The Issue Whether Petitioner's bid protest should be dismissed for failure to state with specificity the underlying facts of the protest or facts sufficient to form a basis for a bid protest.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed a bid protest of Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 13- 550-002-A for raised pavement markers. Petitioner was disqualified from award of the bid due to the failure to meet the requirement that the products bid must be on the Florida Department of Transportation Qualified Products List at the time of the bid opening. Petitioner's Formal Protest contains no specific allegations of fact and as such is not in conformance with Rule 60Q-2.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 20, 1995, the Hearing Officer, sua sponte, entered an order requiring Petitioner to file an amended Formal Protest stating with specificity the facts and law which form the basis for its protest. The document filed by Petitioner in response to the order in essence: States there are on-going discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation, ("FDOT") District V Secretary and the Florida Department of Transportation Secretary that should preempt any further litigation. Complains that Section 316.0745(4), of the Florida Statutes is being improperly interpreted by FDOT so that the State is being forced to purchase a highway safety product at a cost far in excess of prudent purchasing practices. Alleges that the Petitioner meets all the qualifications of laboratory and field testing required by the Florida Department of Transportation Materials Laboratory . . . The formal protest filed in this case by Pac-Tec does not provide such notice to the Department of Management Services. Therefore the Department of Management Services cannot prepare an adequate defense to the protest. The response does not cure the deficiencies in the formal protest.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order dismissing the Formal Protest filed by Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy Horne, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 279 Astor, Florida 32101 Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Admitted Facts Per Pre-Hearing Stipulation Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a state-certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. CBC 039025. Respondent was the licensed primary qualifying agent for Thom Colan Construction, Inc., from June 10, 2004, to September 4, 2008. On January 10, 2006, Thom Colan Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Kathleen and Robert Masten to construct a house and pool on property located at 547 Bradenton Road, Venice, Florida (the project). The contract price for the project was $260,000.00. The project was completed with the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Additional Findings of Fact Based on the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence presented, the following additional facts are found: The contract between Respondent and the Mastens was a fixed-price contract. Although the contract price was $260,000.00, the Mastens paid a total of $320.394.19 for the project. The payments were made by the following methods: $49,968.58 was paid by check from the Mastens directly to Respondent; Respondent obtained an additional $222,320.71 in total bank draws, pursuant to a construction loan that authorized Respondent to draw funds directly from the bank for the project; and the remaining $48,104.90 was paid by check or credit card by the Mastens directly to subcontractors for labor and materials provided for the project. Thus, the Mastens paid $60,394.19 more than the contract price. At issue, and the subject of much dispute at the final hearing, was why the project exceeded the contract price by over $60,000.00. Respondent asserted that the entire amount by which the contract price was exceeded was attributable either to changes to the contract terms required by the Mastens or to circumstances beyond Respondent's control, such as price increases by subcontractors.2/ It was difficult to establish the causes for the price increases, in part, because the parties to the contract did not adhere to the formalities called for by the contract. For example, while both witnesses acknowledged that the Mastens requested changes as the project progressed, there was substantial disagreement about the extent of these changes and the cost differential. Unfortunately, there were no written change orders as required by the contract. Written change orders would have documented exactly what was changed and what cost was attributable to the change. Another problematic area in attempting to pinpoint why the contract price was exceeded was that there was no clear proof of the contract specifications detailing the design features of the house and pool. The written contract described a process of developing "plans" with "specifications" as to design elements. Initially, the plans would be preliminary, with items designated for buyer selections. The contract contemplated that the buyer would make these selections, which would become part of the plans, and the plans would then be considered final. Thus, certain buyer selections would be part of the contract. Thereafter, if the buyer wanted to change the final plans and specifications, the buyer would be responsible for the increased costs. No evidence was presented as to what the plans provided with respect to design features and which of those design features provided for buyer selections. Neither the preliminary plans and specifications for the Masten contract, nor the final plans and specifications after buyer selections, were offered into evidence, and it is unclear whether the process contemplated by the written contract was even followed. Nonetheless, Mrs. Masten admitted that she requested certain changes, which she acknowledged were not contemplated by the contract and were more costly than what the contract contemplated. For example, Mrs. Masten acknowledged that she requested an upgrade in kitchen appliances, increasing the cost by $2,703.55. She also acknowledged that she requested an upgrade in bathroom fixtures, but she was unsure of the cost attributable to the upgrade. Respondent testified that the total cost increase for upgrades requested by Mrs. Masten to plumbing and fixtures was $4,745.42. Mrs. Masten thought that amount was too high; it included changes claimed by Respondent, but disputed by Mrs. Masten, such as an upgrade to a hot tub that Mrs. Masten said she did not want but, apparently, was installed. The circumstances surrounding other apparent changes were in dispute. For example, an expedition, including Mrs. Masten and Respondent, trekked to a tile outlet store in Fort Meyers to pick out tile to use in the shower stall and floors. For the shower stall, Respondent testified that he "insisted" on travertine; Mrs. Masten apparently agreed, but said that she felt pressured to do so. The purchase was made, and Respondent returned to haul the travertine and other tile for the flooring on a trailer back to Venice. At some point, Mrs. Masten changed her mind about the travertine after being told by a competitor that travertine was a high-maintenance bad choice. Respondent claimed it was too late to return the tile, which he valued at $750.00, and so he testified that he threw it away. Mrs. Masten then selected different tile from the competitor at a price that was $1,292.16 higher than the travertine. The circumstances surrounding the selection of cabinetry were also in dispute. Respondent testified that he planned to use Enrique Benitez, a subcontractor who was doing other work in the house, to make the cabinets. Respondent claimed that he had Enrique prepare wood samples with different stains and that Mrs. Masten approved the samples and picked out the stain. At that point, Respondent said he paid Enrique $2,970.00 to begin constructing the cabinets. Mrs. Masten claimed that she never approved any samples, was shown only a rough, long plank of splintered wood that she said was awful and would not approve, and that she did not like any of the work this particular subcontractor was doing throughout the house. At some point, Mrs. Masten impressed upon Respondent that she would not accept these cabinets, and she selected different cabinets at an increased cost of $6,886.00. If Enrique ever built cabinets for the Mastens, he kept them. Another outing was made to select countertops. Mrs. Masten did not like the granite pieces that Respondent had intended to use, and the result was that the cost of the granite countertops selected by Mrs. Masten was $5,000.00 higher. Respondent and Mrs. Masten also could not agree on the extent of requested changes to the plans for flooring or the cost of those changes. Respondent testified that Mrs. Masten changed the mix of tile and carpeting, but Mrs. Masten disagreed. Respondent testified that Mrs. Masten required an upgraded carpet style, and although Mrs. Masten acknowledged that she selected a different carpet style, there was no evidence pinpointing the cost difference of the carpet upgrade. Additionally, Respondent acknowledged that one reason why the total cost for flooring was higher than expected was that Enrique Benitez increased the price to install the tiles from $3,000.00 to $7,500.00. Respondent sought to blame Mrs. Masten for the increased installation price, claiming that Mrs. Masten "fired" Enrique over the cabinet debacle, but Respondent had to rehire Enrique to install the floors and had to pay the increased price to overcome Enrique's hurt feelings. Mrs. Masten denied the claim that she "fired" Enrique, though she acknowledged that she was not happy with his work and that she refused to approve the cabinets Enrique was supposed to build, because the sample was unacceptable. Respondent testified that an additional $3,079.90 was spent for upgraded lighting and fans requested by the Mastens and for other electrical upgrades to accommodate other changes, such as the pool heater and spa tub. The cost to construct the pool increased by $3,700.00. According to Respondent, this increase was due to the cost of adding a pool heater that was not part of the original plans, at the request of the Mastens. Mrs. Masten disputed that this was a change. Respondent testified that there was a $323.00 cost increase because of the Mastens' request for an upgraded water softener. Post-contract changes made by the engineer to relocate the septic tank system necessary to obtain the requisite permits, altered the elevation and slope of certain parts of the property, including the space where the air conditioner would sit. Those changes resulted in the need to add a concrete slab and platform for the air conditioner. This additional cost was $419.25. Also because of the septic system design change, the county imposed additional landscaping requirements in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. This resulted in an additional $979.05 spent to purchase trees. Respondent testified that permitting fees imposed by the county exceeded the estimated cost by $2,365.63. Respondent attributed the increase to the higher impact fee charged by the county as a condition to obtain a certificate of occupancy because the post-construction value of the house was higher than estimated. In other words, the combination of cost increases and upgrades led to imposition of a higher impact fee. The rest of the difference between the contract price and the total paid by the Mastens was attributable to increases in costs because of the delay in completing the project or increases in prices charged by subcontractors for their labor and materials. These included increases in the price of concrete, plumbing work, framing, insulation, roofing, drywall, hauling trash, installation of flooring, electrical work, equipment rental, and electricity charges. Respondent explained that he obtained "bids" for various components of the project in September 2005, although he did not sign the contract with the Mastens until January 10, 2006. Respondent anticipated that he would start the project that month, but the start was delayed by more than two months because of the septic system permitting difficulties encountered by the project engineer who had been retained by the Mastens. Mr. Colan utilized the estimates he received from others to develop his overall cost estimates for the project, which he used to establish the contract price. There was no allowance built into the cost estimations for inflation, price increases, or contingency reserves. Although Respondent characterized the price estimates he obtained from subcontractors as "bids," they were not bids in the sense of being firm offers to do work or supply material at a specific cost; they were essentially price estimates subject to change. Respondent testified that at least in some cases, he could count on a bid price being "good" for six months and, in some cases, for as long as seven months. However, Respondent did not lock in any of the bid prices by contracting with the subcontractors in September 2005 or in January 2006 when the Masten contract was executed. Thus, Respondent's reliance on the price estimates given to him in September 2005 was not shown to be reasonable. These estimates would have been four months old before Respondent anticipated starting the project and closer to seven months old before the project actually began. Since many of the price estimates were for items that would not be needed for months after the project began (such as bathroom fixtures, appliances, cabinetry, flooring, and lighting), even under the best-case scenario without any delays, Respondent was plainly taking a risk by using September 2005 cost estimates as if they were guaranteed prices in determining the contract price for the Mastens' project. Not surprisingly, many subcontractors were not willing to honor the stale price estimates when Respondent sought to contract with them many months later. Respondent suggested that he should not bear the risk of others' price increases, because they were not within his control. But Respondent controlled how he went about estimating his costs for the project and how he established the fixed price he agreed to in the contract. No credible evidence was presented to establish that the price increases by Respondent's subcontractors were due to such extraordinary market conditions or delays that they could not have been reasonably anticipated and addressed sufficiently through inflation allowances or contingency reserves built into the cost estimations. While Respondent attempted to characterize certain price increases, such as the rise in the price of cement and copper or the increased cost of dirt, as attributable to a "heated up" construction market, which caused unanticipated demand, Respondent's testimony was not credible and was not supported by any independent non-hearsay evidence. Indeed, Respondent admitted that in most cases, he did not shop around before accepting the price increases demanded by his subcontractors. In some cases, he had checked on prices within the two-county area when obtaining the cost estimates in September 2005, and then he assumed that by identifying the lowest price or best supplier in September 2005, there was no need to check around when that supplier demanded a price increase later. In no instance did Respondent check prices outside of his local area. Respondent acknowledged that the total amount spent for engineering and surveying fees exceeded his estimate by $4,177.12. Respondent argued that these fees were beyond his control, because the Mastens had retained the engineer and surveyor before Respondent entered into a contract with the Mastens. However, Respondent included the engineer and surveyor fee expenses in his cost estimates and assumed the responsibility for covering these fees as part of the overall construction of the house and pool within the fixed contract price. No credible evidence established that the fees were unusually high and could not have been anticipated or addressed by appropriate contingency reserves. Respondent attempted to blame many of the price increases on the two-plus month delay in starting the project because of the engineer's need to relocate the septic system to resolve permitting issues. As pointed out above, this delay did not in and of itself cause the problem of price increases by subcontractors unwilling to honor price estimates quoted in September 2005. In any event, Respondent did not testify that the delays were extraordinary and not reasonably anticipated, even if the exact reason for the delays may not have been known. Instead, various delays for various reasons are to be expected, and, indeed, are expressly contemplated throughout the written contract. Notably, in a section called "Price Guarantee," the contract form allowed the parties to specify a month by which construction had to begin or else the builder would have a qualified right to adjust the contract price. Respondent waived that right by specifying "N/A" in the blank where a start-by month could have been named: This Contract price is guaranteed to Buyer only if it is possible for Builder to start construction on or before the month of N/A. If start of construction is delayed beyond this time by Buyer, or due to any ruling or regulation of any governmental authority, or due to any other cause which is not the fault of the Builder, the Contract price may be adjusted to the current list price or to cover any cost increases incurred by Builder. A plausible explanation for Respondent's lack of care in developing reasonable, achievable cost estimates is that Respondent did not consider the fixed-price contract to be a fixed-price contract. Respondent testified that even though the contract on its face is a fixed-price contract, he believed that he had an understanding with the Mastens that the contract was really a "cost-plus" contract. Respondent testified that despite what the contract said, the Mastens had agreed that they would pay whatever the ultimate costs were, even if the prices went up from his estimates, plus an additional $37,000 for Respondent's profit. Respondent testified that the only reason that the contract was written up as a fixed-price contract was to secure the bank loan. That suggestion would be troubling, if true, because the implication is that Respondent was a party to fraud or deception to induce the construction loan. However, there was no credible evidence to support Respondent's attempt to justify recovering full costs, plus full profit, when the fixed price he contracted for proved inadequate. Notwithstanding Mr. Colan's apparent view that there was a secret deal standing behind the written contract, he signed the written contract, is bound by the fixed-price term, and must bear the consequences of his inadequate cost estimations. At some point when the Mastens became concerned about the extent to which they were apparently exceeding the contract price while Respondent was still drawing bank funds from the Mastens' construction loan, Mrs. Masten testified that she told Respondent not to draw any more bank funds. The evidence did not clearly establish whether Respondent violated Mrs. Masten's instructions by withdrawing more bank funds after the instructions were given. The Administrative Complaint had alleged that the Mastens contacted the bank and ordered the bank to make no further disbursements, and that the next day, Respondent attempted to withdraw all remaining funds in the construction loan account. No evidence was presented to substantiate this allegation. Petitioner incurred total costs of $299.36 in the investigation of this matter, excluding costs associated with attorney time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, finding that Respondent, Thomas Colan, d/b/a Thom Colan Construction, Inc.: Violated section 489.129(1)(g)3. and (1)(m), as charged in Counts Two and Three, and for those violations, imposing a total fine of $3,000.00; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Mastens in the total amount of $30,083.04; Requiring Respondent to pay costs of $299.36; and further Dismissing Count One (based on Petitioner's voluntary dismissal) and Count Four (based on an absence of proof). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 14th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are: (1) whether the decision by Respondent, Department of Transportation, to reject all bids for the contract at issue was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and (2) if so, whether Respondent's actions in cancelling the notice of intent to award the contract at issue to Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., ("CECOS") and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.2/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency that issued the RFP to procure the Contract for Respondent's District IV. CECOS is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB was granted party status to DOAH Case No. 16-0769 by Order dated February 29, 2016, and by Order dated March 9, 2016, was determined to have standing in that case as a party whose substantial interests were affected by Respondent's decision to reject all proposals. Overview of the Procurement Process for the Contract Respondent issued the RFP on or about October 1, 2015. The RFP sought to obtain support services related to environmental impacts review for projects in Respondent's District IV work program; wetland mitigation design; construction, monitoring, and maintenance; permitting of mitigation sites; exotic vegetation control and removal in specified locations; relocation of threatened, endangered, or rare flora and fauna; permit compliance monitoring; and other services specified in the RFP. The RFP stated Respondent's intent to award the Contract to the responsive and responsible proposing vendor6/ whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to Respondent. The responses to the RFP were scored on two components: a technical proposal, worth a total of 60 points, that addressed the proposing vendor's experience, qualifications, and capabilities to provide high-quality desired services; and a price proposal, worth a total of 40 points, that addressed the proposed price without evaluation of the separate cost components and proposed profit of the proposing vendor, compared with that proposed by other vendors. The price proposal evaluation was based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) X Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 3, stated in pertinent part: In accordance with section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes, respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72- hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, . . . any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response. The period between the release of the solicitation and the 72-hour period after posting of the intended award is commonly referred to as the "cone of silence." The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 19, informed vendors that Respondent reserved the right to reject any or all proposals it received. Exhibit B to the RFP, addressing compensation, limited compensation for all authorizations for work performed under the Contract to a total of $5,000,000. Exhibit B stated that the schedule of rates listed in the Price Proposal Form C (i.e., the rates submitted for the sections comprising Exhibit C to the RFP) would be used for establishing compensation. On October 7, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 1 to the advertised RFP. Addendum 1 revised Exhibit A to the RFP, the Scope of Services; and also revised Exhibit C to the RFP, the Bid Sheet, to provide it in Excel format. As revised by Addendum 1, Exhibit C consists of an Excel spreadsheet comprised of six sections, each of which was to be used by the responding vendors to propose their rates for the specified services being procured in each section of the Bid Sheet. Section 6 of the Excel spreadsheet, titled "Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover, consists of eight columns and 258 rows, each row constituting a plant item on which a price proposal was to be submitted. The columns are titled, from left to right: No.; Scientific Name; Common Name; Unit; Estimated of [sic] number of Unites [sic]; Rate; Extension (Unit X Rate); and Multiplier 2.5 (Price X 2.5). Each row of the spreadsheet in Section 6 identified, as a fixed requirement for this portion of the proposal, the specified type of plant, unit (i.e., plant size), and estimated number of units (i.e., number of plants). For each row of the Section 6 spreadsheet, only the cells under the "Rate" column could be manipulated. Vendors were to insert in the "Rate" cell, for each row, the proposed rate for each plant item. The cells under all other columns for each row were locked, and the RFP stated that any alteration of the locked cells would disqualify the vendor and render its proposal non-responsive. The instructions to Exhibit C, Section 67/ stated: Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover Price of plants shall include project management, field supervision, invoicing, installation, mobilization of traffic, water throughout the warranty period, fertilizer and [sic] six (6) month and demobilization, minor maintenance guarantee. Installation of plant material shall be per the Scope of Services. All planting costs shall include the cost to restore area to pre-existing conditions (i.e., dirt, sod, etc.). On October 20, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 2, and on October 29, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 3. Both addenda changed Respondent's schedule for reading the technical proposal scores, opening the sealed price proposals, and posting the intended awards. Addenda 1, 2, and 3 were not challenged. However, a key dispute in these consolidated proceedings is whether the Addendum 1 Bid Sheet in Section 6 and the instructions for completing that Bid Sheet were ambiguous, or whether Respondent reasonably believed them to be ambiguous. The vendors were to submit their responses to the RFP, consisting of their technical proposals and price proposals, by October 16, 2015. CECOS, DB, and four other vendors timely submitted responses to the RFP. On November 2, 2015, the scores for the technical proposals submitted by the vendors were presented to the Selection Committee ("SC") at a noticed meeting. DB received the highest number of points on the technical proposal portion of the RFP. The SC met again on November 3, 2015. At that time, Respondent's Procurement Officer, Jessica Rubio, read the total awarded points for each vendor's price proposal, as well as each vendor's total combined points——i.e., total points for technical proposal and price proposal. CECOS received the highest number of points for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and also received the highest total combined points. Respondent recommended, and the SC concurred, that Respondent should award the Contract to CECOS. At 10:00 a.m. on November 3, 2015, Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation, constituting its notice of intent that CECOS would be awarded the Contract.8/ CECOS submitted a price proposal of $4,237,603.70. DB submitted a price proposal of $9,083,042.50. The other four vendors' price proposals ranged between $4,540,512.90 and $5,237,598.55. The "cone of silence" commenced upon Respondent's posting of the Proposal Tabulation, and ended 72 hours later, on November 6, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. As discussed in greater detail below, after the Proposal Tabulation was posted, Respondent discovered an apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, regarding the instructions to that section and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column on the Bid Sheet. After an internal investigation, Respondent decided to cancel its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, Respondent posted a notice that it was cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, DB filed a Notice of Protest, stating its intent to challenge the award of the Contract to CECOS. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, DB contacted Respondent by electronic mail ("email") to withdraw its Notice of Protest.9/ Due to the apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4 to the RFP. Addendum 4 required the responding vendors to submit new price proposals for all sections (i.e., sections 1 through 6) of Exhibit C to the RFP. Addendum 4 also established a new timeline for a mandatory pre-bid conference to be held on November 12, 2016; set a sealed price proposal due date of November 19, 2016; and identified new dates for opening the price proposals and posting the Notice of Intended Award of the Contract. On November 12, 2015, Respondent conducted a mandatory pre-bid conference to address Addendum 4. The participating vendors expressed confusion and posed numerous questions regarding the submittal of new price proposals and their technical proposals. Immediately following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued Addendum 5, which consisted of a revised Exhibit A, Scope of Services; revised Exhibit C, Bid Sheet in Excel format for all six sections; and responses to the questions posed at the pre-bid conference.10/ The Addendum 5 Bid Sheet comprising Exhibit C, Section 6, was substantially amended from the version that was published in Addendum 1. Specifically, the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit"; the "Extension (Unit X Rate)" and "Multiplier 2.5" columns were deleted; and a new column titled "Proposed Cost (Rate per Unit X Est. No. of Units)" was added. Additionally, the instructions for Section 6 were substantially amended to read: "'Rate Per Unit' must include all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, travel, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, mobilization and demobilization, staking and guying, maintenance of planting site throughout the 180[-]day plant warranty." These amendments were intended to clarify that the proposed rate for each plant unit was to include all overhead costs associated with performance of the Contract with respect to that particular unit. On November 13, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest to Respondent's issuance of Addendum 4, requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 23, 2015, CECOS filed the First Petition challenging Respondent's decision, announced in Addendum 4, to require the responding vendors to submit new proposals for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and its decision to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS.11/ Once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest on November 13, 2015, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. On December 17, 2015, Respondent posted notice that it was rejecting all proposals and that the Contract would be re- advertised through issuance of a new RFP. On December 22, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest, and on January 4, 2016, filed its Second Petition challenging Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and re-advertise the Contract. Bases for Respondent's Actions Shortly after Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation noticing its intent to award the Contract to CECOS, Christine Perretta, owner and president of DB, sent an email to Respondent, then called Rubio to inquire about Respondent's decision to award the Contract to CECOS. The evidence shows that these contacts occurred sometime on or around November 3, 2016.12/ In her telephone discussion with Rubio, Perretta inquired about how to file a notice of protest13/ and also asked whether Respondent had reviewed the vendors' price proposals for correctness or accuracy, or had simply chosen the lowest price proposal. In the course of the discussion, Perretta informed Rubio that DB had submitted a "loaded" rate for each plant unit ——meaning that DB's rate proposed for each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet consisted not only of the cost of the plant item, but also the cost for all associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 and in the RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), plus compensation.14/ Rubio could not clearly recall whether, in the course of their discussion, Perretta had inquired about the use of the 2.5 multiplier, and there is conflicting evidence as to whether Perretta related her view that CECOS may not be able to perform the Contract based on the price proposal it had submitted. In any event, as a result of Rubio's discussion with Perretta, Rubio determined that she needed to review Exhibit C, Section 6. In the course of her investigation, Rubio called Wendy Cyriaks, owner and president of CECOS.15/ Cyriaks confirmed that CECOS had submitted an "unloaded" rate for each plant item—— meaning that it had included only the cost of each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, and had not included, in the proposed rate for each plant item, the cost of the associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 or RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), or compensation. Cyriaks told Rubio that CECOS expected that its overhead costs and compensation for each item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier. Also in the course of her investigation, Rubio asked Bogardus whether he had intended the 2.5 multiplier to be used to cover all costs, including vendor compensation, associated with obtaining, installing, and maintaining the plant items listed in Section 6. Bogardus initially confirmed that his intent in including the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet was to cover all of the overhead costs and compensation. However, the persuasive evidence establishes that Bogardus subsequently agreed with Rubio that the 2.5 multiplier should not have been included in Section 6. Pursuant to her discussions with Perretta and Cyriaks, Rubio realized that the wide discrepancy between DB's and CECOS' price proposals was due to their differing interpretations of the instructions in Section 6 regarding plant item rates and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet. Rubio testified, persuasively, that the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column rendered Exhibit C, Section 6, of the RFP ambiguous. To that point, the RFP does not contain any instructions or discussion on the use of the 2.5 multiplier. Therefore, to the extent the multiplier was intended to be used by the vendors to build overhead costs and compensation into their price proposals, the RFP fails to explain that extremely important intended use——leaving the significance and use of the multiplier open to speculation and subject to assumption by the vendors in preparing their price proposals. Rubio reasonably viewed DB's and CECOS' divergent interpretations of the instructions and the inconsistent use of the 2.5 multiplier as further indication that Section 6 was ambiguous. She explained that in order for Respondent to ensure that it is procuring the most advantageous proposal for the State, it is vitally important that the RFP be clear so that responding vendors clearly understand the type of information the RFP is requesting, and where and how to provide that information in their price proposals. Rubio persuasively testified that in her view, the instructions in Section 6 had, in fact, called for a loaded rate, but that CECOS had erroneously assumed, based on the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that overhead and compensation for each plant item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier, and that as a consequence, CECOS incorrectly proposed unloaded rates for the plant items. In Rubio's view, CECOS' error was due to the ambiguity created by the unexplained and unsupported inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. Rubio testified that CECOS had been awarded the Contract because it had submitted the lowest price proposal, but that its proposal was based on an unloaded rate for the plant items, contrary to the instructions for Section 6. In Rubio's view, CECOS' price proposal was unresponsive, and CECOS should not have been awarded the Contract. Rubio also testified, credibly and persuasively, that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 for compensation purposes rendered the RFP arbitrary. Respondent's District IV historically has not used a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes for commodities contracts, and no data or analyses exist to support such use of a 2.5 multiplier.16/ This rendered the RFP both arbitrary and unverifiable with respect to whether it was structured to obtain the most advantageous proposal for the State. To this point, Rubio credibly explained that Respondent's existing environmental mitigation services contract with Stantec was procured through the "Invitation to Negotiate" ("ITN") process. In that procurement, Respondent negotiated to obtain the best value for the State. The ITN bid sheet contained a 2.5 multiplier that was used only for weighting purposes to evaluate and determine which firms would be "short- listed" for purposes of being invited to negotiate with Respondent for award of the contract. Importantly——and in contrast to the RFP at issue in this case——the multiplier in the ITN was not used to determine the final prices, including compensation, to install trees, shrubs, and ground cover under that contract. Rubio also testified, credibly, that the Bid Sheet was structurally flawed because it did not allow the vendor to clearly indicate the "unit price" inclusive of all overhead costs, and that this defect would result in Respondent being unable to issue letters of authorization to pay invoices for the cost of installing the plant items or compensating for work performed. For these reasons, Respondent determined that it needed to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. As noted above, Respondent posted the cancellation of the intent to award the Contract on November 5, 2015. At a meeting of the SC conducted on November 9, 2015, Respondent's procurement staff explained that the intent to award the Contract had been cancelled due to ambiguity in the instructions and the Bid Sheet for Exhibit C, Section 6. Ultimately, the SC concurred with Respondent's cancellation of the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and agreed that the vendors should be required to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4, announcing its decision to solicit new price proposals from the responding vendors. Respondent conducted a pre-bid meeting with the vendors on November 12, 2015, and immediately thereafter, issued Addendum 5, consisting of a revised Scope of Services and a substantially revised Bid Sheet for all six sections of Exhibit C. As previously discussed, the Section 6 Bid Sheet issued in Addendum 5 was revised to, among other things, delete the "2.5 Multiplier" column and the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit." Also as discussed above, the instructions to Section 6 were revised to clarify that the "Rate Per Unit" provided for each plant unit must contain all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, and other costs specified in the instructions——i.e, constitute a loaded rate. All of these changes were made in an effort to clarify, for the benefit of all vendors, the specific information that Respondent needed to be provided in the price proposals. Rubio testified, credibly, that in requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C, Respondent did not give, or intend to give, any vendor a competitive advantage over any of the other vendors, nor did Respondent place, or intend to place, CECOS at a competitive disadvantage by requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C. As noted above, once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. Consequently, the vendors did not submit new price proposals and the scheduled meetings at which the new price proposals would be opened and the intended awardee announced were cancelled. On December 17, 2015, Rubio briefed the SC regarding the problems with the RFP and described her concerns about proceeding with the procurement. She explained that Respondent's procurement staff was of the view that the instructions in Section 6, as previously published in Addendum 1, were ambiguous because they did not clearly provide direction on how to complete the Bid Sheet for that section. Additionally, the Section 6 Bid Sheet, as structured in Addendum 1, did not allow the vendors to provide a plant unit rate that was inclusive of all overhead costs. To this point, she noted that unless the vendors provided a loaded rate——i.e., one that included all overhead costs——Respondent would not be able to issue work orders for any plant items in Section 6.17/ She explained that these flaws constituted the bases for Respondent's decision, announced on November 9, 2015, to require the submittal of new price proposals. Rubio further explained that in Respondent's rush to issue a revised Scope of Services as part of Addendum 5, mistakes had been made18/ and Respondent's Environmental Office needed more time to carefully review the Scope of Services and Bid Sheet, to ensure the RFP was correctly drafted and structured so that the Contract could be accurately solicited and procured. Additionally, the vendors——including Mark Clark of CECOS——had expressed confusion regarding the revised Bid Sheet and submitting new price proposals, and some vendors had inquired about submitting new technical proposals. Further, under the revised procurement schedule issued as part of Addendum 4 on November 9, 2015, the vendors had a very compressed timeframe in which to prepare and submit their new price proposals, heightening the potential for mistakes to be made. Because of these substantial problems and concerns with the RFP, Rubio recommended that Addendum 5 be rescinded, that all vendor proposals (both technical and price) be rejected, and that the entire procurement process be re-started. The SC concurred with her recommendation. As noted above, on December 17, 2015, Respondent rejected all proposals and announced that the Contract would be re-solicited in the future through issuance of another RFP. CECOS' Position CECOS takes the position that the RFP and the Section 6 Bid Sheet published in Addendum 1 were not ambiguous. Specifically, CECOS contends that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 clearly indicated that Respondent was seeking an unloaded rate for the plant items listed on the Section 6 Bid Sheet. In support of this position, CECOS notes that all of the vendors other than DB had submitted unloaded rates for the plant items in Section 6. CECOS contends that this shows that Section 6 was not ambiguous, and that DB simply did not follow the RFP instructions——of which it was fully aware——in preparing and submitting its price proposal.19/ CECOS also contends that Rubio's failure to contact the other vendors to determine if they found the instructions or use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 ambiguous evidences that Rubio's conclusion that Section 6 was ambiguous lacked any factual basis, so was itself arbitrary. CECOS asserts that Bogardus' intent to use a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes was evidenced by its inclusion on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that its use on the Section 6 Bid Sheet did not render the RFP flawed, and that Bogardus' intent to compensate using the multiplier should control the structure of compensation paid under Section 6.20/ CECOS also notes that the use of the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet mirrors the 2.5 multiplier in the existing environmental mitigation support services contract with the current contractor.21/ CECOs further contends that there was no material difference, with respect to structuring compensation for the plant items, between the ITN process used for procuring the existing contract and the RFP process used to procure this Contract. As additional support for its argument that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 was valid, CECOS points to a request for proposal for environmental mitigation services issued by Respondent's District VI. In that contract, a 2.5 multiplier was used for compensation purposes, albeit for specific plant items that were not contained in the original list of specific plant items for which rate proposals had been solicited in the request for proposal. CECOS further contends that Respondent——and, most particularly, Rubio——did not conduct a thorough investigation into the historic use of 2.5 multipliers in Respondent's commodities contracts. CECOS argues that as a consequence, Respondent's determination that the use of the 2.5 multiplier rendered the Section 6 Bid Sheet structurally flawed and arbitrary was unsupported by facts, so was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that cancelling the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals placed CECOS at a competitive disadvantage and was contrary to competition because once the Proposal Tabulation was posted, the other vendors were informed of the price that CECOS had bid, so knew the price they had to beat when the Contract was re-solicited. CECOS also points to what it contends are procedural irregularities with respect to Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS and DB once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS. Specifically, CECOS contends that Respondent did not respond to its calls or email asking why the intent to award the Contract to CECOS had been cancelled. CECOS also contends that Respondent communicated with DB on substantive matters during the "cone of silence." CECOS further notes that Respondent did not convene a resolution meeting within the statutorily- established seven-day period after CECOS filed its First Petition, but instead held the meeting over 60 days later, on January 28, 2015, and that even then, Respondent did not engage in good faith negotiation to resolve the challenge. Finally, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions (discussed above) that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that it followed the instructions in the RFP in preparing its price proposal, submitted the lowest price proposal, and is ready, willing, and able to perform the Contract at the rates it proposed in its response for Section 6. On that basis, CECOS contends that it is entitled to the award of the Contract. Findings of Ultimate Fact CECOS bears the burden in this proceeding to prove that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.22/ Even if CECOS were to meet this burden, in order to prevail it also must demonstrate that Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. For the reasons discussed herein, it is determined that CECOS did not meet either of these burdens. The Multiplier Rendered Section 6 Ambiguous, Arbitrary, and Structurally Flawed As discussed in detail above, Respondent decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the submittal of new price proposals by the vendors only after it had conducted an extensive investigation that included a careful review of numerous provisions in the RFP and the instructions to Section 6 and had analyzed the structure of Section 6 in relation to other provisions in the RFP. That investigation showed that nowhere in the RFP was the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6, discussed or explained. Thus, to the extent the multiplier was to be used in determining reimbursement for overhead costs and compensation, the RFP failed to explain this extremely important point, leaving the multiplier's purpose, use, and significance open to speculation and assumption by the vendors in submitting their price proposals. This rendered the multiplier's use in Section 6 ambiguous. This ambiguity is further evidenced by DB's and CECOS's widely divergent price proposals for Section 6, and the credible testimony of Perretta and Cyriaks regarding their differing views of the purpose of the 2.5 multiplier. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the ambiguity in Section 6 caused the vendors to have differing interpretations of the manner in which they were to propose plant unit rates in Section 6; that the vendors submitted plant price proposals predicated on differing assumptions; and that this resulted in Respondent being unable to fairly compare the price proposals for purposes of obtaining the most advantageous proposal for the State. On these bases, Respondent reasonably concluded23/ that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6, rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. As extensively discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that Respondent concluded, based on its investigation and review of Section 6, that inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier rendered Section 6 both arbitrary and structurally flawed.24/ The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that Rubio investigated Respondent's use of multipliers in commodities procurements and contracts to the extent necessary and appropriate for her to reasonably conclude that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 rendered this portion of the RFP ambiguous, arbitrary, and structurally flawed.25/ In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a thorough and thoughtful investigation before concluding, reasonably, that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6 rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. Respondent's Actions Were Not Contrary to Competition Although the evidence shows that CECOS may suffer some competitive disadvantage because competing vendors were informed of the lowest "bottom line" price they would have to beat, it does not support a determination that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require the vendors to submit new price proposals were contrary to competition. To that point, in Addendum 5, Respondent substantially restructured the Section 6 Bid Sheet and also amended the Bid Sheet comprising the other price proposal sections in Exhibit C, so that CECOS' and the other vendors' price proposals submitted in response to Addendum 5 may have substantially changed from those submitted in response to Addendum 1. In any event, it cannot be concluded that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals are contrary to competition such that they should be overturned in this proceeding. Procedural Irregularities CECOS also points to certain procedural irregularities in Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals. CECOS apparently raises these issues in an effort to show that Respondent's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The undisputed evidence establishes that Rubio communicated with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" following the posting of its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. The undersigned determines that the "cone of silence" applied to Rubio and her communications with DB and CECOS within the 72-hour period following Respondent's posting of the intent to award the Contract. Specifically, she is an employee of Respondent's District IV Office, so is an employee of the executive branch of the State of Florida. Further, the evidence shows that her communications with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" period dealt specifically with substantive, rather than "administrative" issues regarding the RFP and the vendors' price proposals. Accordingly, it is determined that these communications did, in fact, violate the "cone of silence." However, this does not require that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS be overturned. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that while DB's conversation with Rubio may have spurred Rubio to decide she should investigate the Section 6 instructions and use of the 2.5 multiplier, it was not the reason why Respondent ultimately determined that the intent to award the Contract should be cancelled. Rather, Respondent's discovery of the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, through Rubio's investigation, was the reason that Respondent determined that the intent to award the Contract to CECOS should be cancelled. In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that notwithstanding Rubio's communications on substantive matters during the "cone of silence" with both DB and CECOS, the integrity of the procurement process was not undermined such that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. CECOS failed to present persuasive evidence establishing that other procedural irregularities rendered Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decisions to Cancel Intent to Award the Contract and Require Submittal of New Price Proposals Based on the foregoing, it is determined that CECOS did not meet its burden to show that Respondent's decisions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decision to Reject All Proposals As noted above, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. However, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all bids was factually supported and was reasonable. As discussed above, Respondent initially decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals after it discovered the ambiguity and structural flaws resulting from the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. At that point, rather than rejecting all proposals, which would require the vendors to go to the time and expense of preparing completely new proposals, it decided to instead only require the vendors to submit new price proposals. Due to the interrelated nature of the six sections of Exhibit C comprising the complete price proposal for the RFP, Respondent determined revision of Section 6 would also require revision of the other five sections of Exhibit C, in order to ensure that they were internally consistent with each other. At the mandatory pre-bid meeting preceding the issuance of Addendum 5, the participating vendors had numerous questions about the sweeping revisions to all six sections of Exhibit C, and they expressed confusion about the revisions and their effect on preparation of new price proposals. Some vendors also expressed concern that they may have to change their personnel in order to be able to accurately prepare new price proposals, raising the question whether the technical proposals needed to be revised. As a result of vendor confusion and concern, and also because Respondent's Environmental Office needed additional time to carefully review and revise the RFP as needed, Respondent decided to reject all proposals and to start the procurement process anew. Respondent's decision to reject all bids was made after fully considering all of the pertinent information regarding the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, vendor confusion and concern caused by Respondent's revisions to Exhibit C needed to address the ambiguity and flaws in Section 6, and Respondent's need for additional time to ensure that its RFP accurately and clearly solicited the needed environmental mitigation support services. Accordingly, Respondent did not act arbitrarily in deciding to reject all bids. Further, no persuasive evidence was presented to show that Respondent's decision to reject all bids was illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation: Issue a final order in Case No. 16-0769 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and Issue a final order in Case No. 16-3530 finding that the decisions to cancel the award of the Contract for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM were not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's response to invitation to bid 93C-116T was properly rejected.
Findings Of Fact An invitation to bid (ITB) for a contract to supply and for a contract to install acoustical ceiling tiles were solicited by Respondent on October 26, 1992. Bid proposals were filed by four bidders, one of which was the Petitioner. On November 18, 1992, bids were opened and posted, and it was determined that the apparent low bidders were bidders other than Petitioner. The bid submitted by Petitioner was rejected by Respondent on the grounds that Petitioner failed to sign the anti-collusion statement. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed its bid protest to challenge the rejection of its bid. On December 16, 1992, an informal bid protest meeting was held which resulted in the issuance of a letter rejecting the informal bid protest. Thereafter, the bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this proceeding followed. On the first page of the ITB form used by Respondent, the bidder is to insert its name, address, telephone number, and federal employer identification number (or social security number). The bidder is also required to manually sign an anti-collusion statement and to type or print the name and title of the person who signed the statement. Petitioner failed to execute the anti- collusion statement and it did not furnish the information required by this section of the form. The anti-collusion statement is as follows: ANTI-COLLUSION: the signed bidder certifies that he or she has not divulged, discussed or compared his or her bid with other bidders and has not colluded with any other bidder or parties to a bid whatever. (NOTE: No premiums, rebates or gratuities [are] permitted either with, prior to, or after any delivery of materials. Any such violation will result in the cancellation and/or return of materials (as applicable) and the removal from the bid list(s). Also on the first page of the ITB form used by Respondent are certain "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders", including the following: EXECUTION OF BID: Bid must contain a manual signature of an authorized representative in the space provided above [the signature line for the anti-collusion statement]. Failure to properly sign proposal shall invalidate same, and it shall not be considered for award. ... Also on the first page of the ITB form used by Respondent is the following: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to ... waive any irregularity in bids received ... All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. After Petitioner's bid was rejected, Petitioner's bid was not further evaluated. The uncontroverted testimony on behalf of Petitioner was that its bid for the installation of the tile would have been the lowest bid had it been evaluated. Respondent's past practice has consistently been to reject bids where the anti-collusion statement is not properly executed by the bidder. The rationale for this practice is to safeguard against collusion among bidders. Petitioner's failure to execute the anti-collusion statement was an oversight on the part of Franklin C. Taylor, Jr., the officer who prepared the response on behalf of the Petitioner. Franklin C. Taylor, Jr., executed the "Drug-Free Workplace Certification" and the "Sworn Statement Pursuant to section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes, On Public Entity Crimes" as required by the ITB and attached both certifications to Petitioner's response. Petitioner asserts that it is ready, willing, and able to perform the contract and that the failure to sign the anti-collusion statement was an error that can now be corrected or that can now be waived as a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order which dismisses Petitioner's bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin C. Taylor, Jr. Herbert J. Taylor Custom Ceilings of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Post Office Box 9592 Riveria Beach, Florida 33404 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Dr. Monica C. Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C 320 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Abbey G. Hairston, General Counsel Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On the evidence, it is found and determined that: I. The RFP and Stage I, II and III Evaluation Respondent issued the RFP on August 19, 2004, seeking competitive proposals for a contract for administration of the FCAT. Respondent's intent in this procurement is to contract with a qualified vendor who will be capable of performing the contract at the lowest possible cost to the State. This contract impacts all Florida public schools. The RFP included the following provisions regarding the general scope of the requirements and bidder responsibilities. 1.0 . . . A contract, if awarded, will be awarded by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the state, while taking into consideration price and other criteria specified by the RFP. 1.3 . . . This RFP defines the requirements for implementing the FCAT assessment program. The RFP and the selected contractor's proposal, together with clarifying documents, define the work to be conducted under contract. These documents will be incorporated into the contracts resulting from the FCAT project award. Because the FCAT assessment program is technical and complex, it is possible that a responsive proposal may not totally or clearly reflect RFP requirements in all details. If the proposal of a contractor selected as a result of the bidding process is inconsistent with the RFP, the requirements of the RFP prevail; the selected contractor will be expected to perform all RFP requirements without an increase in cost above the proposed cost. * * * 5.18 Acceptance of a Proposal The Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in a proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the RFP that does not affect the price of the proposal, or give one bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impact the interest of the Department. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the bidder from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the bidder is awarded the contract. Rejection of Proposals Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of this RFP may be rejected by the Department. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal contains unauthorized amendments, either additions or deletions, to the requirements of the RFP. The proposal is conditional or contains irregularities that make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous. The proposal is received late. The proposal is not signed by an authorized representative of the bidder. The bidder is not authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida or has not included a statement that such authorization will be secured prior to the award of a contract. A bid bond is not submitted with the proposal. The proposal contains false or misleading statements or provides references that do not support an attribute, capability, assertion, or condition claimed by the bidder. The proposal does not offer to provide all services required by this RFP. Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received. 5.22 . . . In the event of conflict between the language of a proposal and the language of the RFP, the language of the RFP shall prevail. * * * 7.1 Stage I: Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements (Part I) During the Stage I evaluation, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will determine if a proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will evaluate each proposal according to the process described in this section. The RFP required prospective vendors to submit sealed proposals in two parts, a technical proposal and a price proposal. The technical proposals were reviewed and scored by an evaluation committee prior to opening of the sealed cost proposals. Failure of a bidder to meet every item on the Stage I list would not necessarily result in elimination of the proposal from consideration. A proposal would be eliminated only if it contained a material irregularity. "Stage I" of the process was identified in the RFP and is basically a check list of documents and commitments that are to be included with proposals. In accordance with Section 7.1, the purpose of the Stage I review is to determine whether the proposals are sufficiently responsive to be considered by the evaluation committee. Two of Respondent's employees opened the technical proposals and checked the proposals against the Stage I list to make certain "Mandatory Documents and Statements" required by Section 7.1 of the RFP were present. They did not make any substantive judgments about the extent of compliance. In performing this Stage I review, Respondent's employees followed the department's standard operating procedures. No scoring points were associated with the Stage I check list review. The technical portions of the RFP were categorized into two parts: Part II titled, "Bidder Qualification and Experience"; and Part III titled, "Technical Proposal for Administration." Bidders could receive a maximum of 50 points for Part II and a maximum of 50 points for Part III, a total maximum possible points of 100 for the technical proposals. The RFP is designed to ensure that only qualified, responsible bidders will be eligible for award of the contract. In order to be considered eligible, a bidder was required to receive a minimum of 70 cumulative points for the technical proposals. Each of the two parts of the technical proposals was broken down into ten categories or criteria. The RFP provided that an evaluation committee would assign scores from one to five, with five being the highest possible score, for each of the criteria. The RFP consists of approximately 200 pages of technical specifications, instructions, and guidelines including appendices and addenda issued after the original release date. Each of the bidders submitted technical proposals in excess of 400 pages. The RFP provided that evaluation of proposals would be based on a holistic approach so that the proposals could be scored based on consideration of the whole package proposed by the bidders without artificial limitations on the evaluators' ability to evaluate the entire proposal and score it accordingly. The evaluation process was designed to be as objective as possible, but a degree of subjective judgment is involved in the scoring of the proposals. The 20 scoring criteria for Parts II and III were designed to cover broad categories of qualifications against which the proposals were judged. Because of the holistic evaluation approach, there was no intent to evaluate proposals on the basis of an item-by-item determination. The committee evaluating the proposals was selected to include representatives familiar with various aspects of the FCAT, which were covered in the proposals. It also included a person not employed by Respondent as required by new procurement guidelines and also included a parent representative. The evaluation committee was selected so that each member brought a different expertise or perspective to the process. The evaluation committee was instructed on how the evaluation process was to be accomplished. The evaluators took their responsibility seriously and did a thorough job. For Part II, the rating scale ranged from five (excellent) to one (unsatisfactory). A score of five means the evaluator found that the bidder demonstrated superior qualifications and experience to perform the required tasks. A score of one meant the bidder demonstrated insufficient experience and capability to perform the required tasks or did not establish its qualifications and experience. The RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of Overall Bidder Qualifications and Experience will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix M." The "holistic" approach referenced in the RFP means that Respondent looks at the proposal as a whole. The RFP and the administration of the FCAT is very complex and the evaluators are not required to look at each component of the proposal, but are to judge the whole proposal. For Part III, the rating scale also ranged from five to one. The criteria for what merited a five or a one changed, however, from Part II. A score of five means that the bidder proposed superior solutions to the requirement of the RFP and has proposed products and services that are desirable for use in the FCAT administration program and are likely to create a high quality assessment program that meets sound psychometric standards that are clearly feasible to implement. A score of one under Part III means that the bidder proposed inferior or incomplete solutions to the requirements of the RFP or has proposed products and services that would be technically indefensible, would create a flawed assessment program not meeting psychometric standards, or would not be feasible to implement. Again, the RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix N." The proposals were scored independently based upon the proposal's compliance with applicable RFP criteria; the proposals were not scored based upon how they compared to each other. Indeed, the evaluators were instructed not to discuss their scores so that each evaluator would establish their own internal criteria that was consistent across proposals. Although none of the proposals were deemed non- responsive in this stage, there are indications that failure to meet certain RFP requirements were noticed by the evaluation committed and scored accordingly. Stages II and III of the evaluation process took four days. Representatives of the bidders, including its attorney, attended all of the Stage II and III evaluation sessions. Documentation of Subcontractor Information. The RFP included the following specifications relating to documentation of subcontractors and printers. 4.6.1 Subcontractors The test administration contractor may choose to employ subcontractors for the completion of one or more tasks. If the bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor(s), the qualifications and experience of the subcontractor(s) will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as those of the bidder. A separate chart in the proposal will identify all of the subcontractors proposed to be involved in the project and the services they are expected to provide. All subcontractors must be approved by the Department. It is assumed that the contractor will use outside printers for some materials. Printers will be documented as subcontractors, and the management plan will identify the proportion of materials to be printed by the contractor and by outside vendors. Procedures for quality control and security during printing are to be described. Destruction of secure materials is addressed in Section 3.7.4. The contractor will assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they are performed or produced by the contractor or by subcontractors. The Department will consider the selected contractor to be the sole point of contact for contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. Other specifications in the RFP contained similar or identical language. The RFP also provided the following in Section 5.31 with respect to subcontractors: Any change of subcontractors must be approved in advance by the Department. In the event of poor performance by a subcontractor, the Department reserves the right to direct the contractor to replace that subcontractor. While Item 10 on Page 77 of the RFP required a representation from the vendors that they had identified all subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed directly by each subcontractor, the only investigation that Respondent undertook to confirm the accuracy of these statements was the Stage I evaluation. The Stage II and Stage III evaluators did not check to ensure that all of the subcontractors had been documented as required by the RFP. The RFP specifically required that all printers be identified and documented as subcontractors. Section 6.3 of the RFP requires the management plan to specifically identify the proportion of materials to be printed by outside vendors. Section 4.6.1 of the RFP on Page 53 states that if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the qualifications and experience of the subcontractors will be documented in their proposal at the same level of detail as the bidder. That section also provides that "printers will be documented as subcontractors." The timeliness, accuracy, and security of the printing operations are very important to the FCAT program; and the qualifications and experience of the printers, who would actually print the materials, is an important component of this procurement. As it relates to the "back-end" printing of the student and parent reports, there are privacy concerns that are particularly sensitive. The RFP provisions were included to ensure that, if a vendor was going to use outside printers for some of the activities, Respondent would be able to tell from the response who all of those printers were and what services they were going to perform. The RFP was drafted to ensure that Respondent was dealing with vendors who were qualified and experienced and able to deliver the products requested in the RFP. There were specific requirements in the RFP as to how the bidders were supposed to identify prior contracts, provide contact information, and document the printers who were going to do any of the actual printing. Section 6.2 on Page 74 of the RFP required that all vendors were to document contracted services for previous assessment projects similar to the one described in the RFP. For each of those projects, the documentation was supposed to include a description of the services and products delivered, the contract period, the name, address, and telephone of the contract person for each of the contracting agencies. This provision was applicable to all of the printers who were involved in this contract. The printers were also supposed to document how they were going to monitor security and provide quality control during the printing process itself. The intent of the RFP was to have bidders document who was going to do the printing, whether it was subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, or sub-sub-subcontractors. Section 5.27 on Page 65 of the RFP states that "if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the subcontractor's qualifications and experience will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as that of the bidder. Procedures for quality control and security of the work tasks performed by the subcontractors are to be described." These provisions are not discretionary. They are mandatory and require all vendors to provide a description of the quality control and security measures to be employed by all subcontractors, including the printers who must be documented as subcontractors. CTB's proposal identified The Grow Network as the entity that would be responsible for printing requirements. The Grow Network is an affiliate of CTB. CTB's proposal included documentation regarding The Grow Network's qualifications to perform the printing. In its response to the RFP, CTB provided extensive documentation and met all of the requirements of the RFP with respect to its front-end printers. Indeed each of those printers was identified in paragraph 10 of the transmittal letter that accompanied the CTB proposal. The Grow Network was also responsible for providing the back-end printing for the reports to be sent to the parents and students. The Grow Network was identified as doing 20 percent of the printing. However, the Grow Network does not actually do any printing themselves. At the hearing, the Grow Network claimed that it was the "print publisher" of the back-end reports. It stated that the Grow Network utilizes a "distributed printing approach." This, in fact, meant that the printing was going to be subcontracted out. The services that would be subcontracted out by the Grow Network include digital printing, collating, packing, distribution, and tracking. CTB's proposal states that GDS, a digital imaging company, will be the print facility utilized by the Grow Network to perform these aspects of the FCAT report printing requirements. CTB's proposal describes the corporate capabilities and experience of GDS, including descriptions of the California and New Jersey projects where GDS was utilized by the Grow Network as its print facility. The RFP also required bidders to provide examples of materials to demonstrate the quality of the work done on similar projects. Accordingly, CTB included sample reports printed by the Grow Network in conjunction with GDS, for the California and New Jersey projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing detailed documentation of both the Grow Network and GDS, Petitioner asserts that CTB failed to comply with the RFP because the CTB proposal indicates that much of the printing work will be out-sourced without disclosing who is actually going to be providing these services. However, CTB's proposal identifies only one printing facility, GDS, that will be utilized as the print facility under its distributed printing approach. CTB's proposal specifically states that "Grow currently uses GDS to support their California and New Jersey projects, and they will employ GDS' services for the Florida reporting project." CTB's proposal identifies other printing facilities, Delzer, R.R. Donnelley, and Bowne, that Grow could utilize on the FCAT with Respondent's approval. These other companies were potential "backup" printers, which were identified in case Respondent preferred using another printing facility. Otherwise, the Grow Network intended to utilize GDS as the sole printing facility on the FCAT and has a commitment from GDS to perform the tasks required. The RFP does not require commitment letters from subcontractors. The RFP required only the identification of the proposed printers, which could be changed with Respondent's approval. CTB has also indicated in its response that it will utilize 180 employees of Kelly Services, at three different locations, to supervise approximately 3,000 scorers. However, nowhere in the proposal has CTB documented Kelly Services as a subcontractor, nor provided information regarding their experience and qualifications to perform this work. CTB uses Kelly Services as a recruiting service provider. CTB is responsible for the hiring, training, and directing of the Kelly Services personnel and ultimately for the deliverables received from those employees. Kelly Services is not a subcontractor as contemplated in the RFP, because they are not held accountable for their deliverables. Accordingly, CTB's proposal is not deficient for failing to document Kelly Services as a subcontractor. Even if the failure to so document Kelly Services were a deficiency in CTB's proposal, the lack of detail would only lower CTB's score, not make it non-responsive. The Post-submittal Clarification Process. The RFP provided at Section 7.0 that each bidder would be required to make a presentation to the evaluation committee after the technical proposals were opened and that information presented or issues clarified during the presentation might affect the number of points an evaluation committee member assigned to a given proposal. On the first day of the evaluation process, the bidders were required to make separate oral presentations to the evaluation committee. Following those oral presentations, the evaluation committee was to begin the process of scoring the proposals based on the various RFP criteria. This was to be a "closed session" during which the vendors were not permitted to interact with the evaluation committee members; likewise, the evaluation committee members were not permitted to direct any questions to the vendors. RFP Section 7.0 spells out the rules and processes for conducting the oral presentations of the vendors. This includes the imposition of time limits on the presentations and questions from evaluators, which were to be strictly followed. Section 7.0 states, in pertinent part: The purpose of the presentation will be for the bidder to describe its offering of products and services and make any statements that will enhance understanding of its offering. The proposal evaluation committee will NOT evaluate the presentations or otherwise award points for the quality of the of the presentation. Information presented or issues clarified during the presentation MAY affect the number of points a proposal evaluation committee member assigns to a given proposal. . . . The presentation shall not exceed 30 minutes with an additional 15 minutes reserved for proposal evaluation committee member questions. These meetings will be open to the public; however, only members of the proposal evaluation committee may ask questions of the bidder. The above-quoted language in the RFP does not contemplate written submissions by vendors following the oral presentations. Nothing else in the RFP specifically authorizes vendors to clarify information in their proposals after the presentations have concluded. Thus, the oral presentation part of the evaluation process is the only RFP-authorized mechanism available to evaluators for seeking clarification of the proposals. Because clarifications are permissible during the vendor presentations, the RFP expressly states that such clarifications may affect scoring of the proposals. By contrast, nothing in the RFP authorizes the evaluators to seek or consider in scoring the proposals any vendor clarification made in any other form or at any other point, whether before or after the oral presentations. In fact, considering any information received from the vendors outside of the oral presentations would be inconsistent with RFP Section 5.3, which restricts communications by bidders with Respondent's staff. In short, to the extent a clarification of a proposal was needed, under the RFP, it should have been provided orally during the vendor presentations. Each of the bidders made a presentation to the evaluation committee. During the presentations, members of the evaluation committee asked bidders various questions relating to their respective responses to the RFP. One of the members sought clarification regarding the total number of full time equivalent ("FTE") hours for the persons identified in the proposals. Although the evaluation team was not given any specific standards or base lines to utilize in scoring the staffing and personnel commitments submitted by the parties, a bidders' commitment of personnel resources was an important factor for several of the criteria in the RFP. The bidder representatives for CTB and Petitioner were not able to provide the requested FTE information at the time of the presentation. Harcourt's representatives, who had had the benefit of hearing the presentations made by Petitioner and CTB, were able to answer the FTE question at the presentation. Because the evaluators had lingering questions on staffing, Respondent made a decision to send out questions to two of the three vendors following completion of the oral presentations. No scoring was done on any of the proposals prior to the time Petitioner's and CTB's responses were presented to the evaluators. At least some of the evaluation committee members felt that the staffing information was critical. The questions were not based on the presentations by the vendors, but were based on the evaluation committee members' concerns that had not been resolved by the oral presentations. The questions reflected areas that the evaluators were not able to understand from the initial proposals submitted. After the presentations, Respondent delivered letters dated August 30, 2004, to Petitioner and CTB, but not to Harcourt, asking them to provide the requested FTE information by the following day. CTB and Petitioner both promptly provided the information requested. CTB's August 31, 2004, written response to the FTE question included a chart that identified all personnel and the associated FTEs that would be assigned to the project. This FTE chart was prepared by Diane Driessen, CTB's senior program manager who was one of two CTB employees primarily responsible for preparing CTB's response to the RFP. As a format for its written response, CTB utilized the existing chart for Professional Personnel Responsible for Major Contract Activity (Figure 9), which was in its proposal. CTB added to this chart the additional personnel to reflect the total FTEs for the project as a whole. CTB took the material in the proposal and presented it in a consolidated format. CTB combined the monthly activities by program chart, which was Table 9, with the key personnel chart, which was Figure 9, and handscoring resources presented in the proposal. The additional named personnel in its response were not named in the original figure of key personnel because they were not considered responsible for major contract activities. It was an oversight that the chart still retained the heading, "Time Task Chart for Key Project Personnel" when it actually reflected the 330 total FTEs for the whole project team as requested by Respondent. The cover letter to Respondent explained that CTB was listing all personnel, not just "key personnel." All of the unnamed persons added to the chart are identified by position in the original proposal. As part of its written response to Respondent's written requests for additional information, CTB also included a written recap of the questions and answers from its oral presentation. The evidence demonstrated that the information provided by CTB after receiving Respondent's staff's questions included corrections of errors contained in CTB's initial response to the RFP. This information was presented to the evaluators for them to review and consider in the scoring process. No one from Respondent made an analysis to determine whether the information in the supplement was contained in the original proposal before it was presented to the evaluators. The RFP also required the vendors to provide all required information by the deadline that the proposals were to be received. Respondent was obligated to follow these provisions and not accept any information in a manner inconsistent with them. In addition, bidders were required to commit to complying with all requirements of the RFP if awarded the contract: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal including but not limited to, certification requirements. . . . The supplemental information submitted by CTB should have been included in CTB's initial submittal. The fifth bullet point of Section 4.6.2 of the RFP on Page 54 required bidders to indicate by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities with an estimation of the amount of time and full-time equivalencies each person was going to devote to the tasks under the contract. The proposal was also supposed to include a vitae for all such professional personnel. This bullet point was not limited to only those who had a supervisory role. It was the intention of the bullet point that the individuals should be identified by name, including software development staff. Much of CTB's software development staff was not identified by name in its initial response, but they were identified in the supplement. The RFP required vendors to provide the total time commitment for key personnel in the initial submission and required that the bidders identify by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities. The time commitment for some of the key project personnel that CTB identified in its initial proposal were significantly "revised" in its supplement. These "revisions" purportedly correct "errors" in the initial response and include changes to the time commitment for "key project personnel," including the project manager for manufacturing, senior research scientists and the scoring director for one of the major scoring sites. There are six new names that appear in CTB's supplement, as well as numerous revisions to the time commitment of key personnel. In its written questions to the vendors, Respondent did not request any revisions or corrections of error with respect to any of these key personnel. The evidence is clear that there are "revisions," corrections of errors and significant reformatting that were tailored to address lingering concerns of the evaluators. CTB's supplemental proposal also included a new chart broken down with many different allocations of days that did not appear anywhere in the original proposal. This submittal also included a number of different "to be assigned" categories that were not specifically included on the chart in the initial submittal and a re-categorization of some of the positions. The evaluation committee members would not have had enough time to make an assessment as to whether that information was in the original proposal. Had CTB not provided its supplemental information, the evaluation team would have had a significantly different view point on CTB's staffing. After the oral presentations, Petitioner also received a written question regarding staffing from Respondent. Petitioner's response was a listing of the FTEs taken from the charts already contained in the original proposal. Petitioner was concerned with the procedure that was being implemented, but after seeking advice of counsel, submitted the response nonetheless. Harcourt was not given this opportunity. RFP Section 5.16 does not address proposal clarifications, but it does impose limitations on the consideration of proposal "amendments." Section 5.16 states that, absent a specific request by Respondent, any "amendments, revisions, or alterations to proposals will not be accepted after the deadline for the receipt of proposals." In addition, Section 5.16 does not address when, during the evaluation process, Respondent may request a vendor to amend a proposal. This timing issue is only addressed by statute in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that "no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered." However, the timing of when Respondent could request a proposal amendment under Section 5.16 is not at issue in this case. Respondent acknowledges that it made no such request in this case. Absent a specific request, Section 5.16 precluded Respondent from considering any amendment to a proposal offered by any vendor. CTB's written responses to Respondent's written questions amount to a clarification of their bid proposal, since then were submitted only after Respondent requested the information. The responses do not constitute an amendment or supplement to the proposal. The Evaluation Process Immediately following the bidders' oral presentations and receipt of the bidders' responses to the evaluators' questions, the evaluation committee met as a body and reviewed each of the proposals. Dr. Orr and Dr. Melvin were co-chairpersons of the committee and facilitated the evaluation committee review of the technical proposals. They did not participate in the actual scoring of proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the three proposals consecutively, evaluating them against the criteria in the RFP. Open discussion about the criteria and the locations within the proposals where criteria were addressed was encouraged and took place. Whether one bidder was slightly better than another bidder was not the basis for determining the contract award. The RFP provided a balanced formula that sought to ensure the competency of the awarded by requiring a minimum technical score of 70 while rewarding the competent bidder that submitted the lowest price. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation committee assigned holistic ratings to the technical proposals, judging them based on the quality of the proposals as a whole. Each evaluator independently scored the proposals by assigning a score from one to five for each of the 20 criterion in the RFP. The evaluation committee did not compare the proposals to each other. The evaluation committee completed the evaluation of the first proposal before considering the second proposal and completed the evaluation of the second proposal before completing the evaluation of the third proposal. Alternative Proposals. The RFP permitted bidders to propose alternative approaches for meeting Respondent's objectives, but provided that no cost savings or increases for alternative proposals could be referenced in the technical proposal. Any cost savings or increases for alternative proposals were required to be submitted in a separately sealed package and clearly labeled. None of the bidders included any reference to cost savings or increases in their technical proposals. Petitioner's proposal clearly marked its alternatives. CTB sometimes identified its alternatives with a special marker and sometimes simply described them within the text of the RFP. Harcourt generally did not clearly designate its alternatives. During the Stage II and III evaluation process, a committee member raised a question regarding assigning points for alternative proposals. Because the RFP did not provide a mechanism for evaluating the alternatives, an internal decision was made by Respondent not to consider the alternatives at all in connection with scoring the proposals. The members of the evaluation team were told to disregard the references to alternative proposals submitted by each of the bidders. There was no provision in the RFP that was relied upon in making that determination. The evaluators were given no guidance as to which provisions of the various proposals should not be considered. This led to inconsistencies in what was treated as an alternative and not scored, versus what was treated as part of the base proposal and scored. It is clear that the decision not to consider alternatives resulted in confusion and inconsistency in the evaluation process. For example, one evaluator, Clarence Reed, indicated that if a proposal went beyond the requirements of the RFP and offered something that was not required, but was an enhancement, he viewed that as an alternative and would not have considered it. Similarly, the chairperson of the evaluation committee and one of the facilitators for the evaluation process, Dr. Orr, testified that "enhancements" should not have been considered. By contrast, most of the evaluators viewed offerings by vendors that went beyond the requirements of the RFP and did not include a cost to Respondent as "enhancements" that could be considered in their evaluation of the proposals. Likewise, Dr. Melvin, one of Respondent's facilitators for the evaluation team, believed that an "augmentation" was not the same as an "alternative." Thus, in many instances, when a vendor offered something beyond the requirements of the RFP, at no cost to Respondent, and did not identify it as an "option" or "alternative," it was considered in the scoring by at least some of the evaluators. The evidence is clear that there are portions of the proposals submitted by Harcourt and CTB that was essentially the equivalent of no cost "alternatives" that were considered by the evaluators while Petitioner's clearly identified "alternatives" were not. In sum, whether a particular proposal was an "augmentation," "option," "alternative" or an additional clarification created confusion among the evaluators. As a result, there was no consistency in terms of what the evaluators could consider in the proposals and what they could not consider. While it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of the decision not to consider alternatives, it is clear that Petitioner's bid received a disproportionate negative impact because many of its important enhancements, which were being offered to Respondent at no cost were listed as "alternatives" and never factored into the evaluation process. There were several alternatives proposed by Petitioner that would have been enhancements to the current program and would have been made available at no cost to Respondent. Thus, Petitioner's score was artificially influenced in a negative way. By contrast, the evidence is clear that CTB and Harcourt, in many instances presented different ways to accomplish tasks without specifically utilizing the term "alternative" or "option" and such matters were factored into the evaluation. The claim by Respondent and CTB that the decision not to consider alternatives was applied even-handedly is not supported by the evidence. Because there was not a consistent manner in which the various companies presented their "enhancements," "augmentations," "options" or "alternatives," Respondent's determination to exclude consideration of "alternatives" precluded the evaluators from fairly determining what each of the vendors could actually provide to the program. It also meant that the vendors were not evaluated on an equal footing. Thus, the decision was contrary to the bid specifications. In spite of these concerns, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent's instruction to evaluators not to consider alternatives rendered the proposed agency action clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and/or arbitrary and capricious because Respondent was not obligated to accept any of the alternatives offered by a bidder. The Price Proposals. Respondent's evaluation of the three bidders' proposals established that each of the bidders was capable and qualified to perform the work under the contract. The bidders' price proposals remained sealed until after the evaluation committee completed its scoring of the technical proposals. The price proposals were evaluated based on a formula that awarded 50 points to the bidder with the lowest price. The remaining bidders received points based on a proportion or ratio that compared their price to the low bidder's price. The RFP provided at Section 7.4, Page 82, in pertinent part: A total of 50 points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Cost Proposal. Proposals with higher costs will receive the fraction of 50 points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposal cost to the higher cost proposal. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to one decimal place. For example, if the lowest responsive cost were $50,000.00, the bid would receive 50 points. If the next lowest responsive cost proposal were $75,000.00, it would receive 33.3 points. If the highest responsive cost proposal were $100,000.00, it would receive 25 points. Upon opening the three bidders price proposals, it was determined that Petitioner's bid for the base and renewal period was $224,969,699; Harcourt's bid was $167,055,970; and CTB's bid was $140,107,439. On September 23, 2004, Respondent posted a Notice of Intent to Award the contract for the FCAT administration to CTB. The posting showed the final scores of the three vendors as follows: Proposers Mandatory Bidders Technical Total Cost Total Requirement Qualifications/ Quality Points Proposal Points Met Experience Stage III (Stages Stage IV Stage Stage II II&III) V Pearson Yes Educational Assessment 44.6 44.3 88.9 31.4 120.3 Harcourt Yes 42.7 42.2 84.9 42.4 127.3 CTB/McGraw Yes Hill 43.8 44.9 88.8 50 138.8 CTB's price for performing the contract over a five-year period is approximately $85 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $27 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt. Over a three year contract period, CTB's price for performing is approximately $53 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $14 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of the Department of Education adopt this Recommended Order and enter an final order awarding the contract for RFP No. 2005-01 to the low bidder, CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Donna E. Blanton, Esquire Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A. 313 North Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10967 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jason K. Fudge, Esquire Florida Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner Brooks Brothers, Inc., should be awarded the contract to renovate the Snapper Creek Service Plaza.
Findings Of Fact This is a bid protest arising out of an invitation to bid (hereinafter “ITB”) for state contract number 97870-3363, a construction project for renovation of the Snapper Creek Service Plaza on Florida’s Turnpike (the “contract” or “project”). The ITB included requirements relating to participation on the project by minority business enterprises (hereinafter “MBEs”). The ITB established a goal of 21% MBE participation. The 21% only could be met by utilizing MBE firms certified by the state Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. According to the ITB, if the apparent low bid did not reflect that 21% of the work would be performed by certified MBE firms, the apparent low bidder would be required to submit documentation within 2 days establishing that a good faith effort had been made to meet the goal. If the low bidder could not demonstrate that it had made a good faith effort to meet the goal, the bid would be considered non-responsive and the Department would evaluate the next lowest bid for responsiveness. The process would be repeated until a responsive bid was found. Section B-27 of Exhibit 20 to the ITB specifically required the MBE participation information to be submitted with the contractor's bid and further provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Good Faith Efforts In evaluating a contractor's good faith efforts, the Owner will consider the statutory requirements and documentation submitted to demonstrate implementation undertaken by the contractor. Contractors may utilize methods in addition to those set forth below to attempt to increase participation by MBE's [sic]. Documentation of other methods will be considered. . . .Whether the contractor attended any solicitation or prebid meetings that were scheduled by the agency to inform minority business enterprises of contracting and subcontracting opportunities. * * * . . .Whether the contractor advertised in general circulation, trade association, and/or minority-focus media concerning the subcontracting opportunities. * * * . . .Whether the contractor provided written notice to a reasonable number of specific minority business enterprises that their interest in the contract was being solicited in sufficient time to allow the minority business enterprises to participate effectively. * * * . . .Whether the contractor followed up initial solicitation of interest by contacting minority business enterprises or minority persons to determine with certainty whether the minority business enterprises or minority persons were interested. * * * . . .Whether the contractor selected portions of the work to be performed by minority business enterprises in order to increase the likelihood of meeting the minority business enterprises goals, including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units to facilitate minority business enterprise participation. * * * . . .Whether the contractor provided interested minority business enterprises or minority persons with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract or the availability of jobs. * * * . . .Whether the contractor negotiated in good faith with interested minority business enterprises or minority persons, not rejecting minority business enterprises or minority persons as unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. * * * . . .Whether the contractor effectively used the services of available minority community organizations; minority contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority business enterprises or minority persons. * * * Evaluation The Owner will examine apparent low bid proposal to calculate whether the contractor has met the project MBE goal by determining whether: The MBE's [sic] listed on the Utilization Summary are certified by the Bureau of Minority Business Assistance Office. The MBE's [sic] are certified to perform the trade or service specified. The percentage of the contract amount to be paid to qualifying MBE's [sic] meets or exceeds the project goal. The Owner will notify the apparent low bidder whether the project goal has been met. If the goal has not been met, the bidder must dispatch all documentation of its good faith not later than two working days after notification effort [sic] for overnight delivery to the Owner. The documentation will be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee to determine whether a good faith effort has been made. If the apparent low bidder is determined not to have made a good faith effort, the Owner will repeat steps 1 and 2 with the next lowest bid. This process will be repeated until a responsive bid within budget is found. The bid documents included forms on which bidders were to identify any MBE firms intended to be used on the project. The title of the form is “MBE Utilization Summary.” Sixteen contractors submitted bids for the project. After bid opening, the Department reviewed the bids to determine responsiveness including compliance with the MBE requirements. Carivon Construction Company submitted the apparent low bid. On its MBE Utilization Summary, Carivon indicated it would use its own forces and one other MBE to meet the 21% goal. The Department determined that Carivon’s bid did not meet the 21% MBE goal because Carivon was not a certified MBE at the time of the bid. In accordance with the ITB, the Department informed Carivon that it had not met the goal and provided Carivon an opportunity to establish its good faith effort to do so. The Department determined that Carivon’s good faith effort was insufficient and rejected Carivon’s bid as non-responsive. The Department then reviewed the second low bid submitted by Spectrum Group Construction, Inc. Spectrum’s MBE Utilization Summary indicated that Spectrum would meet the goal by subcontracting some of the work to MBE firms and performing some of the work with its own forces. Spectrum was a certified MBE at the time its bid was submitted. The Department determined that Spectrum’s bid did not reflect that the goal was met because the other firms identified on Spectrum’s MBE Utilization Form were not certified. When the participation of those firms was excluded, Spectrum’s bid did not reflect that 21% of the work would be performed by MBE firms even though Spectrum was an MBE and had identified itself on the MBE Utilization Summary as one of the MBEs to work on the project. The Department therefore requested that Spectrum submit its good faith efforts documentation. Spectrum responded with information explaining that it would perform more than 21% of the work with its own forces, thereby performing more of the work itself than it had indicated on its MBE Utilization Summary. The Department determined that Spectrum had failed to demonstrate its good faith efforts and, in actuality, was amending its bid. It, therefore, rejected Spectrum’s bid as non- responsive. The Department then reviewed the third low bid submitted by Pino. Pino had submitted an MBE Utilization Summary indicating that 21% of the work would be subcontracted to MBE firms. Pino also was a certified MBE at the time of the bid. However, unlike Carivon and Spectrum, Pino’s MBE Utilization Summary did not include itself and did not indicate that it intended to meet the goal by using its own forces. Pino’s certification is not apparent from the face of the bid. The Department determined that the bid did not on its face meet the MBE goal because one of the minority firms Pino identified on its MBE Utilization Summary was not certified. Without that firm, Pino’s bid reflected only 11.8% MBE participation. The Department therefore sent Pino a letter advising that Pino's MBE participation totaled only 11.8% and requesting that Pino submit documentation of its good faith efforts to meet the 21% goal. The request for good faith efforts documentation specifically stated that it was made in accordance with Section B-27, C of Exhibit 20. Pino’s response to the Department's request did not attempt to document its good faith efforts to meet the goal in accordance with Section B-27, C of Exhibit 20 of the ITB. Rather, like Spectrum, Pino submitted information explaining that it was a certified MBE and would perform more than 25% of the work with its own forces. Unlike its treatment of Spectrum, the Department accepted Pino’s explanation and posted a notice of intent to award the contract to Pino. In doing so, the Department did not consider the fact that Pino's bid did not reflect that it was a certified MBE or that it intended to count its participation toward the MBE requirement. Rather, Pino's bid certified on its signed MBE Utilization Summary that it was relying on certain named subcontractors to meet the MBE requirement. Brooks submitted the fourth lowest bid. Brooks’ bid also included an MBE Utilization Summary indicating that at least 21% of the work would be performed by MBE firms. One of the MBE firms identified in Brooks’ bid was not certified. During the deposition of Brooks M. Muse, II, taken the afternoon before the final hearing in this cause and admitted in evidence at the final hearing as one of the Department's exhibits, the Department reviewed Brooks’ good faith efforts documentation. Documentation was produced as to the elements contained in the bid specifications for performing good faith efforts. The Department's representative who attended the deposition announced on the record in the deposition that she was satisfied with Brooks' documentation, and the Department's attorney who was taking the deposition announced on the record in the deposition that Brook's documentation was more thorough than she had ever seen. Brooks' representative attended the pre-bid conference. Brooks' advertised for MBEs in the Miami Herald. Brooks contacted the Hispanic Builders Association, the Black Builders Association, and Women in Construction. Brooks faxed to minority businesses and persons a solicitation letter and a follow-up letter. Brooks met with interested MBEs, gave them copies of the bid specifications, and offered them assistance. Brooks' representative contacted the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office for information as to additional certified MBEs. Brooks documented these many contacts. Brooks made a good faith effort to meet the MBE goal in accordance with the specifications in the ITB. The ITB also included the following provisions regarding subcontractor participation on the project. EXHIBIT 5. LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS FORM - Architect-Engineer shall insert only major types of subcontractors applicable to this job and removing all unused blanks. * * * LISTING OF SUBCONTRACTORS In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent subcontractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit with the proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work for each Division of the Specifications utilizing the 'List of Subcontractors' form enclosed as Exhibit 5. [Emphasis added.] * * * SUBCONTRACTOR DATA Within 2 working days after bid opening, the apparent low bidder shall submit to the Owner's Project Director the following for each subcontractor. Corporate Charter Number. (If applicable). License Number. Name of record license holder. Complete name, address and phone number for listed subcontractors. * * * 2. The Contractor shall provide a certified list of all subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the owner within thirty (30) calendar days of his receiving his notice to proceed with the work. [Emphasis added.] The List of Subcontractors form referenced in section B-14 contained five numbered spaces for identifying the type of work to be performed and the name of the subcontractor. The directions on the form state: “The undersigned, hereinafter called 'bidder’, lists below the name of each subcontractor who will perform the phases of the work indicated. [Emphasis added.] Nevertheless, the List of Subcontractors form does not indicate any "phases of work." Further, the List of Subcontractors form does not provide that all subcontractors the bidder intends to use must be listed. Moreover, section B-15 of the ITB established that the apparent low bidder would be required to submit a complete list of all subcontractors within 2 days of notification by the Department. Certain portions of the work to be performed are considered “specialty work” which requires a specialty license. Unless the bidder possessed the specialty license, it would have to subcontract that work. Brooks' president and sole stockholder has been bidding for public contracts for over 30 years. He understands that in submitting competitive bids, bidders may not alter or amend the bid form or the bid will be considered non-responsive. Further, the ITB for this project specified in section B-13 that any proposal containing any alteration might be rejected. He determined, therefore, that he could not amend the List of Subcontractors form by adding an attachment. Based upon his experience, the language of the form, and the existence in the ITB of specifications providing for the subsequent submittal of subcontractor information to the Department, Brooks listed five subcontractors on the List of Subcontractors form although Brooks intends to utilize additional subcontractors, specifically certain specialty subcontractors. Brooks identified several subcontractors on the List of Subcontractors form that would perform various portions of the division of the work identified in the ITB as “mechanical.” Brooks also identified a subcontractor that would perform fencing and a subcontractor that would perform concrete and masonry work. Fencing is included in one of the divisions of the work. Concrete and masonry is identified as a division of work under two separate sections. The List of Subcontractors form did not specify the categories of work for which subcontractors were to be identified. The ITB did indicate that only major types of subcontractors would be required to be identified. Brooks’ understanding of the requirements for identifying subcontractors was consistent with the totality of the provisions contained in the ITB. Like Brooks, Pino did not list all the subcontractors it would utilize on the project. Specifically, Pino did not identify certain specialty subcontractors which it would require in order to perform the specialty work for which Pino does not have a specialty license. Pino only listed three of its subcontractors, leaving two lines blank. Pino did not submit a complete list of all subcontractors within 2 days of being notified that it was the apparent low bidder. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Pino had still not identified all subcontractors. Brooks has not yet submitted to the Department a complete written list of all subcontractors. However, Brooks has not yet been notified that it is the apparent low bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT the Department enter a final order rejecting Pino’s bid as non-responsive and awarding the contract to Brooks if the Department is able to negotiate with Brooks a price for the project which is within the Department's budget. If the Department is unable to negotiate a price within budget, then the Department should enter a final order rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of June, 1997. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 10th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary S. Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John A. Barley, Esquire 400 North Meridian Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation c/o Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the preliminary determination to reject Petitioner's bid as not responsive to Respondent's Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V and to award the contract to another bidder that submitted a higher bid?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: On March 12, 1991, Respondent issued Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB") through which Respondent solicited the submission of bids to supply Respondent with prestressed concrete poles for a one year period beginning May 16, 1991. The ITB was a multi-page document with various component parts. Bidders were instructed on the first page of the ITB to complete and "RETURN ONE COPY OF ALL BID SHEETS AND THIS [BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT] FORM." They were advised elsewhere on the first page of the ITB that "[o]ne copy of all bid documents that ha[d] page numbers, and this executed Invitation to Bid [Bidder Acknowledgment] [F]orm [had to] be returned for the Bid to be considered." The advisement concerning the requirement that all numbered pages had to be returned for a bid to be considered was repeated at the bottom of each numbered page of the ITB. Directly beneath the Bidder Acknowledgment Form on the first page of the ITB was the following provision: This Invitation to Bid, General Conditions, Instructions to Bidders, Special Conditions, Specifications, Addenda and/or any other pertinent document form a part of this proposal and by reference are made a part thereof. The ITB further provided, among other things, that "[i]n the best interest of [Respondent], [Respondent] reserve[d] the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received." Petitioner and South Eastern Prestressed Concrete, Inc. (South Eastern) submitted the only bids in response to the ITB. In accordance with the ITB'S instructions, Petitioner completed and returned to Respondent the Bid Summary Sheet, on which it indicated its price offer. It also completed and executed the Bidder Acknowledgment Form and returned it, along with the entire first page of the ITB, to Respondent. Petitioner, however, failed to return, as part of its bid submittal, all of the numbered pages of the ITB. Omitted from Petitioner's submittal were numbered pages 3 and 4. These missing pages contained paragraphs A. through N. of the ITB's Special Conditions, which covered the following subjects: A. Scope; B. Delivery; C. Award; D. Term of Contract; E. Brand Name; F. Catalog Cuts; G. Estimated Quantities; H. Bid Exempt; I. Bidders Responsibility; J. Corrections; K. Joint Bidding, Cooperative Purchasing Agreement; L. Withdrawal; 1/ M. Minority Certification Application; and N. Public Entity Crimes. There was nothing on numbered pages 3 and 4 of the ITB that the bidder needed to fill out or sign. While paragraphs M. and N. of the ITB's Special Conditions did make reference to certain forms that the bidder had to complete and submit to Respondent, these forms did not appear on either numbered page 3 or numbered page 4. They were separate documents. Petitioner completed these forms and submitted them to Respondent pursuant to the requirements of the Special Conditions. Petitioner did not propose in its bid submittal any contract terms or conditions that were at variance with those set forth in paragraphs A. through N. of the ITB's Special Conditions. Petitioner did not intend to signify, by failing to return numbered pages 3 and 4, any unwillingness on its part to adhere to contract terms and conditions set forth on those pages. Of the two bids submitted in response to the ITB, Petitioner's was the lowest. A preliminary determination, though, was made to reject Petitioner's bid because Petitioner had not returned numbered pages 3 and 4 of the ITB and to award the contract to South Eastern as the lowest responsive bidder. It is this preliminary determination that is the subject of the instant bid protest filed by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order sustaining the instant bid protest and awarding to Petitioner the contract advertised in Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the single state agency in Florida authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). In order to participate in the federal Medicaid program, AHCA is required to maintain a state plan for Medicaid in compliance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. AHCA is required to operate the Florida Medicaid program in compliance with the state plan. AHCA is apparently concerned by costs associated with the Florida Medicaid program's hemophilia population. Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries constitute a relatively small, but costly population to serve. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous "clotting factors," which normally causes a persons' blood to coagulate. Hemophilia is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to the person with the disorder. AHCA seeks to control the cost of providing hemophilia-related services to this population through a combination of case management and medication discounts known as the Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management (MCHM) program. AHCA believes that a single vendor responsible for operation of the MCHM program can provide managed care to the population while achieving significant drug-cost savings. Through a federal requirement referred to as "freedom of choice," Florida's Medicaid program state plan must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service and who undertakes to provide such services. The freedom of choice requirement is subject to being waived in accordance with applicable federal law. Such waiver requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). AHCA began seeking approval from CMS for an amendment to an existing "Managed Care Waiver" to implement the MCHM program in October 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2003, CMS approved AHCA's request to amend the existing waiver to permit implementation of the MCHM program. Subsequent correspondence between the agencies has further established AHCA's authority to implement the MCHM program. AHCA issued the RFP ("RFP AHCA 0403") on October 1, 2003. The RFP seeks to implement the MCHM program. There were no timely challenges filed to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2003), requires that an agency must make a written determination that an invitation to bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or contractual services prior to issuance of an RFP. AHCA did not make such a written determination prior to issuance of the RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA will contract with a single provider for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. RFP Section 10.2 sets out an extensive list of vendor requirements designed to provide care to Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries and better management of related costs. The RFP provides that the successful vendor will be paid only on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement for factor product costs. No additional payment beyond payment of factor product costs will be provided. The RFP stated that the successful vendor would be reimbursed for factor product cost based on the average wholesale price (AWP) of the factor product minus a minimum discount of 39 percent. The RFP provided that vendors may offer a greater discount than 39 percent. An Addendum to the RFP indicated that if a vendor proposed a discount greater than 39 percent, the increased discount must apply to all factor products and that vendors could not propose varying discounts for individual factor products. The RFP contains language in the background section referencing budget "proviso" language adopted by the Legislature and referring to the MCHM program as a "revenue enhancement program." HHS asserts that because this RFP does not create a revenue enhancement program, AHCA had no authority to proceed with the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that this program will enhance revenue. The evidence fails to establish that based on the "proviso" language, AHCA is without authority to issue the RFP. RFP Section 20.11 sets forth the "proposal submission requirements." The section included a number of requirements set in capital letters and highlighted in boldface. The terms of each requirement indicated that failure to comply with the requirement was "fatal" and would result in rejection of the proposal submitted. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. RFP Section 20.16 provides that AHCA may waive "minor irregularities," which are defined as variations "from the RFP terms and conditions, that [do] not affect the price of the proposal or give one applicant an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others or adversely affect the state's interest." RFP Section 20.17 provides as follows: Rejection of proposals Proposals that do not conform to all mandatory requirements of this RFP shall be rejected by the Agency. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal was received after the submission deadline; The proposal was not signed by an authorized representative of the vendor; The proposal was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.11 of this RFP; The vendor failed to submit a proposal guarantee in an acceptable form in accordance with the terms identified in Section 20.12 of this RFP or the guarantee was not submitted with the original cost proposal; The proposal contained unauthorized amendments, deletions, or contingencies to the requirements of the RFP; The vendor submitted more than one proposal; and/or The proposal is not deemed to be in the best interest of the state. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. RFP Section 30.1 provides that the "total cost of the contract will not exceed $36,000,000 annually." RFP Section 30.2 provides in part that the "total cost for the contract under any renewal will not exceed $36,000,000 per year." The RFP's contract amount apparently was based on historical information and assumed that some level of cost control would occur through case management. The contract amount cannot operate as a "cap" because Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries are an "entitled" group and services must be provided. If the amount of the contract is exceeded, AHCA is obliged to pay for necessary factor products provided to the beneficiaries; however, in an Addendum to the RFP, AHCA stated that if the contract fails to contain costs "there would be no justification to renew or extend the contract." The RFP required vendors to submit a performance bond based on 20 percent of the $36 million contract amount. The RFP stated that proposals could receive a maximum possible score of 2000 points. The proposal with the highest technical evaluation would receive 1340 weighted points. The proposal with the lowest cost proposal would receive 660 weighted points. The combined technical and cost proposal scores for each vendor determined the ranking for the proposals. The RFP set forth formulas to be used to determine the weighted final score based on raw scores received after evaluation. AHCA conducted a bidder's conference related to the RFP on October 8, 2003. All parties to this proceeding attended the conference. At the conference, AHCA distributed a copy of a spreadsheet chart that listed all factor products provided to Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries during the second quarter of 2003. The chart identified the amount of each factor product used and the amount paid by AHCA to vendors for the factor product during the quarter. The chart also showed the amount that would have been paid by AHCA per factor product unit had the vendors been paid at the rate of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA received six proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were received from Caremark, HHS, Lynnfield, PDI Pharmacy Services, Inc., Advance PCS/Accordant, and Coram. RFP Section 60 contained the instructions to vendors for preparing their responses to the solicitation. As set forth in RFP Section 60.1, the technical response was identified as "the most important section of the proposal with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." The section requires vendors to include "evidence of the vendor's capability through a detailed response describing its organizational background and experience," which would establish that the vendor was qualified to operate the MCHM program. Vendors were also directed to describe the proposed project staffing and the proposed "technical approach" to accomplish the work required by the RFP. Vendors were encouraged to propose "innovative approaches to the tasks described in the RFP" and to present a detailed implementation plan with a start date of January 10, 2003. The technical responses were opened on October 29, 2003. AHCA deemed all six proposals to be responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP and each technical proposal was evaluated. For purposes of evaluation, AHCA divided the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria. AHCA assembled the technical evaluators at an orientation meeting at which time an instruction sheet was issued and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals were delivered. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. The five AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposal were Maresa Corder (Scorer "A"), Bob Brown-Barrios (Scorer "B"), Kay Newman (Scorer "C"), Jerry Wells (Scorer "D"), and Laura Rutledge (Scorer "E"). AHCA employees Dan Gabric and Lawanda Williams performed reference reviews separate from the technical evaluations. Reference review scores were combined with technical evaluation scores resulting in a total technical evaluation score. Reference review scores are not at issue in this proceeding. Kay Newman's review was limited to reviewing the financial audit information provided by the vendors. Technical evaluators reviewed each technical response to the RFP and completed evaluation sheets based on the 50 evaluation criteria. Other than Mr. Wells, evaluators included comments on the score sheets. Mr. Wells did not include comments on his score sheet. The technical proposal scoring scale set forth in the RFP provided as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each evaluator worked independently, and they did not confer with each other or with anyone else regarding their evaluations of the responses to the RFP. Janis Williamson was the AHCA employee responsible for distribution of the technical proposals to the evaluators. She received the completed score sheets and evaluation forms from each of the technical evaluators. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to technical proposals as follows: The total final point scores for proposals will be compared to the maximum achievable score of 1340 points, and the technical proposal with the highest total technical points will be assigned the maximum achievable point score. All other proposals will be assigned a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when a proposal's total technical points are divided by the highest total technical points awarded. S = P X 1340 N Where: N = highest number of final points awarded to t technical proposal P = number of final points awarded to a proposal S = final technical score for a proposal According to the "Summary Report and Recommendation" memorandum dated December 4, 2003, after application of the formula, Caremark received the highest number of technical points (1340 points). Of the parties to this proceeding, HHS was ranked second on the technical proposal evaluation (1132.30 points), and Lynnfield was ranked third (1101.48 points). Lynnfield and HHS assert that the scoring of the technical proposals was arbitrary based on the range of scores between the highest scorer and the lowest scorer of the proposals. Review of the score sheets indicates that Scorer "A" graded "harder" than the other evaluators. The scores she assigned to vendor proposals were substantially lower on many of the criteria than the scores assigned by other evaluators. The range between her scores and the highest scores assigned by other evaluators was greater relative to the Lynnfield and the HHS proposals than they were to the Caremark proposal, indicating that she apparently believed the Caremark technical proposal to be substantially better than others she reviewed. There is no evidence that Scorer "A" was biased either for or against any particular vendor. The evidence fails to establish that her evaluation of the proposals was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to establish that AHCA's evaluation of the technical proposals was inappropriate. After the technical evaluation was completed, cost proposals were opened on November 21, 2003. Section 60.3 addressed the cost proposal requirements for the RFP. RFP Section 60.3.1 provides as follows: The cost proposal shall cover all care management services, hemophilia specific pharmaceuticals dispensing and delivery, and pharmacy benefits management activities contemplated by the RFP. The price the vendor submits must include a detailed budget that fully justifies and explains the proposed costs assigned. This includes salaries, expenses, systems costs, report costs, and any other item the vendor uses in arriving at the final price for which it will agree to perform the work described in the RFP. The maximum reimbursement for the delivery of services and factor products used in factor replacement therapy (inclusive of all plasma-derived and recombinant factor concentrates currently in use and any others approved for use during the term of the contract resulting from this RFP) will be at Average Wholesale Price (AWP) minus 39%. Proposals may bid at a lower reimbursement but not higher. All other drugs not otherwise specified in factor replacement therapy will be paid at the normal Medicaid reimbursement. RFP Section 60.3.2 provides as follows: A vendor's cost proposal shall be defined in terms of Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and conform to the following requirements: The first tab of a vendor's original cost proposal shall be labeled "Proposal Guarantee" and shall include the vendor's proposal guarantee, which shall conform to the requirements specified in this RFP, Section 20.12. Copies of the cost proposal are not required to include the proposal guarantee. The second tab of the cost proposal shall be labeled "Project Budget" and shall include the information called for in the RFP, including the total price proposed, a line item budget for each year of the proposal, a budget narrative, and other information required to justify the costs listed. The RFP does not define the "detailed" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.1 and does not define the "line item" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.2. No examples of such budgets were provided. RFP Section 80.1 provides as follows: Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Cost Proposal Upon completion of the evaluation of all technical proposals, cost proposals will be opened on the date specified in the RFP Timetable. The Agency will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the evaluation team will review each cost proposal against the following criteria: Was the cost proposal received by the Agency no later than time specified in the RFP Timetable? Did the vendor submit an original and ten copies of its cost proposal in a separate sealed package? Was the vendor's cost proposal accompanied by a proposal guarantee meeting the requirements of the RFP? Did the cost proposal contain the detailed budget required by the RFP? Does the proposal contain all other mandatory requirements for the cost proposal? The AHCA employee who opened the cost proposals apparently determined that each proposal met the requirements of RFP Section 80.1, including providing a "detailed" budget. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to cost proposals as follows: On the basis of 660 total points, the proposal with the lowest total price will receive 660 points. The other proposals will receive a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when the total cost points are divided by the highest total cost points awarded. Where: S = L X 660 N N = price in the proposal (for two years) L = lowest price proposed (for two years) S = cost points awarded The cost proposal scoring process clearly required comparison of each vendor's total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Caremark's proposal included estimated total costs of $44,797,207 for FY 2002-2003, $43,245,607 for FY 2003-2004, and $44,542,975 for FY 2004-2005. According to RFP Section 30.1, the maximum annual contract was not to exceed $36,000,000. All of Caremark's estimated annual costs exceeded the contract amount set forth in the RFP. Caremark's proposal also provided as follows: The above budget includes all salary expenses for Caremark employees involved in providing services for the program including the Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist, Care manager, additional pharmacist(s), Client Service Specialists in Florida for the expanded hemophilia program. Also included are the support staff such as pharmacy technicians, materials management, field service representatives, warehouse, reimbursement, marketing, sales and administrative staff. Also included are all delivery, data and report development, educational and marketing communication expenses. Product costs including medically necessary ancillary supplies, medical waste disposal and removal, protective gear and therapeutic devices. Caremark's proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that Caremark indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. The HHS proposal projected estimated costs identified by month and year. The HHS proposal estimated total first-year costs of $14,261,954 and second-year costs of $27,333,389. HHS did not propose to assume responsibility for serving all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries at the start of the contract, but projected costs as if beneficiaries would "migrate to our service at a rate of 20 per month" during the first year and that full service provision would begin by the beginning of year two. RFP Section 10.2 provides as follows: The purpose of this RFP is to receive offers from qualified vendors wishing to provide the services required by the Florida Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management Program. The contract resulting from this RFP shall be with a single provider for up to two years commencing on the date signed, with an option to renew for two additional years. Otherwise stated, all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries would be served though the program's sole provider from the start of the contract period. The RFP provides no option for a vendor to gradually increase service levels through the first half of the two-year contract. The HHS proposal also included a breakdown of costs by factor product unit, identifying the AWP for each listed factor product and applying a discount of between 39 percent and 45 percent to indicate the product cost-per-unit that would be charged to AHCA. In Addendum 2 to the RFP, AHCA stated that it has received a written inquiry as follows: Knowing that the minimum accepted discount is AWP less 39%, can different products have different discounts. AHCA's response to the inquiry was as follows: No. The proposed discount will apply to all factor products. As to the costs included in the proposal annual total, the HHS proposal provided as follows: The product price above will include the following costs incurred in servicing the patients: The cost of the product dispensed to the patient. The cost of freight and other delivery expense of transporting the product to the patient. Pharmacy, warehouse and patient supplies. Cost incurred for patient protective gear and education materials Salary costs for the following: o Project/Contract Manager Clinical Pharmacist Staff Pharmacist Case Management Coordinator Pharmacy Care Coordinators Shipping Clerk Warehouse Coordinator Community Advocates Insurance Reimbursement Specialist The cost of Information Technology support for systems and reporting The cost of rent, office supplies, equipment, postage, printing. The HHS proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that HHS indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. Lynnfield's proposal estimated total costs of $34,000,000 for calendar year 2004 and $36,000,000 for calendar year 2005. Lynnfield's budget proposal included information identifying the specific expense lines which form the basis for the cost estimation, including salary costs by position, travel costs, employee insurance, postage, equipment costs, and various office expenses. Lynnfield's budget proposal included a significantly greater level of detail than did either the Caremark or the HHS proposals. Jerry Wells was assigned the responsibility to evaluate the cost proposals. Mr. Wells failed to review the RFP or the related Addenda prior to evaluating the cost proposals submitted by the vendors. Mr. Wells asserted that it was not possible, based on the information submitted by the vendors, to perform an "apples- to-apples comparison." Each vendor set forth information in its proposal sufficient to calculate a total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Mr. Wells testified at the hearing that his cost review was intended to determine what AHCA would be paying for each of the individual factor products that AHCA provides hemophiliacs through Medicaid because the cost of the products was all AHCA would be paying to the vendors. The RFP did not require vendors to include a detailed list of, or unit prices for, factor products. The RFP specified only that factor products be provided at a minimum of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA employees, under the direction of Mr. Wells, created a cost comparison chart which purported to identify the price proposed by each vendor for certain factor products and which projects an estimated quarterly factor product cost for each vendor. HHS's cost proposal included a listing of specific prices to be charged for factor products. The list was based on products being used by existing HHS patients. Caremark offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. Caremark also suggested various "innovative cost savings," which specified use of factor products and indicated discounts greater than the 39 percent required by the RFP. Lynnfield did not include a product-specific listing of factor costs in its proposal, but offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. The AHCA employees used the HHS cost proposal, including the HHS range of discounts, as the basis for preparation of the cost comparison chart that included the other vendors. The factor products listed on the AHCA cost comparison mirror those listed in the HHS cost proposal. AHCA employees apparently applied the factor product usage information from the second quarter of 2003 that was included on the spreadsheet distributed at the bidder's conference to the HHS factor product list. The AHCA spreadsheet distributed at the bidder conference lists 29 factor products by name and dosage. Of the 29 products, 15 are listed in the HHS cost proposal. The AHCA cost comparison created at Mr. Wells' direction includes only the 15 factor products listed on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison assumed no costs would be incurred, where the AHCA spreadsheet information indicated no usage of the factor product that had been included on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison did not include factor products which have been supplied by AHCA to Medicaid beneficiaries, but which do not appear on the HHS list. Mr. Wells relied on this cost comparison to determine that the cost proposal submitted by HHS offered the lowest cost to the agency and was entitled to the 660 points. Lynnfield and Caremark were both ranked according to cost proposals of AWP minus 39 percent, and according to the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum, were awarded 652.74 points. Calculation of the points awarded to Lynnfield and Caremark in the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum does not appear to comply with the formula set forth in the RFP. The AHCA cost comparison spreadsheet identifies the HHS proposed cost as $10,706,425.66 and identifies the AWP minus 39 percent cost as $10,795,477.48 (assigned as the Lynnfield and Caremark cost proposal). The Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum states the lowest cost proposal to be $10,706,405.66 (perhaps a typographical error). The methodology applied by AHCA assumed that all vendors would utilize identical quantities of identical factor products (based on historical usage in Quarter 2 of 2003 of those listed in the HHS cost proposal) and that there would be no cost savings related to disease management. The application of methodology to compare vendor cost proposals outside the process established by the RFP is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. The vendors who are party to this proceeding assert that each other vendor's budgetary submission is insufficient, flawed, or unreliable for varying reasons. It is unnecessary to determine whether the budgetary information submitted by the vendors meets the requirements of the RFP because, despite having requested the information, AHCA has no interest in the data. There is no evidence that in making an award of points based on the cost proposals, AHCA relied on any of the budgetary information required by the RFP or submitted by the vendors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted in response to the RFP AHCA 0403. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Thomas R. McSwain, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Martin R. Dix, Esquire Akerman & Senterfitt Law Firm 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Respondent's proposed award on BID No. HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc., should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the solicitation of bids for and award of contracts for the construction of state buildings in Florida. Both Greenhut and Dunn are qualified contractors who are certified to bid on state construction contracts in general and this procurement in particular. In December, 1991, the Department issued an advertisement for bids for the project in issue herein, the construction of the Kirkman Complex Addition Data Center in Tallahassee, Florida. According to the Advertisement for Bids, all bids "must be submitted in full accordance with the requirements of the Drawings, Specifications, Bidding Conditions and Contractual Conditions, which may be examined and obtained ..." from the Department's designated architect/engineer, Clemons, Rutherford and Associates, Inc. in Tallahassee. Section B-21 of the request for proposals (invitation to bid) reads, in pertinent part: 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 Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the owner. Bids received on this project were originally scheduled to be opened and read aloud on January 15, 1992 with the tabulation and Bid Award Recommendation to be posted the following days at the location where the bids were opened. The proposal as originally issued called for the submittal of a Base Bid with four Alternates, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. Alternate 1a was a deduct for merely extending the existing Johnson Controls System to incorporate the new work instead of providing a totally new and independent control system. Alternate 1b called for adding furniture and landscaping for certain of the rooms shown on the drawings; Alternate 2 called for adding a "shelled" fourth floor as described in the proposal; and Alternate 3, as originally issued, called for: Add a complete fourth floor as indicated in drawings including the finished interior partitions with full HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical Service. Include furniture and landscaping for rooms 414 and 419. (Includes items in Alternate No. 2) As a result of questions received from prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference which indicated some confusion as to the meaning and intent of the Department regarding Alternate No. 3, by letter to all prospective bidders, dated January 8, 1992 the Department's architect indicated: Alternate #3 shall be the fourth floor complete, as shown on drawings, which includes items in Alternate #2. Addendum #1 to the request for bids, dated January 10, 1992, clarified Item 1-3.6), PROPOSAL FORM, of the PROJECT MANUAL to ADD to "Alternate #3", "(Include items in Alternate #2)". Item #2-1 of Addendum #2, dated January 16, 1992, deleted the sentence changed by Item #1- 3.6, and revised the sentence to read as follows: This includes any items required in addition to Alternate #2 to complete the remainder of the work for the Fourth Floor. Information contained at the beginning of each Addendum calls the bidders' attention to the change and indicates that failure to incorporate it may result in disqualification. The due date for bids was extended at the instance of the Department. Both Petitioner and Intervenor submitted bids for this project as did several other concerns on January 23, 1992. Greenhut's base bid was $4,139,000 with a deduct of $63,600 for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b, 2, and 3 of $69,500, $239,000, and $209,000 respectively. Greenhut's total bid, therefore, through Alternate 3, was $4,592,900. Dunn's base bid was $4,079,000 with a zero deduct for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b through 3 of $67,000, and $428,000. Dunn's total bid, therefore, was $4,574,000 for a difference of $18,900. Greenhut's bid was submitted on a form which provided for the base bid, the deduct for 1a, and the additions for 1b. 2 and 3 with the figure for 3 being those costs in addition to those identified in Dunn's bid was submitted on a prior form which provided for a base bid, a 1a deduction if any, (there was none), and additions for 1b, 2, and 3 with the figure for 3 including the figure listed for 2. An initial review of Dunn's bid form, then, showed a base bid of $4,079,000, no 1a deduction, a 1b addition of $67,000, a 2 addition of $311,000, and a 3 addition of $428,000. This letter figure included the $311,000 figure for Alternate 2, which should have been deducted from the bid during tabulation. When the bids were opened on January 23, 1992 by Mr. Everline, each figure on each bid was read off and listed on the bid tabulation form in the appropriate area. No attention was given at that time to the appropriateness or correctness of the figures listed on each bid form, nor was any attention paid to any other technical requirement of the procurement. This was merely a transfer of figures from the bid form to the tabulation form, and when this was done, Mr. Everline announced to all in attendance, including many contractor representatives, that the "apparent low bidder" was Greenhut. In arriving at that conclusion, Mr. Everline added all of Dunn's figures together without deducting the $311,000 listed for Alternate 2, a figure which was included in the $428,000 figure listed for Alternate 3. This resulted in an incorrectly large total bid for Dunn. Sometime later that day, a representative of Dunn contacted Mr. Everline to indicate that Dunn had inadvertently bid on the wrong form which precipitated its misleading presentation. Mr. Everline properly declined to discuss the matter and referred the Dunn representative to the Department's legal counsel. Sometime thereafter, when the bids had been tabulated and reviewed for responsiveness and legal qualification of bidders, Mr. Everline suggested to representatives of DHSMV that in order to forestall a protest, only so much of the project as extended through Alternate 2 be awarded. DHSMV officials, however, had sufficient funds available for the entire project, including some additional funds, if necessary, for cabling, and insisted they wanted the entire project awarded. The Department's legal counsel, upon review of the situation, concluded that the Dunn's actual bid intent was clear to include the amount listed for Alternate 2 within that listed for Alternate 3, and not to consider the two as additives to each other. It further concluded that Dunn's use of the improper form on which to submit its bid was immaterial and afforded it no improper competitive edge over other bidders. Therefore, it was concluded that Dunn was the low responsive bidder and, on February 4, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Award to Dunn. Thereafter, Greenhut filed its Petition For Hearing taken as a protest to the award. Both the Department and Dunn agreed that Greenhut had standing to protest the award and that the protest was timely filed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Greenhut Construction Company, Inc., in regard to the proposed award of contact in bid number HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 21st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1297 BID 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Argument and not Finding of Fact except for 1st sentence which is accepted. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. FOR THE INTERVENOR: Accepted. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 19. Accepted. 20. & 21. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Emmanuel, Esquire 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire 315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Suite 307, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Suite 309, knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Department’s action to reject all bids submitted in response to DOT-RFP-20-5003-DAA, relating to asbestos abatement, demolition, and removal services, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the services for Districtwide Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for Right of Way property under the Department’s supervision by law. The Department published a bid solicitation for DOT-RFP-20-5003- DAA, seeking bids to provide District Five Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for FDOT. The RFP included specifications, qualification requirements, instructions on what would be required of responders, a bid price proposal sheet, and the award criteria. Cross Construction and Cross Environmental submitted bids in response to the RFP. Cross Construction’s and Cross Environmental’s bids were evaluated by the Department. There is no debate, challenge, or disagreement raised in the Petitions with regard to the Technical Scores submitted by the responding firms to the RFP, only disagreement on three pay items. On June 15, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee reviewed and discussed the information presented as to the Technical and Pricing scores of the Responding firms, asked for an additional bid item analysis, and indicated that it would reconvene at a future date for a decision. On June 22, 2020, the Selection Committee reviewed, discussed, and confirmed the recommendation presented by the results of the Technical Review Committee scorings and the Project Manager’s Bid Price analysis and selected Cross Construction and Cross Environmental as Intended Awardees. The Selection committee also found that Johnson’s Excavation and Services Inc., [Johnson] and Simpson Environmental LLC [Simpson] were deemed non-responsive due to irregular, and unbalanced pay items prices. On August 24, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee decided to cancel the Procurement with the intent to readvertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing Structure and decided to reject all proposals. Additional Findings of Fact The “three pay items” referenced in paragraph six of the stipulated facts are the items that ultimately caused the Department to reject all bids in the instant dispute. The three pay items are collectively referred to as mobilization pay items. The RFP directs that bids are to contain two parts. Part I is the technical proposal, and Part II is the price proposal. Section 30.3 of the RFP provides that proposers “shall complete the Bid Price Proposal Form No. 2 and submit [the form] as part of the Price Proposal Package … [and that] [t]he Procurement Office and/or the Project Manager/TRC will review and evaluate the price proposals and prepare a summary of its price evaluation.” Five bidders submitted proposals in response to the RFP. One bidder did not advance beyond the initial review phase because its technical proposal did not meet minimum bid standards. The remaining bidders were CCS, CES, Simpson, and Johnson. Price proposals submitted by each of the remaining bidders were evaluated by the Department. Section 3 of the RFP provides a general outline of the process associated with awarding the contract. The steps are: “Pre-Proposal Conference; Public Opening (Technical Proposals); Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting; and, Selection Committee Meeting Summarizing Evaluations and Determining Anticipated Award.” The agenda for the “Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting,” as established by the RFP, provides as follows: Opening remarks of approx. 2 minutes by Department Procurement Office personnel. Public input period – To allow a reasonable amount of time for public input related to the RFP solicitation. At conclusion of public period, the Technical evaluation scores will be summarized. Announce the firms that did not achieve the minimum technical score. Announce the firms that achieved the minimum technical score and their price(s) as price proposals are opened. Calculate price scores and add to technical scores to arrive at total scores. Announce Proposer with highest Total Score as Intended Award. Announce time and date the decision will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS). Adjourn. Section 30.4 b. of the RFP provides that a proposer can be awarded a maximum of 30 points for its price proposal. This section also provides that “[p]rice evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider.” On June 15, 2020, the selection review committee met publicly for the purpose of opening price proposals and announcing an intended award. Price proposals were opened, and the eligible bidders received the following price scores: CCS - 11.09; CES - 13.22; Johnson - 19.76; and Simpson - 30. In terms of total score, which combined both the technical and price scores, Simpson received a score of 113.00, which was the highest score, followed by CES (107.55), CCS (103.76), and Johnson (101.76). After opening and considering the price proposals of the respective bidders, the selection committee did not announce an intended award at the meeting on June 15, 2020, but instead requested that the project manager “do further analysis on the pay items for any potential imbalance.” The project manager, through a staff member, performed the additional analysis and determined that Johnson and Simpson submitted “irregular, unbalanced pay items” which resulted in their respective bids being deemed non- responsive and thus not eligible for award. The “irregular, unbalanced pay items” are the three mobilization pay items at issue in the instant matter, and are identified on the bid price proposal sheet as items AB200, AB201, and AB202. Simpson bid $400 for item AB200, $100 for item AB201, and $50 for item AB202. Johnson bid $250 for item AB200, $250 for item AB201, and $100 for item AB202. CCS bid $1 for item AB200, $1 for item AB201, and $1 for item AB202. CES bid $1 for item AB200, 75 cents for item AB201, and 50 cents for item AB202. The Department, in evaluating the bidders’ mobilization pay items, considered costs associated with abatement two structures, a 1,500 and 2,250 square feet structure respectively. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $2,250. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CES’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CES’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $1,687.50. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $375,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $562,500. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $600,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $225,000. On June 22, 2020, the selection committee reconvened and announced CCS and CES as intended awardees of the contract. The Department also announced at this meeting that Johnson and Simpson were “deemed non- responsive due to irregular, unbalanced pay item prices.” On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed a Notice of Protest wherein the company informed the Department of its intent to formally protest the intended award of contracts to CCS and CES. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed with the Department its “formal written petition of protest.” Although Simpson’s formal protest is dated July 6, 2020, CCS and CES contend that Simpson’s protest was actually filed on July 7, 2020, thereby making the protest untimely by a day. The Department did not refer Simpson’s formal protest to DOAH for final hearing, but instead considered the issues presented by Simpson in its protest and then attempted to negotiate a resolution with Simpson, CCS, and CES. Those efforts were unsuccessful. The question of the timeliness of the formal bid protest filed by Simpson is not before the undersigned. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts as to Simpson’s protest, as demonstrated by the record herein, are as follows. On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed notice of its intent to protest the RFP. On June 29, 2020, CCS received notice that a bid protest was filed with respect to the RFP. On July 1, 2020, CES filed a public records request “for public records related to the bid protest made to the” RFP. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed its formal written protest with respect to the RFP, and although the evidence is not clear as to the date, it is undisputed that the Department received affidavits from Simpson explaining the factual circumstances surrounding the filing of the company’s formal written protest. On July 15, 2020, the Department notified CCS and CES that “in response to the Formal Written Protest filed by Simpson Environmental Services, the Department will hold a settlement conference” on Friday, July 17, 2020. On July 21, 2020, Simpson, CES, and CCS notified the Department that they “reached an agreed upon settlement proposal.” On August 11, 2020, the Department, after considering the settlement proposal for several weeks, notified Simpson, CES, and CCS that the Department would discuss the RFP at a public meeting to be held on August 24, 2020. As previously noted, it was during the meeting on August 24, 2020, when the Department announced that all proposals received in response to RFP were rejected. CES, on or about July 1, 2020, submitted to the Department a public records request wherein the company sought a copy of documents related to Simpson’s protest. In response to the request, the Department provided CES a copy of the formal written protest filed by Simpson. It is undisputed that the initial copy provided to CES by the Department did not show either the date or time of receipt of the document filed by Simpson. At some point after the settlement conference, the Department provided to CES a date and time stamped copy of Simpson’s formal written protest. There was no evidence presented explaining the circumstances or the process which resulted in the Department providing different copies of Simpson’s formal written protest to CES, and the remaining evidence does not provide a sufficient foundation to reasonably infer that the Department acted with nefarious motives when providing different versions of the documents to CES. Simpson’s formal protest contains the following statement with respect to the price proposal that the company submitted in response to the RFP: Petitioner’s individual bid price items were based in fact, were reasonable and were in conformity with standard industry rates for similar asbestos abatement and demolition and removal projects. Petitioner’s bid price items were also patently similar to bid price items that Petitioner has previously submitted in response to past FDOT proposal requests that ultimately resulted in the corresponding contracts having been awarded to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner has a longstanding relationship with the FDOT as Petitioner has previously contracted with FDOT as a vendor performing asbestos abatement services on numerous projects over the course of the past eight years. Petitioner’s price items for bid proposals have remained consistent for each of its past projects with FDOT. Petitioner’s price items for the instant bid proposal did not differ or vary in any material aspect from those proposed by Petitioner for previous projects that FDOT has deemed reasonable. Michelle Sloan works for the Department as a district procurement manager, and was assigned to manage the instant RFP. Ms. Sloan testified that because Simpson protested the Department’s intended decision to award the contracts to CCS and CES, and specifically referenced in its protest “that their bid for mobilization was in conformance with industry standards, as well as previous bids submitted to the agency that were deemed responsive,” she conducted additional review of the Simpson and Johnson bids. Ms. Sloan testified that after reviewing the RFP, the price sheets related thereto, Simpson’s protest, and the additional analysis of the pay items conducted following the June 15, 2020, selection committee meeting, she concluded that material ambiguities existed in the RFP’s mobilization pay items and recommended to the district secretary that the Department “reject all [bids] and re-advertise with a revised pricing sheet and instructions.” On August 24, 2020, the selection committee, following public notice, accepted Ms. Sloan’s recommendation, rejected all proposals, and canceled the procurement with the “intent to re-advertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing structure.” A review of the credible evidence demonstrates a rational basis for the conclusions reached by Ms. Sloan and members of the selection committee. Exhibit C of the RFP is titled “Price Proposal/Detailed and Contractual Price Sheet.” The first page of this document provides a general description of the asbestos removal and abatement pay items. The general pay items are as follows: AB100 Fees [as] determined from the Department of Environmental Protection based upon regulated material. AB200 One-time fee necessary to mobilize for full isolation, per parcel, when abatement with isolation is required. AB300 Fees to be charged by square feet for preparation [of] structure before abatement can commence. AB400 Fees to be charged by square feet, to abate asbestos from various surfacing material such as ceiling, walls, beams, plaster, sheetrock and fireproofing using conventional containment methods. AB500 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks ducts, fittings, pipes, flutes and flanges. AB600 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks, ducts, pipe, fittings and jackets which involve the use of a Glove bag. AB700 Fees to be charged by square foot, to abate asbestos from various roofing materials such as cement roof shingles, flashing, rolled roof, felts, wood shingles and mobile home coating. AB800 Fees to be charged by square foot or piece to abate asbestos from various materials such as floor tile, mastic adhesive, sheet vinyl, carpet, wood sub- floor, concrete sub-floor, vibrator dampers, wallboard, metal ductwork and sinks with insulation and heat shields (light fixture). AB900 Fees to be charge[d] by landfill for asbestos disposal. The bid price proposal sheet, which is form number 2 of the RFP, provides a listing of specific pay items related to the general “AB ---” items listed in Exhibit C to the RFP. Below is an example of some of the specific pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet: [See table on next page] Item Number Description (A) Estimat ed Quantit y Unit (B) Unit Pric e Total Bid Amount (A x B) ASBESTOS REMOVAL ABATEMENT AB200 Mobilization for structures less than 2,000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB201 Mobilization for structures [from] 2001 – 5000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB202 Mobilization for structures over 5001 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB300 Mask and Seal 1 SQ. FT. AB401 Remove ACM plaster/lathe including all surface materials 1 SQ. FT. AB501 Remove insulation from fittings 1 LF. AB603 Remove insulation from boilers, stacks or ducts piping 1 LF. AB703 Remove roofing cement 1 SQ. FT. AB810 Remove carpet and mastic adhesive 1 SQ. FT. AB820 Remove sinks with insulation 1 SQ. FT. AB901 Non-Friable 1 SQ. FT. General pay item category AB200, as described on Exhibit C, does not reference a “unit of measurement,” but instead notes that items within this category are to be determined on a “one-time – per parcel” basis. When the AB200 general pay item category is compared to the specific pay items for this category enumerated on the bid price proposal sheet (i.e., AB200, AB201, and AB202), it is evident that the unit of measurement “square feet” is listed as the basis for calculating the bid amount for this item when no such unit of measurement is stated for this item on Exhibit C. Comparatively, general pay item categories AB300 through AB800 each expressly references a specific unit of measurement (i.e., square foot, linear foot, or by the “piece”), and these units of measurement carry over to and are consistently reflected on the bid price proposal sheet for the specific pay items enumerated therein. By inserting a unit of measurement (i.e., square feet) in the mobilization pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet, when the general description on Exhibit C instructs that they are “one-time, per parcel” pay items, the Department created a material ambiguity in the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in Case Nos. 20-4214 and 20-4216 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-20-5003-DAA was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing the two petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2020, 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 14th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brian A. Leung, Esquire Holcomb & Leung, P.A. 3203 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Diane E. H. Watson, Esquire Cross Environmental Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1299 Crystal Springs, Florida 33524-1299 (eServed) Kevin J. Tibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
