The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION 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. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact During the month of March 1996, the Pinellas County School Board, pursuant to an advertised invitation for bids, (IFB), solicited bids for the construction of a new facility for John H. Sexton Elementary School (Sexton school). Each party submitting a bid was required to do so on a bid proposal form which was contained in the bid documents prepared by the project architect, Mr. Hoffman, and furnished to each prospective bidder who requested the bid package. One section of the bid proposal form related to "dewatering" potentially required at the construction site, and consistent with that potential two sentences were contained on the bid proposal form relating to dewatering of footings and of utilities, both of which provided for election by checking of an affirmative or a negative, and both of which had been pre-checked in the affirmative by the Board. It was the position of the Board that the pre- checked sentences as to dewatering on the bid proposal form constituted an acknowledgment by each bidder that that bidder's submittal included dewatering in the base bid. In addition to the check, the dewatering section also included blanks for the insertion by the bidder of figures representing lineal feet of header pipe and unit price per foot which figure would constitute a credit given by the bidder to the Board against the total bid price if dewatering were found not to be necessary, both as to footings and to utilities. Even further, the form also contained blanks to be filled in by the bidder for unit prices to be charged the Board in the event additional dewatering was required by virtue of the Board's later inclusion in the project of additional footings or utilities. Prior to the time for bid submittal, the Board conducted a meeting of all prospective bidders at which the project was explained and bidders given an opportunity to ask questions raised by the bid package. Johnson did not ask any questions regarding dewatering or that portion of the package relating thereto. Numerous bids were submitted in response to the proposal, including those from Johnson and Ellis. By stipulation at the hearing, the parties agreed that in all ways other than in that section of the bid proposal form for this project relating to dewatering, Johnson was and is a responsive and responsible bidder, as is Ellis. The bid proposals were opened by the Board at 2:00 PM on April 11, 1996 and the base bid prices on each proposal were read aloud to all in attendance by a Board representative. The project architect was present at the opening and tabulated and reviewed the bid proposals as opened. Johnson submitted the lowest base bid with a price of $7,965,000. The next lowest bid was that of Ellis, whose base bid price was $7,945,200. At the time of opening, no Board representative indicated anything was wrong with Johnson's bid Mr. Hoffman, the project architect, immediately noticed that Johnson had altered the Board's pre-checked bid proposal form by striking out the pre- checked "is" space regarding inclusion of dewatering in the base price of the two dewaterings, and making an X in each of the "is not" spaces. Mr. Hoffman considered that alteration by Johnson as a material alteration of the Board's solicitation which rendered Johnson's bid non-responsive. It must be noted that each change bears the initials, R. Y. Reza Yazdani is Johnson's president who initialed the changes and signed the bid proposal form for the company. In addition, Johnson also inserted a "0" in those spaces which dealt with amount of credit and cost of additional dewatering in the event additional work is required by the Board. In that regard, Hoffman opined that had Johnson not changed the check marks, but inserted the "0" figures as it did, the bid would have been responsive and Johnson would still have been lowest responsive bidder. The reason for this is that the bid form specifically notes that "the unit costs described in A & B above shall in no manner influence the School Board's selection of a firm to whom to award the Contract." The Board now recognizes that there is no part "B", as referenced in the proposal form. Since the "0's" would not influence the selection, use of an unmodified Board form, along with the lowest submitted base price would, in Hoffman's opinion, probably have meant that Johnson would have been awarded the contract. Johnson's representative, Mr. Mohme, who drafted the company proposal, specifically indicated he did not believe dewatering was a potential in this project. He recognized that such dewatering as was necessary was required by other provisions in the project specifications and he could not figure any way to recognize this and yet accurately reflect his belief that dewatering would not be necessary, other than to strike the pre-checked block and insert the check in the alternative block. He felt that by doing so, he was more accurately reflecting Johnson's bid. This reasoning is rather obscure. By letter dated April 12, 1996, written to the Board after the bids were opened, Mr. Mohme reiterated Johnson's position that dewatering is not necessary on this project, but further stated that if dewatering were to be necessary, Johnson would do so solely at its own risk and without any risk of additional cost to the Board. Bids may be clarified by a bidder, but such clarification must take place before the bids are opened. Bids may not be modified after bid opening. Before that letter was written, however, when the bids were opened and Mr. Hoffman observed what he considered was Johnson's alteration of the bid form, Hoffman consulted with a representative of the Board's purchasing department, Ms. Maas, who also reviewed Johnson's bid. Ms. Mass was of the opinion that Johnson may have attempted to qualify its bid, and she and Mr. Hoffman thereafter met with Mr. Rivas, the Board's director of facilities design and construction, to explain the problem. Mr. Rivas took the problem to two other Board personnel to see if there were some way Johnson's bid could be deemed responsive so that the Board could benefit by Johnson's low bid price. Within the context of those aforementioned discussions, Hoffman took the position that the alteration might leave the Board open to a possible change order and additional liability if dewatering were to be required and the Board had accepted Johnson's bid indicating that process was not included in the base price. Mr. Rivas, after consulting with the Board's attorney, also concluded that Johnson's alteration expressly excluded dewatering as an included factor and its exclusion constituted a serious and material deviation from the Board's solicitation. It was deemed material in that the deviation apparently gave Johnson a competitive advantage over other bidders who did not amend the form. This appears to be a valid conclusion and is adopted herein. The decision to recommend rejection of Johnson's bid and acceptance of Ellis's as the lowest responsive bid was ultimately reached by the Board's administrative staff. The Ellis bid was responsive to the solicitation whereas the determination was made that Johnson's was not responsive because of the alteration. It was not the actual act of alteration that caused that determination but rather the potential effect of the alteration. This was consistent with long standing Board policy not to accept a bid which does not conform to a bid solicitation and not to accept bids from bidders who alter the Board's bid proposal form or otherwise attempt to qualify their bids. It is the opinion of the Board personnel that such consistency in bidding procedure has resulted over time in more qualified bidders submitting bids for Board work which, in turn, has resulted in more competitive prices for the work let for bid. This is a reasonable policy. Mr. Gottschalk, Johnson's expert architect, who has designed schools for the Board, offered an alternative disposition to this dilemma. While admitting that Johnson's shifting of the risk of loss as a result of possible dewatering was a material matter, he suggested the Board could have disregarded the dewatering clause on every submittal and thereafter awarded the contract to Johnson, the lowest bidder, whose bid was responsive to the solicitation except for the dewatering provision. Recognizing this solution would have placed each bidder on an equal footing and allowed award to the lowest bidder at a substantial savings to the Board, he nonetheless also understood the decision made by Mr. Hoffman and the Board staff here and could not fault it. He agreed that reasonable men could differ on the issue of responsiveness here and how to deal with it. It is so found. After a review of the evidence submitted, including the testimony indicating the remoteness of the likelihood that extensive dewatering would be required, there appears to be no evidence that the Board, or its staff, acted dishonestly, fraudulently, illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting Johnson's bid on this project and recommending award to Ellis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order denying and dismissing G. H. Johnson Construction Company's protest and awarding a contract for the construction of Sexton Elementary School to Ellis Construction Company, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1942BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Johnson's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted but not a proper Finding of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. Rejected. Accepted but not a proper Findings of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. &11. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted as a literal statement of what appears in the specifications. Second and third sentences accepted but not probative of any material issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not Finding of fact but argument. Ellis' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3.-6. Accepted. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted but word "certain" is changed to read "likely." 17.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23.&24. Accepted. 25.&26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27.-29. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not relevant to any material issue of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jawdet I. Rubaii, Esquire Clearwater Executive Suites, No. 213 1345 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942 E. A. Mills, Jr. Esquire Dale W. Vash, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601 Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Avenue, S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on February 16, 1993, requesting bids for the removal, preparation, and installation of carpet-glue down on project SB93C-216T. The ITB provided that all bids were to be submitted by March 31, 1993, at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent sections of the ITB to the case at hand include a section entitled "Invitation To Bid" which provides in pertinent part: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Another section entitled "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" provides in pertinent part: 26. Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. The section entitled "Special Conditions" provides in pertinent part: C. AWARD: Bid will be awarded to the lowest and best bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions . . . The School Board shall elect to award to a primary and a secondary vendor . . . . * * * N. CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS: The contractor must have at least three years of verifiable experience in the floor covering contracting business. The contractor must have in force the required occupational licenses from Palm Beach County and it's municipalities. All documentation of the above requirements must be submitted with the proposed bid by each bidding contractor. The contractor shall not sub-contract any portion of their work, outlined in this contract, to any person(s) or company, without advance written permission from the Carpentry Supervisor of the Department of Maintenance & Plant Operations. Another section of the ITB entitled "Additional Information" provides in pertinent part: Additional information will not be a determining part of the award of this bid except in the instance where the per square yard prices are too close to determine a clear awardee. In that instance we will look at the optional items in this section as the determining factor. (This usage is also based upon all other factors being equal.) . . . Cost of heavy patching. $ per sq. ft. . . . Cost of heavy patching. $ per sq. ft. . . . By March 31, 1993, eight bids were received. However, only seven bids were considered. Respondent's Department of Contracting & Procurement reviewed the bids. On April 12, 1993, the Department of Contracting & Procurement (Department) posted the bid tabulations, which showed, inter alia, that the apparent lowest bidder was Carpetech at $28,029.61, that the apparent second lowest bidder was Buy the Square Yard (Petitioner) at $32,107.32, and that the apparent highest bidder was Acousti Engineering of Florida (Intervenor). Additionally, the recommendation was that the bid be awarded to the "lowest and best bidder meeting specifications, terms, and conditions" with Carpetech being the "Primary" bidder and Petitioner being the "Secondary" bidder. Moreover, the bid tabulation sheet noted that the "price" of each bid was determined by using a "hypothetical" that was typical of a School Board project. This was the first time that the bidders were aware of a hypothetical being used. Respondent had not used a hypothetical in past bids for this type of work, and it was not included in the bid specifications At first, after the bids were opened, Respondent's Department used the base bid, which excluded any alternate work, to determine the apparent lowest bidder. The calculation showed Intervenor as the apparent lowest bidder at $11.03 sq. yd. and Petitioner as the apparent second lowest bidder at $11.08 sq. yd. Carpetech's base bid was $11.295 sq. yd. A discussion ensued as to whether the bids were "too close"; but, there was no consensus as to the meaning of "too close." However, the Department determined that, taking into consideration the alternate work which would have to be done, Intervenor was not the best bidder. The Department first considered recommending the rejection of all bids and readvertising, but decided upon using a hypothetical which included the base bid and the alternates in the calculations. As a result of using the hypothetical, Carpetech, not Intervenor, was the apparent lowest bidder. However, Carpetech, unlike any other bidder, changed one of the specifications in its bid from the "cost of heavy patching" to the "cost of light patching." Respondent admits that a clerical error had occurred and that particular specification should have been "light" patching, instead of "heavy" patching. Also, Carpetech failed to submit an occupational license with its bid. However, subsequent to the bid opening, Carpetech submitted an occupational license. Like Carpetech, Intervenor also failed to submit an occupational license with its bid. 2/ To the contrary, Petitioner submitted an occupational license with its bid. The occupational license forbade Petitioner to have employees at its location but allowed it to hire outside employees, which meant that it could hire contract labor to perform under the contract of the bid. 3/ Out of the three bidders--Carpetech, Petitioner and Intervenor--only Petitioner is a minority owned business. Initially, when Petitioner began its business in December 1991, it was owned by a minority female and a minority male. Subsequently, for financial purposes, the minority female became the sole shareholder/owner and the minority male became the business consultant (consultant), receiving consulting fees. On or about March 24, 1992, Petitioner was certified as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) by Palm Beach County, and on or about March 19, 1992, it was certified as a MBE by Respondent, with the certification effective from May 1992 to May 1993. Petitioner became incorporated in or around April 1992 and again in July 1992 when the minority female became the sole owner. Prior to Petitioner's formation, its consultant had his own flooring business (carpet and tile sales and insulation) for several years. The prior business had financial difficulties which resulted in court judgements against it. Petitioner's sole owner was never involved in the consultant's prior business. She provides Petitioner's financial security, and there have been no court judgments against Petitioner. Respondent's Department was familiar with flooring work of Petitioner's consultant before he became associated with Petitioner. He had performed flooring work for Respondent in the past, which was very satisfied with his work. The Department was not aware of the court judgements against the prior business of Petitioner's consultant. However, even if it was, the judgments would not have had a negative effect on Petitioner in the award process of the current contract. On or about April 14, 1993, Intervenor filed its written protest, which was timely. On or about April 22, 1993, Petitioner filed its written protest, which was timely. On April 28, 1993, Respondent held an informal meeting on the written protests. On May 3, 1993, Respondent's counsel issued its recommendation on the protests, which was to "reject all bids and rebid with new terms and conditions and specifications" in order for all bidders to be given "a fair playing field."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on project SB93C-216T and readvertise. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December 1993.
Findings Of Fact In February 1994 the School Board, by and through its design consultants, W. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc., and, more particularly, its project architect, Byron Tramonte, issued plans, specifications, and related contract documents associated with additions, remodeling, and reroofing of John F. Kennedy Middle School, Palm Beach County, Florida. At a pre-bid conference conducted at the project job site attended by representatives of the School Board, its consultants, as well as representatives of Petitioner, Respondent, and Intervenor, among others, Petitioner's Greg Hill questioned the sufficiency of the drawings with respect to the earth work requirements associated with Alternate 1. As a result of this inquiry, the owner's design consultant issued Addendum 2 (including an as-built drawing) dated February 23, 1994, which was ". . . made available for grading estimates." The drawing attached to Addendum 2 had two sets of elevation numbers on it. One set of elevation numbers were underlined. The clearest of the underlined numbers were difficult to read. Many of the underlined numbers were impossible to read. The other set of elevation numbers on the subject drawing were boxed. The boxed numbers were all clear and legible. In view of the purpose for which the drawing was attached to Addendum 2, the most logical interpretation of the drawing was that the boxed elevation figures represented the existing elevations. The drawing attached to Addendum 2 also included some circled handwritten information. In large letters the circled information read: "JFK MIDDLE SCHOOL AS BUILT EXIST. ELEV." Immediately below in smaller letters it read: "Note: The 2 softball fields were not constructed. 2/23/94." The circled handwritten information was to some extent ambiguous. But it was an ambiguity that could be resolved by careful site inspection. Careful site inspection would have revealed that the boxed numbers corresponded to existing site conditions and that the underlined numbers, to the extent they were legible, did not. Petitioner's Vice President Greg Hill was primarily responsible for the preparation of the portion of the Petitioner's bid relating to Alternate 1. Greg Hill visited the job site during the prebid conference and also visited the job site on one other occasion after receiving Addendum 2, but before submitting the Petitioner's bid. Greg Hill is an experienced estimator with respect to matters involving the type of work encompassed by Alternate 1. In spite of his experience and in spite of his two pre-bid site visits, Greg Hill misinterpreted the architect's intent and used the underlined elevations on the drawing attached to Addendum 2 as a basis for estimating portions of the work associated with Alternate 1. As a result of this mistake Greg Hill reached erroneous conclusions about the amount of fill that would be required and substantially overestimated the amount of fill. This mistake caused the Petitioner's bid for Alternate 1 to be somewhat higher than it would have been if Greg Hill had based his estimates on the boxed elevation numbers. A similar mistake was made by CSR Heavy Construction-North, Inc., a company that was seeking work as a subcontractor on Alternate 1. On the last day for submitting bids on the subject project, the Intervenor received an unsolicited bid from CSR Heavy Construction-North, Inc., to perform some or all of the work encompassed by Alternate 1. CSR's bid was much higher than the Intervenor's proposed bid for that work, which caused the Intervenor's President to become worried that perhaps he had misinterpreted the drawings attached to Addendum 2. Intervenor's President called the School Board Architect and asked for confirmation of his interpretation to the effect that the bidders should base their estimates on the boxed elevation numbers on the drawing attached to Addendum 2. The architect confirmed that the Intervenor's President had correctly interpreted the drawing. The architect did not call any other potential bidders to tell them they should use the boxed numbers because he thought it was obvious that all potential bidders should use the boxed numbers. The bids for the subject project were opened on March 3, 1994. The Petitioner was the apparent responsive low bidder for the base bid. The Intervenor was the apparent responsive low bidder taking together the base bid and the bids on Alternates 1 and 2. The School Board published notice of its intent to award a contract to the Intervenor for the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2. The Instructions To Bidders portion of the subject bid specifications included the following provisions: BIDDER'S REPRESENTATIONS: Each Bidder, by making his Bid, represents that he has read and understands the Bidding Documents. Each Bidder, by making his Bid, represents that he has visited the site and familiarized himself with the local conditions under which the Work is to be performed. BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * 3.11 Familiarity with Laws: The Bidder is assumed to be familiar with all Federal, State and Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, that in any manner affect the Work. Public Contracting and Purchasing Process Florida Statute, Section 287.132-.133 (Public Entity Crimes) is applicable. Ignorance on the part of the Bidder will in no way relieve him from responsibility. * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. * * * BID PROTEST PROCEDURES: * * * 10.02 The Bid Documents/"Advertisement tol Bid" will be posted in the office of thel Department of Capital Projects at the time of the solicitation to Contractors. Any person who is affected adversely with respect to the Bid Documents shall file a notice of protest in writing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the Bid Documents, and SHALL FILE A FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE DATE HE FILED THE NOTICE OF PROTEST. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120. It is important to the proper functioning of the public works bidding process that all bidders be treated alike. To this end, important information furnished to one potential bidder should be furnished to all other potential bidders.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of the Petitioner and awarding a contract to the Intervenor for the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 17th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following rulings are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings submitted by Petitioner. Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 6: Rejected as not completely accurate. The practices described are common, but not universal. Drawings usually have a legend to explain the difference between existing elevations and elevations to be achieved. Paragraph 7: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting inferences or arguments not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11: Accepted in substance, but with some modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraph 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in part. Accepted that if the Petitioner had used the boxed elevation numbers, it's proposal on Alternate 1 would probably have been substantially lower. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as speculation Paragraph 14: Rejected as not fully supported by competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting primarily argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. To the extent the material in this paragraph purports to be factual, it tends to be contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is to the effect that there were no ambiguities in Addendum 2 that could not have been resolved by careful site inspection. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; careful site inspection would have confirmed that the boxed numbers represented the existing elevations. Paragraph 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as speculative and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 21: Rejected as constituting a proposed ultimate conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact, and as, in any event, a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent. Paragraphs 1 through 8: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constitution a proposed ultimate conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. (The conclusion is warranted, but it is a conclusion nevertheless.) Findings submitted by Intervenor: (No separate proposals; the Intervenor adopted the proposed findings of the Respondent.) COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Alan C. Brandt, Jr., Esquire Leiby, Ferencik, Libanoff and Brandt Suite 400 150 South Pine Island Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Richard B. Warren, Esquire Kelley, Aldrich & Warren, P.A. 801 Spencer Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact By Invitation to Bid for Lease NO. 590:1944, Respondent invited lease proposals for approximately 15,206 square feet of office space "located within the following boundaries: On the North, Aloma Avenue/Fairbanks Avenue the East, Semoran Boulevard the South, Colonial Drive, and on the West, Mills Avenue." The geographic area includes as many as 100 office buildings, although the invitation only generated three bids. The Invitation to Bid announced a Pre-Bid Conference on December 22, 1987. Interested parties were directed to contact Linda N. Treml, whose telephone number was provided, for "bid specifications and information regarding the space." The Invitation to Bid stated that "[a]ny questions concerning this project are to be directed to [Ms. Treml]" and "prospective bidders are encouraged to consult with [Ms. Treml] beforehand in an attempt to enable as correct a bid submittal as possible." The Invitation to Bid required that certain attachments accompany the bid proposal and referred the prospective bidder to paragraph 9 of the Bid submittal Form. The required attachments included a scaled floorplan "showing present configurations with measurements," net rentable square footage calculations using floorplan measurements, and a preliminary site layout. The Invitation to Bid stated that Respondent reserved the right to waive any minor informalities or technicality and seek clarification" of bids received, when such is in the best interest of the state. Responding to Respondent's newspaper advertisement and direct-mail solicitation for bids, James W. Boyle, who is a real estate broker active in leasing and property management, requested from Ms. Treml an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form. Mr. Boyle regularly reviews announcements of forthcoming leasing activity by state agencies. If he is aware of a building that appears to meet the agency's requirements, he contacts the building's owner or manager and informs him or her that he may have a prospective tenant. After receiving the bid materials for Lease No. 590:1944, Mr. Boyle contacted Kathryn Doyle, who is the leasing manager of Petitioner, and learned that Petitioner could accommodate Respondent's space needs for the term sought in the Lakeview 436 office building. Mr. Boyle assisted Ms. Doyle in the preparation of the Bid Submittal Form for Petitioner. In his first conversation with Ms. Doyle, Mr. Boyle ascertained that Petitioner's building carried a Semoran Boulevard street address and in fact had direct access to Semoran Boulevard. Petitioner's building lies on the east side of Semoran Boulevard, which serves as the eastern boundary of the geographic area described in the Invitation to Bid. Three bids were submitted in response to the subject Invitation to Bid. When they were opened, Ms. Treml and her supervisor, George A. Smith, determined that bids of Petitioner and a third party were nonresponsive because their office buildings were outside the geographic area specified in the Invitation to Bid. These bids were not considered further. Mr. Boyle had previously represented the owners of the FARE building several months earlier in a bid for Lease No. 590:1895. The Invitation to Bid in that case, which was issued by Respondent and named Ms. Treml as the contact person, provided that the proposed office space must be located within the following boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of US 17-92 and Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the intersection of Edgewater Drive, then north on Edgewater Drive to the intersection of Kennedy Blvd. . ., then east on Kennedy Blvd. . . . to the intersection of US 17-92, then south on US 17- 92 to the point of beginning." Although Mr. Boyle's client was not awarded Lease NO. 590:1895 for reasons not relevant here, his client's bid, as well as the bid of another unsuccessful bidder owning a building on the east side of the highway serving as the east boundary of the geographic area, were considered responsive and thus within the specified geographic area. Ms. Treml interpreted the boundary description in Lease NO. 590:1944 differently from the boundary description in Lease NO. 590:1895. The description for Lease NO. 590:1895 defined the boundaries by "beginning" at a certain intersection, then proceeding "on" a highway, and so on. The description for Lease NO. 590:1944 defined the boundaries by identifying landmarks "on the north," then the "east," and so on. At the time of assisting in the preparation of Petitioner's bid, Mr. Boyle was also aware of an Invitation to Bid issued by Respondent for Lease NO. 590:1875. In this case, Respondent specified office space "in the following area of Brevard County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and State Road 50, then West on SR-50 to the intersection of 1-95, then North on 1-95 to the intersection of SR-406 . . . then East on SR-406 to the intersection of U.S. 1, then South on U.S. 1 to the point of beginning." In the case of Lease NO. 590:1875, the bid contact person, Lynn Mobley, issued a clarification letter stating that any building located on either side of the boundary road with an address on the boundary road would be considered to be within the boundary. Ms. Mobley and her supervisor, Ernest Wilson, who are Respondent's District 7 Facilities Services Assistant Manager and Manager, respectively, have consistently advised potential bidders that a building located on a boundary highway is included in the geographic area even though it would be outside the area if the dividing line were the centerline of the highway. Mary Goodman, Chief, Bureau of Property Management of the Department of General Services, testified that, in the course of her review of leasing activities by various state agencies, she has historically guided agencies that, if a building abuts a boundary highway but is not, strictly speaking, within it, the agency "could waive that as a minor technicality and consider it a responsive bid." Neither Mr. Boyle, Ms. Doyle, or any other representative of Petitioner spoke to Ms. Goodman prior to submitting the subject bid proposal. Ms. Treml customarily waives minor irregularities in bid submittals. However, she does not treat the location of a building outside the geographic area as a minor irregularity. To do so would be unfair to owners of other buildings outside the geographic area who took the geographic description at its face value and never submitted bids. Ms. Doyle received the bid materials from Mr. Boyle after the Pre-Bid Conference had taken place. However, Mr. Boyle elected not to attend the Pre- Bid Conference at which Ms. Treml explained, among other things, her interpretation of the specific geographic area. He chose not to attend because he felt that he would not learn anything relevant at the conference, which was attended by a representative of Intervenor. Neither Mr. Boyle, Ms. Doyle, or any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Treml prior to submitting Petitioner's bid. Mr. Boyle, whose compensation in this case is entirely contingent upon a successful bid, estimates that he spent about 20 hours working on Petitioner's bid. Ms. Doyle estimates that she spent about 40 hours working on the bid. Petitioner also spent $800 in obtaining an "as-built" drawing of the space that accompanied its proposal. By letter dated February 22, 1988, Respondent notified the bidders of its decision to award the lease contract to Intervenor. Petitioner filed a notice of intent to protest the award by letter dated February 24, 1988. Ms. Treml met Mr. Boyle and Ms. Doyle on March 1, 1988, and cited the location of Petitioner's building as the only reason for the determination of nonresponsiveness. The attempt at mediation having failed, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the award by letter dated March 3, 1988. Petitioner attached to its bid proposal an "as-built" drawing. Although drawn to scale, the drawing did not bear the measurements of the then- present interior tenant improvements, mostly walls, nor did it disclose on its face any calculations showing how the rentable area was computed from the gross area. These omissions were due to Mr. Boyle's advice to Ms. Doyle that such information would be unnecessary in this case. The omissions from Petitioner's "as-built" drawing were rendered less critical by the fact that Respondent would have the right under the lease to require the landlord, at its expense, to remove the present improvements and re- configure the space to Respondent's demands. However, one purpose of the floorplan is to show where the space is located within the building. Another purpose is to verify the rentable area calculation by showing the measurements of items, such as restrooms, that should not be included in the rentable area for which Respondent is charged rent. The drawing is supposed to show the rentable area computation. Additionally, even though Respondent could insist on a total renovation of the premises, Respondent might wish to evaluate whether it could use a portion of the existing space in order to reduce the possibility of construction delays. George A. Smith, the Senior Management Analyst for Respondent who reviewed Ms. Treml's determination of nonresponsiveness prior to the award of the subject lease, testified that the deficiencies in Petitioner's "as-built" drawing were not a "minor irregularity."
The Issue The issues presented in this proceeding are whether Petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid on CTB 5998 and whether Petitioner is entitled to the bid award.
Findings Of Fact On November 5, 1990, Florida A & M University, acting as the agent of the Board of Regents, issued a Call to Bid (CTB) for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium (repainting project). The total project was estimated to cost $595,000.00. The funds for the project would come from the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget. 1/ Specifically, the funds for the repainting project were appropriated by the legislature as a specific line item in the 1990-1991 budget. The line in the budget read, "Fire Code Corrections/Repainting-Bragg Stadium (includes $490,000.00 Reimb. to Aux. Fund), of $682,000.00." The $682,000.00 figure was obtained from several documents submitted by FAMU to the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents then submitted the University's budget requests to the Commissioner of Education who, in turn, submitted an integrated budget to the governor and legislature. See Chapter 216 and 235, Florida Statutes, for the specifics of this budgetary process. The beginning of the budgetary process in relation to the repainting project occurred on October 16, 1989, when Louis A. Murray, the Associate Vice President of Florida A&M sent a document titled "the University's 1990-91/1992- 93 Capital Improvement Fee Project List for Legislative Consideration" to Dr. Carl Blackwell, the Vice Chancellor for Budgets. The document contained two attachments entitled "Capital Improvement Fee Project List, Project Information Sheet" (Project Information Sheet) for the fire code corrections at Bragg Stadium and the repainting of Bragg Stadium. It also included a Project Information Sheet for the remodeling of the Commons Building. The Project Information sheet dealing with the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium contained the amount of funding being requested by FAMU for the repainting project and a breakdown of the project's estimated costs. The project cost detail for the repainting of Bragg Stadium states: Construction $495,000.00 (Assumes bid date of 1991) Professional Fees . . . . 43,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . 30,000.00 Contingency . . . . . 27,000.00 Total Project Cost: $595,000.00 Importantly, the Project Information Sheet for the repainting of Bragg Stadium contains the basis utilized by FAMU to arrive at the repainting project's estimate. FAMU represented in the Project Information Sheet as follows: The basis for the estimate is the bid experience of a prior advertisement of the project by our own Plant Operations Maintenance Office, which came in at over $400,000. 2/ This estimate was again verified in a letter, dated October 25, 1989, from Dr. Murray to Dr. Blackwell. The letter states, in part, as follows: . . . . Since the opportunity for completing this project is between football seasons, the University wishes to advance dollar requirements from its Auxiliary Trust Fund with expected reimbursement from Capital Improvement Trust Fund after Legislative approval on July 1, 1990. This action will permit us to proceed with the Bid process and construction contract through completion before the 1990 football season. The scope of this project is summarized as follows: This project includes sandblasting, repainting and structural repairs for Bragg Stadium. Sandblasting and repainting is estimated at $415,000, while structural repair, primarily isolated rust spots, will cost approximately $75,000. . . . . The total estimate in Dr. Murray's October 25, 1990, letter was $490,000.00. It was this letter which prompted the parenthetical language in the line item of the General appropriations act for 1990-1991, passed by the legislature and enacted it to law. The Project Information Sheet for the fire code corrections to Bragg Stadium (fire code project) contained a project cost detail as follows: Construction $70,000.00 Professional . . . . . 7,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . (No entry) Contingency . . . . . 10,000.00 Total Project Cost: $87,000.00 The contract for the fire code corrections was let for bid prior to the repainting project. The amount of the contract for the fire code project was approximately $107,000.00. This contract amount exceeded the amount of the construction portion of the Project Cost Detail of $70,000.00 shown in the Project Information Sheet for the fire code project. Dr. Murray testified that this action was acceptable because it was within the discretion of Florida A&M to use the $682,000.00 appropriation to perform the fire code project in any amount it deemed appropriate, without regard to the break-outs shown in the Project Information Sheets. However, even assuming the correctness of Dr. Murray's position and deducting the amount of the fire code project's contract and the architectural fees of $7,000.00 listed in the Project Information Sheet, $568,000.00 of the original budgeted amount of $682,000.00 would remain for use on the repainting project. Florida A&M University, also prepared a document titled, "Summary of Capital Improvement Fee Projects for 1990-91/1992-93." The document is a summary of Florida A&M's budget requests for those years. This document also lists the fire code project and the repainting project along with the requested funding for those projects for the years 1990 through 1991. The funds requested for the projects are broken into three categories; Planning, Construction and Equipment. The entries for the repainting project show that the amount of $522,000.00 is for "Construction". The $522,000.00 figure was obtained by taking the $495,000.00 figure for construction contained within the Project Information Sheet for the repainting project, and adding the amount of the contingency cost ($27,000.00) for the project which was also shown on the Project Information Sheet. The combined total for the two projects was $682,000.00, the exact amount appropriated by the legislature for the two projects. Once the legislature had appropriated the money, FAMU, on November 5, 1990, requested that A Capital Outlay Implementation Plan be established with the Capital Outlay Trust Fund. The establishment of such a Plan is similar to creating a special account within the trust fund from which the University can draw. On November 26, 1990, the Plan was established for both projects in the amount of $682,000.00, as had been appropriated by the legislature. 3/ The Capital Outlay Implementation Plan contained a section titled, "estimated budget". The estimated budget contained estimates for the various phases of both projects as follows: Construction. $565,000 Professional Fees. 50,000 Furnishings and Equipment. 30,000 Contingencies. 37,000 .................................$682,000 Significantly, these documents were the only pre-established construction budgets developed by FAMU prior to the opening of the bids in this case. 4/ The specific pre-established construction budget for the repainting project was $522,000.00. Later, after the filing of the bid protest, FAMU would attempt to render a strained interpretation of the phrase "pre-established construction budget" contained in the bid specifications and engage in some inappropriate accounting in order to create several lower budget estimates. The Bid Package for CTB 5998 provided in the "Instructions to Bidders", Item D-21, Rejection of Bids, as follows: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the owner such rejection is in the best interest of the owner. The Bid Package further provided in the "Instructions to Bidders" at B-23, Contract Award, page 16 of 106, in relevant part: The contract will be awarded by the Florida Board of Regents for projects $500,000 or more, and by the President of the University, on behalf of the Florida Board of Regents, for projects of less than $500,000.00, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the owner to accept it. . . . The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. The aggregate bid shall consist of the base bid plus accepted active alternate bids, or less accepted deductive alternate bids, applied in the numerical order in which they are listed on the bid form. If the base bid exceeds the amount of the pre-established construction budget, the owner may reject all bids. (Emphasis added) A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on December 6, 1990, and was attended by seventeen contractors, including Petitioner. By the terms of the bid package, the bid opening date was set for December 18, 1990. However, by addendum, the bid opening date was extended to December 21, 1990. Seven bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. 5/ The bids were opened at 10:00 a.m. on December 21, 1990, at the conference center of Florida A&M University. The bids were opened by Chuks Onwunli on behalf of Florida A&M, and tabulated by William Sabella, a representative of the architectural firm , Barnett, Fronczak Architects, the consulting architects for the repainting project. The opening and tabulation of all the bids was recorded on a document titled "Bid Tabulation". The result of the opening was that Phoenix Coating was the low bidder with a bid of $419,000.00. Feimster-Peterson, Inc., was the second lowest bidder with a bid of $474,320.00, and Monoko, Inc., was the third low bidder with a bid of 487,462.00. The four other bidders listed on the bid tabulation sheet were all over the amount of $490,000.00. 6/ As can be seen from the numbers, the top three bids were well within the pre-established construction budget for the repainting project. On December 21, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent a Notice of Protest by telecopy and overnight delivery for delivery on Monday, December 24th. The basis of the protest was that the low bidder, Phoenix Coating, was not responsive because it had not attended the mandatory pre-bid conference and had not complied with the minority participation requirements of the specifications. On December 28, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent its formal protest to Forrest Kelly, the Director of Capital Programs at the Florida Board of Regents by telecopy and by overnight delivery with delivery on December 31, 1990. The formal protest was filed in a timely manner. On or about January 14, 1991, Oscar Martinez, the Purchasing Director for Florida A&M issued a letter regarding Bid No. 5927 for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium. 7/ The letter rejected all seven bids. Phoenix Coating's bid was found to be nonresponsive because it did not meet the 15% minority participation requirements of Bid 5998 and because the company had not attended the December 6, 1990, mandatory pre-bid meeting. Because Phoenix Coating's bid was non-responsive, Petitioner became the lowest responsive bid on CTB 5998. The letter further advised that the other six bids, including Petitioner's bid, were rejected because all six bids allegedly exceeded the pre- existing construction budget estimate for the project. The letter did not contain any language affording Petitioner a clear point of entry as required by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The letter did indicate that the University would modify the scope of work. Attached to the same letter was a new invitation to bid. Clearly, at this point in time, FAMU knew or should have known that there was a bid protest filed with it which was unresolved and which required a formal administrative hearing. However, during this time instead of following its statutory duties under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, FAMU, at its peril, chose to re-let the project for bids. The new bid opening was set for February 28, 1991, and a new mandatory pre-bid meeting was also set for February 28, 1991. The bid deadline was extended to March 21, 1991. The scope of the work was not significantly altered in the re-bid. 8/ On or about January 16, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson sent a letter to the Florida Board of Regents. The letter was prompted by Robert Petersen's, president and stockholder of Petitioner, belief that something was not right about the monetary and funding claims that FAMU was putting forth as its basis for rejecting all the bids. In essence, the numbers Mr. Petersen was aware of, which did not include any of the Project Information Sheet figures referenced above, did not make any sense to him. The letter stated, in part, as follows: Re-bidding the Project is unfair to all bidders now that the results of the first bid have been made public. Each bidder now has a target . . . to shoot at which will override the customary free market environment. Rewriting the Specifications will not eliminate this effect. Be advised that Feimster-Peterson requests the opportunity to either see the estimates or negotiate with the Board to reach a mutually acceptable scope of work. I request that you delay re-bidding until this option can be explored. (Emphasis added). On January 23, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson again wrote to the Office of General Counsel at Florida A&M University and stated in relevant part: This letter is to reiterate our concern for the actions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department and regarding the painting contract for Bragg Stadium. We filed bid protest for the Florida Board of Regents filed on December 28, 1990 pursuant to paragraph B-22 of the bid documents. Neither the Florida Board of Regents or the administration of Florida A&M has acted upon our bid protest. The bid protest remains unresolved and we intend to pursue the administrative remedies provided to us through the bid protest procedure. Moreover, it is our position that the decisions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department subsequent to our filing may be included and adjudicated within the administrative procedures of the original bid protest . . . Mr. Martinez apparently takes the position that a new bid protest filing is necessary to formally dispute his decision [about the University's available budget]. As indicated, we disagree and intend to dispute this action within the existing, unresolved bid protest . . . By indicating the precise amount of the budget, Mr. Martinez has eliminated the basic purpose of competitive bidding, which is to achieve the lowest responsive price. All bidders now have a target price, and a minor modification of the specifications will not eliminate this effect. This serves neither Florida A&M's interest nor the interest of the original responsive bidders. Feimster-Peterson has requested that negotiations be commenced so that a mutually beneficial contract price be determined and the contract work commenced. To date, Mr. Martinez has refused to enter such negotiations and have given several oral, unsatisfactory reasons for this position. The Purchasing Department's refusal to negotiate with Feimster-Peterson, the lowest responsible bidder, should be clearly articulated in writing and sent to us. Feimster-Peterson believes such negotiations may prove successful, and work could commence without further delay or expense to Florida A&M . . . . (Emphasis added). Feimster-Peterson intends to pursue its rights under the bid protest originally filed on December 28, 1990. As low responsive bidder, Feimster-Peterson is entitled to an award of the contract . . This letter was sent by both telecopy and Federal Express to Mr. Holifield at the Office of the General Counsel and added the additional issues of whether FAMU's action in regard to this bid constituted bid shopping and whether Petitioner's bid, in fact, exceeded the estimated construction budget for Bid 5998. 9/ Significantly, the Martinez letter did not mention that Respondent was rejecting Petitioner's bid because the University believed that it could increase the number of contractors participating in a re-bid and could achieve a lower price by re-bidding the project. This issue was raised for the first time at the hearing. In that regard, the evidence clearly indicates that Respondent was attempting to shop its bid in order to obtain a lower price by re-bidding the project. Bid shopping is a process by which the general contractor or, as in this case, the owner of a project attempts to play off one bidder against another bidder in order to obtain a lower price. Bid shopping is done either by establishing a target figure which is represented to bidders to be a number which must be beaten in order to obtain the contract; or by the bid shopper relaying the amount of a competitor's bid to a bidder or group of bidders in order to encourage the bidder or group of bidders to lower its bid to below that of the competitor in order to secure the contract. A basic assumption in bid shopping is that the scope of the work is not significantly altered in order to lower the cost of the project. Bid shopping is considered to be unethical in a public competitive bidding situation and has been disapproved of by the Florida courts. In this case, Respondent established a target price in its letter of January 14, 1991, by communicating the amount of the alleged overage, enabling a bidder to calculate the budget figures to shoot for and, at the same time, keeping the scope of the work substantially the same in the re-bid. Additionally, the amount of the bids, as well as details involving those bids became public once the bids were opened, converting the possibility of unfair advantage accruing to potential bidders on the re-bid to a probability of such unfair advantage in this instance. 10/ Such a reason for rejecting the bids in this case strikes at the very heart of the bid process, which is to ensure that bidders have an equal and fair opportunity to have their bids considered and prevent an agency from picking and choosing among various bidders or potential bidders. There was absolutely no evidence which indicated that the number of contractors participating in Bid 5998 was non-competitive or was in any way fundamentally unfair. 11/ By rejecting all the bids in order to attempt to shop its bid, Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and therefore, its rejection of the bids in this case cannot stand. Additionally, Respondent's attempt to reject the bids in order to allegedly increase the number of bidders participating in the re-bid and thereby reduce the price, violated its own specification in the bid documents which states: The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. (emphasis supplied) By going outside the scope of its bid specifications, Respondent has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and may not reject Petitioner's bid on this basis. After the protest of Feimster-Peterson raised the issue of the amount of the budget/estimate and after its request to see the budget, Florida A&M began to review documents to determine its response to Feimster-Peterson. The basis underlying the figures cited in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 13, 1991, was arrived at by subtracting amounts spent by Florida A&M from the $682,000.00 appropriated by the legislature for the fire code and repainting projects. The overage of $55,000.00 claimed in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 14, 1991, was calculated by taking the "proposed budget" of $682,000.00 and subtracting the amount of $257,105.00 "in expenses for the stadium", for an "available balance" of $424,895.00. 12/ It was this account balance which was being claimed by FAMU to be the pre-existing construction budget referred to in the bid documents. Such an account balance does not constitute a pre-established construction budget because the balance was not established prior to the submission or opening of the bids. Additionally, an account balance is simply not a budget as that term is normally defined and used in the bid documents. Mr. Martinez did not identify the source of the expenses or the purpose for those expenditures. Mr. Martinez deferred all questions as to verification of the figures or the purpose of the expenditures to "Bob", which referred to Robert Goodwin, Jr. Mr. Goodwin was and still is, the Director of the Facilities Planning Office of Florida A&M and is responsible for the various purchase orders involved in this case. Mr. Goodwin took his instructions on which purchase order numbers to use from Dr. Murray and/or Dr. Humphries, Associate Vice President and President of Florida A&M University, respectively. For reasons outlined later in this Recommended Order, the expenditures claimed for the stadium are highly suspect. On or about February 6, 1991, Mr. Holifield, General Counsel of Florida A&M University, responded to Petitioner by enclosing a statement of budget estimate for Bid No. 5998. 13/ Attached to Mr. Holifield's letter of February 6th was a memorandum addressed "[t]o whom it may concern" dated February 5, 1991, from Robert Goodwin, Jr., the Director of Facilities & Planning for Florida A&M. The memo stated that the "budget estimate" for the Project was $367,351.00. Mr. Holifield's letter noted that Feimster-Peterson's bid "exceeded the budget estimate by $106,969.00." (emphasis added). He further noted that FAMU had chosen to re-bid the repainting project rather than accept the bid of the Petitioner. Mr. Holifield also addressed the pending bid protest by Feimster-Peterson as follows: Florida A&M University feels that it is the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers of the State of Florida to re-bid this Project rather than to award the job to your client. In view of the discrepancy between the bidder and the client and the estimated budget it would seem that now that you have been provided with the budget estimate, that you and your client would be willing to forego the bid protest which you are attempting to pursue. Rather, it would appear to be far more appropriate for you to simply join in the rebidding process. (emphasis added). Again, the basis for the decreasing budget figure was the legislatively appropriated funds available for the project less amounts which were supposedly attributable to the repainting and fire code projects, i.e. the account balance. However, what the evidence clearly showed was that, like the budget figures underlying Mr. Martinez's assertions in his letter of January 14, 1991, the latest budget figure of $367,351.00 was calculated by Florida A&M subtracting sums for expenditures which were made for projects unrelated to the fire code or repainting projects. In fact, several of the expenditures were for improvements to the public address system at Bragg Stadium. Similarly, some of the amounts claimed to have been expended for the repainting and fire code projects were expended for architectural fees on other projects. 14/ FAMU's officials were aware that such accounting was inappropriate. From this evidence, it appears that FAMU is attempting to spend or has spent money specifically appropriated for two certain purposes on projects unrelated to the appropriation and not approved for such use by either the legislature or the Board of Regents. Since these expenditures are all part of other projects separate and distinct from the fire code and repainting projects, they should not have been subtracted from the amount of money available to FAMU for the repainting project. 15/ There is no doubt that this "budget estimate" and the budget underlying the assertions made by Mr. Martinez in his letter of January 14, 1991, were false and were red herrings, developed after the fact, in an attempt by Respondent to throw Petitioner off the track of an otherwise valid bid protest. Moreover, beyond utilizing improper accounting, one of the most significant facts in this proceeding was that FAMU created no less than eight separate figures which it claimed to be the budgets for this project. Which figure FAMU used depended on who FAMU was dealing with at the time and the result FAMU desired to achieve. Such tactics by an agency are totally unacceptable and the use of such false figures to justify rejection of a bidder's bid is nothing short of bad faith on the part of an agency akin to fraud. Since Petitioner submitted the lowest and best responsive bid, Petitioner, at this point in time, was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. Another point not directly raised by FAMU in this proceeding, but suggested by the underlying facts and necessary to the resolution of this bid protest, is the question of whether bids may be rejected by an agency if the funds necessary to complete the project are no longer available, i.e. the agency has run out of money. On the surface, given the constraints of Florida's finance system, an honest lack of funds would appear to be an appropriate basis for an agency to reject all the bids. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. However, in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that the University no longer has the necessary funds to pay for the repainting project since the actual money from the trust fund has not been disbursed to FAMU and since FAMU's representations in regards to the status of the repainting project's account balance appear to be based on unlawful accounting and are less than credible. Since the evidence did not establish that FAMU no longer has the funds necessary to complete the project, Petitioner was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. However, because of FAMU's actions regarding Petitioner's bid protest which actions were highly prejudicial to Petitioner, time had moved on and, on February 25, 1991, FAMU discovered that there was lead in some portion of the paint on Bragg Stadium, in the amount of 1.9% by weight. The test was conducted by Professional Services Industries, Inc. on some paint chips from the stadium. The test utilized by Professional Services is known as the TCLP test. This discovery began a review by Florida A&M, in conjunction with Barnett, Fronczak Architects, of what changes, if any, needed to be made to the Specifications and what options were available for carrying out the repainting of the stadium. 16/ On March 19, 1991, the Project was "cancelled" by Addendum number 4 until the fall of 1991. Presently, it appears uncontradicted that the paint which is on Bragg Stadium contains lead. It is probable that the lead is contained in the primer coat, which is the first coat on the steel. In fact, the current specifications for the repainting project call for a red lead and oil primer coat to be placed on the steel structure of the stadium. Of the options which have been proposed by the architect, two of them assume that the lead paint will not be removed from the structure, but will essentially be sealed in by the new coatings. These options will avoid the creation and need for disposal of any hazardous waste containing lead and should result in either the same cost to perform the work or in a reduction in cost to perform the work. The third option is to completely remove all the paint and possibly create material which may be hazardous waste. This option is essentially the same type of sandblasting called for in Bid 5998, but may require more money to perform. Any possible increase in the cost of Bid 5998 would be due to the greater expense of disposing of any hazardous waste, if any such waste is created by the blasting operation, and whether the presence of the lead is an unforeseen condition as defined in the proposed contract which would entitle Petitioner to an increase of the bid price caused by the potential cost of disposal to it. In this case, the evidence did not demonstrate that the presence of the lead was an unforeseen condition. Article 3.15 of the proposed contract when compared to Article 10.1 appears to comtemplate the discovery of potentially hazardous materials. Additionally, as indicated earlier, the current specifications of Bid 5998 call for a lead primer coat. Under all the facts of this case, the presence of lead or lack of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium would appear to be a circumstance the risk of which is assumed by the bidder in bidding the project; and therefore, would not be a changed or unforeseen condition which would justify rejecting all the bids. Importantly, the scope of the work, i.e. sandblasting and structural repair, would not change. Sandblasting is the same whether the surface being removed contains lead or does not contain lead. The structural repair required by Bid 5998 is not effected by the presence of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium. The only differences would occur in the type of equipment used and the type of respirators worn by the workers. The equipment for lead removal has vacuums incorporated in its operation and uses a steel grit instead of sand. The steel grit actually reduces the amount of any potential hazardous waste by compacting it into a smaller volume. The respirators differ in the type of filters. Neither of these differences affect the cost of the work required in Bid 5998. Similarly, disposing of the end product of the blast operation would still be required under Bid 5998 whether the debris contains lead or does not contain lead. The only difference would be the ultimate disposal site of the barrels of debris, i.e whether at a regular landfill or at a disposal site for hazardous waste. All of these differences are already required under EPA, OSHA and DER rules regulating lead abatement, toxic chemicals and hazardous waste and are utilized by Petitioner when it encounters lead in its paint removal operations. Moreover, the bid documents contemplate that the bidder is familiar with all federal, state and local laws and regulations which affect the project in any manner. See Section B-3 "Instructions to Bidders." While it is uncontroverted that the paint contains lead, it is also not clear whether the end product created by a blasting operation would be hazardous waste requiring expensive disposal in a hazardous waste landfill and what amount, if any, would need to be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. The TCLP tests performed by Professional Service Industries were run on paint chips and not the abrasive debris that remains after a blasting operation. Therefore, the TCLP test results have no relevance as to what amount of hazardous waste, if any, would need to be removed from the site. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether the debris left over from the blast operation will be hazardous waste until the blast operation has begun and produced debris sufficiently representative of what may be expected during the course of the work and which is capable of being tested. The issue of lead arose long after the rejection of the bids on the basis of Feimster-Peterson's bid being over the budget and would not have become a potential basis had FAMU acted in a responsible manner in the award of this bid. It is understood that the University and its architects are still trying to determine what, if any, action needs to be taken regarding the presence of lead in the paint. The evidence established that at a minimum the architect would have suspended the project to give them time to study the lead and determine what course of action should be taken. At the most, the architect would have cancelled the project. Added to such an analysis is the fact that the Bid specifications appear to require a red lead and oil primer paint to be placed on the structural steel of the stadium and that under the facts of this case, the presence of lead in the paint on the stadium would not be an unforeseen condition. In either event, the discovery of the lead did not undermine the scope of the repainting project as it is comtemplated in the bid documents and may have only resulted in change orders under the terms of the proposed contract. 17/ The General Conditions of the contract provide in Article 3, Administration of the Contract, paragraph 4.3, Claims and Disputes, subparagraph 4.3.6, Claims for Concealed or Unknown Conditions, as follows: If conditions are encountered at the site which are (1) subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions which differ materially from those indicated in the contract documents or (2) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist and generally recognized as inherent in construction activities of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, then notice by the observing party shall be given to the other party promptly before conditions are disturbed and in no event later than twenty-one days after the first observance of the conditions. The Architect/Engineer will promptly investigate such conditions and, if they differ materially and cause an increase or decrease in the contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, will recommend an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time, or both . . . . Article 7, Changes in the Work, also provides a mechanism by which the Architect/Engineer and the Owner may order changes in the work after execution of the contract. Paragraph 7.3, Construction Change Directives, provides the mechanism by which the amount of a construction change directive is determined. A change order is simply a revision of the scope of the contract, requiring that something be done differently, that more be done, or that less be done, than what is within the original scope of work of the contract. Article 14, Termination or Suspension of the Contract, paragraph 14.3, Suspension by the Owner for Convenience, provides in relevant part: The owner may, without cause, order the contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the work in whole or in part for such period of time as the owner may determine. An adjustment shall be made for increases in the cost of performance of the contract including profit on the increased cost performance, caused by suspension, delay or interruption . . . . (Emphasis added). It is clear that conditions, such as the lead in this case, are contemplated by both the bid and the contract which is part of that bid. In this case, but for FAMU's actions, Petitioner would have been awarded the contract prior to the discovery of the lead. Had Florida A&M entered into a contract with Feimster-Peterson to perform the repainting project when it should have, it would have been guided by Article 14.3 of the specifications, "Suspension by the Owner for Convenience." The evidence did not demonstrate that the discovery of the lead would sufficiently change the scope of the repainting project to the extent that a new bid would have to be developed and that the contract terms of Bid 5998 were inadequate to handle any changes in the scope of the work for the repainting project. Such a result is especially desirable where, as in this case, the University has acted in such a way so as to undermine the fairness of the competitive bidding process and is attempting to spend appropriated money in a manner not authorized by statute. In essence, FAMU has undermined the competitive bidding process to the extent that it would be unfair to re-bid the project since it is impossible to remove FAMU's past conduct from any rebid on any re-vamped specifications. The only remedy, in this case is to award Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest and best responsible bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Florida A&M University enter, on behalf of the Board of Regents, a Final Order awarding Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest, responsible bidder on the repainting project. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Lease No. 590:1975, and therefore entitled to the contract award.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, the Department made the determination that it would not exercise its option on leased space owned by the Petitioner Dyess, in Clewiston, Florida. Bid documents were prepared by the agency for its current office space needs. Bid proposals were solicited through newspaper advertisements and personal contact with owners, developers, and realtors within the Clewiston area. The Department included Dyess in its solicitations. He was sent an Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities by the Department. This bid package contained all of the bid documents for the bid referred to as Lease Number 590:1975. The Invitation to Bid was issued by the Department for approximately 7,962 square feet of net rentable office space in Clewiston, Florida. The invitation was prepared using HRS Facilities Form R01-87. The form used by the Department for soliciting and accepting competitive proposals for the leased space was required to comply with all conditions and requirements adopted by the Department of General Services, as set forth in Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The Department of General Services is the agency which administers real property leasing for the State of Florida for leased space of 2,000 square feet or more in privately owned buildings. During the bidders' conference held on April 26, 1988, Mr. Michael J. Sedgwick, the agency's representative, was questioned about the agency's interpretation of the term "dry and capable of being physically measured" which is set forth on page two of the Invitation to Bid and page three of the Bid Submittal Form. Page two of the Invitation to Bid is a glossary which defines various terms used within the bid documents. The term "existing building" is defined as follows: To be considered as existing, the entire space being bid must be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rental square footage at the time of the bid submittal. Paragraph 10 on page three of the Bid Submittal Form reiterates the definition of an "existing building" as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. The language in the bid documents which defines the term "existing building" is identical to the language in Form BPN 4136, which has been promulgated as a rule by the Department of General Services as the format for specifications for the solicitation of leased spaces by the State of Florida. In response to the request for an interpretation, Mr. Sedgwick contacted Mr. George Smith, who administers the leasing program for the Department in Tallahassee, and obtained the following definition: "Dry and measurable" consists of four things: a slab, four corners, a roof, and a valid building permit if construction is in progress. The definition given by Mr. Smith was verbally communicated to the prospective bidders who attended the conference. This definition was verbally communicated to the Petitioner by Mr. Sedgwick on April 27, 1988. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid in Lease Number 590:1975 on the Department's Bid submittal Form by May 24, 1988. On page three of this form, each bidder was required to acknowledge the bid requirements contained on that page by placing his initials in the bottom right hand corner. The Petitioner Dyess acknowledged the requirement that the proposed space must be an "existing building" at the time of the bid submittal. On May 24, 1988, the date of the bid opening, Petitioner's building did not meet the requirements of an existing building as defined within the bid documents or the Department's verbal clarification of the definition. The building did not have a roof, a slab, or a valid building permit. After the bids were opened, the District VIII Bid Evaluation Committee visited each of the proposed lease locations. When the Petitioner's proposed location was reviewed by the committee two days after the close of bids, the addition was found to consist of the following: two partially completed block walls which connected the two existing buildings. The existing buildings were still intact, but it was apparent that an expansion was taking place, and that the completed project would be one building. A slab had not yet been poured in the addition, and it was without a roof. The plans submitted to the Department with the Petitioner's bid suggested that this expansion was capable of producing the square footage required by the Department. The City of Clewiston was aware of the Petitioner's expansion project, but he was not required by this authority to have a building permit at the time the project was viewed by the committee and evaluated by the Department. The Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Department because, on the date of the bid submittal, the proposed addition was not an "existing building" as defined by the bid documents and the further verbal interpretation by the agency. The bid submitted by the Intervenor Tibbetts did not contain the complete contract for the purchase of the property. However, the right to purchase was evidenced by a document submitted with the bid. Full Disclosure Statements of Ownership are not required under Rule 13N-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, until after a bid is awarded. The property was not properly zoned at the time of the Intervenor Tibbetts' bid submittal.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the bid for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Lease No. 590:1871 to provide office space in Dade County, Florida, should be awarded to either Petitioner or Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Robert Litowitz (hereinafter "Litowitz"), in response to an invitation to bid advertised by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"), timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property located at 11401 SW 40th Street (also known as Bird Road), Miami, Florida. This lease was to be for a five-year term with two one-year renewal options. The net square footage for the lease required by HRS was 14,781 + 3 percent with the geographical boundary designated by the invitation to bid being described as follows: All bid should be for existing office space located within the following boundaries: On the North, S.W., 48th Street. On the South, S. W., 88th Street. On the East, Palmetto Expressway, and on the West, S.W., 117th Street. This description contained an error in that the western boundary line should have been 117th Avenue not 117th Street. This minor discrepancy was noted at both of two pre-bid conferences conducted by HRS. The Intervenor, James C. Colross (hereinafter "Colross"), also timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property described as Building "B," 9495 Sunset Drive (Southwest 72nd Street), Miami, Florida. Prior to the bid opening date, February 17, 1987, employees of HRS conducted two pre-bid conferences. At these conferences the bid package was reviewed and explained to all potential bidders present. Litowitz attended the pre-bid conference held the last week in January 1987. At this pre-bid conference Litowitz received the bid package and advised employees of HRS that he would be submitting property located on Bird Road for consideration for lease No. 590:1871. Linda Treml was the HRS employee who served as the contact person for the bid for Lease No. 590:1871. Ms. Treml conducted the pre-bid conferences and answered questions from potential bidders regarding the bid submittal forms. Several months earlier, perhaps during the summer 1986, Litowitz had met with Linda Treml regarding the possible lease of the Bird Road site, Ms. Treml had advised Litowitz that, at that time, HRS was not looking for space but that Litowitz would be added to their mailing list for future bid opportunities. Ms. Treml toured the Bird Road property with Litowitz as a courtesy visit for his inquiry. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required the proposed space be in an existing building. "Existing" was defined to specify the entire space to be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage. Both the Colross and the Litowitz properties met this definition for an existing building at the time of the bid submittals. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required a minimum of 90 parking spaces to include a minimum of 80 full size spaces and 4 spaces meeting the Standards For Special Facilities For Physically Disabled found in Chapter 130-1, Florida Administrative Code. The required parking spaces did not have to be reserved for the exclusive use of HRS. Colross offered 62 exclusive spaces on site with 50 additional exclusive parking spaces located one block from the proposed facility. The Colross site plan for Building B (the bid property) established over 90 non-exclusive parking spaces available on site. The Litowitz property also had 90-plus non-exclusive parking spaces on site. HRS requested a clarification for the 50 exclusive spaces offered off-site by Colross. The verbal clarification was reduced to writing to confirm such spaces, if needed, would be at no cost to HRS. This written confirmation was not issued until March 31, 1987. HRS established a bid evaluation team to review the bids submitted for Lease No. 590:1871. This team, comprised of Janet Robinson, Dorea Sowinski, and Grace 0abolish, visited both the Litowitz and Colross properties. Subsequent to the site tours, they met in a conference room at Janet Robinson's office to discuss the bid evaluation process. This team was to make a recommendation as to which bid was the lowest and best. The recommendation was to be made based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the bid submittal form. No other criteria were to be employed by the evaluation team. HRS has no guidelines which specified how each team member is to apply the evaluation criteria. The team recommendation would then be reviewed by George Smith and his superiors. Linda Treml advised the evaluation team not to consider the Litowitz property because it was outside the geographical boundary established by the invitation to-bid. The Litowitz property located on Bird Road is, in fact, outside of the advertised boundaries. The bid advertisement required the property to be considered for Lease No. 590:1871 to be within the stated geographical area. HRS did not, by act or omission, encourage Litowitz to prepare and submit a bid for a property known to be outside the defined boundary. HRS did not advise Litowitz that a property outside of the defined boundary would be disqualified. The bid evaluation criteria assigned a weighing value of 10 percent to the proximity of the offered space in the central or preferred area of the map boundaries. Litowitz mistakenly concluded that even though his property was not within the boundaries that he would lose only the 10 percent weighing factor when his property would be evaluated. HRS did not, by act or omission, affirm this erroneous interpretation. Because the Litowitz property was not within the defined geographical boundary, HRS disqualified the Litowitz bid. Accordingly, the Colross bid was the only bid left for consideration and was selected for Lease No. 590:1871. The interested parties were notified of this selection on or about March 19, 1987. The Colross bid included a higher rental fee than the Litowitz bid. HRS rejected a third bid for Lease No. 590:1871 submitted by Brookhill Capital Resources (hereinafter "Brookhill") since it was missing certain documents which had to be submitted by the time of the bid opening. The Brookhill bid included a lower rental fee than the Litowitz bid. The Brookhill property was within the advertised boundary. HRS selected the Colross property and deemed it the lowest and best bid since the Litowitz and Brookhill properties had to be disqualified. Members of the bid evaluation team preferred the Colross property for Lease No. 590:1871. HRS did not waive the boundary requirement for Lease No. 590:1871. Employees of HRS completed a bid synopsis which listed data on all three bidders for lease no. 590:1871 even though two of the bidders, Litowitz and Brookhill, had been disqualified, HRS reserved the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection would be in the interest of the State of Florida. Janet Robinson as the managing administrator of the disability determination office set the geographical boundaries for the invitation to bid. The boundaries were established in consideration of the needs and desires of the employees of the disability determination office.
The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioners' challenge to the preliminary determination to reject their bid as not responsive to Respondent's Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590: 2286? 1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Earlier this year, Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590: 2286 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The first page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is seeking an existing facility in Dade County to lease for use as office space containing approximately 30,086 net rentable square feet. The space proposed must be an office environment. Converted factories/warehouses in industrial areas are not acceptable. The facility shall be located within the following boundaries: North By S.W. 8th Street, South By S.W. 88th Street, East By S.W. 37th Avenue, Southeast By South Dixie Highway, and West By S.W. 87th Avenue. Any facility located on a parcel of land which abuts any of the street boundaries is consider[ed] within the boundaries. Occupancy date of 8/01/91. Desire a Ten (10) year lease with three (3)- two (2) year renewal options. Information and specifications may be obtained from Mr. Philip A. Davis, Facilities Services Manager, 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite S721, Miami, Florida 3312, (305) 377-5710. Please reference lease number 590: 2286. Program requirements will be discussed at a pre-proposal conference to be held at 10:00 a.m. on 4/22/91 at 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite S721 Miami, Florida 33128. Bid opening date will be on 5/30/91 at 10:00 a.m. at the above mentioned address. Minority business enterprises are encouraged to attend the pre-proposal conference and participate in the bid process. The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reserves the right to reject any and all bids and award to the bid judged to be in the best interest of the state. The second page of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined were "dry and measurable" and "existing building." "Dry and measurable" was defined as follows: These are essential characteristics to describe "existing" proposed space. To be considered as "dry and measurable" the proposed space must be enclosed with finished roof and exterior walls in place. Interior floors need not be completed. Exterior windows and doors need not be installed. The proposed area is not required to be completed. These characteristics conform to standard lessor construction practices. This definition is identical to the definition of this term found on page 1-5 of Respondent's leasing manual, HRSM 70-1. "Existing building" was defined as follows: To be considered as existing the entire space being bid must be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage. at the time of bid submittal. On the ninth page of the ITB, the following advisements, among others, were given: The department reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida. Such rejec- tion shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification which shall be communi- cated to each rejected bidder by certified mail. * * * The department reserves the right to waive any minor informalities or technicality and seek clarification of bids received when such is in the best interest of the state, but not limited to the correction of simple mistakes or typo- graphical errors. Such corrections will be initiated [sic] and dated on the original bid submittal by the bidder. Attached to the ITB and incorporated therein was a document entitled "Standard Method of Space Measurement." It read as follows: The purpose of this standard is to permit communication and computation on a clear and understandable basis. Another important purpose is to allow comparison of values on the basis of a generally agreed upon unit of measurement (net square footage). It should also be noted that this standard can and should be used in measuring office space in old as well as new buildings, leased office space as well as State-owned office space. It is applicable to any architectural design or type of construction because it is based on the premise that the area being measured is that which the agency may occupy and use for its furnishings and its people. This standard method of measuring office space measures only occupiable space, undistorted by variances in design from one building to another. It measures the area of office building that actually has usable (rental) value and, therefore, as a standard can be used by all parties with confidence and a clear understanding of what is being measured. Area Measurement in office buildings is based in all cases upon the typical floor plans, and barring structural changes which affect materially the typical floor, such measurements stand for the life of the building, regardless of readjustments incident to agency layouts. All usable (rentable) office space, private sector leased, State-owned, or other publicly owned shall be computed by: Measuring to the inside finish of permanent outer building walls to the office side of corridors and/or other permanent partitions, and to the center of partitions that separate the premises from adjoining usable areas. This usable (rentable) area shall EXCLUDE: bathrooms, public corridors, stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, air-conditioning rooms, fan rooms, janitor closets, electrical closets, telephone equipment rooms, - - and such other rooms not actually available to the tenant for his furnishings and personnel - - and their enclosing walls. No deductions shall be made for columns and projections structurally necessary to the building. The attached typical floor plan illustrates the application of this standard. 3/ Petitioners submitted a bid in response to the ITB. 4/ In their bid they proposed to lease to Respondent space on the first and second floors of a building located at 8500 S.W. 8th Street in Miami, Florida. The space offered by Petitioners is currently occupied. At the time of bid submittal, all of the proposed space on the second floor was "dry and measurable," as that term is defined in the ITB. It encompassed a total of 26,540 square feet. At the time of bid submittal, only a portion of the proposed space on the first floor, amounting to 4,400 square feet, was "dry and measurable," as that term is defined in the ITB, inasmuch as the proposed space on this floor included a breezeway area that did not have either a front or back exterior wall in place. 5/ Subsequent to the submission and opening of bids, Petitioners enclosed this breezeway area by erecting exterior walls. Accordingly, the entire space offered by Petitioners was not "dry and measurable" at the time of bid submittal as required by the ITB. Bids were opened by Respondent on May 30, 1991. By letter dated June 18, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioners that their bid had been deemed non-responsive. The letter read as follows: The bid you submitted for lease No. 590: 2286 has been determined to be non-responsive because the proposed space is not dry and measurable. The breezeway area proposed on the ground level of your premises at 8500 S.W. 8 Street, Miami, does not have exterior walls in place. The invitation to bid on lease No. 590: 2286 provides on page 2: "Dry and Measurable- These are essential characteristics to describe "existing" proposed space. To be considered as "dry and measur- able," the proposed space must be enclosed with finished roof and exterior walls in place. You have the right to file a protest. The protest must be filed in accordance with S.120.53(5), Florida Statutes and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. 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. To comply with the referenced statute, a written notice of intent to protest must be filed with the contact person listed on the Invitation to Bid for lease No. 590: 2286 within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten calendar days after the notice of protest is filed, a formal written protest and protest bond must be filed with the contact person. The bond must be payable to the department in an amount equal to one percent of the total lease payments over the term of the lease or $5,000, whichever is less. This determination was the product of, not any unlawful bias or prejudice against Petitioners, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. Petitioners subsequently filed a protest of this preliminary determination to find their bid non-responsive. It is this preliminary determination that is the subject of the instant bid protest proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order rejecting Petitioners' bid for Lease No. 590: 2286 on the ground that said bid is non-responsive. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
