked Mr. English whether he had seen the Honeywell letter and further requested, "Please advise." About a half-hour later, Mr. English replied: Yes-- and I did verify from the public records the sale by Honeywell of Bendix several years ago. Otherwise the letter isn't helpful. The issue isn't "conflict of interest with Adorno & Yoss" but representation by Adorno & Yoss. What you will need to do is the standard check by having your folks at Adorno & Yoss run the client check for Honeywell International and its wholly owned subsidiaries. I have the list per Honeywell's latest 10k filing and will forward it this afternoon. A few minutes later, Mr. English sent a follow-up email to Respondent: Sorry -- I should have added a time period for the check. Current plus within the last two years should be adequate. Let me know if you need any assistance or have any questions. On March 28, 2007, Respondent voted in favor of the motion to authorize the City's staff to negotiate a contract with Honeywell to provide contract management services for the full deployment of a smart metering network and smart thermostats for the City's utility system. The vote was 3-1 in favor of the motion, with then-Commissioner Allan Katz abstaining because his law firm represented Honeywell. The minutes of the March 28, 2007, Commission meeting provide as follows: Mayor Marks stated for the record that there had been some question at one point as to whether he had a conflict of interest on this issue; however, after extensive investigation and discussion with the City Attorney, a determination had been made that there was no conflict. Mr. English wrote a memorandum to Respondent, dated June 20, 2007, and titled, "Honeywell Conflict of Interest Check." The memorandum provided as follows: This will serve to confirm that several weeks prior to the March 28, 2007, vote on pursuing the City's automatic metering infrastructure project, you asked that I research the issue as [to] whether or not you had any conflict of interest in voting on that matter. In pursuance of that effort, I secured from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission website a list of all materially owned Honeywell subsidiaries and pursuant to receipt of that data, you had your law firm perform a client check to ensure that the firm did not represent, nor had it in recent years represented, any of the entities on that list. Additionally, prior to that time, you had advised me that in the past your law firm had represented Bendix. Prior to the specific conflict check research, I had inquired of that matter, checked the public information, and confirmed that Bendix previously had been a subsidiary of Honeywell but had been sold by Honeywell to a German company a number of years ago. In summary, I advised you at the time, and I can still confirm, that you have no prohibited conflict of interest with regard to any votes with regard to Honeywell. As always, I appreciate your apprising me of any potential conflicts that may arise from law firm representation. Mr. English testified that Respondent had "asked me to write him a memo confirming our previous discussions." Mr. English testified that his advice as to the Honeywell relationship was always based on the information that Respondent had provided. The only independent research performed by Mr. English was to confirm that Honeywell had sold Bendix and to find a list of Honeywell's subsidiaries in its 10-K filings with the S.E.C. Mr. English testified that the statement in his memo regarding the client check by Adorno & Yoss was "based on the Mayor advising me prior to the meeting that he had checked and that his law firm did not represent Honeywell." In fact, Respondent did not have Adorno & Yoss run a client check on Honeywell and its subsidiaries prior to the March 28, 2007 vote, despite the fact that his usual practice was to check with the law firm regarding conflicts. He relied solely on the information provided by Honeywell through Mr. Prades, as described above. At the hearing, Respondent explained his rationale as follows: Well, Honeywell had a lot of subsidiaries, quite a few subsidiaries that I was-- Jim English told me about and others, a lot of subsidiaries. So I thought it would be a lot more efficient and effective if I asked Honeywell if there are any conflicts where Adorno & Yoss was representing not only Honeywell, but any of the myriad of subsidiaries Honeywell had. Respondent testified that Honeywell was "really a reputable company" and that he had no reason to believe the company would "try and do anything untoward regarding this contract or any other contract." The testimony of Mr. Prades and the Honeywell emails introduced at the hearing support Respondent's belief that Honeywell made a good faith effort to discover whether it had a relationship with Adorno & Yoss. Despite the failure of Mr. Prades' inquiries to discover it, Honeywell was a client of Adorno & Yoss at the time of the March 28, 2007 vote. Anthony Upshaw, the Adorno & Yoss partner who brought Honeywell to the firm in 2003 or 2004, estimated that Honeywell was one of the firm's top fifteen clients. (Mr. Upshaw took Honeywell with him when he left Adorno & Yoss in late 2010.) Bob Kulpa, Adorno & Yoss's comptroller, testified that Honeywell was one of the firm's top ten clients. Julie Feigeles was one of the three Adorno & Yoss lawyers who worked on Honeywell matters. Ms. Feigeles testified that the firm's representation of Honeywell was limited to asbestos litigation related to Honeywell's ownership of Bendix, and that the work was handled exclusively in the Miami office. She recalled that she worked with Honeywell lawyers in the "Bendix litigation group" and that there were many defendants and many law firms involved in the litigation. Mr. Yoss, Mr. Kulpa, Mr. Upshaw, and Ms. Feigeles each testified that he or she never spoke with Respondent about Honeywell during the time frame relevant to this proceeding. Respondent testified that his contacts with Adorno & Yoss's Miami office were minimal. As noted above, Respondent's role was to provide Adorno & Yoss a presence in Tallahassee, but he mostly serviced his own clients and kept his own accounts. He estimated that he spoke to someone from Adorno & Yoss, usually Mr. Yoss, about twice per month. Respondent visited the firm's Miami office a few times. He recalled having spent a total of about 20 hours in the Miami office. The question naturally arises: why did Mr. Prades' efforts within Honeywell reveal no relationship with Adorno & Yoss, when everyone from Adorno & Yoss who testified stated that Honeywell was a major client of the firm? Mr. Prades testified that he learned later that Adorno & Yoss had been hired not by Honeywell but by the insurance company that was defending the asbestos litigation on Honeywell's behalf. This attenuation of the relationship apparently meant that Honeywell had no internal record of dealings with Adorno & Yoss, despite the fact that Ms. Feigeles recalled working with in-house Honeywell lawyers. Honeywell's accounts showed no payments to Adorno & Yoss because the payments were being made through the insurance company. From the perspective of the Adorno & Yoss lawyers, Honeywell was nonetheless their client. At the hearing, Mr. English was queried about his March 21, 2007, email advising Respondent to have Adorno & Yoss "run the client check" for Honeywell and his June 20, 2007, memo stating that Respondent had his law firm perform a client check. Mr. English did not testify that Respondent directly told him that he had run the client check with Adorno & Yoss. Rather, Respondent told Mr. English prior to the March 28, 2007 Commission meeting "that he had checked and that his law firm did not represent Honeywell." Mr. English assumed that Respondent ran a conflict check through his law firm, when in fact Respondent was relying on information obtained from Honeywell. Mr. English did not believe it mattered so long as the information was accurate. He knew of "no legal reason" why Respondent should check with Adorno & Yoss as opposed to Honeywell. He stated that, although the usual course is to check with one's law firm, "It would work either way." Mr. English noted that section 286.012, Florida Statutes, forbids a public official from abstaining to avoid a tough vote. The statute requires the official to vote unless there is a possible conflict of interest, and the presence of a conflict can constitute a "very difficult" judgment call. He testified that Respondent has "always been very, very conscientious . . . to the point of being a bit paranoid" about avoiding voting conflicts. At the time of the March 28, 2007, vote and the later votes at issue in this proceeding, Respondent did not know that Adorno & Yoss represented Honeywell. Honeywell's good faith in attempting to ascertain its relationship with Adorno & Yoss is not in doubt, and in most cases would have been sufficient to reveal the true state of affairs. With benefit of hindsight, Respondent may be criticized for failing to complete the circle of inquiry by asking Adorno & Yoss to perform a client check, a check that would have immediately informed Respondent of the representation. However, it cannot be found that Respondent's reliance on Honeywell was so unreasonable as to constitute an effort on his part to shield himself from knowledge of Adorno & Yoss's representation of the company.12/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a public report finding: That the evidence presented at the public hearing in this case was insufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Respondent's vote on September 15, 2010, inured to the special private gain or loss of the Alliance for Digital Equality, a principal by which Respondent was retained, in violation of section 112.3143(3)(a); and That the evidence presented at the public hearing in this case was insufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Respondent cast votes on March 28, 2007, September 19, 2007, June 13, 2007, and June 18, 2008, in connection with matters that inured to the special private gain or loss of Honeywell, a principal by which Respondent was retained, in violation of section 112.3143(3)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 27th day of November, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the Department issued an Advertisement for Bids (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (Department Project No. NV-30A, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving the expansion of the water treatment facility at the Martin Correctional Institution. The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a two-volume Specifications Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") that was made available for public inspection. Section B of the Manual's first volume contained the Instructions. Section B-2 2.A.(11) thereof provided that "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications must be submitted and the qualifications listed therein must be satisfactory to the Owner and the Engineer. " "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications" was a "Bidder's Qualification Form, Reverse Osmosis Treatment System Component" (hereinafter referred to as the "R.O. Form"), on which the bidder was to provide "R.O. [Reverse Osmosis] System Supplier" information. The R.O. Form repeated the directive that the bidder was to "[r]eturn [the] [c]ompleted [R.O.] Form [w]ith [its] proposal." Section B-14 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "preparation and submission of bids" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Bidder shall copy the proposal form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the Base Bid and for alternates on which he bids. . . . Proposals containing . . . . items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Section B-16 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "disqualification of bidders" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that a Bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the same work will cause the rejection of all proposals in which such Bidders are believed to be interested. The subject of "contract award" was addressed in Section B-21 of the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The qualified bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that bidder who has submitted the lowest price for the base bid, or the base bid plus additive alternates or less deductive alternates, taken in the numerical order listed in the bid documents in an amount to be determined by the Owner. The Order of the alternates may be accepted by the Owner in any sequence so long as such acceptance does not alter the designation of the low bidder. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. Section C of Volume I of the Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use to indicate their bid prices. The following statement appeared at the bottom of the second page of the Proposal Form: There is enclosed: A certified check, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or Bid Bond in the amount of not less than five (5) percent of the Base Bid payable to the Department of Corrections, as a guarantee. An executed Trench Excavation Safety Certification, Section F-13. An executed Experience Questionnaire and Contractor's Financial Statement and Public Entity Criminal Conviction Form, Section L. An executed Bidder's Qualifications Form (Reverse Osmosis), Technical Specification Section 01420. While one completed R.O. Form had to accompany each bid, there was no provision in any of the bid documents issued by the Department requiring a bidder to submit only one such completed form and no more. Petitioner, McMahan and R.J. Sullivan Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sullivan") were among the contractors that timely submitted bids in response to the Advertisement. McMahan's and Sullivan's bids were each accompanied by more than one completed R.O. Form. Petitioner, on the other hand, provided the Department with only one completed R.O. Form along with its bid. Of the bids submitted, McMahan's was the lowest, Sullivan's was the second lowest and Petitioner's was the third lowest. McMahan's base bid price was $857,000.00. Petitioner's was $905,000.00. McMahan's total price, including the nine additive alternates accepted by the Department, was $948,000.00. Petitioner's was $1,032,600.00, $84,600.00 more than McMahan's. By letter dated July 1, 1993, the Department advised McMahan of its intent "to award the contract [for Department Project No. NV-30A] to [McMahan] as the lowest responsive bidder." On July 9, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the preliminary determination to award the contract to McMahan alleging that McMahan was not a responsive bidder inasmuch as McMahan "submitted Reverse Osmosis ("R.O.") Qualifications Forms for more tha[n] one vendor." According to Petitioner, "[t]his [was] not in conformance with the Bid Documents and gave [McMahan] an unfair advantage."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order finding Petitioner's bid protest to be without merit and awarding McMahan, as the lowest responsive and qualified bidder, the contract for Department Project No. NV-30A. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of September, 1993.
The Issue Whether Respondent's action to reject all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205, relating to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, as alleged in the Amended Petition.
Findings Of Fact On March 4, 2013, the ITB was issued by Respondent for work related to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School in Clearwater, Florida. According to the Special Conditions portions of the ITB, the "scope" of the project is to "[p]rovide labor and materials to remove and replace the auditorium sound system as per plans and specifications by Keane Acoustics, Inc." The ITB was assigned bid number 13-803-205 by Respondent. Bids for the contract were to be submitted to Respondent by 3:00 p.m., April 11, 2013. Bids for the project were timely received from two companies. The first company, Becker Communications, Inc., d/b/a BCI Integrated Solutions (BCI), submitted a bid in the amount of $118,143.27. Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of $108,000.00. There is a section of the ITB titled "special conditions." The special conditions provide in part that "[t]his is an ALL or NONE bid [and] [t]he entire contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications." On April 22, 2013, Respondent posted a notice advising of its intent to award the contract to BCI. Although Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive because the bid failed to include "proof of 5 years [of] experience with this type of work" as required by the special conditions of the ITB. Petitioner interpreted this provision as requiring five years of experience as a certain type of general contractor, which Petitioner had, whereas Respondent intended for the ITB to convey that five years of experience related to the removal and installation of audio equipment was the desired type of experience. Petitioner's failure to respond to the ITB in the manner contemplated by Respondent was a technical, nonmaterial irregularity.1/ Numbered paragraph six of the General Terms & Conditions of the ITB provides in part that Respondent "expressly reserves the right to reject any bid proposal if it determines that the . . . experience of the bidder, compared to work proposed, justifies such rejection." On April 24, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent a notice advising of its intent to protest the award of the contract to BCI. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner filed its formal protest challenging Respondent's intended action of awarding the contract to BCI. Petitioner's formal protest enumerated several grounds. Of particular concern to Respondent were Petitioner's assertions that the ITB was "inconsistent with Florida law since bidders [were] not required to submit a List of Subcontractors by the time of opening bid"2/ and that provisions of the ITB were ambiguous with respect to the type of experience required to qualify for bidding.3/ Prior to receiving Petitioner's protest, Respondent was unaware of the fact that its bid specifications governing the disclosure of subcontractors did not comply with Florida law. Upon consideration of Petitioner's grounds for protest, Respondent determined that the ITB, as alleged by Petitioner, failed to comply with section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (2012),4/ and that there was ambiguity in the language regarding the experience requirements for bidders.5/ Respondent refers to the problems with the ITB as "procedural errors." These procedural errors will be referred to herein as "irregularities" as this term is more in keeping with the nomenclature of this area of jurisprudence. Given the ITB's irregularities, Respondent decided to reject all bids. In explaining Respondent's rationale for rejecting all bids, Michael Hewett, Respondent's Director of Maintenance,6/ testified that "the [irregularities] were such that [they] potentially could give an unfair advantage to one bidder over another." As for the issue related to the requirements of section 255.0515, Mr. Hewett explained that neither of the two bidders submitted a listing of subcontractors. It would have been competitively disadvantageous to BCI if Petitioner were able to successfully argue that BCI should be disqualified for failing to provide a listing of subcontractors when Petitioner also failed to provide such listing. During the same approximate time that the ITB in the present case was issued, Respondent issued an ITB for nearly identical work to be performed at one of its other facilities (Palm Harbor). In all material respects, the Palm Harbor ITB was identical to the one at issue herein. Unlike the present case, BCI was the sole bidder for the Palm Harbor project and this distinguishing fact reasonably explains why Respondent did not reject BCI's bid for the Palm Harbor Project even though the ITB therein was plagued with the same irregularities found in the present case.7/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that the rejection of all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing Tamco Electric, Inc.'s instant protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be determined in this proceeding is which of the bids submitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in response to its Request for Proposal for office space and facilities in Arcadia, Florida, is the lowest and best response to the invitation. The Petitioner contends that the Intervenor's bid was not responsive to the Request for Proposal, and that even if the Intervenor's bid were considered responsive, that Petitioner's bid was the lowest and best response. The Intervenor contends that its bid was responsive and that it was the lowest and best response. The Department contends that it properly evaluated the responses and that the bid should be awarded to the Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact In order to provide services as required by various federal and state statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services needs to maintain office space in or near to the city of Arcadia, Florida. The Department is presently leasing office space from C. W. Whidden, the Intervenor in this proceeding. The lease expires on November 30, 1982. The Department's space needs have expanded since the time that it entered into the lease for the existing facility. In order to meet the need for increased space and to continue with its present activities, the Department issued an "Invitation to Propose" inviting interested persons to submit bids for the required office space. Three persons responded to the invitation: Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Martin M. McAllister, the Petitioner in this proceeding; and the Intervenor. The bid acquisition has been designated by the Department as Lease No. 590:1526. The Department formed a bid evaluation committee composed of five employees of the Department's District VIII office. The facility being acquired would be located within and serve people within the Department's District VIII. Members of the bid evaluation committee individually reviewed the three bids, and met together to form a consensus. On May 14, 1982, the committee generated a memorandum in which the three bids were given points in 12 separate evaluation areas. The Petitioner's bid was given 87 points, the Intervenor's bid was given 83 points, and the bid submitted by Chuck Bundschu, Inc., was given 75 points. The committee recommended that the lease be awarded to the Petitioner. The Department's District VIII Administrative Services Director, Frances Clendenin, was among the members of the committee. She was not satisfied with the committee's evaluation, and she communicated about it with Cindi Shaffer, the Department's Facilities Services Coordinator in Tallahassee. Shaffer agreed that the committee's evaluation had not been sufficiently objective, or at least that the evaluation did not adequately reveal that objective criteria were applied. She recommended to Clendenin that tangible factors be applied. She suggested that the most tangible factor was cost to the Department; and if cost was not a factor, that the committee should set out a detailed narrative statement in support of its conclusions that one bidder or another should receive more or less points in any given area of the evaluation. Clendenin interpreted these suggestions as meaning that all bidders should be awarded the same points in any area unless a specific cost to the Department could be identified so as to justify less points being given to any bidder. The committee conducted a second evaluation and concluded, based upon criteria directed by Clendenin, that the Intervenor's bid should be given 98 points, that Petitioner's bid should receive 90 points, and that the Bundschu bid should receive 81 points. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the lease be awarded to the Intervenor. This recommendation was accepted by the Department. Petitioner filed a timely bid protest, and this proceeding ensued. Chuck Bundschu, Inc., neither protested the bid award nor appeared in this proceeding. The Petitioner has contended that the bid submitted by Intervenor is not responsive to the specifications set out in the Invitation to Propose. The Invitation sets out the following evaluation criteria: The successful bid will be the one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Provision of the adequate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. Intervenor has proposed to provide the required aggregate square footage in three buildings. Two of the buildings are presently occupied by the Department under the lease which will soon expire. They are separated only by a five- or six-foot-wide concrete walkway which is covered. To get from one building to the other, one must merely open one door, cross the sidewalk, and open another door. While these are more than one building, they effectively serve as a single location in the same sense that two floors in a single building serve as a single location. The third building in Intervenor's proposal is located across a parking lot from the other two buildings, within 100 yards of them. Intervenor proposes to meet the aggregate square footage required by the Department through three buildings. The three buildings constitute two locations, however, which are within 100 yards of each other. The proposal thus meets the bid evaluation criteria and is not unresponsive to the Invitation to Propose. The evaluation criteria set out in the Invitation to Propose delineates 12 separate areas to be evaluated and designates a weighted point value to be assigned each area. The highest number of points that could be given was 100. The first area for evaluation is "rental rate including projected operating expenses." Twenty-five points are assigned to this area. The Intervenor's bid offered the lowest rental rate. Over the 10-year period of the proposed leases, Intervenor's bid is between $84,000 and $85,000 lower than Petitioner's bid. In its first report, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor 25 points and the Petitioner 21 points. In its second evaluation, Intervenor was given 25 points and Petitioner 17 points. The second evaluation more objectively sets out the difference in rental rate between the proposals and constitutes an accurate appraisal of the difference between the rental rates proposed by Intervenor and Petitioner. Petitioner sought to establish at the hearing that the Department would incur additional operating expenses under Intervenor's proposal which would not be incurred under Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner offered the testimony of an employee of the electrical utility that serves the area to the effect that electrical utility charges would be greater for Intervenor's facility than for Petitioner's. The evidence is not, however, credible. The witness estimated Intervenor's utility charges by tracing the past history of charges for the two buildings presently occupied by the Department and assuming that the third building would incur utility expenses at the same rate per square foot. The Petitioner has proposed to construct a new building. The witness estimated utility charges that would be incurred at Petitioner's facility by utilizing accepted formulas. The comparison is not appropriate in an evidentiary sense because of the different techniques used to estimate charges for the two facilities. Furthermore, the witness's assumption that utility charges in the Intervenor's third building would be consistent with those in the other two is not valid because the third building would not be utilized on a daily basis. Finally, the theoretical computations for Intervenor's building cannot be credited because such services as heating and required equipment were not included in the estimate. Petitioner sought to establish that the Department would incur increased operating expenses under Intervenor's proposal because an additional employee would be required for Intervenor's facility. This contention is not supported by the evidence. The Department's activities are presently being undertaken in the Intervenor's two buildings that are separated only by a sidewalk, and no additional employees are required because of the configuration. Petitioner sought to establish that the Department would incur higher janitorial charges under Intervenor's proposal than under Petitioner's. A janitorial service made an estimate of the amounts that it would charge for the Petitioner's proposed building and for the Intervenor's existing three buildings. The estimate assumed that the third building would be utilized on a daily basis by the Department. The evidence establishes, however, that the building would be used on less than a daily basis and only for a portion of those days on which it is used. The janitorial service estimates are therefore based upon an unsupported assumption. The second area to be evaluated is "conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid." Twenty-five points are assigned to this area. In its initial report, the evaluation committee gave the Intervenor 20 points in this area, and the Petitioner 25 points. In its second evaluation, both bidders were given 25 points. The first evaluation reflects a concern with the fact that Intervenor's proposal was to provide the required square footage in three buildings, while Petitioner proposed to construct a new facility and to offer the square footage in a single building. The second evaluation reflected the committee's inability to assign a specific dollar amount to the inconvenience that would be caused by utilizing three buildings instead of one. Clearly, there are inconveniences that would result from use of three buildings rather than a single building. The operation would be less compact and therefore less efficient. Petitioner's proposal met the specific requirements in the Invitation to Bid with precision as might be expected from a facility which is designed specifically with the Invitation in mind. As also might be expected, Intervenor's facility, which was not developed with this specific Invitation in mind, does not conform as specifically with the requirements of the Invitation. The initial evaluation giving the Intervenor 20 points and the Petitioner 25 points for this area appropriately reflects differences in the bids offered by Intervenor and Petitioner and accurately assesses the difference through the point system. The fourth area to be evaluated is "provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building." Ten points are assigned to this area in the Invitation. In its initial report, the committee gave five points to the Intervenor and 10 points to Petitioner. In its second report, Intervenor was given eight points and Petitioner 10 points. The second evaluation reflects a more objective appraisal of the disadvantages of the three-building complex offered by Intervenor as compared to the one-building complex offered by Petitioner. The first evaluation represented too harsh a view of the inconveniences that would result from the three-building proposal. Some members of the evaluation committee felt that an additional employee would be required, which is not the case. Furthermore, the third building proposed by Intervenor, which is located across a parking lot, would be utilized only for storage of old files and as a conference room. It would not be used on a daily basis, and this minimizes the inconvenience that would result from its being located across the parking lot. It is appropriate that the Intervenor be given eight points and the Petitioner 10 points for this area of the evaluation. The fifth area to be evaluated is "susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization." In its initial report, the committee gave Intervenor three points and the Petitioner five points. In its second report, both Intervenor and Petitioner were given five points. The first evaluation too harshly downgrades the effect of three buildings, and the second evaluation gives too little weight to it. It is appropriate that Intervenor be given four points and Petitioner five points for this area of the evaluation. The twelfth area of the evaluation is "moving costs." Two points are assigned to this area in the Invitation. In both of its reports, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor two points and Petitioner no points for this area. Given the fact that no moving costs would be incurred under Intervenor's proposal, and costs would be incurred under Petitioner's, this appears to be an appropriate evaluation. The third and sixth through eleventh areas to be evaluated under the Invitation for Bid are "proximity to clients," "environmental factors," parking," "street-level space," "transportation," "dining facilities," and "proximity to other Department activities." The evaluation committee's reports varied in insignificant respects, but the evidence demonstrates that, objectively, the Intervenor's and Petitioner's proposals are equal in each of these areas. A total of 33 points is assigned to these areas under the Invitation. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bids meet the requirements in these areas set out in the Invitation, and both should be given 33 points. In its initial report, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor 83 points and Petitioner 87 points. In its second report, the committee gave Intervenor 98 points and Petitioner 90 points. The first report did not reflect an appropriate scoring because too much penalty was assigned to Intervenor's three-building configuration. The second evaluation did not adequately downgrade Intervenor's bid because of the three-building configuration. When the points set out in the above findings are added, Intervenor's bid is given 92 points and Petitioner's bid 90 points. This numerical assignment accurately reflects the differences between the bids and the advantages that would accrue to the Department for accepting one bid or the other. The reduced price of Intervenor's proposal and increased efficiency of Petitioner's render the proposals very nearly equal in value to the Department. By a very narrow margin, the Intervenor's proposal is the lowest and best bid in response to the Invitation to Propose for Lease No. 590:1526.
Findings Of Fact In order to meet its need for new equipment in the new district administration building, the School Board advertised for competitive bid proposals for clerical, professional task, guest and conference chairs (task seating). Five bids were timely received by the School Board, two of which were determined to be responsive. The bid opening occurred on April 17 1990, and the Knoll Source was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder. In spite of this determination, the bid was rejected by the Director of Purchasing or the appointed designee because sales tax was not included in the bid. The Notice of Award was issued to Haworth, who submitted its bid showing the price it was willing to accept for the sale of the task seating, with and without sales tax. The initial decision to reject the Knoll Source bid, which was $10,393.72 less than Haworth in Sequence I; $12,231.94 less in Sequence II; and $994.17 less in Sequence III, was based upon Section 9.2.2.a in the "Instructions to Interior Bidders". This section of the bid documents provided that the contract for purchase of the task seating would not be exempt from sales tax. This bid specification is incorrect because the School Board does not pay sales tax on acquisitions of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System. Knoll Source was aware of the School Board's sales tax exemption prior to its bid submission. As Section 9.2.2.a of the instructions was inappropriate, the vendor relied on Section 9.2.2.c, and excluded sales tax from the bid because the cost of such tax was not applicable. Section 9.2.2.c instructed bidders to exclude inapplicable taxes from their bids. Pursuant to Section 5.3.1 of the bid instructions, the School Board has the right to waive any irregularity in any bid received and to accept the bid which, in the Board's judgment, is in its own best interest. The Knoll Source and Haworth bids can be comparatively reviewed, and Knoll Source is the lowest responsive bidder if the failure to include sales tax in the bid amount is waived by the School Board. It is in the Board's best interest to waive Knoll Source's failure to include a sales tax in the bid because sales tax does not apply to this purchase.
