The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the award of a bid for the sale of scrap metal to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition or the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 2011, the Department issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-Apalachee-8252. The ITB was a revenue- generating contract for the sale of scrap metal at Apalachee Correctional Institution in Sneads, Florida. Since the contract would generate revenue to the State, the Department’s purpose was to award the contract to the highest responsive bid and developed bid specifications and criteria to accomplish that goal. The specifications for the ITB stated in relevant part: Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material.[emphasis added]. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 1.10 Responsive Bid: A bid submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. * * * 4.3.1 Submission of Bids Each bid shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise delineation of the bidder’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this ITB, fancy bindings, colored displays, and promotional material are not desired. Emphasis in each bid must be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the review of bids, it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5), with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements. Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Material Deviations The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. As indicated, Section 5 of the specifications outlined the contents of the bid. Section 5 stated in relevant part: SECTION 5 - CONTENTS OF BID This section contains instructions that describe the required format for the submitted bid. Bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked “Bid - ITB#- Apalachee-8252”. . . . . [T]he following paragraphs contain instructions that describe the required format for bid responses. Responsiveness Requirements The following terms, conditions, or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to this ITB. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements may cause rejection of a bid. [emphasis added]. Bidder shall complete, sign and return the ITB Bidder Acknowledgement Form (page 1 & 2). The bidder must return either the original or a copy of both pages with an original signature on page one (1). The bidder shall complete, sign, date, and return (all) pricing pages, entitled Cost Information Sheet, which consists of page 28. By submitting a bid or bids under this ITB, each bidder warrants its agreement to the prices submitted. The Department objects to and shall not consider any additional terms or conditions submitted by a bidder, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a bidder’s response. In submitting its bid, a bidder agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect. Any qualifications, counter-offers, deviations, or challenges may render the bid un-responsive . . . . * * * 5.3 Certificate of Insurance Bidders shall return a fully executed Certificate of Insurance . . . . In this case, Section 5.1 contains two bid specifications essential to a bid's responsiveness. Those two requirements were submission of a signed and completed, original or copy, of the bidder acknowledgement form and submission of a completed Cost Information Sheet. The Cost Information Sheet is not at issue here. The bidder acknowledgement form is a double-sided Department of Management Services form containing general boilerplate contractual language. The back of the form is a continuation of standard contractual terms from the front. Oddly, signatures acknowledging these terms and the terms of the ITB are on the front page (page 1) of the form. By signing the front page of the bidder acknowledgement form the bidder agrees to abide by all conditions of the bid. The remainder of Section 5 of the ITB contains bid specifications that are not considered essential to determine the initial responsiveness of the bid at the bid opening, but are to be returned at some later point in time after the bid's are opened. However, the language of Section 5 effecting that intent is unclear. In particular, the bid specification contained in Section 5.3 requires the bidder to "return" an "executed" Certificate of Insurance. The Certificate of Insurance provides the Department with proof of a variety of required insurance coverage of the vendor. However, later in the ITB Section 7.14 clarifies that the Certificate of Insurance need only be supplied with the later-signed contract documents. Section 7.14 states, in relevant part: 7.14 Contractor's Insurance The contractor shall not commence any work in connection with this ITB . . . until he has obtained all of the . . . types of insurance and such insurance has been approved by the Department. The Department shall be furnished proof of coverage of insurance by Certificates of Insurance . . . accompanying the contract documents and shall name the Department as an additional named insured [emphasis added]. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that the Department has long interpreted these provisions to require a winning bidder to provide Certificates of Insurance at the time a contract is entered into and not as part of the essential requirements of the bid due at bid opening. While the Department could (and probably should) clarify this provision, its interpretation of its bid specifications is not unreasonable under these facts. In this case, five bids were timely submitted in response to the ITB, including those of K & M and Cumbaa. On March 8, 2011, the Department opened bids for the ITB. Cumbaa submitted the highest bid for the contract, at $22,197.48. K & M submitted the next highest bid at $20,001.00. At the bid opening, Cumbaa's bid included a Cost Information Sheet, a copy of the signed front page of the bidder acknowledgement form, and the Contact for Contract Administration form known as Attachment 1. However, the bid did not contain the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form or a Certificate of Insurance form at the time the bid was opened. K & M's bid contained the same documents as Cumbaa's bid, as well as the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form and a number of certificates of insurance for K & M. The evidence showed that Cumbaa did not include the Certificate of Insurance form in its sealed bid upon the advice of the Department that the form was not required at bid opening. However, Cumbaa had insurance coverage in place at the time of the bid opening and faxed its certificates of insurance to the Department on March 10, 2011. Given these facts and the Department's reasonable interpretation of its ITB, the omission of Cumbaa's certificate of insurance was neither required at the time of the bid opening, nor material to the award of the bid. The omission of the second page of the bidder's acknowledgement form was not noticed by anyone reviewing the bids until its omission was pointed out by K and M in this bid protest. Cumbaa faxed a copy of the back side of the document to the Department on April 11, 2011. Clearly, this lack of notice demonstrates the immateriality of the back side of the bidder's acknowledgement form. Additionally, since the signatures of both bidders were on the front page of the form submitted by them and those signatures bound the bidders to the terms of the ITB, there was no evidence that demonstrated why submission of a copy of the back side of the form was material to the award of this bid. Ultimately, the Department reviewed the bids for responsiveness and determined that Cumbaa was the highest responsive bid. On March 11, 2011, the Department posted its intent to award the bid to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. As indicated, there was no evidence that the omission of these two documents from the Cumbaa bid were material deviations from the bid specifications since neither omission impacted the ultimate contract requirements and did not materially impact the integrity of the bid process. Indeed, the insurance certification was not required for responsiveness under Section 5.1 of the bid under a long-standing and reasonable interpretation of that requirement by the Department. For these reasons, this bid protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order dismissing the Protest of K & M Pine Straw. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eldridge K and M Pine Straw 20583 John G Bryant Road Blountstown, Florida 32424 Edith McKay, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Edwin G. Buss, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Sometime before January, 1989, The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide for social services in Haines City, Florida. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease of 9041 square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3%. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given by advertisement in four central Florida newspapers. HRS had prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS' requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of % (Weighting: 30) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 5) Associated moving costs i.e. furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc. (Weighting: 0) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 5) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 20) Facility Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 20) 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 locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 15 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100% The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: rental rates environmental factors efficient space layout The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to several hundred people every month. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the influx of people. Because of servicing so many people, factors two and three received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by Intervenor, Unirealty Services, Inc. (bid A), and Petitioners, Messrs. Matthews and Walker (bid B). The bids were opened February 20, 1989, and Mr. Michael T. Akridge, former Facilities Services Manager, District VI HRS, determined both bids were responsive. At the time the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had an option contract to purchase the subject facility, and an authorization from the optionees (two principals of Intervenors) for Unirealty to act as their agent. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committee's choice of lowest and best bid. The purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Six individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. The bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Unirealty was the "lowest and best." The bid evaluation committee consisted of six representatives of the Department who visited each bidders' site and questioned the bidders' representatives. Each of the committee members worked with or supervised HRS programs that were to be located in the leased space. The solicitation for bids provided each bidder, among other things, with the bid evaluation criteria, a 100 point scale, which the committee used to evaluate the bids. Each committee member's evaluation scores were averaged and totaled to score Petitioners at 90.8, and Unirealty at 83.9. Each committee member gave a higher score to Unirealty. The three major bid evaluation criteria were FISCAL COSTS, LOCATION and FACILITY. Under the FISCAL COST criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioners received 30 points out of 30 possible, and Unirealty got 23.1. For Renewal Rates, Petitioners got 5 out of 5 possible points, and Unirealty received 3.7 points. No points were awarded for Moving Costs. The evaluation committee did not assess points for Rental or Renewal Rates. These were scored by Michael T. Akridge, bid manager, based on a present value analysis of bidders' proposed rates. Mr. Akridge did not give the Committee the points for Rental and Renewal Rates until after they had completed their evaluations of the LOCATION and FACILITY criteria. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Central Area-- 10 points--with both bidders receiving 9.3; Public Transportation--5 points-- which both bidders received; and, Environmental Factors--20 points--out of which Petitioners received 12.8 points and Unirealty 20 points. The Environmental Factors sub-category included building physical characteristics and surrounding area and their effect on the efficient and economical conduct of Department operations. Unirealty received a higher score than Petitioner because the committee believed its building had a better appearance, and was in better shape. The area surrounding the building was more open, while Petitioners' building was in a less desirable neighborhood with a bar or liquor store and bus station nearby which could create problems for clients because of transients. It had far more window space which creates a better work environment, and allows staff to be watchful of clients and their children outside, and the windows would be tinted. The windows at Petitioner's site were limited and no more could be added. Unirealty had more adjacent parking spaces, with handicapped parking closer to the building, and part of it was fenced which provided added protection to clients and staff. Petitioners' site had adjacent businesses whose patrons were using some of the parking spaces which the committee felt could create a problem. The Unirealty building could have an outside food stamp issuance facility which would be far more accessible to clients and to make the lobbies less crowded. It had an existing alarm system. It did not have side streets adjacent to the building, thus there would be less traffic congestion and therefore safer for clients; and, it had outside gathering areas where clients could go to smoke. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, Petitioners received 11.8 points out of 20 for Layout/Utilization and Unirealty received 19.7 points; for Single Building, both bidders received 10 points out of 10 possible. For the Layout/Utilization sub-category Unirealty received more points because its building configuration was more flexible and conducive to design of interior space, with less maze effect. The members of the committee each testified that it was important that the Unirealty building had no support poles to get in the way as they did in Petitioners' building. The support poles in Petitioner's building created a safety problem for clients and inhibited the location of desks and corridors. At Unirealty's site each worker could have a window, and mechanical and service areas could be put in the center of the building, with a playroom for clients' children. It provided a better restroom location near the front of Petitioner's building and lobby areas, and clients would not have to wander through work areas to get to the restrooms. Unirealty's building provided better control of clients' movements and thus better security. Members of the committee also upgraded the Unirealty building because its pitched roof was less likely to leak and its air conditioning was zoned thus providing better air quality and temperature control. At Unirealty there was better ingress and egress, and entry ways could be added. This could not be done at Petitioners' site. The Unirealty building could have different entrances for each HRS program, with separate lobbies for each program with less client congestion and better control. During the Committee members inspection of the sites they were told of an existing security alarm system already in place at the Unirealty site and were told that system would remain in place. When asked, the Petitioner's representative was unsure if his client would install a similar system at their site. A security system for the entire building was not included in the bid specifications, and it was improper for the committee to give Unirealty extra points for this unsolicited item. The proposed lease agreement calls for 9041 square feet of office space and a minimum of 66 parking spaces. Unirealty offered 72 parking spaces and Petitioner offered 75. The committee awarded more evaluation points to the Unirealty site based on future expansion capability of the building and the existing additional on-site parking spaces which were visible at the site at the time of inspection. The committee erroneously believed that the extra square footage of building space and extra parking spaces would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was not in the bid specifications and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The evaluation committee included the improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the Unirealty property. The two improper factors cannot be considered here. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was clearly to award the lease to the Intervenor. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Petitioners presented greater problems for design and flexibility due to the rectangular configuration of the building. The other consideration was that the physical characteristics of the Unirealty site and the surrounding area were considered far superior to the Petitioner's site. A close review of each evaluation sheet and the testimony of each committee member at the hearing shows that the improper factors were not so heavily weighted as to invalidate the committee recommendation. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after inspection of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Intervenor's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Intervenor's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. Over an eight year period the Petitioner's rental cost was significantly lower than the Intervenor's. However, it is clear the legitimate considerations of the committee were crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder. The conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. After the committee recommendation was scored and tabulated, Mr. Akridge requested the committee chair, Ms. Gail Newell, to prepare a draft letter of the proposed bid award. This was done in collaboration with the other committee members. Mr. Michael T. Akridge then prepared the bid award letter for the signature of the Administrative Services Director based on the draft letter. In it the two improper considerations were mentioned. The authority to award the lease to Unirealty was approved on March 8, 1989, by King W. Davis, Director of General Services for HRS based on the bid award letter, dated February 26, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:2057 to Unirealty Services, Inc., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39 (in part), 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 81, 83 (in part) are adopted in substance in so far as material. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 37, 73, 74, 80 are rejected as conclusions of law. Paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 44, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 72, 75, 778, 82, are rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66 are rejected assubordinate or immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1-17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Matthews, Jr. 2405 Hideaway Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire HRS District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Neal A. Sivyer, Esquire Paul J. Ullom, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P. A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., and Corporate Interiors, Inc., (Petitioners) is the lowest responsible bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Respondent) for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building, or in the alternative, whether all bids should be rejected as urged by The Harter Group (Intervenor).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received three bids, including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor, and one no bid. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and neither Petitioners nor Intervenor were determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. However, the Petitioners' bid was lower than that of the bidder to whom the Respondent proposes to award this contract. Petitioners' bid was $932,502.39, Intervenor's bid was highest at $1,101,509.90, and the bid of lowest responsible bidder, Haworth, Inc., was $1,072,286.50. The first reason given by Respondent for its determination that Petitioners' bid was not responsive to the bid specifications is that it did not include an amount for sales tax. Intervenor also did not include sales tax in its bid, but Haworth, Inc., which was determined by Respondent to be the lowest responsible bidder, did include sales tax. However, there was no dispute at hearing that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System, and that Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The second reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it omitted a required page from the approved form which was to be used to list those items in the bid proposal that were not in strict compliance with the Respondent's specifications. Petitioners admit that the required page numbered 00310-7 was not included in their bid, but maintain that it was not necessary to include this exact page since all items in their bid do meet specifications, and since a statement to this effect was included elsewhere in the bid. The lowest responsible bidder, as determined by the Respondent, did include this required page with a statement thereon that "all items comply". Intervenor also included this page listing 11 items in its bid which differed from the specifications. The purpose of this required page is to allow the Respondent to have a uniform, clearly identifiable place in each bid proposal where it can look to determine if the items in that bid meet specifications, without having to check every page of each bid. The third reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it included numerous pages of unit costs which were not called for in the specifications, without any explanation as to their meaning or the purpose for which they were included in the bid. Section 4.1.1 of the bid specifications, found at page 00100-11, makes it clear that no bid form other than that which is set forth in the specifications will be accepted, and specifically states that bidders are not even to retype the form on their letterhead, but are to simply fill-in a copy made from the form in the specifications. The Petitioners admit that their bid includes additional, unexplained information that was not called for in the specifications. A final reason given by Respondent at hearing for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it was accompanied by a bid bond, required by Section 4.2.4 of the specifications, in the name of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., while the public entity crime affidavit, required by Section 2.1.5, was subscribed to by Corporate Interiors, Inc. Petitioners' bid did not include a resolution or other evidence of authority that Corporate Interiors, Inc., had authority to submit a public entity crime affidavit on behalf of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., or that the affidavit submitted was valid as to Kimball. Thus, while Petitioners maintain that their bid was jointly filed on behalf of the manufacturer, Kimball, and the vendor, Corporate Interiors, their bid includes a bond from the manufacturer only, and a crime affidavit from the vendor only. Section 1.8 of the specifications, found at page 00100-2, specifies that the bidder is the person or entity that submits a bid. Petitioners urge that theirs is a joint bid, but they have failed to submit a joint bond or affidavit. Section 5.2.1 of the specifications allows the Respondent to reject any bid which fails to include a required security, or other required data. The bid which was determined by the Respondent to be the lowest responsible bid contains no technical flaws, errors or omissions, and the proposal meets all specifications for this project. The Respondent properly posted notice of its intent to award this contract to Haworth, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. Under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, the Respondent has the right to waive "any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and to accept the Bid or Bids which, in (its) judgment, is in (its) own best interest." Respondent chose not to waive any of the irregularities in the Petitioners' bid. This decision was made, in part, because of Respondent's previous experience with Petitioners in their installation of similar systems for Respondent at the Walter Pownall Service Centers in which there had been problems involving service during installation, coordination of the installation work, and verification that invoices received from Corporate Interiors did not exceed the bid base price, and that all items being paid had actually been received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' and Intervenor's protests of its intent to award a contract for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building to Haworth, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2863BID Petitioner and Intervenor filed letters, but no proposed findings of fact upon which rulings could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. 3. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 4. Adopted in Finding 6. 5. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 6. Adopted in Finding 6. 7. Adopted in Findings 6, 8. 8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. 10-12. Adopted in Finding 6. 13. Adopted in Finding 4. 14. Adopted in Finding 3. 15. Adopted in Finding 5. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 7. 18. Adopted in Finding 1. 19. Adopted in Finding 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Sue Olinger 1284 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
The Issue Whether Respondent's rejection of all bids for Lease No. 540:0920 was improper.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent published an invitation to bid seeking to lease approximately 9,907 net square feet of office space in Broward County (the Lease). There was no evidence of any irregularities in the preparation or the issuance of the invitation. The Petitioner, whose responsive bid was rejected by Respondent, timely and properly brought its protest and has standing to protest the Respondent's rejection of all bids for the Lease. Lynn Mobley was the statewide lease manager of the Respondent and had the responsibility to generally oversee the preparation of the bid package and the bid opening procedures. Barbara Lollie was a staff member under the supervision of Ms. Mobley and was in charge of the preparation of the request for bid proposals. Ms. Mobley's supervisor was a Ms. Barron. Five bids in response to the invitation to bid were duly received by Respondent. An evaluation committee chaired by Don Walker, Respondent's area administrator, was appointed to inspect the proposed properties and to evaluate the bids. The evaluation committee ranked the bids in the following order of preference: 1/ 1. In-Rel ($499,141.80) 2. Taft ($519,090.30) 3. Donlon ($541,119.90) 4. Procacci ($618,373.30) 5. Stirlingwood ($761,906.30) Thereafter the responses to the invitation were forwarded to Ms. Mobley's office for evaluation. Ms. Mobley's staff determined that the top two bids, those of In-Rel and Taft, were non-responsive. 2/ Ms. Mobley, who did not actively participate in the evaluation of the proposals, then advised Mr. Walker of that determination and advised him of two alternatives: to award the bid to the lowest responsive bidder or to reject all bids and re-advertise. The evaluation committee chaired by Mr. Walker had wanted to lease the property to either In-Rel or Taft. Mr. Walker told Ms. Mobley that he wanted to reject all bids and to re-advertise. Pursuant to the request for bids promulgated by the Respondent and Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bid proposals for the Lease. The request for proposal of bids specifically stated: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the State, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. Following the telephone conversation between Mr. Walker and Ms. Mobley, Ms. Mobley sent a letter dated March 23, 1992, to all bidders which notified each bidder that all bids had been rejected. That letter did not state the reasons for the rejection of all bids. Mr. Walker sent a memo on March 20, 1992, to Ms. Lollie recommending the rejection of all bids. Although this memo predated the rejection letter and was subsequently made available to Ms. Mobley, the memo was received by Ms. Mobley's office after the rejection letter had been sent. The memo gave no explication of Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting to reject all bids. The Department of General Services (DGS) published lease rate guidelines for Broward County to inform the Respondent of maximum acceptable lease rates. The purpose of these DGS guidelines was to advise the Respondent that proposed lease rates above the guidelines would be summarily rejected. At the time of obtaining bid proposals, the DGS lease rate guidelines were the only established guidelines which could be consulted by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent calculate a pre-bid estimate of what the Respondent felt was an acceptable range of lease rates in order to be used in determining whether lease rates were too high. The Petitioner's bid, along with the other responsive bidders, were within the DGS lease rate guidelines. Mr. Walker made the request for re-bid after he learned that the bids of Taft and In-Rel were non-responsive. Mr. Walker's decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was based only on the information that the two top choices of the evaluation committee had been found to be non-responsive and on his desire to reopen the bid process in the hope of attracting more bidders. 3/ Mr. Walker wanted to modify the specifications of the invitation to bid in two regards. First, he wanted to amend the specifications to permit the leased premises to be in more than one building. Second, he wanted the geographical boundaries in which the leased premises could be located to be expanded to hopefully attract additional bidders. Mr. Walker believed that a re-bid would provide a wider range of buildings at comparable prices from which to choose and would give him an opportunity to make changes to the bid specifications. His decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was not based on a lease bid analysis or on lease rate guidelines. The recommendation was not dictated by budgetary considerations, but by his desire to shop the bid. It was Mr. Walker's understanding that at the end of his telephone conversation with Ms. Mobley that the decision to reject all bids had been made and that all bids would be rejected. Ms. Mobley made the decision to reject all bids pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Walker after obtaining input from Ms. Lollie and Ms. Barron. Although Ms. Mobley had Ms. Lollie's analysis of the five bids, that analysis made no comparison of the rates contained in the bids with existing lease rates or the DGS guidelines. Ms. Mobley did not consult the DGS lease rate guidelines, although she was generally familiar with those guidelines, and she was unaware of any budgetary constraints that would dictate the rejection of all bids. When Ms. Mobley decided to reject all bids, she did not compare the bid proposals to the existing lease rates paid by the Respondent for leased office space in Broward County. The decision to reject all bids was not made on the advice of an attorney. Although Ms. Mobley testified that all bids on the Lease were rejected solely for price considerations, the evidence presented established that the decision to reject all bids was not based on price, price guidelines, or the Respondent's budgeting constraints. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Mobley rejected all bids because that was the action recommended by Mr. Walker. Respondent's invitation to bid did not contain any lease rate guidelines that would notify prospective bidders of a lease rate ceiling. There was no significant difference in the lease rates between the Taft and In-Rel bids that were favored but non-responsive and the third lowest bidder, the Donlon bid, which was responsive but rejected. Mr. Walker conceded that the Donlon bid was not rejected because of price considerations. Mr. Walker was of the opinion that the Donlon bid was at an acceptable price. He did not testify that the Petitioner's bid was at an unacceptable price and he did not testify as to what, other than the DGS guidelines, would be the maximum acceptable price. The DGS Lease Guidelines applicable to the bid for the Lease were as follows: A full service Lease (including electricity) -- $17.84 a square foot. 4/ Lease without electricity -- $15.18 a square foot. The present rate for the existing lease which was to be replaced by the Lease was $16.60 a square foot; this rate did not include electricity. If electricity was factored in at $2.50 a square foot, which was a factor regularly used by DGS, the present lease rate would be approximately $18.00 a square foot. The three responsive bids to the invitation were lower than the present lease after factoring in electricity. Ms. Goodman was of the opinion that Respondent's budget with respect to the Lease would be based on lease rates already in existence and consequently, that the responsive bids received and rejected were within the budget guidelines. Respondent offered no evidence to controvert that opinion. There was no evidence that the decision to reject all bids was based on economic considerations. All lease rates submitted by the rejected bidders were under the ceiling set by the DGS lease guidelines of $17.84. The Respondent acted arbitrarily when it rejected all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent accept and evaluate the responsive bids submitted for the Lease and determine the proper recipient for an award of the Lease. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 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 Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 32,000 square feet of office space to house some of its indigent social services for southern Escambia County. Since the desired office space is greater than 2,000 square feet HRS was required to competitively bid lease number 590:1984. Towards that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety one building to house all its units employee morale moving costs traffic flow within the building public access Many of the above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 17,000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. Employee morale was important because of high employee burn out due to rendering aid to so many people who have so little and supplying a pleasant environment conducive to the work of the employees. Moving costs were important should HRS be required to find other space to operate in while necessary remodeling took place in the selected building, or be required to incur the expense of moving to a new building. 1/ All of the above areas were covered by one of Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task, Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure a cross section of input from people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space under the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individual who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as a persons familiar with the bid process. Ms. Schembera assigned to serve on the committee Charles Bates, Deputy District Administrator; Jim Peters, to provide a fiscal and overall administrative perspective as well as bid expertise; two citizens from the District Advisory Council to assure objectivity and to look at the properties from the perspective of a private citizen; Mamun Rashied, a program manager; Darlene McFarland, a program manager; Cherie Neal, a unit supervisor and program worker; and Stacey Cassidy, a clerical employee. Ms. Schembera did not personally know Cherie Neal or Stacey Cassidy. These staff members were designated by the supervisors upon Ms. Schembera's direction that she wanted persons who were both intelligent and respected by their peers. One private citizen member of the committee did not participate. The committee as constituted showed a great deal of thought on Ms. Schembera's part to ensure the objectivity of the bid process she was engaging in and to ensure the maximum amount of input from persons who had experience relevant to the overall review of the proposed real estate and to the decision they were being asked to make. The selection of the bid evaluation committee members was neither an arbitrary nor capricious act on Ms. Schembera's part. In fact, the evidence demonstrated the merit in constituting the committee as she did for the input she sought. The bid evaluation committee members, minus Mr. Bates, were briefed on their duties by Joe Pastucha, Facilities Services Manager. Mr. Pastucha is part of the staff responsible for the bid process at HRS. He provided these committee members with the weighted bid evaluation criteria found at page 15 in the bid package. He also gave the committee members a copy of Chapter 5 of the HRS manual containing guidelines for the bid process. His verbal instructions on specific procedures to follow in the evaluation process were limited since he did not wish to improperly influence the committee members. On July 20, 1988, HRS received three bids responding to its invitation to bid on Lease Number 590:1984. Bid A was submitted by Phillips and Company, the apparent second lowest bidder and Intervenor in this case. Its property consisted of one multi-story building located at 1740 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida. Bid B was not responsive and therefore was not considered by HRS and is not a part of this litigation. Bid C was submitted by Petitioner Carmon S. Boone, and was the apparent low bid. Mr. Boone's property consisted of two buildings located at 401 and 411 North Baylen Street, Pensacola, Florida. The Boone property is the present location of Respondent's offices. Both Bid A and Bid C were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Once the bids were received the bid evaluation committee began its work. The committee members, minus Mr. Bates, visited the Phillips property. However, the members did not visit the Boone property. There was no need. Four of the members currently worked at the Boone property and the other members had previously visited the Boone property on various other occasions. Mr. Bates was likewise already familiar with both properties. All members were sufficiently familiar with the cogent aspects of each property to allow them to make a rational decision. The bid evaluation committee, minus Mr. Bates, met as a group to evaluate each property in accordance with the weighted bid evaluation criteria. Each individual scored their sheets separately and the general consensus was supportive of recommending the Phillips property. Five committee members scored Mr. Phillips' property higher than the Boone property. The one exception was Mr. Peters who felt that HRS could not support a bid awarded for other than monetary reasons, i.e., he felt the lowest bid had to be accepted. Mr. Bates later reviewed all the bid synopsis sheets of the committee members and discussed the bid award with Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha. Mr. Bates felt that the Phillips property was the lowest and best bid. At about the same time, the staff responsible for providing technical assistance to the committee and the District Administrator were made aware that the general consensus of the committee was leaning towards the second lowest bidder, Phillips and Company, as the lowest and best bid. The staff members, one of whom was a bid committee member, disagreed with the award of the bid to Phillips and Company because the Boone property was the lower bid. The staff members sought to head off the committee's intended recommendation. The staff personnel held a meeting with some of the committee members in order to get them to join in a recommendation to Ms. Schembera of the Boone property. Mr. Boone was invited and attended the meeting. He was allowed to improperly bolster his bid by agreeing to convert the two buildings to one and other lesser additions. /2 The potential decision was discussed, but no committee member changed his or her mind. However, through a total lack of communication, a run away staff somehow rationalized themselves into a position of being authorized to submit a letter for Ms. Schembera's signature which awarded the Boone property the lease. Ms. Schembera became aware of her staff's attempt to subvert the bid process she had established. She refused to sign the letter submitted by the staff. She removed the staff member of the committee as a voting member. The staff member had supported the Boone property. She also removed a committee member who supported the Phillips property as a voting member. Ms. Schembera feared that her staff had improperly influenced this member to such an extent that his objectivity had been affected. Both members could still participate in committee discussions. Ms. Schembera thereby reasonably ensured the ongoing objectivity of the bid evaluation committee. The committee was reconvened, minus one member. It recommended the Phillips and Company property. Every reason given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that the Phillips property was the better property for the money. The Phillips property allowed working units to be located in one area with each such unit having its own access. It provided flat safe parking areas and sidewalks, bigger and more elevators, wide halls and windows which presented a bright, happy and pleasant working environment. The Boone property was in two buildings which could not accommodate co-located working units with their own access no matter how much remodeling took place. Parking and sidewalks are on a hill which is slippery when wet. It had one small elevator and narrow halls which did not adequately accommodate more than one wheel chair, and one ground floor where no windows could ever be remodeled into the building leaving a dark, dingy and unpleasant environment. Importantly, every committee member except for the staff member came to the conclusion that the Phillips and Company property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a particular piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. After reviewing and considering information from the bid evaluation committee, the information on the bid synopsis sheet, and the oral recommendations of Mr. Bates, Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha, Ms. Schembera concluded that the Phillips property was vastly better, even considering costs. She found it to be materially superior in terms of construction, organization, client accessibility, handicap accessibility, repairability (in terms of walls), and maneuverability for clients and staff. She felt the Phillips' building's qualities would offer more "humanity" to the process of serving the Department's clients. Additional facts she considered when making her decision included the morale of the staff and their productivity; the ability of staff and clients to conduct their business in a reasonably pleasant, comfortable, safe, and easy to understand and comprehend environment; and the desire to provide a minimally adequate work space. In addition to other monetary costs, she considered energy costs and life cycle costs as reflected on the bid synopsis sheet. The bid synopsis sheet defined minimal energy and life cycle costs to be anything less than 55 BTU's per square feet per year. In this case, the Boone property reflected 39.5 BTU's per square feet and the Phillips property reflected 53.5 BTU's per square feet. Both properties were under the 55 BTU cutoff established by HRS. Translated into monetary figures (life cycle costs) the Boone property reflected a cost of $26,735.00 and the Phillips property reflected a cost of $41,160.00. It was the difference between the energy figures which caught Ms. Schembera's eye. In her layman's opinion, it was incomprehensible that the two buildings would have such a wide divergence of energy costs. /3 She learned from her staff that the information used to compute these costs was supplied by the bidders who had vested interests in the outcome. Ms. Schembera concluded the cost difference was minimal and not of overriding concern in relation to the physical characteristics of the two buildings and how they compared to each other. She quite correctly felt the two buildings were not comparable. In essence, the two buildings' differences in design location and construction rendered neither building comparable to the other building as a like facility under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. 4/ Based on that information she gave the energy figures relatively little weight. More importantly, however, before the final bid award was made by HRS, the Division of General Services within HRS in its failsafe role in reviewing bids considered the life cycle cost figures of the two bids. The minimal language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, has been interpreted by HRS to mean that anything under 55 BTU's is minimal and except in one instance not applicable here, numerical differences under 55 BTU's are immaterial. The Division, without getting into the issue of the likeness of the facilities, concluded that both bids met the Department's interpretation of the "minimal" language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, and the relative numerical difference in the energy costs was immaterial. Ms. Schembera is entitled to rely on other more expert HRS Division staff to ensure a proper analysis of highly technical bid specifications such as the energy cost analysis required under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. It does not matter that the review took place after Ms. Schembera had made her preliminary decision. What is important is that the review be made either personal or vicariously through staff before the final award is made. A proper review of energy costs was, therefore, made by Respondent before the final award was made. Likewise, Ms. Schembera's ultimate decision that the buildings were not comparable like facilities was a proper review of energy costs even though that conclusion was arrived at through a layman's unsophisticated, but more accurate intuition and common sense. To that extent, the energy cost data had no impact on the ultimate choice made by the District Administrator and were properly considered by the District Administrator. 5/ A letter for Ms. Schembera's signature adopting the committee's recommendation was drafted by Mr. Pastucha. The letter was signed and sent to the Department's Division of General Services for review. The District was requested to provide additional justification for its choice by the Department's Division of General Services. Mr. Rashied was directed to draft the response. He simply reorganized the original memorandum into a format more compatible with the Division's direction, clarified a few points and without significantly changing the content, submitted the response as directed. The Division acquiesced in Ms. Schembera's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing Case NO. 88-4900BID, and awarding lease number 590:1984 to Phillips and Company as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1988.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award a contract to Intervenor Xerox Corporation pursuant to Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. 07-015- 040-RFP.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On December 15, 2006, PCS issued the 2007 RFP, entitled "Copier Program--Request for Proposals." The 2007 RFP was intended to provide a comprehensive copier program for the entire Pinellas County School District from the award date of the bid, then anticipated to be February 20, 2007, through June 30, 2012. The purpose of the 2007 RFP was stated as follows in Section 3.1 of the General Information section: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. PCS wishes to partner with a qualified vendor who will continue to improve information sharing, right size number of assets, and reduce the number of device types while lowering the district's cost. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid. . . . (Emphasis added) A statement of the 2007 RFP's "scope" set forth in the Special Conditions similarly provided: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets these needs and a district evaluation committee made up of participants from the focus groups will evaluate proposals and make the selection it feels best meets these needs based upon a set of criteria published in this document. . . . [Emphasis added] The 2007 RFP provided for proposals to be received no later than January 18, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. The 2007 RFP contained General Terms and Conditions, setting forth the standard boilerplate terms common to all PCS procurements, and Section 1 of "Special Conditions" particular to this contract.1 These were followed by: Section 2, "Personnel Matrix"; Section 3, "General Information"; Section 4, "Program Specifications"; Section 5, "Equipment Specifications"; Section 6, "Cost Proposal"; and Section 7, "Contractor Response." PCS has adopted the General Terms and Conditions as rules, codified in Part A of the PCS Purchasing Handbook. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions, "Freight Terms," provided: All items are to be bid FOB destination with all transportation charges prepaid and included in the bid prices and title transferring to the district at the time of delivery, unless otherwise stated in bid invitation. Any exceptions to these freight terms taken by the bidder must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal. The purchasing department will evaluate any such exceptions and determine if the exception constitutes grounds for rejection of the bidder's proposal. [Emphasis added] Paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Acceptance and Withdrawal of Bids," provided: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. By written request to the purchasing department, the bidder may withdraw from the bid process and ask to have their sealed bid proposal returned at any time prior to the closing date and time for the receipt of bid proposals. Paragraph 14 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Variance to Bid Documents," provided: For the purpose of bid evaluation, bidders must clearly stipulate any or all variances to the bid documents or specifications, no matter how slight. If variations are not stated in the bidder's proposal, it shall be construed that the bid proposal submitted fully complies in every respect with our bid documents. Paragraph 30 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Errors and Omissions," provided: In the event an error or obvious omission is discovered in a bidder's proposal, either by the purchasing department or the bidder, the bidder may have the opportunity of withdrawing their bid, provided they can produce sufficient evidence to document that the error or omission was clerical in nature and unintentional . . . This privilege shall not extend to allowing a bidder to change any information contained in their bid proposal; however, in the event of a minor omission or oversight on the part of the bidder, the purchasing department (or designee) may request written clarification from a bidder in order to confirm the evaluator's interpretation of the bidder's response and to preclude the rejection of their bid, either in part or in whole. The purchasing department will have the authority to weigh the severity of the infraction and determine its acceptability. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Basis of Award of Bids," provides: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." The standard form cover sheet to both the 2006 and 2007 RFPs contained a "Note to Bidder" that stated: "A signed bid submitted to the School Board obligates the bidder to all terms, conditions and specifications stated in this bid document, unless exceptions are taken and clearly stated in the bidder's proposal." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP included a provision titled "Acceptance of Vendor Responses," which stated: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested. Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP also included a provision entitled "Integrity of Bid Documents," which stated: Bidders shall use the original Bid Proposal Forms provided by the Purchasing Department and enter information only in the spaces where a response is requested. Bidders may use an attachment as an addendum to the Bid Proposal form if sufficient space is not available on the original form for the bidder to enter a complete response. Any modifications or alterations to the original bid documents by the bidder, whether intentional or otherwise, will constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. Any such modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal response and presented in the form of an addendum to the original bid documents. Both Xerox and IKON timely submitted proposals in response to the 2007 RFP. Evaluations of the responses to the RFP were based on a two-step procedure. First, a focus group of individuals from the Pinellas County School District would analyze the bids and award points based on the specifications and the Proposal Evaluation Form set forth in the RFP. The maximum award was 100 points, with 80 points constituting the threshold for further consideration. Second, those vendors which met the 80-point threshold would compete solely on price. Those bidders who did not score 80 points in the first stage would not have their price bids opened. By January 24, 2007, the focus group had finalized its evaluations, and the cost proposals were to be opened on January 26, 2007. Both IKON and Xerox scored above the 80 point level. IKON received a score of 87 points from the focus group and Xerox received a score of 81 points. Xerox's proposal included, among 15 unnumbered appendices, an appendix titled "Xerox Clarification Addendum to the RFP." This Addendum contained four "clarifications" of portions of the General Terms and Conditions, seven "clarifications" regarding the Program Specifications portion of the Special Conditions, and 12 items under the heading "Other Xerox Service Terms" that purported to set forth contractual provisions regarding service, personnel, risk of loss, limitations on liability, payment schedules, and other standard contract terms. PCS's purchasing department conducted a responsiveness review of the proposals prior to sending them to the focus group for substantive evaluation, but did not notice the Xerox Addendum. Mark Lindemann, the director of purchasing for PCS, testified that it is not customary for bidders to submit such an addendum, and, therefore, his staff was not looking for it when conducting their responsiveness review. On January 30, 2007, after the focus group had performed its evaluation of all the bids, and the cost proposals had been opened and the bid tabulations had been posted on the PCS website, Colin Castle of IKON brought to the attention of the PCS purchasing department the presence of the Xerox Addendum. Geri Pomerantz is the Xerox employee responsible for public sector solicitations in the Southeast United States. She is responsible for understanding the terms and conditions of a solicitation, for pricing the solution based on the customer's requirements, and for ensuring that Xerox submits a responsive proposal. Ms. Pomerantz signed and submitted Xerox's proposal in response to the 2007 RFP. Ms. Pomerantz believed that the Xerox Addendum complied with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision of the Special Conditions, quoted above. By submitting the Addendum, Xerox sought to clarify areas of the RFP, to explain how Xerox was meeting the requirements of the RFP, and to propose new items where Ms. Pomerantz believed the RFP was silent on important terms. Ms. Pomerantz testified that, to comply with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision, Xerox included the proposed clarifications in the body of its proposal, where that was possible, then further called them to the attention of PCS by placing them in the Addendum. Though unnumbered, the Xerox Addendum is clearly identified in the Table of Contents at the front of the Xerox proposal and on a separate tab on the side of the proposal. Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor, i.e., Section 4, the Program Specifications portion and Section 5, the Equipment Specifications portion. Xerox incorporated clarifications to the following Program and Equipment Specifications: Section 4.3.1-–Equipment Build Status; Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2 and 5.3.13 –-Price Offering; Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5-–Inspection and Acceptance; Section 4.10.2-–Response Time; Section 4.10.3-– Uptime; Section 4.10.4--Electronic Meter Reads; and Section 4.17–-Insurance Specifications for Contractors. The General Terms and Conditions did not call for a vendor response, and Xerox's clarifications or proposed modifications to those were made only in the Addendum. The introduction to the Xerox Addendum provides as follows: We have reviewed your Invitation to Bid ("Bid")[2] for a Copier Program, and have prepared a proposal that we believe addresses your requirements. However, some of the Board's requirements require that we make some limited clarifications to the terms and conditions included in your Bid. These clarifications are set forth below and are part of our Proposal. In addition, we have included some additional terms and conditions, which are also included as part of our Proposal. Should there be a conflict between the terms and conditions of the various documents the order of precedence will be this Addendum, followed by your Bid. Please note that if any of the terms or clarifications are inconsistent with Florida law or otherwise unacceptable to you, Xerox agrees to negotiate a reasonable alternative that is acceptable to both parties. Our team is also prepared to discuss the Xerox Proposal in greater detail and, if required, adjust our offering based on your final requirements, which may include a modification to our proposed equipment, support services, terms and conditions, and/or price offering. The Xerox Addendum expressly proposed clarifications or modifications to four provisions of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 1(g), set forth in full above, contains PCS's standard freight terms and describes the process by which a vendor may take exception to those terms: exceptions must be clearly stated in the proposal, and the purchasing department will determine whether the exceptions constitute grounds for rejecting the vendor's proposal. The Xerox Addendum proposed to transfer to PCS the cost of any "non-standard delivery or removal expenses, such as additional costs where additional time or resources are required to disassemble equipment due to lack of adequate facility access, or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to deliver equipment to upper floors of buildings.3 Ms. Pomerantz justified this variance by asserting that the 2007 RFP was silent regarding the issue of "non- standard delivery", and that Xerox was merely offering a clarifying solution to this problem. Mr. Lindemann believed this clarification to be salutary, based on disputes PCS has had with its current vendor, IKON, regarding unusual delivery issues. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions specifically allowed the vendor to propose exceptions to the standard freight terms, provided those exceptions were clearly stated and the vendor understood that its exceptions could be grounds for rejection of its proposal. Thus, it is found that the Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum also proposed modification of paragraph 11 of the General Terms and Conditions, which states that PCS has "sole and exclusive property" rights to any discovery, invention or work product produced under the contract. Xerox proposed that any work developed under this contract would be of a generic nature and would remain the sole property of Xerox. Mr. Lindemann reasonably opined that this was not a material deviation because there was no intellectual property involved in this RFP. The Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 41 of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 41 provided that unless otherwise specified in the Special Conditions, all items requested "must be new, the latest model manufactured, first quality, carry the manufacturer's standard warranty and be equal to or exceed the specifications" listed in the RFP. In this instance, the Special Conditions did provide otherwise. Section 4.3.1 of the Program Specifications provided, in relevant part, that vendors "may propose all used, all new or a combination of new and used equipment, but all equipment must meet the minimum standards outlined later in this section. To assure ease of operation for end users, if used equipment is proposed it should all be of the same brand and model within any given Group of copiers, within any given facility." The Xerox Addendum simply provided clarification regarding the company's terminology for its equipment. The equipment provided by Xerox would be either "Newly Manufactured," "Factory Produced New Models," or "Remanufactured," internal Xerox distinctions regarding the use of new, reconditioned or recycled components, and Xerox disclaimed any intent to use reconditioned, recycled, refurbished or used equipment as defined by industry standard. In this instance, Xerox submitted a clarification that did not deviate from or attempt to modify the Program Specifications. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions, the limitation of liability provision, which provided: The bidder guarantees to save [PCS], its agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind for use of any copyrighted or non-copyrighted materials, secret process, patented or unpatented inventions, articles or appliances, furnished or used in performance of the contract for which the contractor is not the patentee, assignee or licensee. The Xerox Addendum to paragraph 44 provided as follows: Xerox agrees that it will indemnify the Board from all copyright and patent information that is included in Xerox- branded equipment/software. However, Xerox will not indemnify the Board, its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, and agent [sic] for any patent infringement caused by complying with the Board's requirement to use, or the Board's use of, the Xerox- branded/supplied equipment with equipment or software not provided by Xerox. Mr. Lindemann testified that this modification of the limitation of liability provision would most likely require PCS to purchase additional contingent liability insurance, which would be a cost essentially passed on from Xerox to PCS. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed a second limitation of liability provision in the section titled "Other Xerox Service Terms," which was essentially a list of standard terms and conditions that Xerox proposed to take precedence over similar provisions in the 2007 RFP. This second limitation of liability proposal provided as follows: Excluding personal injury (including death), property damage, and intellectual property indemnification on Xerox branded equipment, Xerox will not be liable to you for any direct damages in excess of $100,000 or the amounts you've paid to Xerox, whichever is greater. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to this Agreement, whether the claim alleges tortious conduct (including negligence) or any other legal theory. Any action you take against Xerox must be commenced within two (2) years after the event that caused it. Ms. Pomerantz testified that when she read the RFP she focused on the indemnification language in paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions regarding copyright and patent issues. She thought the RFP was silent on broader indemnification issues, and she sought to clarify it with this proposed language. Mr. Lindemann testified that the $100,000 limitation of liability could result in costs to PCS in the event of a judgment against PCS and might require the purchase of additional liability insurance. Mr. Lindemann believed this proposed limitation on liability was a material deviation and formed the basis for his request to Xerox to withdraw the Addendum. Paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions states: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." (Emphasis added) It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. 34. Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program/Equipment Specifications related to the vendors' cost proposals provide: 4.3.4 Whatever type of pricing methodology is proposed, it shall include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to: all imaging devices, any peripheral equipment (file servers, etc.), delivery, removal, installation, training, dedicated technician(s), all supplies needed to operate the imaging devices except paper, delivery of supplies and removal of the equipment upon termination of this contract. * * * 5.3.2 Pricing should include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all imaging devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technicians and all supplies except paper needed to operate the imaging devices. * * * 5.3.13 Pricing must include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all copier devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technician(s), all supplies except paper, end-user training and semi-annual customer satisfaction surveys. The three quoted provisions state that price proposals must include all costs associated with the administration of the service in question, except for paper, delivery of supplies, removal of equipment upon contract termination, end user training, and customer satisfaction surveys. The Xerox Addendum sets forth a monthly minimum and cost-per-copy charge that would cover standard equipment, supplies, maintenance, delivery and removal, installation and user training, but would require PCS to pay for "optional accessories," "non-standard operating supplies," "excess rigging" needed due to inadequate site access or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to install or remove equipment,4 overtime service coverage, and expenses associated with site preparation. The Xerox Addendum attempted to vary the quoted Special Conditions that require the vendor's price to include all costs associated with delivery, removal, and installation and, thus, materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP. Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 of the Program Specifications required the vendor to "provide and pay for all material, labor, tools, transportation and handling, and other facilities necessary for the furnishing, delivery, assembly plus inspection before, during and after installation of all items specified herein." The Xerox Addendum to Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.17.1 of the Program Specifications required acceptance testing for each imaging device and accessory, including a period of four consecutive business days, each containing seven hours of operational use time, in which the equipment maintains a 95 percent level of performance. The Xerox Addendum to Section 4.17.1 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.10.2 of the Program Specifications provided requirements regarding service calls and response times. This condition defines "response time" as the interim between the user's call to the repair office and the appearance of a certified technician on-site who is prepared to effect repairs. Section 4.10.2 provides that the response time cannot exceed four hours. PCS would have the option of charging the contractor $50.00 per failure to meet this four-hour response time requirement. The Xerox Addendum proposed that service response times be averaged quarterly according to a formula by which "target response time" would be divided by "average service response time," which is measured by dividing the sum of all service call response times during the quarter by the total number of service calls. Xerox proposed that the $50.00 charge be imposed based upon Xerox's failure to meet "the 90-day 4 hour average unit response time commitment." IKON also proposed to calculate the response time using a quarterly average, providing for an average response time "of 2 to 6 hours for all customer service calls located within 30 miles of an IKON service center, and 4 to 8 hours for all customer service calls located 30 miles or more from an IKON service center." IKON's proposal did not clearly state how far IKON's nearest service center is located from any Pinellas County school site. Another section of IKON's proposal discusses the company's recent consolidation of its "customer care centers," which "provide direct customer support" and house "the field service call center and inside sales function for a geographical region," into four central locations, the closest to Pinellas County being in Atlanta, Georgia. In this instance, both Xerox and IKON have proposed material deviations from the RFP requirement. Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions set forth a simple response time requirement that PCS itself could monitor and enforce without input from the vendor. Both Xerox and IKON attempted to substitute complex formulas arriving at quarterly averages for response time. IKON's proposal further attempted to make its compliance with the four hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers. Section 4.10.3 of the Special Conditions requires a guaranteed uptime of 95 percent per machine for any 90-day period, and further requires that machines failing to maintain 95 percent uptime must be removed and replaced with an identical or comparable model at no cost to PCS. The Xerox Addendum announced an uptime objective of maintaining an average 95 percent equipment uptime performance based on a three-month rolling average, a variation in the wording of Section 4.10.3 that does not materially change the RFP requirement. Xerox also offered slight variations in the definition of "downtime" that are in the nature of clarifications rather than amendments to Section 4.10.3. The Xerox Addendum also contained 12 "Other Xerox Service Terms," essentially Xerox's standard terms and conditions dealing with service guarantees, personnel, substitution of equipment or software, risk of loss for equipment, treatment of confidential information, compliance with laws, vendor liability for customer-supplied items, the limitation of liability provision discussed above, force majeure, payment upon 45 days of invoice, breach of contract and remedies thereto, and a procedure for amendment of the contract. The 2007 RFP's General Terms and Conditions contain requirements for breach of contract, limitation of liability, standards of conduct for vendor personnel, and equipment substitution. Thus, the Xerox Addendum violated the following language in paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." In summary, the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the requirements of the 2007 RFP in the following ways: it varied from the limitation of liability requirements of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions; it offered a cost proposal that was not all-inclusive, in contravention of Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program Specifications; it attempted to limit inspections after installation and acceptance testing, in contravention of Sections 4.7.4, 4.7.5, and 4.17.1 of the Special Conditions; it varied from the response time requirements of Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions; and it attempted to substitute several of Xerox's standard terms and conditions for those of PCS, in violation of paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions. After learning of the Xerox Addendum from Mr. Castle on January 30, 2007, PCS reviewed the Addendum and concluded that it included material deviations to the terms and conditions of the RFP solicitation and that either the Addendum or Xerox's bid must be withdrawn. Negotiations commenced between PCS and Xerox. On February 2, 2007, Xerox offered PCS a revised Addendum. PCS rejected the revised Addendum and informed Xerox that the Addendum must be withdrawn in its entirety. On February 5, 2007, Xerox notified PCS by letter that it was withdrawing the Addendum from its proposal. Also on February 5, 2007, PCS posted its notice of intent to award the contract to Xerox. IKON's protest complained that Xerox's letter did not accomplish a complete withdrawal of the deviations included in the Xerox Addendum, because many of those deviations remained in the main body of the Xerox proposal. As noted above, Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the main body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor. These clarifications were included in Section 7.1.4 of the Xerox proposal, "Proposed Work Plan, Transition Plan." When Xerox withdrew its Addendum, it did not also submit a revised proposal that deleted the Addendum provisions from those places where they had been incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Nevertheless, both Xerox and PCS understood that withdrawal of the Addendum accomplished the complete withdrawal of the materials included in the Addendum, including where they were incorporated into the main body of the Xerox proposal. This understanding was reasonable under the circumstances. However, IKON raises a related objection that is more pertinent. Xerox was allowed to withdraw its Addendum, and then was awarded the contract. Thus, the winning proposal is different than the proposal that was reviewed and scored by the PCS focus group. IKON argues that it is very likely that Xerox would not have passed the 80-point threshold without the Addendum provisions that were incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Mr. Lindemann of PCS believed that Xerox's score would probably have been higher without the Addendum provisions. The salient point is that both sides are free to speculate about what the score of the winning bid might have been, because PCS proposes to award a contract on a proposal that was never reviewed or scored in the manner prescribed by the 2007 RFP. PCS argues that the withdrawal of the Xerox Addendum was entirely in keeping with the RFP, citing paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, quoted in full above and relevant portion of which provides: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. [Emphasis added] PCS contends that the emphasized language grants the purchasing department authority to allow a bidder to withdraw a portion of its bid after the bids have been opened. This is correct, if the portion in question is a timely submitted amendment to the original bid.5 In their arguments, both PCS and Xerox equate the terms "amendment" and "addendum," and assume that the Xerox Addendum could be withdrawn as an "amendment" to the Xerox proposal. However, the Xerox Addendum was not an amendment to the Xerox proposal; it was an integral part of that proposal. The Addendum did not amend anything contained in the Xerox proposal; rather, it attempted to "amend" the terms of the RFP. The underscored portion of paragraph 3 anticipates the late withdrawal of an entire bid or an amendment to a bid, not a wholesale grant of authority to the purchasing department to allow a bidder to save a nonresponsive proposal by withdrawing the objectionable provisions. PCS argues that Xerox was given no economic or competitive advantage in being allowed to submit and then withdraw its Addendum. Ms. Pomerantz testified that none of the items in the Addendum would have affected the price bid by Xerox, because they were essentially items of overhead that Xerox cannot "cost out" to include in a price proposal. However, the testimony by Mr. Lindemann convincingly made the point that some of the variations from RFP terms offered by Xerox would affect PCS's costs regardless of their impact on Xerox's price proposal. Passing on costs to the agency that have been absorbed by IKON and the other vendors in their proposals works to Xerox's economic advantage and to the detriment of PCS. Xerox had an obvious competitive advantage in being granted the opportunity to amend its proposal after the substantive proposals were opened and evaluated and the price proposals had been opened and posted. Xerox was also granted the option, afforded to no other bidder, of simply declining to withdraw its Addendum and thereby walking away from the procurement after submitting a proposal that, under the terms of the RFP, is supposed to bind the vendor for a period of 90 days. Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: In a protest to an invitation to bid or request for proposals procurement, no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. . . . The PCS rules and RFP provisions, correctly understood, do not contravene this statutory requirement. They grant the purchasing department the flexibility to allow a bidder, under special circumstances, to withdraw from a given procurement after submitting a bid, and they allow PCS to waive slight variations or minor irregularities in a bid. To the extent that PCS interprets its rules and RFP to allow Xerox to substantially amend its proposal after the opening,6 as occurred in this procurement, then PCS has violated its governing statutes in a fashion that is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. PCS argues that even if the Xerox Addendum contained material deviations, the RFP and PCS's rule permitted bidders to submit addenda with material deviations. PCS based this argument on that portion of Section 3.1 of the Special Conditions stating that bidders "may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid." When read within the context of the Special Conditions in their entirety, this language clearly contemplates allowing the vendors to offer creative solutions within their field of substantive expertise, i.e., the establishment of a comprehensive copier program countywide. It was rational for the drafters of the RFP to assume that a company such as Xerox enters the process in possession of more knowledge and experience in the field of copier installation, service, and repair than the school district possesses. PCS conducted focus groups to determine the top priorities of the school personnel who use the copiers and presented the bidders with specifications broad enough to allow maximum flexibility in crafting proposals responsive to the listed priorities. However, there are rarely "creative solutions" to boilerplate RFP terms such as shipping, limitation of liability, the requirement that cost proposals be all-inclusive, inspection of equipment prior to acceptance, and response time for repairs. These are areas in which the purchasing department of PCS may be presumed to have at least as much expertise as Xerox or IKON. Variations from the RFP's requirements proposed by a bidder regarding these items are likely to be self-serving efforts to protect the bidder's interests or pass on costs to the agency. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions recognizes this reality by stating that a bidder that substitutes its standard terms and conditions for those of PCS will be considered nonresponsive.7 PCS is correct that the "Integrity of Bid Documents" paragraph of Section 1 of the Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP allows bidders to submit addenda that clearly state "modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose." However, contrary to PCS's treatment of Xerox in this procurement, the RFP does not state that the bidder may propose modifications of the RFP terms without risk.8 The cited paragraph clearly warns bidders that proposed modifications or alterations constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. The paragraph does not, and under Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), could not, state that bidders will be given the opportunity to withdraw those portions of their proposals deemed nonresponsive after bid opening. PCS also emphasizes the first sentence of the "Acceptance of Vendor Responses" paragraph of the Special Conditions: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested." However, the next sentence of that paragraph states that the remedy is not after-the-fact withdrawal of the rejected portion of the proposal, but rejection of the proposal: "Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." Both PCS and Xerox raised the issue of the 2006 RFP in an effort to show that IKON was now attacking a process from which it earlier benefited. In the 2006 procurement, IKON was allowed to withdraw portions of an addendum after a competitor filed a protest. PCS ultimately rejected all of the 2006 Proposals because of confusion on the part of the bidders, partly related to the fact that IKON was allowed to withdraw its addendum but a competitor was not given the same opportunity. PCS then issued the 2007 RFP in December 2006 to procure the same copy services sought by the 2006 RFP. The 2006 RFP is relevant only to show that PCS has allowed the withdrawal of amendments in at least one previous procurement, a moot point because PCS has freely stated its position that it has the authority to reject an addendum without rejecting the entire proposal. Xerox's original proposal, including the Addendum, was nonresponsive for the reasons set forth above. PCS's effort to save Xerox's low bid by allowing it to withdraw the Addendum violated Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), as well as the terms of the RFP. The remaining question is whether IKON's proposal was responsive and may therefore be awarded the contract. As already found above, IKON's proposal materially deviated from Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions by substituting a complex formula for the simple response time requirement of the RFP and by making compliance with the four- hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers.9 Section 7.1.3 of the Contractor Response portion of the 2007 RFP, "Proposed Models and Equipment Configurations," provides the following: The respondent must provide a comprehensive description of its proposed standard models and equipment configurations for each of the various grade levels (elementary, middle, high school). Consideration should be given to the stated needs of the focus groups (Section 3), particularly "ease of operation", "accessibility" to machines and "reliability". Vendors should provide detailed, technical product literature for each piece of equipment proposed including all options. The respondent should also describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment as program needs change and how that will effect the amount billed according to the cost proposal plan proposed. [Emphasis added] Section 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, "Cost Proposal," provides the following: Respondent must include a complete, detailed cost proposal which encompasses all costs associated with the proposed program. The cost proposal must allow for flexibility to add or delete equipment as program needs change. The district will not entertain any proposals to purchase or lease any equipment. [Emphasis added] IKON's proposal contained the following paragraph within its response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions: As requested by PCS in Section 7.1.7 of the Invitation to Bid, IKON's cost proposal allows for flexibility. IKON will permit PCS to add or delete equipment as PCS' needs change by permitting PCS to upgrade or downgrade equipment at the beginning or at the end of its fiscal year. Under this program, PCS may replace upgraded or downgraded equipment with additional equipment that addresses PCS' needs. Specifically, IKON will permit PCS to identify up to [three] percent of the overall equipment fleet value procured by PCS from IKON, including models and specifications that are representative of the entire fleet population, as flexible equipment that may be upgraded or downgraded at the beginning or at the end of the fiscal year, while all other equipment may be canceled only in the event of a non- appropriation or termination for cause. The flexible equipment may also be relocated or otherwise used to facilitate a rightsizing program, as directed by PCS. PCS may utilize this flexibility program in its own discretion. In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages. Xerox contends that by limiting PCS to a three percent change in the overall equipment fleet value, IKON's proposal materially deviates from Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, which required that PCS have the flexibility to increase or decrease the size of the copier fleet to meet its needs. However, Section 7.1.3 did not prescribe the amount of "flexibility" required in the vendors' bids; rather, it expressly requested the vendors to "describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment." IKON's bid described the allowed flexibility as three percent of the overall equipment fleet value and was thus responsive on its face. The evidence presented at hearing was insufficient to determine whether a three percent limit would be so restrictive of PCS's needs to add or delete equipment as to render IKON's proposal nonresponsive. More problematic is the last sentence of the quoted paragraph: "In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages." Xerox cogently argues that if its own proposed limitation of liability is a material deviation, then this similar limitation of liability included in the IKON bid must also be found a material deviation. IKON responds that it is clear from the context that this limitation of liability provision, unlike that in Xerox's proposal, applies only to Section 7.1.3. For this reason, IKON contends, PCS determined that IKON's bid was responsive. IKON argues that its own limitation of liability provision is implicated only in the event that PCS requires additional equipment and that it does not limit any direct liability of IKON to PCS and concerns only a distinct class of damages: indirect, special or consequential damages. The position of the quoted sentence, at the end of the final paragraph of IKON's response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions, supports IKON's contention that the limitation of liability applies only to that section. However, the wording of the sentence ("In no event . . .") indicates a broader intended application. IKON also failed to explain why the requirement of additional equipment, and only the requirement of additional equipment, raised concerns within IKON that indirect, special or consequential damages might be claimed by either party to the contract. At best, this provision is ambiguous in the scope of its application and, in any event, seeks to limit the liability of IKON beyond the limits provided by the RFP. If Xerox's limitations of liability constitute material deviations, then so must IKON's. IKON's proposal thus contains two material deviations from the RFP, one regarding response time and one regarding limitations of liability. IKON's proposal is nonresponsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that PCS enter a final order that (a) declares Xerox's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rescinds the proposed award to Xerox; and (b) declares IKON's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rejects the same. Because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation as to whether PCS should award the contract to the next-lowest responsive bidder or reject all bids and start over. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent should reject Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive and award the bid to two other bidders.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation licensed in the state as a mechanical contractor. Mr. John Smith is vice president and the sole shareholder of Petitioner. Respondent is a local school district in the state. Respondent regularly solicits bids for goods and services Respondent needs to construct, renovate, manage, and operate the public schools in Sarasota County, Florida (the District). On April 13, 2004, Respondent issued an invitation to bid identified in the record as No. 4134 (the ITB). The ITB solicited bids to provide HVAC and refrigeration maintenance and installation services to the District. On April 27, 2004, Respondent conducted a mandatory pre- bid meeting with vendors interested in bidding. Two of Petitioner's employees attended the meeting. Based upon discussions with attendees at the pre-bid meeting, Respondent issued an addendum to the ITB on April 29, 2004 (the Addendum), and required a signed copy of the Addendum to be included with each bid. Petitioner and others at the meeting subsequently submitted separate bids. Petitioner, along with six other prospective vendors, submitted a bid in response to the ITB. Petitioner did not include a signed Addendum in its bid. On May 25, 2004, Respondent posted its intent to award the bid to a primary vendor and to a secondary vendor, neither of which was Petitioner. Prior to the posting of the intent to award the bid, Respondent provided actual notice to Petitioner that Respondent deemed Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive for failure to include a signed Addendum. Petitioner filed a timely protest pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent halted the contract award process until this protest is resolved as required in Subsection 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner's position is that it in fact included a signed Addendum in its response to the ITB, or, alternatively, that the signed Addendum was not required to be included with the bid because either Respondent did not make Petitioner aware of the requirement; or the requirement for an signed Addendum was not material. Petitioner did not include a signed Addendum with its bid. Petitioner did not submit a copy of a signed Addendum for admission into evidence. Petitioner's vice-president personally compiled Petitioner's bid the night before Petitioner submitted the bid, sealed the bid, and left the sealed bid for a designated employee to deliver the bid to Respondent the following day. No one assisted the vice-president in sealing the bid. The designated employee delivered Petitioner's sealed bid to Respondent the next day. The bid remained sealed until Respondent opened the bid, along with all the other bids, at the bid opening. Respondent opened the sealed bids in accordance with Respondent's customary procedure for bid openings. All of the bidders attended the bid opening in the same room. One of Respondent's employees opened each sealed bid in front of the bidders and verbally relayed pertinent information from each bid to a second employee a few feet away who entered the information into an Excel spreadsheet on a computer. The information included the name, address, and contact information for each bidder; bid price information; and whether the bid included a signed Addendum. Respondent's two employees at the bid opening specifically recalled the announcement that Petitioner's bid did not include a signed Addendum. Members of the audience at the bid opening corroborated the testimony of Respondent's two employees. Their testimony was credible and persuasive. After Respondent opened the bids, the employee who had recorded the information in the spreadsheet reviewed each bid to verify the accuracy of the information in the spreadsheet. The employee maintained continuous possession of the bids in the room where she entered the information into the spreadsheet. A third employee for Respondent, not present at the bid opening, subsequently reviewed Petitioner's response and did not find a signed Addendum. The information in the copies of the spreadsheet in evidence shows that Petitioner's bid did not include a signed Addendum. Both the ITB and the Addendum state the requirement for each bidder to include a signed Addendum with the bid. The ITB states, in relevant part: . . . prior to submitting the bid, it shall be the sole responsibility of each bidder to contact the Purchasing Office at (941) 486- 2183 to determine if addenda were issued and, if so, to obtain such addenda for attachment to the bid. (emphasis in original). Similarly, the Addendum, states in relevant part: "PLEASE EXECUTE THIS FORM AND ENCLOSE IN THE SEALED ENVELOPE WITH YOUR BID RESPONSE." (emphasis in original). The requirement for a signed Addendum is a material requirement for a bid to be responsive. The information in the Addendum has a direct affect on the prices to be charged to Respondent by a vendor in terms of the hourly rates for services and the permissible costs that a bidder may pass through to Respondent. The information ensured the fairness of the ITB and assured the bids Respondent received were based on similar assumptions and methods of computation. The requirement for a signed Addendum assured that each bidder had read the Addendum. Respondent's proposed award of the bid to the two successful bidders is reasonable. The two bids are the two lowest priced bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order dismissing the protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Smith Hill York Service Corporation 2427 Porter Lake Drive, Suite 101 Sarasota, Florida 34240 Arthur S. Hardy, Esquire Matthews, Eastmoore, Hardy, Crauwels & Garcia, P.A. Post Office Box 49377 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6377 Dr. Gary W. Norris, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34231-3304 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Is the Department of Corrections' proposed award of Project SK-25-WW to Shaw Construction and Management Services, Inc., contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In April 1997, the Department advertised for bids for construction of wastewater treatment plant upgrades at Polk Correctional Institution (Project). The engineering firm of Hartman and Associates, Inc. (Hartman) was the Department's professional consultant on the Project and was responsible for designing, permitting, bidding, and construction supervision. Hartman's project manager was Timothy Hochuli. In April 1997, after the Project Manual was completed and ready for distribution, Hochuli furnished Clayton Campbell, the Department's project manager, a copy of the advertisement for publication in the Florida Administrative Weekly, the official publication for projects that are bid by the Department. The copy of the advertisement furnished to Campbell indicated that a pre-bid conference was mandatory. After some discussion between Hochuli and Campbell, it was decided that the advertisement would not contain the requirement for a mandatory pre-bid conference but only that there would be a pre-bid conference. Thereafter, the advertisement was placed in the Florida Administrative Weekly without the mandatory pre-bid conference requirement. Hochuli did not delete the requirement for a mandatory pre-bid conference in the Project Manual, notwithstanding the advertisement in the Florida Administrative Weekly to the contrary. However, Campbell assumed that the requirement for a mandatory pre-bid conference had been removed from the Project Manual, and acted on that assumption until advised otherwise by Beach after the bid opening. The Advertisement for Bids that was placed in the Florida Administrative Weekly included the following relevant paragraphs: PROPOSALS: Bids must be submitted in full accordance with the requirements of the Drawings, Specifications, Bidding Conditions and Contractual Conditions, which may be examined and obtained from the: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.,. . . . * * * PRE-BID CONFERENCE: A pre-bid conference will be held on April 15, 1997 at the Administrative Building Conference Room at the Polk Correctional Institution. The Bidding Conditions were included in the Project Manual which was issued by Hartman. Section A of the Project Manual entitled "Advertisement for Bid" includes the following paragraph: PRE-BID CONFERENCE: A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held on April 15, 1997, 10:30 a.m. at the Administrative Building Conference Room at the Polk Correctional Institution. There was no reference to a pre-bid conference in Section B of the Project Manual entitled "Instruction to Bidders" or any other part of the Project Manual. Shaw learned of the Project through the April 10, 1997, Dodge Reports, a trade journal that publishes construction projects, which did not list the pre-bid conference as being mandatory. However, at least one other trade journal listed the pre-bid conference as being mandatory. The pre-bid conference was held as scheduled on April 15, 1997. All bidders, with the exception of Shaw, were represented at the pre-bid conference. At the pre-bid conference, Campbell and Hochuli gave an overview of the project, discussed concerns specific to the project and prequalification requirements, and answered questions. Certain questions were answered in an addendum to the Project Manual. A site visit, a requirement specified in the Project Manual, was also conducted by Campbell and Hochuli. Although Shaw did not attend this site visit, Shaw did make a site visit prior to submitting its proposal in accordance with paragraph B-9 of the Project Manual. 12 Shaw ordered the Project Manual from Hartman on April 21, 1997. After receiving the Project Manual, Shaw noticed that the pre-bid conference was mandatory. Shaw then contacted Hartman to determine if Shaw could bid on the Project since it had not attended the pre-bid conference on April 15, 1997. Shaw was advised by Hartman that it could submit a bid. Shaw did not request, nor did the Department or Hartman make an addendum to the Project Manual concerning the mandatory pre-bid conference. Beach, Shaw, and four others submitted bids on the Project which were opened at 11:30 a.m. on April 25, 1997. Shaw was the lowest bidder at $279,000, with Beach being the second lowest bidder at $297,000. Hochuli reviewed Shaw's bid; and based on Shaw's familiarity with similar projects of similar size, work references, and financial information, determined that Shaw could do the work required by the Project Manual, and thus recommended that the Department award the Project to Shaw. On June 6, 1997, the Department issued notice that it intended to award the contract to Shaw as the lowest responsive bidder. Beach, the apparent second lowest responsive bidder, timely submitted a notice of protest and a formal written protest, contending that Shaw was not a responsive bidder, in that Shaw had not attended the pre-bid conference. There is no evidence that Shaw's failure to attend the pre-bid conference affected the price of the bid, or gave Shaw an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impacted the interest of the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the protest of Petitioner Beach Construction Company, Inc., be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 3399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Donna P. Beach Qualified Representative Beach Construction Company, Inc. 4554 Southwest 41st Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32608 Daniel Te Young, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Terry L. Shaw Shaw Construction and Management Services, Inc. 386 Pine Tree Road Lake Mary, Florida 32746
