The Issue Should Petitioner Elizabethan Development, Inc. prevail in its challenge of Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Invitation to Bid (ITB) pursuant to Section 120.53(5) F.S. and Rule 10-13.011 F.A.C.?
Findings Of Fact On May 15, 1990, HRS mailed its ITB which is the subject of this proceeding. The ITB sought an existing facility for the agency to lease in Cross City, Florida, for use as a full client service center. Upon the face of the ITB documents, a preproposal conference was scheduled for May 23, 1990. Petitioner Elizabethan Development, Inc. received the ITB on May 16, 1990, as evidenced by a certified mail return receipt for that date. Petitioner filed its written intent to protest dated July 13, 1990 with the HRS agency clerk on July 16, 1990. Petitioner filed nothing with HRS prior to that date. Under the terms of the ITB, sealed bids were due to be received by HRS no later than 2:00 p.m. July 18, 1990. Petitioner filed no bid in response to the ITB prior to bid closing, nor at any other time. HRS proceeded to open and award the lease on July 18, 1990, despite Petitioner's July 16, 1990 intent to protest. Petitioner filed its formal protest dated July 24, 1990 with the agency clerk on July 26, 1990. Petitioner currently leases to HRS the building HRS now occupies in Cross City, Florida, and which HRS occupied at the time the ITB was issued. The July 16, 1990 intent to protest contained no specific information as to the nature of Petitioner's protest. The main thrust of the allegations contained in the July 26, 1990 formal written protest is that the specifications in the May 1990 ITB were so narrowly drawn that only one potential bidder (not Petitioner) could be responsive and that Petitioner could become responsive if ITB specification changes were negotiated. Additionally, the written protest alleged a number of problems which are, in essence, disputed issues with regard to the existing lease contract between Petitioner and HRS, which issues should more properly be brought before an Article V court. Petitioner admitted that its delay in filing its intent to protest and formal protest was occasioned by its conscientious preparation of its protest through undertaking an investigation of the existing available buildings in Cross City, Florida. Petitioner further admitted that its delay in filing its intent to protest and formal protest was voluntary and not induced by any representations by HRS or its employees.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order determining the Petitioner's intent to protest and formal written protest to be untimely and dismissing same. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 27th day of September, 1990. Copies furnished to: Alan Taylor Elizabethan Development, Inc. Post Office Box 7077 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Frances S. Childers, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid protest of Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a city pool known as the George A. Pierce Swimming Pool at the Ferran Park complex in Eustis. The pool is nearly 40 years old and is in need of renovations and repairs. Deciding to renovate the old pool and build a new one next to it, Respondent obtained plans for the intended work from Project Engineering. These plans, which are dated January 31, 1990, consist of seven pages of blue-line drawings of the site, the existing pool, a new training pool, and various details, such as gutters (Blue Drawings). The Blue Drawings formed the basis of a request for proposals that Respondent issued at some point prior to the events at issue in the present case. The offers submitted in response to the request for proposals were unsuitable because they exceeded the money that Respondent had available for the job. At this point, employees of Petitioner learned that Respondent was seeking to repair and renovate the pool. Bill West, who is responsible for sales for Petitioner, visited with Norma Showley, who is in charge of purchasing for Respondent. She showed him the Blue Drawings and informed him that the proposals that had been submitted were double the budget. Mr. West agreed, at no charge, to prepare a new set of drawings for Respondent. Ms. Showley did not agree that Petitioner's drawings would necessarily be incorporated into a new request for proposals or invitation to bid. However, Ms. Showley explained that time was critical, and she needed his drawings in a hurry. She gave Mr. West the original set of Blue Drawings for his company to use in preparing the new drawings. Mr. West asked Jack Arthur to prepare the new drawings. Mr. Arthur does estimates and drawings for Petitioner and is a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in Florida and several other states. He is also a Florida-licensed commercial pool contractor. Mr. Arthur met with Ms. Showley a few days prior to March 12, 1990. Also attending this meeting was Harvey Spears, who, although not an employee of Respondent, assisted Ms. Showley on this project. Apparently, Mr. Spears was the contractor in charge of other work in the pool area, such as the construction of a bathhouse. Working 40-50 hours over the next three days, Mr. Arthur finished the plans, which bear the date of March 12, 1990 (Black and White Drawings). Mr. West then delivered the plans to Ms. Showley. Ms. Showley discussed with the City Comission the possibility of using the Black and White Drawings instead of the Blue Drawings as the basis of a new bid solicitation. The Commission directed her not to abandon the specifications contained in the Blue Drawings, but revise them as appropriate. No decision was ever made to use the Black and White Drawings, except for the purposes expressly indicated in the later-issued invitation to bid, such as to indicate the location of the bathhouse relative to the existing pool and the details of an alternate gutter system. On April 13, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid, which was identified as Bid NO. 026-90. The invitation to bid was accompanied by the Blue Drawings and the Black and White Drawings. The text, Blue Drawings, and Black and White Drawings are collectively referred to as the "ITB." Each of the pages of the Black and White Drawings were marked "Attachment `A,' `B,' `C,' or `D."' The ITB required that the bids, which had to be sealed, were to be delivered to a certain place, where they would be opened at a specified time on May 14, 1990. The ITB provided for a "bid evaluation period" of up to 30 days after opening. Other relevant provisions in the unlabelled introductory section of the ITB include: ACCEPTABLE FORMAT--Bid format provided by "the City is the only acceptable format on which a bidder may return his bid. Bids submitted, on any other format shall be disqualified. (Any additional information relative to the bid, should be submitted on a separate format.) * * * CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION OF BID ENTRY--The City of Eustis reserves the right to allow for the clarification of questionable entries and for the correction of obvious mistakes. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS--The City of Eustis reserves the right to reject bids containing any additional terms or conditions not specifically requested in the bid/proposal solicitation. * * * AWARD--This bid may be awarded in part or whole as best serves the interest of the City. All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to all applicable ordinances of the City of Eustis. RESERVATION--The City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive minor technicalities or informalities in bids received. * * * For information regarding bid specification, contact Norma M. Showley, General Services, Coordinator [telephone number provided in ITB]. The Scope section of the ITB provides that this is a bid to provide all labor, materials, equipment, supplies and incidental necessary for the performance of all work required for the proper and professional renovation of the existing City Pool with an additive alternate for addition of a . . . training pool . . . The following are suggested methods of renovating the existing pool and constructing the new pool. Plans that differ will be considered for award if determined to be in the best interest of the City. The Scope section explains that the existing pool was built in 1951 and is a "poured-in place pool . . . with no flood inlets." This part of the ITB also informs the bidder that separate contracts have been executed for the construction of a new bathhouse, including a new chemical and filter room, and the work may be performed concurrently with the renovation of the existing pool. The bathhouse layout is shown on Attachment "A". NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. The Scope section continues with a description of the base bid and alternates. The alternates are provided "[d]ue to the time restraint involved with the funding for this project" and Respondent's desire to complete the project quickly. The Scope section of the ITB states that the base bid for the renovation of the existing pool includes replacement of the filtering system with a D.E. filter system, replacement of the circulation system, replacement of the existing guttering system with a one foot open face overflow gutter, replacement of the Marcite on the walls, and addition of underwater lighting "as per plans prepared by Project Engineering (i.e., the Blue Drawings). Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the overflow gutter system and adds a stainless steel facing overflow system as shown on Attachment "B." Additive Alternate B eliminates the recirculating system shown in the Blue Drawings and provides for a proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner. Additive Alternate 3 eliminates the D.E. filter system, as shown in the Blue Drawings, and adds a high rate vacuum sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates the underwater lighting. The Scope section of the ITB describes the base bid for the new pool, which in fact is not an additive alternate, as located west of the existing pool and having a D.E. filter system and underwater lighting. Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the D.E. filter system and adds a pressure sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates underwater lighting. The next section of the ITB is the Instructions to Bidders. Among the provisions listed under the "Submittals" subsection are: License--Bidders shall submit with the bid response a copy of their license from the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. * * * Bidder Qualification-- * * * References shall be furnished with bid response Other relevant subsections of the Instructions to Bidders section of the ITB provide: Visit to Site--The bidder/contractor shall visit the site of the work to become fully informed as to the conditions that exist and under which he/she must work, and by bidding, represents that he/she has read and understands the bid documents. * * * Evaluation and Award--Bids will be evaluated on the basis of cost, bidder's ability to perform, previous experience, experience of personnel and required completion time. It is the City's intent to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder. However, the City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive technicalities or informalities in bids received. NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. Negotiation of Contract--If deemed in the best interest of the City, the City may, either before or after receipt of bids, select one or more persons or companies and negotiate a contract for the proposed work. The decision of the City as to the firm or firms with whom the City will negotiate will be final. During the negotiations, the right is also reserved to change the plans and specifications as the City may at that time determine to be in the best interest of the City. The section of the ITB devoted to Requirements and Specifications restates the base bids and alternates set forth above in the Scope section. Under the subsection entitled, "Work and Products Not Included," the ITB lists, among other items, "Concrete decking--bleacher area, bathhouse area." Under the subsection entitled, "Description of Work--Existing Pool," the ITB includes the demolition necessary to remove the existing overflow system, install a new one, and provide a recirculation system. Under a similar subsection for the new pool the ITB provides: Provide decking around new pool to match height of existing decking, 4" thickness, 3000 psi concrete, as shown on attachment showing pool layout. Decking shall slope three inches (3") in ten feet (10') away from pool or to deck drains. Minimum unobstructed deck width shall befour [sic] feet (4'). This subsection also refers the bidder to the Black and White Drawings for the curing of the floor of the new pool. For the renovation of the existing pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, three additive alternates, and one deductive alternate. For the construction of the new pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, one additive alternate, and one deductive alternate. Two bid addenda were issued. The first concerned additive alternate 3 for the existing pool and additive alternate 1 for the new pool. This addendum adds, respectively, a vacuum sand filter (instead of a high rate vacuum sand filter) and a high rate pressure sand filter system (instead of a pressure sand filter system). The second addendum, which was accompanied by "a new bid form for prices, adds an automatic water level sensor unit, as described in the Black and White Drawings, to the base bids for the existing and new pools. For the existing pool, the addendum added alternate 4, which replaces the existing main drain with a stainless steel drain, as described in the Black and White Drawings. The Blue Drawings contain four special notes and ten general notes. The first special note is that the final location of "pool and configuration of deck to be determined by architect." The first general note is that the bathroom floors, pool deck, and first 15 feet of connecting walkway are to be concrete or other impervious material, positively drained, and slip resistant. Three unrelated items are noted in red handwriting to be "in bathhouse contract," and one unrelated item is similarly noted to be "by City." Notes on the Black and White Drawings indicate that the contract does not include pool decking around the new pool and a retaining wall beside the new pool, which is in close proximity to a lake. The new pool clearly has to be built to the elevation of the existing pool because, among other reasons, the lake contributes to a high water table in the area of the pool. In order to achieve this elevation, the construction of the decking around the new pool would require either a retaining wall (with some fill) or a larger amount of fill sloped down to the ground level. Due to the close proximity of the lake, it is not entirely clear that the latter approach would work. Even though Mr. Arthur detected inconsistencies between the Black and White Plans and the remainder of the ITB, neither he, Mr. West, nor any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Showley regarding the decking and retaining wall. Following the issuance of the ITB but before the submission of bids, Mr. West met with Ms. Showley, but the conversation involved only the replacement of the main drain and installation of the automatic water level sensor unit. Ms. Showley covered these matters by the addenda described above. They also discussed the possibility of alternate bids with one based exclusively on the Blue Drawings and one based exclusively on the Black and White Drawings. However, Ms. Showley's ability to deviate significantly from the specifications depicted in the Blue Drawings was limited by the lack of time and the earlier directive of the City Commission to revise, rather than abandon, the specifications in the Blue Drawings. Ultimately, timely bids were submitted by only Petitioner and Intervenor, ignoring one or two "no-bid" bids. Petitioner's base bid for the existing pool was $92,399. Additive alternate 1 added $22,897. Additive alternate 2 added $12,383. Additive alternate 3 added $18,500. Additive alternate 4, which was the replacement of the main drain, was included in the base bid and all alternates, even though the only alternate specifying that the main drain be replaced was Additive alternate In fact and as evident from the bid, Petitioner would not perform the job without replacing the main drain due to concerns about the durability of the existing main drain. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $2500. For the new pool, the base bid was $38,389. Additive alternate 1 subtracted $3103. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $798. Intervenor's base bid for the existing pool was $107,170. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Additive alternate 2 added $25,601. The bid was apparently incorrectly filled out. Additive alternate 2, which was the proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner, in fact was not bid, and Additive alternate 1 was bid. Additive alternate 3 added $22 927. Additive alternate 4, which called for the replacement of the main drain, added $5340, but Intervenor noted on its bid form that it did not recommend this alternative. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $3444. Intervenor's based bid for the new pool was $50,472. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $920. Intervenor also bid three "Voluntary alternates." These alternates, which were not requested in the ITB, involved variations on equipment for the existing pool. Voluntary alternate 2, which totalled $143,253, included a full stainless steel gutter with grating and a high rate pressure sand filter with automatic backwashing feature. Petitioner's base bid for both pools was $130,788. Intervenor's base bid for both pools was $157,642. Intervenor's base bid for both pools, using Voluntary alternate 2, was $193,725. Both bid packages disclosed obvious problems. Petitioner had not bid on any decking or the retaining wall and fill. Ms. Showley and Mr. Spears called Mr. West and, after confirming these omissions, asked for a price. The additional labor and materials added $13,526 for the decking and fill, but apparently not the retaining wall as the slope approach would be used around the new pool. This would have raised Petitioner's base bid to $144,314. However, Petitioner still did not address the issue of the replacement of the main drain. Based on advice from Mr. Spears, Respondent did not want to replace the main drain. The process would require cutting the bottom of the pool. Due to the pool's location, age, and type (poured-in), Mr. spears felt, and Respondent agreed, that the main drain should not be disturbed. Intervenor's bid did not include a copy of its contractor's license or references. Ms. Showley obtained this information after the bid opening. She and Mr. Spears also spoke with Harold von Weller, owner and president of Intervenor, concerning the filtration and gutter systems described in Voluntary alternate 1 and where they had been used. In response to a question concerning the 2 approximate cost of the retaining wall and decking, for the purpose of making a deduction that would facilitate comparison with Petitioner's bid, Mr. Weller wrote a letter estimating the cost of these items as $7004.43. An informal committee consisting of Mr. Spears, Ms. Showley, the architect for the bathhouse, and the City Manager, Michael G. Steerman, considered the bids and determined, after consulting with staff, that Petitioner's bid was not responsive. The City Commission met on May 17, 1990, to award a contract for the renovation and construction of the pools. Mr. Steerman recommended that Respondent reject Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to Intervenor on its Voluntary alternate 2 bid for the existing pool and its base bid for the new pool less the Deductive alternate 1. The amount of $189,361 was derived by subtracting from the Voluntary alternate 2 amount of $143,253 the sum of $3444 for Deductive alternate 1, for a net amount of $139,809 for the existing pool. The new pool net of $49,552 thus generated a total figure of $189,361. It is not entirely clear whether Respondent viewed any of Intervenor's bids as responsive. Most likely, it was assumed by staff and the City Commission that the base bid and possibly the Voluntary alternate 2 bid were responsive. Petitioner and Intervenor are responsible bidders. They are highly qualified and experienced in the construction of commercial pools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the City of Eustis enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner. ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990.
The Issue On March 16, 1992, Petitioner filed motions for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. At hearing, Petitioner conceded that Section 57.105 is inapplicable to administrative hearings and the case proceeded on the issue of entitlement under Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The issue of an appropriate amount of fees and costs is moot, for the reasons set forth below, although that issue was reserved for ruling, if necessary, after an evidentiary hearing.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are gleaned from the record in case number 92- 0247BID. On June 21, 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Developmental Services Program Office, published its need for six (6) bed or less intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (ICF/DD) throughout the state, in each of eleven HRS planning districts. The notice solicited competitive proposal applications for varying numbers of beds in each district. The notice stated that applications would be received in each district no later than 5:00 p.m., September 19, 1991, and that final awards would be made on November 22, 1991. Sunrise Community, Inc. (Sunrise), filed petitions for formal hearing in response to denial of its proposal applications in several HRS districts. On January 2, 1992, the petitions were dismissed by HRS with leave to amend. An amended notice of bid protest and petition for formal hearing was filed by Sunrise on January 9, 1992, as to HRS District VII, and was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for conduct of the hearing. DOAH number 92-0247BID was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer and was set for hearing on January 31, 1992, within the deadline required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. HRS filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on January 22, 1992, alleging that Petitioner, with its third-ranked proposal, lacked standing to protest, and further alleging that the amended petition lacked specificity. On January 23, 1992, Salem Village MRDD, Inc. (Salem), filed a Petition to Intervene, as the apparent successful bidder in HRS District VII. The second-ranked bidder, Community Services of Orange and Seminole, Inc. (CSOS) also petitioned to intervene in DOAH Case number 92-0247BID and had filed a separate Amended Notice of Bid Protest on January 17, 1992. HRS' motion to dismiss was heard on January 27, 1992. An order was entered on January 29, 1992, consolidating the Sunrise and CSOS petitions, granting Salem's petition to intervene, and denying HRS' motion to dismiss, but requiring Petitioner, Sunrise, to provide specifics of its factual allegations either through responses to discovery or in an amended petition to be served on opposing counsel prior to commencement of the hearing on January 31st. In the meantime, the parties were engaging in discovery, filing motions related to discovery and were proceeding towards hearing in this and the other cases arising from Sunrise's bid protests in other HRS districts. On the afternoon of January 30, the day before the scheduled hearing, after learning that CSOS was dismissing its petition, Sunrise withdrew its challenge in this District VII case and notified the parties by telephone. The Hearing Officer was notified directly by telephone by counsel for CSOS and the hearing scheduled to commence in Tallahassee on January 31 was cancelled. Without the participation of the second-ranked bidder, CSOS considered its chances of prevailing, as third-ranked bidder, were substantially reduced. A "Modified Amended Notice of Bid Protest," clearly mailed prior to Sunrise's voluntary dismissal, was filed at the DOAH on January 31, 1992. The identical pleading was apparently filed in this party's other bid protest cases in the other HRS districts, as the certificate of service reflects service on various other HRS district counsel. The pleading provides in paragraph 6.(a)- (z), pages 6-8, some specifics of Sunrise's allegations of defects in Salem's proposal and the bid committee's evaluation. The bid protest of Sunrise filed, not simultaneously, but at least contemporaneously with the protest of CSOS, the second-ranked bidder, did not itself cause delay in the process, and it was orally dismissed within hours or minutes of the attorney's discovery of dismissal by CSOS. The substantial weight of evidence in the record supports a finding that Sunrise's initiation and pursuant of a bid protest in Case number 92-0247BID was not for an improper purpose. There was a delay of several weeks between the oral dismissal and the order entered on March 20, 1992, remanding the file to HRS and closing DOAH's file. This delay was occasioned by the Hearing Officer's reluctance to close a file without written confirmation of dismissal, particularly since pleadings were still being docketed, erroneously, under the DOAH file number 92-0247BID. Those pleadings were identical to pleadings filed in several other HRS district bid cases that were still active. Salem, a party in those other cases, one of which proceeded to formal hearing and is waiting a recommended order, has not demonstrated any prejudice by that delay.
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether the Petitioner's notice of bid protest filed on June 5, 1996, was timely under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Petitioner has waived its right to participate in bid protest proceedings; and (2) if Petitioner's bid protest was timely filed, whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioner's bid.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a general contractor which operates in Alachua County and surrounding areas. The Respondent is the governing body of the school district in Alachua County. In April and May, 1996, the Respondent publicly advertised an Invitation to Bid on the Project which consists of hard courts for basketball, driveway paving and new drainage provisions. Petitioner and three other bidders timely submitted sealed bids to the Respondent at its office located at the E. Manning, Jr. Annex, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's bid proposal included a Contractor's Qualification Statement setting forth Petitioner's experience and financial qualifications to act as the general contractor for the Project. There is no evidence that Petitioner is disqualified as a responsible bidder because: (a) it colluded with other bidders; (b) it based its proposal on bid prices which were obviously unbalanced; (c) it included any false entry in its bid proposal; or (d) it failed to completely fill out the required list of subcontractors. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth any other specific conditions which would disqualify an otherwise responsible bidder. However, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all bids when it determines that such rejection is in its interest. Respondent publicly opened the bids and read them aloud at 2:00 P.M. on May 9, 1996 as required by the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not attend the opening of the bids. The Invitation to Bid specified that the bids would be "tabulated and evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County or member or members of his staff or other individual or individuals designated by him." Edward Gable is Respondent's Director of Facilities. The Superintendent designated Mr. Gable to evaluate bids received for facility projects and to formulate recommendations to Respondent. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth a time certain in which Respondent will notify bidders of its decision or intended decision. However, it does state as follows: At the next regular or special meeting of the Board or at the designated meeting thereafter, the bids, as so opened, tabulated and evaluated, and the recommend- ation of the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County regarding them shall be presented to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the law and the State Board of Education Regulations. In Section 19.1 of the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent informs bidders that it will award the contract to the lowest bidder as soon as possible provided that the lowest bid is reasonable and in Respondent's best interest. The Invitation to Bid provides bidders with the following notice relative to Respondent's decision or intended decision concerning a contract award: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. Notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statues, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written "Notice of Protest" within seventy-two (72) hours after posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days after filing the 'Notice of Protest.' Section 17.1 of the Instructions to Bidders contains the following language concerning Respondent's decision or intended decision: 17.1 The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. For any other decision, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Section 18.1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the Planning and Construction Department, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, following the bid opening, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute as (sic) waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders distinguish between a protest concerning a contract award and a protest related to the specifications contained in an invitation to bid or in a request for proposals. In the latter context, a bidder must file a written protest within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of the project plans and specifications. This case does not involve a protest of a bid solicitation. By virtue of the above referenced provisions in the Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent gave all bidders sufficient and reasonable notice that a posted tabulation together with its recommendation constituted Respondent's intended decision. The bid specifications in the instant case required bidders to submit a bid on a base contract for certain school facility improvements with alternate bids relative to additional improvements in the event Respondent decided to include such features in the Project. Petitioner's base bid was $135,000; it was the lowest bid submitted. The next low bid was from Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson) at $133,345. Two additional bids were higher than Watson's bid. On the morning of May 30, 1996 one of Petitioner's employees, Roger "Dave" Williams" phoned Mr. Gable to inquire about the status of the bid award. Mr. Gable was unavailable to take the call. Mr. Williams left a message for Mr. Gable to return the call. Next, at approximately 10:00 a.m. on May 30, 1996, Mr. Williams called a member of Mr. Gable's staff who stated that, as far as he knew, Respondent had not made a decision on the contract. Mr. Gable completed his evaluation and posted the bid tabulation on May 30, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Included on the bid tabulation was the following statement: RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Board reject the low base bid as submitted by D. E. Wallace Construction Corporation, Alachua, Florida, due to past unsatisfactory contract performance. It is recommended that the Board accept the base bid of $133,345. and award a contract for construction totaling $133,345. to Watson Construction, Gainesville, Florida. Completion of this project shall be within ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the date indicated in the 'Notice to Proceed.' The bid tabulation clearly notes that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Respondent regularly posts notices of intended decisions concerning bid awards on a bulletin board in the main hallway of the E. D. Manning Annex. A title at the top of the bulletin board identifies it as the location for bid postings. Respondent posts a copy of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and a copy of the Respondent's Policy DJC--Bidding Requirements below the title of the bulletin board. Respondent has adopted Policy DJC as a rule through a formal rulemaking process. Policy DJC states as follows in pertinent part: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award. For a bid solicitation, notice of a decision or intended decision shall be given by United States mail or by hand delivery. For any other Board decisions, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall contain the following two paragraphs. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written notice of protest within 72 hours after the posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within 10 calendar days after filing the notice of protest. . . . Failure to file a timely notice of protest or failure to file a timely formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Immediately below Policy DJC is a space where Respondent always posts its bid tabulations which include the recommended action on each project and notice that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The bottom of the board, in large letters, contains the following words: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." This permanent bulletin board, read as a whole, contains more than enough information to provide bidders with notice of an intended decision and the time frames within which a disappointed bidder must file a written protest. Although he was not required to do so, Mr. Gable telephoned Petitioner's office on the afternoon of May 30, 1996 to advise its president, D. Wallace, of the recommendation. Petitioner was not available to accept that call. Mr. Gable placed another courtesy telephone call to Petitioner on the morning of May 31, 1996. During that conversation, Mr. Gable informed Mr. Wallace of the recommendation for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid and accept the next lowest bid. Petitioner's representative inspected the posting board in the afternoon on May 31, 1996. On June 3, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner by facsimile transmission a copy of the agenda for Respondent's June 4 meeting, items H.1. of which was: H.1. Bid Award for Project SBAC CB436 - Newberry High School Site Improvements. Bids for the construction of this project were received on May 9, 1996. Recommendation will be presented. The seventy-two hour window in which a bidder may file a protest does not include Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Therefore, the time in which a bidder could have filed a protest of Respondent's intended decision in this case, expired June 4, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. No bidder had filed a written protest at that time. Respondent held a regular meeting on June 4, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent considered the bid award for Project SBAC CB 436, Mr. Gable presented the recommendation that the Board reject Petitioner's bid and accept Watson's bid due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory contract performance. Petitioner's counsel spoke against the recommendation. At that time the Petitioner had not filed any written notice of protest. After discussion, Respondent voted to award the contract to Watson. Respondent and Watson executed a contract for the construction of the Project on June 4, 1996. The next day, on June 5, 1996, at 3:40 p.m., Petitioner filed with Respondent, by facsimile transmission, a Notice of Protest challenging the award of the contract for the Project to Watson. The filing of this protest was untimely. Therefore, Petitioner waived its right to protest Respondent's decision or intended decision on the Project. The basis of Respondent's intended decision and ultimate final decision to reject Petitioner's low bid was due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory performance. The following facts support a finding that Petitioner was not a responsible bidder. Respondent awarded Petitioner the contract for a previous construction project, Project SBAC CA 149, Additions and Renovations for Terwillegar Elementary School. That project included the construction of a number of school buildings. The contract amount was approximately 5.1 million dollars. The last building in the Terwillegar project became "substantially complete" in September, 1995. In January, 1996, Mr. Gable wrote a letter to Petitioner, informing him of the outstanding punch list items for the Terwillegar project. A contractor must complete punch list items and have them approved prior to "final completion." In the Terwillegar Project, the contract provided for compilation of items on the punch list within thirty (30) days from "substantial completion." As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to Mr. Gable's letter about the Terwillegar punch list, nor had it completed the punch list. Many of the items on the list were minor, but some of the items involved the safety or integrity of the building structure. The Terwillegar project contract also contained a project closeout section which listed a variety of documents and other materials that Petitioner had to provide to Respondent as part of the "final completion." Included in the Terwillegar project's closeout were items such as insurance change-over requirements, warranties, workmanship bonds, maintenance agreements, final certifications, a final payment request, consent of surety, maintenance manuals, record drawings, record specifications, record project date, and operating instructions. As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not provided any of the Terwillegar project closeout materials to the Respondent. The delay in project closeout, after substantial completion, is completely unacceptable to the Respondent. Prior to the opening of bids in this case, Petitioner filed a civil suit against Respondent seeking approximately $1,500,000 representing the unpaid contract balance, subcontractors' and material suppliers' claims for labor and material, and other delay-related damages on the Terwillegar project. Petitioner's claim that Respondent's intended decision and/or final decision was based on personal animosity and bias against Mr. Wallace is contrary to more persuasive evidence. Specifically, Petitioner's Exhibit 6 is not persuasive evidence of bias. The Petitioner's president, D.E. Wallace, has over 30 years in the construction field, including 22 years as an owner/operator of a general contractor company. He has completed more than 100 projects in north Florida in the past eighteen (18) years, including 30 school board construction projects. Mr. Wallace has worked on approximately nine (9) school board projects in Alachua County. He holds himself out as being "completely familiar and knowledgeable in government and building codes, ordinances, regulations, etc."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's protest as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601-5498 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In or about the fall of 1993, the Department issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP") for Lease No. 700:0674. Through the RFP, the Department solicited the submission of proposals to lease to the Department 5,748 square feet + 3 percent of office space in St. Lucie County for use as a probation and parole office commencing "5/1/94 or within 105 days after notification of award of bid whichever occurs last." According to the RFP, the term of the lease would be "[f]ive (5) years with an option to renew for an additional five (5) years." The probation and parole office in question is currently located in space leased to the Department by Petitioners.2 It has been at this location, which is in close proximity to the City of Fort Pierce police station, for approximately the last six years. Section A. of the RFP contained the "General Specifications and Requirements." The subject of "parking" was addressed in paragraph 7. of Section A., which provided as follows: Parking: Approximately 30 off-street spaces for the exclusive use of the employees and clients at no additional charge to the lessee. Parking space must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, and bumper pads installed. A minimum of two spaces must meet the requirements of the Standards for Special Facilities for physically disabled, Attachment D. BIDDER RESPONSE: a) exclusive spaces available on-site at no cost to the lessee; b) exclusive spaces available off-site at no cost to lessee. Spaces located from proposed facility. (distance) As An Option c) non-exclusive spaces available at no cost to lessee. Space located from proposed facility. (distance) Bidder's Initials Paragraph 12. of Section A. provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he proposed space must be an existing building" and that the "[p]roposed use of this building must meet required zoning." Section B. of the RFP contained the "Space Requirement Criteria." Paragraphs 2. and 3. of Section B., which provided as follows, set forth the "Electrical requirements" and the "Telephone requirements," respectively: Electrical requirements Minimum of two duplex electrical outlets and one fourplex in each room or office including adequate additional fourplex outlets in each open clerical/file area. Facility complies with the National Electrical Code. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Telephone requirements Minimum of one telephone outlet in each room or office including additional outlets in each open clerical/file area. All wiring, existing or to be installed, complies with the National Electrical Code, Section 8000-3, Paragraph d. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The subject of "security" was addressed in paragraph 10. of Section B., which provided as follows: Security requirements: Security shall include but not be limited to the following: Locks on all outside doors and outside windows. Night lights on all outside doors. Night lights in parking area nearest building. Parking lot must be fully illuminated and create no dark shadows. Dead bolt locks on storage space doors. Convex detection mirrors in the lobby. Solid core doors swinging out into the lobby to separate lobby from secure areas. Electric pass-through buzzer locks (with keys) to be installed on solid core doors. Pass-through ports (similar to the Le Febure Model #BK-4431 walk up design window unit) to be used between the lobby and reception area. A two-way intercom system between reception area and the receptionist BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Paragraph 14. of Section B. listed certain "Miscellaneous requirements," including the following: PROTECTIVE ALARM SYSTEM The lessor shall, at his own expense, install or cause to be installed, maintain and arrange for 24 hours monitoring with a Certified Security Company during the term of this lease agreement the following equipment in regard to the alarm protective system: Burglar Alarm and Fire Alarm Door bugs and Window Tape Dual-Tech Motion Sensors for Computer and Typing areas Panic button with Silent Alarm Two 1/2" Bullet proof glass (lexan) in Reception and Cashier's windows . . . Staff of both sexes will be required to work in this facility during both daylight and evening hours. An environment in which staff can expect to be safe is essential. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" were enumerated in Section of the RFP, which provided as follows: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Rental, using Total Present Value methodology for basic term of lease (See #D, General Provisions Items 1 and 2) applying the preset value discount rate of 5.22 percent (Weighting: 40) Option period- rental rate proposed is within projected budgetary restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Conformance of and susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization and to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighting: 15) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Building should be located in a professional business neighborhood.3 (Weighting: 7) Offers providing space all on the same floor. (Weighting: 5) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within one block of the offered space. (Weighting: 3) Availability of adequate dining facilities within two blocks of the offered space. (Weighting: 2) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5) Proximity of offered space to other Department activities as well as other public services. (Weighting: 3) Proximity of adequate parking area to the building. Must be well-lighted. (Weighting: 10) Total award factors= 100 The RFP's "General Provisions" were set forth in Section D. of the RFP. Among these "General Provisions" were the following: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . The Department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the Department and the State. The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the state, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. . . . 10. Late bids, modification of bids, or withdrawal of bids: (a) Any bid received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered and will be returned unopened. . . . Sealed bids will be received until 11:00 a.m. on November 23, 1993 . . . at which time all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. Notification of award will be made within 30 calendar days, and shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Protests not filed within the prescribed time limit will not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the request for proposal within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten days after the notice of protest is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the Request for Proposal. Any questions concerning the specifications should be directed in writing to David Smith. . . Petitioners, Gulf and Hoyt C. Murphy submitted bid proposals in response to the RFP using the form provided by the Department. At no time prior to the submission of their bids did any of them protest to the Department concerning any of the provisions of the RFP. Gulf offered the Department 5,820 net square feet of office space in a shopping plaza it owns in the City of Fort Pierce (hereinafter referred to as "Gulf's plaza"). Petitioners offered the Department the same space they currently lease to the Department. Gulf's plaza consists of several buildings which, together, take up approximately 32,000 gross square feet of space. These buildings are not fully occupied. Vacancies exist. The plaza presently has approximately 117 on-site parking spaces.4 Adjacent to the plaza, on an out-parcel, is a Wendy's restaurant which also offers off-street parking. On the completed forms that they submitted, Petitioners and Gulf agreed to meet all of the specifications and requirements set forth in the RFP, including those relating to zoning,5 off-street parking,6 security, and electrical and telephone wiring, and, in addition, proposed the following per square foot rates for the basic lease and option periods: -BASIC LEASE Petitioners Gulf First Year $13.90 $14.35 Second Year 14.65 14.35 Third Year 14.90 14.35 Fourth Year 15.20 14.70 Fifth Year 15.50 14.70 Option PERIOD First Year $15.75 $15.05 Second Year 16.00 15.05 Third Year 16.25 15.05 Fourth Year 16.50 15.40 Fifth Year 16.75 15.40 The Department, through its bid evaluation committee, evaluated each of the bid proposals in accordance with "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. As part of the evaluation process, members of the bid evaluation committee visited each of the properties offered for lease. It appeared to the committee members, upon their visit, to the Gulf property, that Gulf would be able to provide the Department with "30 exclusive [parking] spaces available on-site," as it had promised it would in the RFP. On December 16, 1993, the chairman of the bid evaluation committee sent the following interoffice memorandum to Maria Cortes, the Department's Region IV General Services Manager, concerning the results of the evaluation process: The Lease Evaluation Committee has completed its review of the bid proposals and has conducted an on-site inspection of each subject building being offered for the above referenced lease [Lease #700:0674]. The average score for each evaluation criteria is listed below by bidder number for each bid. #1 [Petitioners] #2 [Gulf] #3 [Murphy] 1. 39.20 40 34.8 2. 9.40 10 7.70 3. 15 15 15 4. 6.3 7 6.3 5. 5 5 5 6. 1 1 1 7. 1.3 2 1.3 8. 5 5 5 9. 3 3 3 10. 9.6 10 9.6 TOTAL 94.8 98 88.7 It is the recommendation of the Lease Evaluation Committee that it would be in the best interest of the Department of Correction and the State of Florida to award this bid to bid number two (2), C.G. Gulf Property Associates, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership. This bidder received the highest evaluation score and was the lowest bid. In evaluating the three bids that were submitted, the committee members did not take into consideration the costs that the Department would incur if the Department moved the probation and parole office from its present location to either Gulf's property or Murphy's property, inasmuch as such moving costs were not among the "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. In any event, these costs would be minimal because the Department would utilize free inmate labor to accomplish the move. By letter dated December 22, 1993, the Department advised Petitioners of its intention to award Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf. Thereafter, Petitioners filed the protest that is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order awarding Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf over the protest of Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of March, 1994. 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 14th day of March, 1994.
The Issue On May 12, 2004, did Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), act illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it cancelled the posting and noticed its intent to reject the bid of Rosiek Construction Co., Inc. (Rosiek), in relation to financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement, SR 682 (the Project)? § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Findings Of Fact The subject of this protest is financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement. Respondent and 12 other pre-qualified bidders received copies of the bid solicitation notice, plans and specifications for the Project at issue. Rosiek submitted a responsive bid for the Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on April 28, 2004. There were no other bidders. Rosiek is pre-qualified to bid and receive the contract for the Project and therefore is a responsible bidder. On May 12, 2004, DOT posted its notice of intent to reject all bids. Rosiek timely filed this bid protest on May 14, 2004, with DOT, along with the statutorily required bid protest bond. DOT's 2004 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction is applicable to this project. FACTS BASED UPON ROSIEK'S ADMISSIONS DOT had advertised its bid solicitation notice for Financial Project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on or about March 4, 2004. Rosiek received the copy of the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project. Rosiek did not file a specifications challenge with respect to the referenced Project. DOT advertised the amount of $37,087,000.00 as its budgeted amount for the Project. Rosiek submitted a total bid of $50,470,378.12 for the Project (total bid A+B). ADDITIONAL FACTS Juanita Moore is a manager of the DOT Contracts Administration Office. She served as a member of the Technical Review Committee and the Awards Committee in relation to the Project. When the Technical Review Committee is confronted with a bid, such as the Rosiek bid, which is from a single bidder, something is missing from the bid or for certain differentials in price between the bid received and the official cost estimate, the Technical Review Committee considers these to be "problem jobs." In connection with terminology, Ms. Moore explained that the budget figure, referred to in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project as a Proposal Budget Estimate, is derived from an earlier estimate in the process and in turn an official cost estimate was established for the Project. The official cost estimate is also referred to simply as the estimate. The official cost estimate has not been disclosed as has been explained in the Preliminary Statement to the Recommended Order. The official cost estimate here is broken down into component items within the Project pertaining to cost for Mobilization, Concrete Class IV, Concrete Class V, etc. After the Technical Review Committee considered the Rosiek bid, the bid was passed on to the Awards Committee where it was decided to reject the bid. According to Ms. Moore the bid was rejected as too high when compared to the official cost estimate. The reference to a bid being too high relates to a bid which is more than 10 percent in excess of the official cost estimate. The budget figure and the official cost estimate are not necessarily the same in a given instance. The fact that it was the only bid was also a factor considered in the rejection. As Ms. Moore explained, at the time the Rosiek bid was rejected, it was principally because it was too high in relation to the official cost estimate. Given the posture in this case, the rejection as the only bid will form the basis for resolving this dispute, absent DOT's willingness to divulge the amount of the official cost estimate or how it was established. DOT does not have an established policy for rejecting bids based upon the fact that only a single bidder responded to the solicitation. In her experience, Ms. Moore does not remember DOT rejecting a bid solely on the ground that there was only one bidder. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting held on May 12, 2004, detail the response by that committee to the Rosiek bid. In the copy of that document provided for this proceeding, DOT's official cost estimate is redacted. The percentage differential between the official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is likewise redacted. The item number 0101-1 for Mobilization reflects Rosiek's bid of $4,900,000.00 compared to the official cost estimate which is redacted. Similarly, Item No. 0400-4-4, Concrete Class IV refers to the contractor bid price of $800.00 per cubic yard compared with the official cost estimate which is redacted. There are other comparisons between several additional categories or items in which the contractors bid price is reflected but the official cost estimate in comparison is redacted. The minutes go on to describe how the review being made by the Awards Committee led to the conclusion that the official cost estimate could be adjusted, placing the bid received by Rosiek a certain percentage above the estimate on a 10 percent criteria job but the differential between the adjusted official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is not revealed as a percentage because of redaction. The DOT district where the project would be located is District 7, the Tampa office. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting indicate that the district and the Technical Review Committee recommended to the Awards Committee that it reject the Rosiek bid and re-advertise. That was the decision made by the Awards Committee on May 12, 2004, to re-let in June. Nothing in the minutes prepared by the Awards Committee refers to the significance of Rosiek as the only bidder and any concern which the Awards Committee had about that fact. On May 12, 2004, when DOT provided a Cancellation of Posting and a Notice of Intent to Reject to Rosiek, it did not state the rationale for that decision. It merely indicated to Rosiek that it was DOT's intent to reject all bids on the project and advised Rosiek of its opportunity to contest that decision. On May 5, 2004, Kenneth A. Hartmann, P.E., the District 7 Secretary, prepared the District Response to Post- Bid Evaluation of Bids in Excess of Approved Award Criteria. The document is presented in question-and-answer form. In response to the question numbered 4 within the document, related to the prospect of critical safety deficiencies in the existing system being corrected by the construction of a new bridge, Mr. Hartmann responded with the answer "No." In relation to question numbered 2, excluding normal inflation, the question was asked whether re-advertising the project would likely result in a higher bid. Mr. Hartman answered "No." In response to question numbered 16, related to his recommendation as the district secretary, for action that should be taken by the Awards Committee he stated "This project should be rejected and re-advertised for a June 2004 1st [sic]. Considering that the project is medium to large and was competing against two other large bridge projects on the same day it is understandable that the contractor's bid was higher than our estimate." In response to question numbered 15 concerning the work load level of the contracting industry in the locality where the project would be constructed, Mr. Hartmann referred to "a high level of work load." At hearing Donald Skelton, P.E., the District 7 Secretary testified in support of the rejection of the Rosiek bid. In the past he had served as Director of Transportation Development with DOT, a position that made him responsible for preparation of the design plans and contract packages that are bid. He had involvement with this Project pertaining to the preparation of design plans and getting the Project to contract letting. He reviewed the Rosiek bid. In discussions related to the Rosiek bid during the post-bid evaluation period, there was a concern over a lack of competition and the differential between, what Mr. Skelton refers to, as the budget amount and the bid amount by Rosiek. Mr. Skelton was mindful of potential safety issues that might warrant the prospect of trying to find additional money to fund the Project, if it was necessary to replace the existing bridge for safety reasons. If the bridge were structurally deficient or in bad shape, that would need to be addressed, versus the additional time necessary to potentially rebid the project. No safety issues of that sort were found by Mr. Skelton. Mr. Skelton explained that the fact that there was single bidder made it difficult, if not impossible, to make a comparison between that bid and what the true market value of the bridge construction would be. Mr. Skelton expressed the hope by the DOT, that there would be more than one bidder in the future to truly get an impression of the degree of competition and whether the competition would result in a realistic price for the public. He recognized that there is no guarantee that DOT is going to get a lower bid if the project is re-bid. Mr. Skelton indicated that when you have multiple bids you can compare what the economic system would support in relation to the affordability of the project. That comparison is of similarity in prices among the competitors trying to win the job, with the belief that bidders put their best effort forward to prevail in the competition. A single bid does not give any indication of market factors, in his view. Michael Rosiek is the vice-president for Rosiek. In his testimony, he expressed a concern that if the project was re-let for bid, Rosiek's competitive position would not be good, in that the other contractors would have read the Rosiek bid that was made in the first letting, informing the competitors of the Rosiek price to its detriment. Further, Mr. Rosiek expressed a concern that in a re-letting the company would be bidding "against ourselves." Louis Wenick, P.E., has a business consulting service. The nature of the business is consulting work relating to the construction industry. A considerable part of the business involves DOT projects. In his work Mr. Wenick is involved with scheduling, cost analysis, and entitlement analysis in DOT projects. He is familiar with DOT's specifications, policies, and procedures. Mr. Wenick is a registered engineer in Florida and a certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Wenick obtained information from DOT concerning its history in receiving sole bids for a project and the instances in which the sole bidder was awarded the contract. Mr. Wenick looked at procedures followed by DOT in awarding contracts. Mr. Wenick looked at the DOT experience in re- letting bids to determine if a company was a low bidder in the first letting when bids were rejected, and what percentage of the time that low bidder would succeed in being awarded the contract upon a re-letting. Mr. Wenick prepared certain charts intended to depict the DOT response in the areas examined by the witness. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 3 is referred to as Problem Jobs for the April 28, 2004, letting, with two posting dates of May 20, 2004, and June 7, 2004, respectively. The chart depicts the proposal I.D. number (bid), the project number and the type of problem identified in reviewing bid responses and a brief statement of the Technical Committee's comments and the Awards Committee's disposition in those projects depicted. Nothing more is described in the chart. In no case set forth in the chart was the type of problem described in any detail or, limited to an experience with a single bidder, as opposed to perceived problems in relation to the bid that was too high, as well as having a single bidder or to the problem of having a bid that was too high alone. Seven projects were awarded. Two were not. The rejections were based upon the bids being too high. One of the projects initially awarded was later rejected due to the unavailability of local funding to support the project. Mr. Wenick prepared a chart, Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 4. This reflects the DOT award results for sole or single bidders from the period July 1999 through April 2005. The columns in the chart show the numeric count of sole bids, at certain letting dates, with the contracts numbers, the name of the low bidder, and the disposition of the bids. The numeric count of sole bids is a running tally over the period. This reflects 52 sole bids of which eight were rejected, making the percentage accepted 84.62 percent. Again the nature of the projects is not shown in the chart, and this chart does not indicate the basis for rejection. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 5 is another chart prepared by Mr. Wenick. It reflects instances in which projects were re-let for bid in the period July 1999 to April 2005. The letting dates are reflected. The project numbers, the low bidders names, if known, and the amount quoted is set out. The re-let date if the project was re-let is reflected. The low quote on re-bid and the low bidder's name on re-bid are reflected, as is the percentage difference between the low quote in the first letting and the low quote in the re- letting. Where data is established in all columns in the chart, 18 of the projects are shown to have been re-bid out of 24 projects that were bid initially. Within that group, five bidders who bid in the initial letting were awarded the contract in the re-letting, while 13 low bidders in the first letting were disappointed in the re-letting. This equates to 27.78 percent success rate by the low bidder in the initial letting when re-bidding in the re-letting. Having considered the exhibits prepared by Mr. Wenick, the information is insufficient to discern the reason for DOT's past policies and practices and to compare them to the present case for consistencies in the application of those policies and practices when rejecting bids. Additionally, the reason for the choices in any single project described in the charts cannot be appropriately understood from the charts and compared to the experience here. On the topic of the success rate for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting and the low bid in the re-letting, it is so general an analysis, that it cannot be relied upon to determine the real significance for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting, only to be disappointed in the re-letting when the contractor did not receive the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Rosiek Amended Formal Written Protest challenging the DOT decision to reject its bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department should award the contract for State Project numbered DOH 95209100 to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact State Project numbered DOH 95209100 commenced with an invitation to bid on a construction project which involved the restoration and adaptive use of the Gato Cigar Factory in Key West, Florida. The construction would rehabilitate that existing historic structure and construct internal office and clinic spaces for both Monroe County and the Department of Health. Since both agencies would use the building, the project was divided between them. Monroe County and the Department issued separate invitations to bid for their portions of the structure, and each will enter into its own contract with the winning bidder or bidders. It was not required that a bidder submit a bid for both the Monroe County and the Department portions of the work. Any bidder could bid on one or the other or both. Although the invitations to bid and the contracts to result therefrom were not interrelated, some of the construction work was interrelated as some of the systems being installed under one contract would directly affect the other contract. For example, both the air conditioning system and the roofing system, although being performed under one entity's contract, would be applicable to both projects. The Department's invitation to bid required bidders to submit a base price, plus specific prices on particular items. Alternate numbered 1 added to the base price the cost of a second air conditioning chiller. The base price plus alternate numbered 1, taken together, included all work to be performed under the Department's scope of work. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were deductions from the work included in the base price. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were included in the Department's invitation to bid to cover the possibility that all bids might come in over budget. In that event the Department could select Alternates numbered 2 through 5, sequentially, until sufficient items had been deducted from the Department's scope of work to result in bids under the amount budgeted by the Department for the project. Section 01030 of the bid specifications is entitled "Alternates." Section 1.2E of Part 1 provides, in part, as follows: Include as part of each Alternate, miscellaneous devices, accessory objects and similar items incidental to or required for a complete installation whether or not mentioned as part of the Alternate. Each Alternate Bid must interface with the work being constructed under a separate contract with Monroe County. Each Alternate Bid item is also applicable to the Monroe County work. An alternate which is deducted from one project will be added to the other. If bidding both projects, the Deductive Alternate price for one project must match the Add Alternate price for the other project. The prospective bidders were also given this information in the pre-bid meetings. The Department received a number of bids for less than the amount budgeted for its portion of the work. Accordingly, the Department was able to select Alternate numbered l, which taken together with the base bid, covered the entire scope of work allocated to the Department. The lowest bids through Petitioner's bid were as follows: Bidder Total Bid D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $1,418,744. McTeague Construction Co., Inc. $1,454,500. Lodge Construction, Inc. $1,501,500. Rovel Construction, Inc. $1,559,000. Neither McTeague Construction Co., Inc., nor Lodge Construction, Inc., participated in this proceeding to challenge the Department's intended bid award. For the lowest bidder, Intervenor Porter, discrepancies occurred in its first, third, and fifth alternative prices of $3,500, $375, and $l,497, respectively. For the second lowest bidder, McTeague, a discrepancy of $9,000 occurred in its first alternate price. For the third lowest bidder, Lodge, a discrepancy of $3,165 occurred in its fifth alternate price. For the fourth lowest bidder, Petitioner Rovel, there were no discrepancies in any of its alternate prices. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for the Department was $38,500. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for Monroe County was $35,000. Porter's estimating staff overlooked the instruction that the two numbers should match. The reason for the difference between the two Alternate numbered 1 amounts is that the bidders were instructed to prepare the two bids as two separate contracts. Alternate numbered 1 required moving one of two chillers from the Monroe County project to the Department's project. Porter could not assume that it could use the crane from the contractor on Monroe County's portion of the project to install this chiller in the Department's portion of the project. Therefore, the cost of a crane had to be added to the Department's project, but the cost of the crane could not be deducted on the Monroe County bid. Porter was the fourth highest bidder on the Monroe County project. Monroe County has not yet awarded its contract. If the Monroe County project is awarded based upon the bids submitted, Porter will not be awarded the Monroe County project. The Department's bid tabulation and notice of intended award were prepared without any reference to the bid opening for the Monroe County project and before the contents of the Monroe County bids were known by the Department. The deviation in price between Porter's Alternate numbered 1 bids did not give Porter an advantage over the other bidders, several of whom made the same error. It was a minor deviation, not a material one. The price submitted on the Department's bid reflected the actual cost of performing that portion of the work. Petitioner's bid listed Florida Keys Electric, Inc., as its electrical subcontractor, its fire alarm subcontractor, and its lightening protection subcontractor. That company is not certified by the State of Florida, but it is registered. The bid specifications provide in section B-14, in part, as follows: Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section 16010, Part 1, section 1.9, subsection A., of the technical specifications which form a part of the bid specifications involves supervision of the construction and provides, in part, that "At least one member of the Electrical Contracting Firm shall hold a State Master Certificate of Competency." Florida Keys Electric, Inc., would use Delor J. Ellis as its qualifying agent. Although Ellis is certified by the State, at the time of the bid submittal and through the date of the final hearing in this cause, Ellis' license was in an inactive status, and no application to activate his license was pending with the State of Florida. Fire alarm work and lightening protection work require a specialty license in the State of Florida. Florida Keys Electric, Inc., is not licensed to perform either type of work. When Florida Keys Electric, Inc., contracts to perform such work, it does so through its own subcontractor. Although the requirement for certification and/or registration contained in the bid specifications is not consistent with the requirement for State certification contained in the technical specifications portion of the bid specifications, Petitioner did not comply with either provision. Accordingly, Petitioner's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications. Porter, which submitted the lowest bid, is responsive to the bid specifications and is, therefore, the lowest responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive, dismissing Petitioner's bid protest, and awarding to D. L. Porter Construction, Inc., the contract for the restoration of the Gato Cigar Factory. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Robert A. Hingston, Esquire Welbaum, Guernsey, Hingston, Greenleaf & Gregory, L.L.P. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michael E. Cover, Esquire Morton R. Laitner, Esquire Department of Health Miami-Dade County Health Department 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 William G. Christopher, Esquire Brown Clark, A Professional Association 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue Whether Petitioners' protest should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the parties' factual stipulations, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Department is a state agency responsible for, among other things, administering the State of Florida's abandoned property program. SMSC is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, is an Iowa limited liability partnership licensed and registered to conduct business in the State of Florida. It has 70 offices nationwide (including offices in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida) from which it provides accounting and consulting services to its clients. Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., is a Florida professional association licensed and registered to conduct business in the State of Florida. Like McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, it provides accounting and consulting services, but does so on a smaller scale. (It has approximately ten employees working out of two offices.) Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., is registered with the State of Florida as a certified minority business enterprise (providing "accounting, auditing, review, compilation services, tax services, management advisory services, [and] data processing services."). On July 29, 1993, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, and Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., by written agreement, formed a joint venture known as the "McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture" "for the purpose of submitting bids to the Resolution Trust Corporation ('RTC') to perform various services for the RTC under one or more contracts to be issued by the RTC." The Request for Proposals On or about January 17, 1997, the Department issued and advertised a Request for Proposal, RFP No. BF11/96-97 (RFP), soliciting the submission of proposals "for the providing of services for the receipt and processing of unclaimed property" for the period from June 1, 1997, through May 31, 2000,2 and, "upon mutual agreement in writing," "up to three additional years." The RFP contained the following statement of "purpose:" The purpose of this RFP is to solicit proposals and cost data from organizations that are interested in providing the services to meet all or part of the statement of need above in a modern business environment and who shall perform some or all of the following services: Process annual reports in various formats from holders of unclaimed property pursuant to Chapters 43.19, 402.17, 705.103, 717, 732.1101, 733.816, and 744.534, Florida Statutes and the State's vendors involved in the auditing for unclaimed property; . . . Handle and remit funds, tangible property as necessary and securities received with the annual reports to the State; Process inquiries from holders and distribute information to holders of unclaimed property; Make one attempt to locate owners of unclaimed property and mail claim forms to the apparent owners; Process inquiries from the public and distribute information to the citizens throughout the United States on unclaimed property being held by the Department; Process claim forms received from apparent owners of unclaimed property; Process and issue payment on approved claims to the owners; Process the denial of claims and send the proper documentation to the State upon a request for a hearing by the claimant regarding the denial; Provide access to the public records in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes; . . . Provide a security plan which protects the information on the ADPB [Abandoned Property Database] from unauthorized access or change, and; Assist the Department with the advertising of unclaimed property pursuant to Chapter 717.118, Florida Statutes. Provide an accounting of funds, reports and claims to the Department's satisfaction. The further purpose of this RFP is to set forth the criteria and the process by which the Provider will be evaluated and the basis on which the selection is to be made. Section V.E) of the RFP set forth various "special conditions," including the following: 2. Mandatory Requirements The Department has determined that certain mandatory requirements must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a mandatory condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicates desirable attributes or conditions but are permissive in nature. Deviation from or omission of such a desirable feature will not itself cause rejection of the proposal, but may result in fewer points awarded by an evaluator. In this proposal process alternative means of accomplishing mandatory requirements, with reasonable assurance of satisfactory results will be considered and may be accepted. Such alternatives should be clearly identified by the Respondent in any proposal. 5. Non-Valid Proposals, Non-Responsible Respondents Proposals not meeting all mandatory requirements of this RFP or that fail to provide all required information, documents or materials will be rejected as non-valid. Respondents whose proposals, past performance or current status do not reflect the capability, integrity or reliability to fully and in good faith perform the requirements of the RFP may be rejected as non-responsible. The Department reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and which respondents are responsible. Legal Requirements Applicable provisions of all federal, state, county and local laws and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Department. Lack of knowledge of the law or applicable administrative procedures, regulations or rules by any Respondent shall not constitute a cognizable defense against their effect. 14. Assignment of Contract The Contract cannot be assigned or subcontracted except with the prior written approval of the Department. Monies which become due thereunder are not assignable except with the prior written approval of the Department, and the concurrence of the Comptroller of the State of Florida. In the event of such approval, the terms and conditions hereof shall apply to and bind the party or parties to whom the Contract is assigned as fully and completely as the Provider is thereunder bound and obligated. No assignment, if any, shall operate to release the Provider from its liability for the prompt and effective performance of its obligations under the Contract. Section VI. of the RFP addressed the subject of the "evaluation of proposals." Its prefatory paragraph read as follows: The contract will be awarded to the Respondent at the sole discretion of the Department, whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department and the people of Florida. The Respondent must demonstrate through the proposal that that it possesses the expertise and capabilities to perform the services specified herein; has the staff that possesses the experience that closely aligns with the expertise needed by the Department; and that has the integrity, honesty and responsibleness to complete all requirements of the RFP. Section VI.A) was entitled "Award Notice" and provided as follows: Notice of intent to award contract as a result of this Request for Proposals shall be posted in Room 250D of the Fletcher Building, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida on the date and time shown on the Calendar of Events. Issuance of this Request for Proposals does not oblige the State to select a Respondent or to award a contract. Section VI.B) was entitled "Legal Requirements for Proposals" and provided as follows: Applicable provisions of all Federal, State and County regulations shall govern development, submission and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes that may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Department, by and through its employees or authorized representatives. Lack of knowledge by any Respondent shall not constitute a recognizable defense against the legal effect thereof. All corporations seeking to do business with the State shall at the time of submitting a proposal in response hereto, be registered with the Department of State in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes. To be eligible for consideration, each corporation shall include as part of their required documentation, their corporate charter number, or if appropriate, have attached to their proposal a signed statement that said corporation is exempt from the requirements of Chapter 607, Florida Statutes. Similarly, partnerships seeking to submit a proposal shall have complied with the applicable provisions of Chapter 620, Florida Statutes. Section VI.C) was entitled "evaluation team" and provided as follows: The evaluation team will be established to assist the Department in selecting the best Provider for the services set forth in this RFP. The evaluation team will have a minimum of five members. At least two of the members will be from outside the Department. The team will be responsible for proposal evaluation including reference checks and other verifications as required. Section VI.D) was entitled "Evaluation Sheet" and provided as follows: The evaluation sheet to be used by each evaluator may be found in Appendix I. The evaluation sheet lists evaluation criteria and the specific indicators of criteria [that] will be used to assess the degree to which the Respondent's proposal meets the criteria identified in Section VII. Evaluation sheets will be weighted so that each response to the RFP can be numerically valued and the results compared. The "evaluation sheet . . . found in Appendix I" listed the following awards:" "evaluation criteria" and "possible [point] ITEM POSSIBLE AWARD 1) References 2 2) Experience of Principals 2 3) Financial Statements 1 TECHNICAL SUBMISSION Notification of Holders and Holder Seminar 2 Holder Information 2 Annual Reports 2 Penalties and Extensions 2 Holder Information and Inquiries 2 Receipt of Reports & Reconciliation 3 Record Retention of Reports 2 Contacting Apparent Owners 1 Handling Inquiries 2 Origination of Claims 1 Receipt of Claims 1 Initial Processing of Claims 2 Processing and Payment of Claims 3 Exceptions 1 Tracking 1 Records 2 Automation 4 Security Plan 3 Implementation Plan 2 Disaster Recovery Plan 2 Reports Processing Flow Chart and Narrative Procedures 3 Section VI.E) of the RFP described the "evaluation procedure" that the Department would follow in assessing proposals. It provided as follows: The evaluation process will take place in five phases: Phase I- Meeting of mandatory requirements Phase II- Technical evaluation of proposals Phase III- Oral Presentation Phase IV- Public Opening and Evaluation of Fee Schedules Phase V- Posting of Final Results Phase I Mandatory Documentation Worth 0 Points Total During Phase I of the evaluation process the Contract Manger will carefully evaluate all the proposals to ensure that all mandatory documents have been submitted. Failure of any organization or entity to submit all mandatory items will result in that proposal being withdrawn from further consideration. Upon completion of Phase I of the evaluation process each evaluation team member will be provided the proposals to evaluate. Phase IIA. Technical Evaluation Worth 50 Points Total During Phase II of the evaluation process the evaluators will rate selected criteria from each proposal in regard to the RFP. Each area specified on the evaluation sheet will be given a subjective score based on how well the proposal answers the minimum specifications, on the innovativeness and clarity of the response and on any extra benefit to the State where responses exceed minimum specifications. After each evaluator has independently completed his evaluation sheet (see Appendix I) [t]he total assigned points for each proposal will be averaged across all five evaluators. B. Minority Business Participation Worth 10 Points Total If twenty-four percent or more of the Contract value- 10 points. If less than 24 percent, proposed percentage divided by twenty-four, times []103 No participation by Certified Minority Business Enterprises (CMBEs), no points The Department of Banking and Finance wishes to encourage award of the Contract, or subcontracting of portions of the Contract to, or purchase of good[s] and services from, State of Florida CMBEs. Each Respondent must state whether or not Respondent is a CMBE, and if not, what percentage of the total Contract price will be spent with CMBE firms who will be supplying them. The CMBE participation claimed in the technical proposal must be substantiated in the price proposal, or points assigned for the unsubstantiated CMBE participation will be withdrawn. NOTE: Not all minority business enterprises are presently certified by the State. However, only certified CMBEs will be considered in evaluating this portion of a Respondent's proposal. The Issuing Officer has a directory of CMBEs which is available for review upon request. Respondents may also obtain information of CMBEs by contacting: Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office 107 Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Telephone (904) 487-0915 The Contract Manager will average the points for each respondent upon completion of Phase II. Phase III Oral Presentations Worth 10 Points Total An oral presentation is required in accordance with the Calendar of Events. Respondents must address/discuss advantages/strengths of its proposal including but not limited to any of the following areas: Vendor Qualifications (Project experience/project team qualifications) Scope of Solution (Equipment/Software/Installation/Maintenance/ Training/Project Management and Liaison) The presentation will be allowed a maximum of four hours per Respondent and will be given to the assembled evaluation team who shall independently award points for the presentation. Presentations will be given in Room 547 of the Fletcher Building, Tallahassee, Florida. Points will be averaged across the evaluation team members. Phase IV Worth 30 Points Total The Fee Schedule must be submitted in a separate and sealed envelope and must be labeled "Request for Proposal for the Providing of Services for the Receipt and Processing of Unclaimed Property, RFP BF11/96-97." When Phases II and III have been completed and the scores averaged, the Purchasing Agent in accordance with the Calendar of Events will open the Fee Schedules. The Purchasing Agent will evaluate the fee schedules. The lowest cost proposal will be awarded a maximum of 30 points based on lowest overall cost (Block G on the Fee Schedule (Schedule J)). The instructions for filling out the form are as follows: The Abandoned Property Program has three easily measured outputs. The Department proposes to pay the Provider based on these three measurable outputs. Production under the contract may exceed anticipated levels in one output area but not in another. For that reason, Respondents are requested to estimate cost for each area of effort that is separately depicted on the Fee Schedule. The planned number of units for each area; 16,000 reports, 320,000 inquiries made by telephone, and 160,000 claims processed are the anticipated levels of effort for Fiscal Year 1997-98. The projected cost per unit in each area must include items that are ancillary or support functions associated with that portion of process. For example: The inquiries cost will be a per unit cost based on 320,000 transactions. For the inquiries section of the effort the measurable transaction will be defined as an incoming phone call on the 1-888/1-800 line. Ancillary or support services that must also be provided in the inquiries portion of the process would include, but not be limited to, such things as answering e-mail or surface mail inquiries, maintaining an Internet site, the amortized cost of the equipment placed in the public access spaces in Tallahassee, and the proportional cost of equipment, supplies and maintenance. The cost of inquiries support services will have to be figured into the gross cost of maintaining the inquiries section and then divided by 320,000 to arrive at a per unit cost. The gross cost of operating the inquiries unit must be entered into block D of the Fee Schedule. The per unit cost must be entered into block C. This procedure must be repeated for each of the three sections. The Provider will invoice the Department and be paid based upon performance of units performed in each area and the cost per unit. Costs under the contract may overrun the target amount in Block B or D or F but in no case shall the Provider without prior and specific written permission from the Department's Contract Manager exceed the block G amount. It is the responsibility of the Provider to keep the Contract Manager apprised of the status of the payments and to alert the Contract Manager as early as possible to the possibility that block B, D or F amounts may be exceeded. Add blocks B, D and F to get the total cost of the contract. Enter this figure in block G. Comparison between Respondent[]s will take place at the bottom line (Block G) Enter the annual cost of the equipment in the public records room (four workstations) and the proportional cost of the T-1 line into block H. The cost of the equipment and line identified in block H is for Departmental use only. The cost must included as an ancillary cost in block D. The purpose of this particular cost breakdown is to document contractor performance against measures of success. If activity in one area of the contract is significantly out of tolerance in comparison to expectation and it is evident that available funding will degrade performance, the Department may request increased spending authority based on performance to date. The Lowest Cost (LC) proposal block G divided by the Proposal being Considered (PC) block G cost will be multiplied by 30 to determine point value comparison. LC/PC x 30 = points for fee schedule In the event the result is not an integer, the values below .50 will be rounded down to the nearest integer. Values of .50 and above will be rounded up. The points awarded from the fee schedule evaluation will be added to the averaged scores of the evaluation team and used to determine the selection of a Provider. In the event of a tie the contract will be awarded in accordance with Section 60A-1.011, Florida Administrative Code (see Appendix K) The instructions for filling out the form are as follows: Example: Respondent A bids $3.0 M (block G) and Respondent B bids $4.0 M (block G) Respondent A gets: $3M/$3M x 30 = 30 points Respondent B gets: $3M/$4M x 30 = 23 points Phase V Posting Upon completion of Phase IV the intent to award will be posted at Room 250D of the Fletcher Building, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Section VII. of the RFP listed the "documents required in submitting proposal." It provided as follows: For purposes of uniformity among proposals, documents must be arranged in this order. Original Form- PUR 7033 State of Florida- Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgment Designated Spokesperson for RFP The Respondent must designate, in writing, the official of the organization authorized to sign all applicable documents in this RFP. Proof of Legal Entity Respondent must provide evidence that the organization is a legal entity. Incorporated Respondents must provide either a copy of the corporation[']s[] most recent annual report on file with the appropriate state agency, or, if incorporated within the last 12 months, a copy of the corporation[']s[] Articles of Incorporation and Charter Number assigned by the appropriate agency. Businesses that are not incorporated must provide a copy of their business or occupational license. Partnerships must submit documentation of compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 620, Florida Statutes. The proposal must include a sworn and signed statement that the Respondent will comply with all the terms and conditions of the RFP and applicable addenda. Conflict of Interest This contract is subject of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes regarding conflict of interest. The proposal must include a signed statement that the Respondent has no conflict of interest. The Respondent must disclose the name of any State employee who owns directly or indirectly, an interest of five percent (5%) or more in the Respondent's firm or any of its subsidiaries. This shall be an ongoing requirement for the life of the contract and failure to comply will subject the contract to cancellation. Designated work site within Florida. The Respondent shall include the geographic location of the site where the processing of reports and claims will take place. The Respondent must include a minimum of three references on the integrity and honesty and responsibility of the firm and their experience in processing data, handling inquiries and processing claims for payment. Include satisfaction with services provided, and the ability of the contractor to adapt and adjust to changing requirements in an innovative and positive manner. The Respondent must include a chart of the organization, indicating how the Respondent's staff will fit into the total organization. The Respondent must include a resume/vita for each principal of the business who will perform professional services for the proposed project. Financial Statements- The Respondent must provide evidence of sufficient financial resources and stability to provide the short term financing needed by the State of Florida. At a minimum this evidence must include financial statements audited by a certified public accountant that includes balance sheets and income statements for the Respondent's two most recent fiscal years. These documents should break out subsidiary data if the Respondent is part of a larger entity. Technical submission in response to Section II Scope of Services of the RFP, organized in response to each subheading in Section II. Security plan Implementation plan in accordance with Appendix E Disaster recovery plan Reports and receipts processing flow chart and narrative procedures. Depict separation of duties. Claims processing and payment flow chart and narrative procedures. Depict separation of duties. Proof of insurability to $1,000,000.00 per employee theft or malfeasance. Drug Free Workplace Certification Preference for Offerors with Drug-free Workplace Program: Pursuant to Section 287.087, Florida Statutes, preference must be given to offerors which certify having a drug-free workplace whenever two or more proposals which are equal with respect to price, quality, and service are received. Offerors must sign and return Appendix L with the proposal to qualify for this preference. Completed Fee Schedule- Sealed in a separate envelope marked "Fee Schedule for RFP BF11/96-97" Addendum Acknowledgment Forms Appendix L to the RFP (reference to which was made in Section VII.R.) read as follows: IDENTICAL TIE PROPOSALS- Pursuant to Section 287.087, Florida Statutes, preference shall be given to businesses with drug-free workplace programs. Whenever two or more proposals which are equal with respect to price, quality, and service are received by the State for the procurement of commodities and contractual services, a proposal received from a business that certifies it has implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. Established procedures for processing tie proposals will be followed if none of the offerors have a drug-free workplace program. In order to have a drug- free workplace program, a business shall: Publish a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the workplace and specifying actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibitions. Inform employees about the dangers of drug abuse in the workplace, the business's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs, and the penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. Give each employee engaged in providing the commodities or contractual services that are under proposal a copy of the statement specified in paragraph 1. In the statement specified in paragraph 1., notify the employees that, as a condition of working on the commodities and contractual services that are under proposal, the employee will abide by the terms of the statement and will notify the employer of any conviction of, or plea of guilty or nolo contendre to, any violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, or of any controlled substance law of the United States or any state, for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction. Impose a sanction on, or require the satisfactory participation in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program if such is available in the employee's community, by any employee who is so convicted. Make a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of this program. In order to qualify for this tie proposal preference, this certification must be completed and submitted with the proposal. As the person authorized to sign the statement, I certify that the offeror complies fully with the above requirements. Offerors's Name: Signature Name- Typed or Printed Date Bidders' Conference A bidders' conference was conducted by the Department on February 4, 1997. Among those in attendance at the conference were representatives of SMSC and State Street Bank & Trust Company (State Street).4 Neither McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, nor Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., sent a representative to the conference. The following discussion concerning the subject of subcontracting took place at the conference: Q: Page 30, Part V, Section 14: Does this section prohibit any subcontracting, or only subcontracting for those tasks specifically addressed by the RFP? Only those specifically addressed with Department approval. Q: Bill Gavin [one of State Street's representatives at the conference]- If Provider is considering sub-contracting during the relationship of the proposed bid, what does the Provider do for approval? Peter DeVries [bureau chief of the Department's Bureau of Abandoned Property]- Spell out the parts of the contract that are anticipated to be subcontracted. This is to protect us from someone who is not a corporate entity coming in and saying that he can do the whole job and we find out he is not doing anything. He is using subcontractors and trying to manage them as a shell corporation. It should be part of the proposal. SMSC's Proposal SMSC submitted one of the two proposals the Department received in response to the RFP.5 SMSC's proposal contained the following statement concerning "minority business participation:" SMSC is not a Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE). However, SMSC intends to subcontract with Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc., a CMBE. They are already performing on an existing contract with SMSC in our Panama City Servicing Center. Their certification is shown below. The participation of Interim Personnel is reflected in the completed fee schedule in Section 20. They will provide at least 10 percent of the contract value. They will provide employees who will be located in our Panama City Servicing Center. Additionally, some $500,000 in equipment purchasing will be offered to minority firms and procured from them if their prices are equal or less than our standard prices. We expect this to equal 3% of the contract award over the life of the contract. The completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J) that SMSC submitted as part of its proposal reflected (in Block G) a "total annual cost" of $4,800,000.00 and (in Blocks J and K) "total annual CMBE purchases" of $980,000.00, amounting to 20.42% of the "total annual cost." The Other Proposal The cover page of the other proposal that the Department received in response to the RFP, which hereinafter will be referred to as the "MGS Proposal," indicated that it was "[p]resented by McGladrey & Garcia, Joint Venture [and] State Street Bank & Trust Company."6 Printed at the bottom of various pages of the MGS Proposal were "McGladrey and Garcia, Joint Venture/State Street Bank & Trust Company." The MGS Proposal contained an introductory letter signed by Mark Jones of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, J. Edward Del Rio of Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and William Gavin of State Street, which read, in part as follows: McGladrey & Garcia, JV, with its subcontractor, State Street Bank & Trust, is pleased to present its response to RFP BF11/96-97: Services for the Receipt and Processing of Unclaimed Property. The McGladrey/State Street team is exceptionally well qualified to assume responsibility for administering the State of Florida's Abandoned Property program. Our team brings the following experience and resources to this contract: . . . Experience of the Team: McGladrey & Garcia JV is a joint venture between McGladrey & Pullen LLP, and Garcia & Ortiz, PA. . . McGladrey & Pullen is the nation's 7th largest accounting and consulting firm. . . . Garcia & Ortiz is one of the largest independent accounting and consulting firms in the State of Florida. . . . State Street Bank & Trust is one of the leading servicers of financial assets in the world. . . . Section A. of the MGS Proposal contained a completed Original Form PUR 7033. Typed in under "vendor name" on the form were "McGladrey & Pullen, LLP[,] Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. and State S[t]reet Bank." The form included the following certification, which was signed by Mark Jones in his capacity as "[p]artner:" 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 contractual services, 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. In submitting a proposal to an agency of the State of Florida, the proposer offers and agrees that if the proposal is accepted, the proposer will convey, sell, transfer to the State of Florida all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of Florida for price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the proposer. Section B. of the MGS Proposal contained the following statement: Designated Spokesperson for RFP Mark A. Jones, a Partner of McGladrey & Pullen is authorized to negotiate and sign all applicable documents in the RFP, and any contractual documents that are party to this contract between the State of Florida and McGladrey & Pullen, LLP and Garcia & Ortiz, P.A.7 In Section C. of the MGS Proposal (dealing with "proof of legal entity"), reference was made to "the members of our team, including McGladrey & Pullen, Garcia & Ortiz, and State Street Bank." No mention was made of the McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture, nor was any proof of the joint venture's existence as a legal entity included (along with the documentation that was provided relating to McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. and State Street), in this section of the proposal. The following witnessed, but unsworn, statement, signed by Mark Jones (and the witness), constituted Section D. of the MGS Proposal: Compliance With Terms and Conditions of RFP I, Mark A. Jones, Partner of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, acknowledge and agree that we will comply with all terms and conditions of the RFP and applicable addenda. Section E. of the MGS Proposal consisted of an unsigned statement regarding "conflict of interest," which read, in part, as follows: Conflict of Interest Conflicts We understand that this contract is being awarded subject to the provisions of Chapter 112, Florida [S]tatutes. We affirmatively state that no officer, director, employee or agency of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Garcia & Ortiz, PA; or State Street Bank is also an officer or an employee of the Department, the State of Florida, or any of its agencies. We affirmatively state that no state officer or any employee owns, directly or indirect[ly], an interest of five percent (5%) or more of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Garcia & Ortiz, PA; or State Street Bank. We affirmatively state that neither McGladrey & Pullen, LLP; Garcia & Ortiz, PA; or State Street Bank paid, or will pay, any compensation to any employee, agent, lobbyist, previous employee of the Department or any other person who has registered or is required to register under Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes, in seeking to influence the actions of the Department in connection with this procurement. Litigation McGladrey & Pullen, LLP: . . . Garcia & Ortiz, PA: . . . State Street Bank: . . . The McGladrey and Garcia Joint Venture was not mentioned in this section of the MGS Proposal. Section F. of the MGS Proposal discussed a "designated work site within Florida." It read as follows: Designated Work Site Within Florida We propose to house our Unclaimed Property Processing operation in Tallahassee. We have identified seven suitable sites within a five mile radius of the Fletcher Building, and we will make our final selection upon notification of contract award. Although McGladrey & Pullen and its network affiliates have 10 offices in Florida that could house the Unclaimed Property Processing Function, the advantages of establishing our facility in Tallahassee are compelling. Our outsourcing experience has conclusively shown us that physical proximity is essential. Technology is wonderful, but nothing is an effective substitute for personal communication. We fully expect that during the transition period we will be meeting several times each week with the Department's oversight people, and there will routinely be the need to meet on short notice to resolve issues or special situations. Driving one or two hours to accomplish these meetings places an unnecessary roadblock to success. Further, we anticipate that the need for close, personal communication will continue throughout the term of the contract. The RFP refers to a number of future initiatives in technology, operations, and outreach. Close coordination between the Department and us is required; this will be greatly facilitated by placing our operation in Tallahassee. In addition, ongoing contract oversight and issues resolution (either holders or claimants) will be made much easier with a Tallahassee location. Finally, we will be seeking selected staff of the State's Unclaimed Property Bureau who will lose their jobs as a result of the outsourcing contract. We have successfully done this on other outsourcing contracts to the mutual benefit of us, the displaced employees, and client. Maintaining the operation in Tallahassee will greatly enhance our ability to attract good people to a career opportunity with our firm. In Section G. of the MGS Proposal, the qualifications of the "McGladrey/State Street team" were described. The McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street were all mentioned in this section of the proposal. Individuals expected to play key roles in the delivery of services under the contract, if awarded, were identified in Section H. of the MGS Proposal. The resumes of these individuals, who included employees of the McGladrey & Garcia Joint Venture, McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street, were set forth in Section I. of the MGS Proposal. Section J. of the MGS Proposal contained unaudited financial statements for McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street Boston Corporation (identified in Section J. as "a division within State Street Bank & Trust Company.")8 In Section Q. of the MGS Proposal, written proof of the insurability of McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A., and State Street Boston Corporation was provided. Section R. of the MGS Proposal consisted of a completed, signed (by Mark Jones) and dated (February 25, 1997) "Certification of Drug-Free Workplace Program" (Appendix L). Typed in on the line where the "[o]fferor's [n]ame" was to be indicated were "McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. and State Street Bank." Section S. of the MGS Proposal contained a completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J), which reflected (in Block G) a "total annual cost" of $7,520,000.00. Attached to this completed Fee Schedule was the following written statement: The firm or Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. is a certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE), certified by the Florida Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance office. Attached is a copy of the certification. Forty percent of the contract value will be spent with Garcia & Ortiz, P.A. Evaluation of the SMSC and MGS Proposals Both SMSC's proposal and the MGS Proposal were deemed to be responsive to the RFP. Copies of the two proposals, along with copies of the RFP, were submitted to the evaluation team on March 3, 1997. Phase IIA. A team of five evaluators evaluated the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP for technical merit. SMSC's proposal received scores of 23, 48, 49, 50 and 47 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 217, which, when "[a]veraged across all five evaluators," in accordance with the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, yields a score of 43.4 for Phase IIA. ("Technical Evaluation") of the "evaluation procedure." The MGS Proposal received scores of 50, 45, 50, 50 and 44 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 239, which, when "[a]veraged across all five evaluators," yields a score of 47.8. for Phase IIA. Although the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP made no provision for "rounding" the "averaged scores of the evaluation team," the Department, in determining the amount of points to be awarded for Phase IIA., "rounded down" the SMSC score (of 43.4) to 43 and "rounded up" the MGS score (of 47.8) to 48. Phase IIB. In calculating the number of points to award SMSC's proposal for Phase IIB. ("Minority Business Participation") of the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, the Department used the "proposed percentage" of "Annual Contract to CMBE" (20.42) indicated in Block K of the completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J) that SMSC submitted as part of its proposal. The "proposed percentage" reflected participation by Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc., ("10 percent of contract value," which, on an annual basis, would amount to $480,000.00) and, in addition, the "$500,000 in equipment purchasing" that SMSC represented in its proposal would "be offered to minority firms and procured from them if their prices [we]re equal or less than [SMSC's] standard prices." Dividing SMSC's "proposed percentage" by 24 and multiplying the result by 10 yields a score of 8.508, which the Department "rounded up" to 9, notwithstanding that Phase IIB. of the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP made no provision for "rounding." If SMSC had received "Minority Business Participation" credit only for Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc.'s, proposed participation in the project (and not for the "$500,000 in equipment purchas[es]" it indicated it would make, under certain conditions, from "minority firms" (hereinafter referred to as the "Minority Equipment Purchases"), it would have received, in accordance with the provisions of Section VI.E) of the RFP, 4.16 points for Phase IIB. Because the MGS Proposal provided for "Minority Business Particiapation" in excess of 24% of the "contract value," it was awarded the maximum number of points (10) for Phase IIB. Phase III Oral presentations were made (to the evaluation team) in support of each of the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The oral presentation made in support of SMSC's proposal received scores of 6, 10, 9, 5 and 10 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 40, which, when "[a]veraged across the evaluation team members," in accordance with the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, yields a score of 8 for Phase III. ("Oral Presentations ") of the "evaluation procedure." The oral presentation made in support of the MGS Proposal received scores of 10, 5, 8, 10 and 5 from the evaluation team members for a point total of 38, which, when "[a]veraged across the evaluation team members," yields a score of 7.6 for Phase III. Although the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP made no provision for "rounding" the "averaged scores of the evaluation team," the Department, in determining the amount of points to be awarded for Phase III, "rounded up" the MGS score (of 7.6) to 8. Phase IV Of the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP, SMSC's proposal was the "lowest cost (LC)." Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of Section VI.E) of the RFP, it was awarded the maximum number of points (30) for Phase IV of the "evaluation procedure." Dividing the amount in Block G on SMSC's completed Fee Schedule (Appendix J) by the amount in Block G on the completed Fee Schedule submitted as part of the MGS Proposal and multiplying the result by 30 yields a score of 19.148, which the Department "rounded down" to 19 in accordance with the provisions of Phase IV of the "evaluation procedure" set forth in Section VI.E) of the RFP, which, unlike the provisions of Phases II and III, provide for "rounding" when "the result is not an integer" ("down," in the case of "values below .50," and "up," in the case of "[v]alues of .50 and above.") Total Points for Phases IIA., IIB., III and IV According to the Department's calculations9 (which were determined, in writing, by its Office of the General Counsel, to have been "in substantial compliance10 with the evaluation methodology set forth in the RFP"), SMSC's point total for Phases IIA., IIB., III and IV combined was 90, compared to 85 for the MGS proposal. Had the Department not used the "rounding" provisions of Phase IV to calculate the points awarded for Phases IIA., Phase IIB. and Phase III, and had it determined (as Petitioners allege it should have) that the only CMBE participation for which SMSC was entitled to receive "Minority Business Participation" credit was the proposed ("10 percent of the contract value") participation of Interim Personnel of North Florida, Inc., SMSC would have received 85.56 total points for Phases IIA., IIB., III and IV combined, compared to 84.40 for the MGS proposal. Notice of Intended Award On March 18, 1997, the Department posted a bid/proposal tabulation sheet indicating its intent to award SMSC a contract pursuant to the RFP. The bid/proposal tabulation sheet reflected that the combined point totals for SMSC's proposal and the MGS Proposal were 90 and 85 points, respectively. Petitioners' Protest On March 20, 1997, Petitioners filed their Notice of Protest with the Department. The notice was filed within 72 hours after posting of the bid/proposal tabulation sheet. On March 28, 1997, (which was within ten days after the filing of the notice), Petitioners filed their formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract advertised in the RFP to SMSC.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioners' protest of the Department's decision to award the contract advertised in RFP No. BF11/96-97 to SMSC. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 30th day of May, 1997.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984 Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "the Department") has served as the distributing agency for United States Department of Agriculture surplus foods to be distributed to needy people in the State of Florida. These foods are butter, processed cheese, non-fat dry milk, cornmeal, rice, flour, and honey. The Department contracts with companies in the food storage and distribution business-to store the surplus food and distribute it to emergency feeding organizations. The emergency feeding organizations then distribute the food to needy persons. Each year the Department enters into contracts for various regions within the State. Petitioner Wales Industries, Inc. (hereinafter "Wales"), Intervenor Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses, Ltd. (hereinafter "Mid-Florida"); and Gulf Cargo Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Gulf Cargo"); have all been awarded contracts with the Department over the years for storage and distribution of the surplus foods in the various regions of the State. On or about June 12, 1987, the Department issued an Invitation for Bid (hereinafter "IFB 87-1") which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on July 10, 1987 for a contract for the storage and distribution of the surplus foods for the period of October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. A bidder under IFB 87-1 would be required to store the above-described commodities in dry, chilled, and frozen storage. The provider must also be able to ship the commodities under dry, chilled, and frozen conditions to emergency feeding organizations throughout the state. The bid evaluation criteria set forth in Paragraph E of IFB 87-1 provide, in part, as follows: c. The bid will be awarded to the Bidder submitting the lowest delivered price per CWT for dry, cold, and frozen donated foods inclusive for each Region, combination of regions, or statewide as bid. The bid price for pick-up at the Provider's warehouse is informational, but is not a consideration in award of the bid. Paragraph numbered eight of the General Conditions of IFB 87-1 notifies actual or prospective bidders who dispute the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions therein or of the bid selection or contract award recommendation that they must file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, or be deemed to have waived their right to do so. IFB 87-1 included an estimate of the number of cases and weights of commodities to be handled by a provider per region. This information was characterized as "History of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" but this characterization was amended to "Estimates of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" by letter of amendment dated June 18, 1987. IFB 87-1 provides elsewhere that these distribution rates are subject to change. By further letter of amendment dated June 23, 1987, the Department notified prospective bidders that bids based upon combinations of regions were acceptable, and revised bid sheets with blanks for the dollar bid for each of the three types of commodities were provided to prospective bidders with the letter of amendment. On June 26; 1987; the Department conducted a bidder's conference for IFB 87-1. Representatives from Wales and Mid-Florida attended the bidder's conference and asked questions of the Department's representatives concerning IFB 87-1. Wales, Mid-Florida, and Gulf Cargo (among others) submitted sealed bids by the deadline at 2:00 p.m., July 10, 1987. Gulf Cargo submitted a bid for Region I only. Wales submitted individual bids for each of Regions I through VI. Mid- Florida submitted individual bids for Regions II through VI and two bids combining various regions except for Region I. Gulf Cargo was awarded a contract for Region I, and Mid-Florida was awarded a contract based on its combined bid for Regions II through VI. The bid awards were announced on July 17, 1987. Wales' notice of intent to file formal written protest is dated July 23, 1987. Wales filed its formal written protest on July 31, 1987. The volume and type of surplus foods distributed through the program is solely dependent upon the commodities made available to the Department by the federal government. There is no guarantee that the State of Florida will receive any particular amount or mix of the commodities distributed through the program. Therefore, the data supplied by the Department to prospective bidders regarding the volume and type of surplus foods to be stored and distributed is based upon actual historical data and is the most accurate data available. Neither IFB 87-1 nor the contracts for previous years under this program guarantee the successful bidder any amount of revenue or any volume of goods to be handled. The method of bid evaluation that was set forth in IFB 87-1, which was emphasized at the bidder's conference, and which was memorialized in the Department's June 29, 1987 listing of questions and answers from the bidder's conference and sent to all prospective bidders was the same the Department would average the bid prices for each type of commodity, i.e., frozen, dry and chilled. The averaging method utilized results in the lowest cost accruing to Use State and actually resulted in a lower bid price for the 1987-88 contracts than the 1986-87 contracts. The actual cost to a provider of storing and transporting frozen, chilled, and dried commodities varies according to the facilities and equipment owned by each prospective bidder. The averaging method utilized by the Department for IFB 87-1 permits bidders to develop competitive bids based upon the bidder's individual costs, storage facilities and equipment; and the bidder's anticipation of the volumes and types of commodities likely to be received from the federal government. The information provided in IFB 87-1 as to drop sites for delivery by the providers was sufficient for prospective bidders to develop competitive bids. The requirement contained in IFB 87-1 that the provider would be responsible for providing off-loading facilities in Dade, Broward, and Duval counties did not prevent the formulation of competitive bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest filed by Wales Industries Inc.; awarding the 1987-88 contract for Region I to Gulf Cargo Services, Inc.; and awarding the 1987-88 contract for Regions II-VI to Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses Ltd. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3317BID The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, the Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Mid-Florida's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-15 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; Wales' proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause; and Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 5-8, 10, and 11 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Powers Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Martin R. Dix Esquire Barnett Bank Building Suite 800 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32399-0700 Harold T. Bistline Esquire Building 1, Suite 10 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
