The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's protest challenging the Department of Transportation's Notice of Intent to Award Contract No. E-6A14, FIN Project No. 251999-1-32-01/251999-1-52-01, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., should be sustained in whole or in part.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: 3/ The District VI Warehouse. The District VI (District) warehouse is used to store archived records, paper supplies, and surplus equipment. In addition, it houses the District's divers and their gear. The District Warehouse Roof Since at least the time of the first solicitation, the District warehouse roof has had a ponding problem and been in disrepair. The condition of the roof has deteriorated to such an extent that there is now an urgent need to replace it. The current roof has five overflow drains or scuppers. The Department has determined that additional scuppers are necessary to provide adequate drainage. The List of Interested and Prequalified Contractors When the District warehouse roof replacement project was originally advertised in 1997, 25 contractors, including Petitioner, A-1, Zurqui, Grace, ART, and Southern Coast Enterprises, requested that the Department send them information about the project. The Department compiled a list containing these 25 contractors' names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. The Department subsequently prequalified each of these 25 contractors. Petitioner Pedro Glaria is Petitioner's president. He is now, and has been since 1981, licensed in the State of Florida as both a general contractor and a professional engineer. Petitioner currently has two contracts with the Department, the dollar values of which are $140,000.00 and $110.00.00. Both contracts were awarded during the summer of 2000. They each require Petitioner to provide "roadside mowing" and "roadside litter pickup" services. Since its incorporation in 1989, Petitioner has had a total of 10 to 12 contracts with the Department, at least one of which involved roofing work. At no time has the Department indicated to Mr. Glaria that it has been dissatisfied with Petitioner's work. The Third Solicitation In the third solicitation, as in the first two solicitations, the District warehouse roof replacement project was advertised as a design-build project (involving both design and construction services). The Notice of Informal Bid (No. 6012DS) that the Department used to solicit bids contained the following "work description," "evaluation criteria," and "project information": Work Description Sealed written bids are requested from licensed roofing contractors, general building contractors, professional architectural engineers or professional consultant services for the purpose of a design-build project consisting of roof replacement for the District warehouse building located at the District office complex, 1000 Northwest 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The bidder shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, travel, consultant inspection services, shop drawing reviews to design, and furnish plans and specifications necessary to perform all work required for this project. Evaluation Criteria The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will evaluate the technical bid along with the price bid at the same time. The Department may award this contract to the firm whose proposal meets the needs of the Department as outlined in the technical bid criteria, and to the responsible, responsive bidder submitting the lowest total bid. Technical Bid Will Consist of the Following Experience and qualifications of personnel Plans and specifications. 3). Design Warranty Contract time Price Bid 3). Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE) Participation . . . Project Information ESTIMATED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A With respect to a protest of the specifications contained in an Invitation to Bid or in a Request for Proposals, the Notice of Protest shall be filed in writing within seventy two (72) hours after the receipt of notice of the project plans and specifications or intended project plans and specifications in an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals." A formal written protest stating with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based and in substantially the same form as a petition in accordance with Rule 60-4.012, F.A.C., shall be filed within ten (10) days after filing of the notice of protest. The ten (10) day period includes Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays; provided, however, if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday. Any person who files an action protesting an award shall post with the Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond payable to the Department in the amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Department's estimate of the contract amount for the purchase requested or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), whichever is less, which bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against him in the Administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent Appellate Court Proceedings. In lieu of a bond, the Department may accept a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. The protest must be filed with The Department of Transportation, Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 THE DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Exhibit "A" (Attachment V) to the Notice of Informal Bid was the "Scope of Services for Design Build of Replacement Roof at the District Warehouse Building," Section 2.5(a) of which provided as follows: Bidder shall furnish plans and specifications that comply with the South Florida Building Code, Permits Office of the Department of Management Services, and the State Fire Marshall's Office, including but not limited to the following: The design of the roof shall provide for the installation of overflow drains or scuppers in addition to the existing scuppers to prevent an accumulation of water. Petitioner's technical bid, which was prepared by Mr. Glaria, contained a roof design that did not provide for the installation of the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." In Mr. Glaria's professional opinion, these additional scuppers were unnecessary for the design of the roof to comply with the South Florida Building Code. (Petitioner, however, did not file a protest challenging the bid specifications.) By not incorporating the additional scuppers in its design of the roof, Petitioner was able to submit a price bid lower than it could have offered had its design been in compliance with the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." All three members of the Department's Technical Review and Awards Committee found Petitioner's technical bid to be non- responsive because it deviated from the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A.". Had the Department not rejected the Department's technical bid on the grounds that it was non-responsive, Petitioner would have had an unfair competitive advantage over those bidders whose design of the roof included the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." Petitioner's Formal Protest of the Department's announced intention to contract with A-1 contained the following argument concerning the Department's determination that Petitioner's technical bid did not "comply with design criteria for overflow scuppers": FDOT's Technical Panel determined that SPEC failed to comply with the design criteria for overflow scuppers because SPEC did not provide for additional scuppers. . . . The roof already contains five scuppers. As engineer of this design- build project, SPEC determined that additional scuppers were not necessary for proper drainage of the roof. Rather, the roof only necessitated the installation of crickets between the existing scuppers to facilitate drainage of water between the scuppers. The drawing submitted with SPEC's bid reflects the location of the existing scuppers and the use of the crickets to drain any water on the roof. A-1's drawing reflects the use of additional scuppers, but the location of these additional scuppers cannot assist water drainage as the scuppers are located above the crickets, and therefore above roof level, thereby losing any effectiveness. . . . The additional scuppers provided by A-1 will not prevent the accumulation of water as required by section 2.5 and will only create unnecessary expenditure for FDOT. SPEC's design for the drainage of water from the roof is superior to that of A-1, complies with the requirements of the bidding documents and does not require unnecessary expenditure of funds. Accordingly, SPEC should be awarded the project. The Department's December 17, 1998, Notice of Intent Not to Award (Re: Informal Bid No. 6012DS) stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of the Department of Transportation to not award the above Contract. This contract will be re- advertised at a later date. . . . ALL BIDS HAVE BEEN REJECTED On January 4, 1999, Petitioner's attorney, Alejandro Espino, Esquire, sent a letter to Department Assistant General Counsel Brian McGrail, which read as follows: This letter confirms our telephone conversation today wherein you stated that the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") rejected all bids on the above referenced project because FDOT intends to rewrite the specification for the mansard roof wood replacement and because FDOT has no available funding for the project. However, you stated that FDOT will not provide a written explanation to SPEC Incorporated or any other bidder for the rejection of the bids for the project. If you believe that the above is not an accurate summary of our conversation, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best regards. Mr. McGrail responded to Mr. Espino by letter dated January 4, 1999, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter this morning regarding our telephone conversation concerning the captioned matter. In response to your rendition of our conversation, I must clarify that I expressed my understanding that the specifications for the project will be reviewed, which may include the issues raised in the protest about the bid specifications, before any further action will be taken by the Department. However, the Department's decision to reject all bids is due to the unavailability of funding for this contract at the present time. I cannot speak to the future of the project with any degree of certainty, nor represent any to you or your client. This is a matter strictly for District VI to decide, and I am not involved in that decision making process. The Department will defend the decision to reject all bids based on the lack of available funding. I refer your attention to Attachment II of Informal Bid #6012DS, Contractual Obligation, Section 1.10 through 1.13. In particular, Cancellation Privileges, regarding the Department's obligations under the Notice of Informal Bid and subsequent agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon the availability of monies appropriated for this contract. Additionally, I am sure that you are aware that the bid documents clearly and repeatedly state the Department's reservation of rights to reject any and all bids for this bid letting. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Department's action in rejecting all bids is appropriate under Florida law, if not required, due to the lack of available funds at the present time. If Spec Inc. intends to p[rotest] the Department's decision to reject all bids, I feel it is my responsibility to advise you that the Department will seek any and all costs and attorney fees to which it may be entitled against the protest bond filed in this case. If however, Spec Inc. decides to withdraw the current protests against the intent to award filed on September 28, 1998, and the rejection of all bids filed on December 22, 1998, the Department will agree to return the protest bond in full. After you have had an opportunity to review this matter with your client, please advise at your earliest convenience how Spec Inc., wishes to proceed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to a prompt response, as the hearing date is approaching rapidly. Mr. Glaria "realized that [Petitioner was] going to have a hard time [in its bid protest] to overcome the issue of lack of funding." In addition, he had the "hope that [Petitioner] would [have the opportunity to] bid the project again for the fourth time." Accordingly, he authorized Mr. Espino to file, on behalf of Petitioner, the following Notice of Voluntary of Dismissal of Formal Protest, dated January 11, 1999: Petitioner, SPEC Incorporated, hereby withdraws its formal protest, dated October 18, 1998, of the Florida Department of Transportation's notice of intent to award Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. Upon agreement of counsel for the parties, SPEC Incorporated's bid protest bond will be returned to it. Mr. Espino, in addition, sent the following letter, dated January 11, 1999, to Mr. McGrail: Based on the Florida Department of Transportation's ("FDOT") representation that it rejected all bids for Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, because of the unavailability of funds and because of necessary amendments to the project specifications, SPEC Incorporated hereby withdraws its formal protest of FDOT's notice of intent to reject all bids. As we discussed earlier, FDOT will return SPEC Incorporated's protest bond thirty days after FDOT files . . . the final order in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Fourth Solicitation The Project is funded through appropriations made by the Legislature in the fixed capital outlay category. 4/ Fixed capital outlay funds are subject to reversion if not obligated (through the execution of a contact or the issuance of a notice of intent to award a contract) within 19 months of their appropriation by the Legislature. In mid-January of 2001, Brenda Garner, the manager of the Department's Fixed Capital Outlay Program, advised Ms. Lyons that, if not obligated by February 1, 2001, a portion of the funds ($45,000.00) appropriated for the Project would revert. Ms. Lyons (who had not been involved, as the District's contract administrator, in the first three solicitations) quickly proceeded (in a day's time) to assemble the documents needed to solicit bids for the Project. These documents included detailed plans and specifications that the District's senior structural engineer and senior project manager had prepared, at Ms. Lyons' request, following the third solicitation, as well as "boilerplate" that the Department uses for non-design-build fixed capital outlay projects like the Project. Ms. Lyons determined that it was unnecessary to advertise for bids and that the Department only needed to solicit bids from three contractors. She selected these three contractors from the list of interested and prequalified contractors that the Department had compiled in the first solicitation. As Ms. Lyons was aware, each of the three contractors she selected (A-1, Zurqui, and Grace) was a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). She intentionally selected MBE contractors because the District was "trying to meet an MBE goal." Ms. Lyons had some professional familiarity with the three MBE contractors she selected. A-1 had just completed another roofing project for the District, and Zurqui and Grace were performing construction work at the District office complex. Ms. Lyons' decision to not include Petitioner among the three contractors asked to submit bids was not made in bad faith. Inasmuch as the Department was "in a big hurry to get that project done" she did not ask more than three contractors to submit bids. Ms. Lyons required each of the three contractors to first provide proof that it was a licensed general contractor qualified to work on the Project. After receiving such proof, Ms. Lyons then asked the three contractors to bid on the Project. A-1, Zurqui, and Grace submitted their bids on January 25, 2001. The Technical Review and Awards Committee met on January 26, 2001, to review the bids. All three bids were deemed to be responsive. A-1's bid of $58,300.00 was the lowest of the three bids. Neither Zurqui nor Grace protested the Department's proposed decision, announced in its January 26, 2001, Notice of Intent to Award, to award the contract for the Project to A-1. Only Petitioner, which had not been invited to submit a bid and had first learned of the fourth solicitation when Mr. Glaria saw the Notice of Intent to Award while at the District office complex on January 26, 2001, filed a protest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order rejecting in its entirety Petitioner's protest of the Department's announced intention to award Contract E-6A14 to A-1. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of June, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984 Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "the Department") has served as the distributing agency for United States Department of Agriculture surplus foods to be distributed to needy people in the State of Florida. These foods are butter, processed cheese, non-fat dry milk, cornmeal, rice, flour, and honey. The Department contracts with companies in the food storage and distribution business-to store the surplus food and distribute it to emergency feeding organizations. The emergency feeding organizations then distribute the food to needy persons. Each year the Department enters into contracts for various regions within the State. Petitioner Wales Industries, Inc. (hereinafter "Wales"), Intervenor Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses, Ltd. (hereinafter "Mid-Florida"); and Gulf Cargo Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Gulf Cargo"); have all been awarded contracts with the Department over the years for storage and distribution of the surplus foods in the various regions of the State. On or about June 12, 1987, the Department issued an Invitation for Bid (hereinafter "IFB 87-1") which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on July 10, 1987 for a contract for the storage and distribution of the surplus foods for the period of October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. A bidder under IFB 87-1 would be required to store the above-described commodities in dry, chilled, and frozen storage. The provider must also be able to ship the commodities under dry, chilled, and frozen conditions to emergency feeding organizations throughout the state. The bid evaluation criteria set forth in Paragraph E of IFB 87-1 provide, in part, as follows: c. The bid will be awarded to the Bidder submitting the lowest delivered price per CWT for dry, cold, and frozen donated foods inclusive for each Region, combination of regions, or statewide as bid. The bid price for pick-up at the Provider's warehouse is informational, but is not a consideration in award of the bid. Paragraph numbered eight of the General Conditions of IFB 87-1 notifies actual or prospective bidders who dispute the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions therein or of the bid selection or contract award recommendation that they must file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, or be deemed to have waived their right to do so. IFB 87-1 included an estimate of the number of cases and weights of commodities to be handled by a provider per region. This information was characterized as "History of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" but this characterization was amended to "Estimates of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" by letter of amendment dated June 18, 1987. IFB 87-1 provides elsewhere that these distribution rates are subject to change. By further letter of amendment dated June 23, 1987, the Department notified prospective bidders that bids based upon combinations of regions were acceptable, and revised bid sheets with blanks for the dollar bid for each of the three types of commodities were provided to prospective bidders with the letter of amendment. On June 26; 1987; the Department conducted a bidder's conference for IFB 87-1. Representatives from Wales and Mid-Florida attended the bidder's conference and asked questions of the Department's representatives concerning IFB 87-1. Wales, Mid-Florida, and Gulf Cargo (among others) submitted sealed bids by the deadline at 2:00 p.m., July 10, 1987. Gulf Cargo submitted a bid for Region I only. Wales submitted individual bids for each of Regions I through VI. Mid- Florida submitted individual bids for Regions II through VI and two bids combining various regions except for Region I. Gulf Cargo was awarded a contract for Region I, and Mid-Florida was awarded a contract based on its combined bid for Regions II through VI. The bid awards were announced on July 17, 1987. Wales' notice of intent to file formal written protest is dated July 23, 1987. Wales filed its formal written protest on July 31, 1987. The volume and type of surplus foods distributed through the program is solely dependent upon the commodities made available to the Department by the federal government. There is no guarantee that the State of Florida will receive any particular amount or mix of the commodities distributed through the program. Therefore, the data supplied by the Department to prospective bidders regarding the volume and type of surplus foods to be stored and distributed is based upon actual historical data and is the most accurate data available. Neither IFB 87-1 nor the contracts for previous years under this program guarantee the successful bidder any amount of revenue or any volume of goods to be handled. The method of bid evaluation that was set forth in IFB 87-1, which was emphasized at the bidder's conference, and which was memorialized in the Department's June 29, 1987 listing of questions and answers from the bidder's conference and sent to all prospective bidders was the same the Department would average the bid prices for each type of commodity, i.e., frozen, dry and chilled. The averaging method utilized results in the lowest cost accruing to Use State and actually resulted in a lower bid price for the 1987-88 contracts than the 1986-87 contracts. The actual cost to a provider of storing and transporting frozen, chilled, and dried commodities varies according to the facilities and equipment owned by each prospective bidder. The averaging method utilized by the Department for IFB 87-1 permits bidders to develop competitive bids based upon the bidder's individual costs, storage facilities and equipment; and the bidder's anticipation of the volumes and types of commodities likely to be received from the federal government. The information provided in IFB 87-1 as to drop sites for delivery by the providers was sufficient for prospective bidders to develop competitive bids. The requirement contained in IFB 87-1 that the provider would be responsible for providing off-loading facilities in Dade, Broward, and Duval counties did not prevent the formulation of competitive bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest filed by Wales Industries Inc.; awarding the 1987-88 contract for Region I to Gulf Cargo Services, Inc.; and awarding the 1987-88 contract for Regions II-VI to Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses Ltd. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3317BID The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, the Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Mid-Florida's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-15 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; Wales' proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause; and Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 5-8, 10, and 11 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Powers Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Martin R. Dix Esquire Barnett Bank Building Suite 800 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32399-0700 Harold T. Bistline Esquire Building 1, Suite 10 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Whether a bid dispute arising in connection with an emergency bid letting is an appropriate subject for formal administrative proceedings, in the absence of an administrative challenge to the fact of the emergency?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that DOT had "received [Baxter's] notices of protest dated September 23, 1983, October 14, 1983, and December 16, 1983, protesting the Department of Transportation's determination that Baxter's Asphalt was not the lowest responsible bidder on this project and petitioning for formal administrative hearings." Baxter's bid was indeed the apparent low bid on Job No. 53030-3511, but DOT has taken the position that Baxter is not a responsible bidder, and has disregarded Baxter's bid on that account. The DOT has moved beyond proposed action and has actually awarded the contract to Gulf, the second low bidder. The parties stipulated: Pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(c) , Florida Statutes, the Department has decided to proceed with the award and execution of the contract with Gulf Asphalt Corporation in order to avoid what the Department perceived as an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. DOT executed the contract with Gulf on January 6, 1984. As grounds for executing the contract, notwithstanding the pendency of formal administrative proceedings, the Secretary of the DOT stated: ...The conversion of this two lane roadway to a four lane facility is badly needed to increase the traffic capacity and improve the safety of the highway for the traveling public. This section of roadway has a structural rating of 35 which places it in the "Critical" range . . . [and] has an accident ratio of 1.244 which is almost 25 percent above the average rate. dditional funds were appropriated by the Florida Legislature so that work could proceed without delay. It is also imperative that these projects proceed in an orderly fashion to maximize the effective use of [DOT] construction in spection and supervisory personnel. Letter from Secretary Pappas to Baxter, December 23, 1983. Baxter does not concede that an emergency exists with respect to Job No. 53030- 3511, but did concede that the existence of an emergency was for the agency head to determine, subject only to judicial review. In its petition for formal administrative proceedings, Baxter did not raise the question whether an emergency exists. For purposes of the present administrative proceeding, there is no dispute or issue as to the existence of the emergency.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent dismiss petitioner's formal written protest as moot. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank A. Baker, Esquire Roberts and Baker P. O. Box 854 Marianna, Florida 32446 Robert I. Scanlan, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In November, 1990, the Respondent, the Department of State, sought proposals for the lease of office space for its Division of Licensing. On or prior to December 7, 1990, the proposal opening date, at least six proposals were received by the Respondent. Those proposals were designated by the Respondent as "Tallahassee Associates" (the Petitioner's proposal), "Crossland Agency" (the Intervenor's proposal), "Woodcrest A", "Woodcrest B", "T.C.S." and "DeVoe". On January 2, 1991, the Respondent posted a standard form Bid Tabulation indicating that the following scores had been awarded to the following proposals: Proposal Score Woodcrest A 82 Woodcrest B 82 Tallahassee Associates 73 Crossland Agency 85 DeVoe 54 The proposal of T.C.S. was not evaluated by the Respondent because it was determined to be non-responsive. The Respondent also posted a copy of a memorandum dated January 2, 1991, with the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The memorandum was from John M. Russi, Director of the Division of Licensing, to Ira Chester, Chief of the Bureau of General Services. Mr. Russi indicated in the memorandum that the Intervenor would be awarded the lease. Attached to Mr. Russi's January 2, 1991, memorandum was a Lease Evaluation Worksheet which indicated the scores which had been awarded by the evaluation committee to the responsive bidders for each of the criteria to be considered in determining the winning bidder. Printed at the top-center of the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation was the following notice: FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 120.53(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES. . . . The January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation was posted at 1:00 p.m., January 2, 1991. Therefore, pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, any bidder desiring to contest the Respondent's proposed award of the lease was required to file a notice of protest with the Respondent no later than 1:00 p.m., January 5, 1991, and a formal written protest on or before January 15, 1991. T.C.S. filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest to the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation within the time periods prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. T.C.S. contested the Respondent's determination that it was not responsive. The Petitioner did not file a notice of protest or a formal written protest to the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation within the time periods prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, the Respondent reviewed the formal written protest filed by T.C.S. and agreed that T.C.S. was responsive. After agreeing that T.C.S. was responsive, the Respondent evaluated T.C.S.'s proposal and awarded points for each of the criteria to be considered. Toward the end of January, 1991, after deciding that T.C.S.'s proposal was to be evaluated, the Respondent notified all other bidders of its decision in a document titled Posting of Notice of Agency Decision. The Posting of Notice of Agency Decision was signed by the Respondent's General Counsel and was addressed to "All Responsive Bidders". The Posting of Notice of Agency Decision provided, in pertinent part: Notice is hereby given that the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, is reviewing the bid tabulation which was posted at 1:00 P.M., January 2, 1991 for Lease No. 450:0070. The revised bid tabulation will be posted at 8:00 A.M. on February 4, 1991 at the Purchasing Office of the Department of State . . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person interested in the new tabulation should contact . . . after the posting time listed above. The Petitioner filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the Posting of Notice of Agency Decision within the times prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The Respondent dismissed this formal written protest by final order dated February 22, 1991. On or about January 31, 1991, more than four weeks after the posting of the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, Ocie Allen spoke by telephone with Phyllis Slater, the Respondent's General Counsel. Ms. Slater told Mr. Allen that all proposals would be reevaluated as a result of T.C.S.'s protest. Mr. Allen was a lobbyist for the Petitioner in January, 1991. On February 4, 1991, the Respondent posted another standard form Bid Tabulation indicating that the following scores had been awarded to the following proposals: Proposal Score Crossland Agency 83 Woodcrest A 80 Woodcrest B 80 Tallahassee Associates 71 T.C.S. 71 DeVoe 51 The differences in the scores of the proposals which had been listed on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, which are reflected in the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation were caused by automatic changes in the scores resulting from the addition of T.C.S. and the fact that T.C.S. had the lowest priced bid. The points awarded for the "rental" criterion, which was worth up to 25 points, were determined by a mathematical formula by which the scores of each bidder are calculated based upon the proposed rental charges of all bidders. The award of points for this criterion was determined objectively based upon the mathematical formula. By adding another bidder, T.C.S., the points awarded to all the proposals automatically changed. The scores of the proposals which had been listed on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, were not otherwise changed. Nor were the proposals of any bidder reevaluated. The Respondent also posted a copy of a memorandum dated January 24, 1991, with the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The memorandum was from John M. Russi, Director of the Division of Licensing, to Ira Chester, Chief of the Bureau of General Services. Mr. Russi indicated the following in the memorandum: Pursuant to the settlement stipulation signed by Counsel for T.C.S. Associates on January 23, 1991, in reference to the Bid Protest filed January 11, 1991, the attached "Lease Evaluation Work Sheet" is provided for you to re-post. After reevaluating six bid proposals, the evaluating committee concludes that Crossland Agency should be awarded this bid. Each bidder needs to be notified by certified mail of this action. . . . . Attached to Mr. Russi's January 24, 1991, memorandum was a Lease Evaluation Worksheet which indicated the scores of the responsive bidders which had been awarded by the evaluation committee for each of the criteria to be considered in determining the winning bidder. On February 6, 1991, the Petitioner filed a notice of protest to the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest, Request for Formal Hearing and Motion for Stay with the Respondent on February 18, 1991. These documents were filed within the time periods specified in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's Formal Written Protest was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Respondent on February 28, 1991. Crossland Agency, Inc., was allowed to intervene in the proceeding. On March 1, 1991, the Respondent and Intervenor filed a Motion to Dismiss. A motion hearing was conducted on March 6, 1991, to consider the Motion to Dismiss.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Respondent granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this case, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3, 5 and 9. 2 12-13. 3 15-16 and 18-21. See 14. 15. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the scores of the bidders for the "option period" criterion reflected on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation were modified or reconsidered on the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The suggestion that "the department had discretion to change scores in any of the remaining eight categories" is a conclusion of law and is rejected. These proposed facts are not relevant to the issue raised in the Motion to Dismiss. Nor was any evidence presented to support these proposed findings. 12. The last sentence is a conclusion of law and is rejected. Proposed Findings of Fact of the Respondent and Intervenor Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 3 and 7. 5-6 and hereby accepted. 4 8-12. 5 See 14. 6 15 and 17. 18. The last sentence involves an issue not raised in the Motion to Dismiss or at the motion hearing. Nor was any evidence presented to support these proposed findings. See the Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire 1589 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Benjamin E. Poitevent Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 2nd day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 3, 1987, DOT advertised that it would receive bids on State Project No. 97870-334, etc. in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties to improve portions of the Florida Turnpike. On June 24, 1987, bids were received by DOT from Gilbert, State Paving and Archer Western Contractors. The apparent low bidder at bid opening on June 24, 1987, was Gilbert and State Paving was apparent second low bidder. DOT was informally advised by John Beck, an attorney representing State Paving, that Gilbert's bid was believed to be unbalanced and the appropriate officials referred the issue to the DOT Bureau of Estimates to look into the low bid to see if it was unbalanced to the detriment of the State. Review of the Gilbert bid began with an internal analysis of the bid prices in comparison to the DOT Estimate of the Work. All bid prices above or below a certain percent of the engineer's estimate of costs were prepared in a computer printout and those items were checked by the consultants on the project. Basically, the major items in the project, which comprises some 400 bid items, were broken down to 10 groupings and the bids for each item in these groups was prepared for the three bidders and tabulated in Exhibit 2. The DOT Technical Committee reviewed the bids and concluded there was no unbalancing in Gilbert's bid which was detrimental to the State. This recommendation was approved by the Awards Committee which had also been furnished the information in Exhibit 2 by the consulting engineer for the project. Based upon this information, the Awards Committee concluded that the awards should go to Gilbert as no unbalancing detrimental to the State was found. Specification made a part of all DOT bid proposals provide that DOT may reject an unbalanced bid. As a matter of policy, DOT only rejects unbalanced bids deemed contrary to the interests of the State. Bids may be unbalanced in numerous ways. One significant method is known as front loading where the bidder submits a high bid for the work to be done at the beginning of the project such as clearing and grubbing and low bids for the work done later in the project. If successful in getting the award, this bidder would have excess profits on the clearing and grubbing which could draw interest while the less profitable later work was being done. Another variant is to study the plans and specifications to see if the quantities listed in the bid proposal are accurately reflected in the plans and specifications. If not, those items for which the bid proposal shows more than the plans and specifications reasonably required can be bid low, and for those items by which the bid proposal shows less than actually will be required can be bid high. Since the contractor is paid by the units used, those excess units at a higher price would result in more profit for the contractor yet allow him to submit an overall lower bid. For example, if the bid proposal contains two similar items for which the request for proposal estimates 100 each will be required, and the bidder concludes that only 50 will be required at Site A and 150 at Site B, he submits a low bid for Site A and a high bid for Site B. If the fair price for these units is $10 each, and the bidder bids $5 per unit for Site A or $500, and $15 for Site B or $1500, the total bid price is $2000, but if the bidder only installs 50 at Site A he would be paid $250 and install $150 at Site B for which he would be paid $2250. His total compensation would be $2500. In competitively bid contracts, such as the instant project, contractors modify their prices by taking a calculated risk that certain items bid on will not need to be accomplished and submit a nominal bid of $1 or 1 cent for such an item. By definition, such a bid is unbalanced, but if the item so bid has to be provided, the contractor has to provide this service at the bid price. The only evidence submitted by Petitioner tending to show Gilbert's bid was unbalanced to the detriment of the State was testimony, objected to and sustained, that the plans and specifications showed more of certain units would be needed than the estimated quantities on the bid proposal, which constituted the basis for the bids submitted. Such evidence constitutes a challenge to the bid specifications and is untimely. Gilbert's witness who prepared the bid submitted by Gilbert adequately explained the basis for bids submitted by Gilbert on the challenged items. The document entitled "This is Not an Addendum," clearly states on its face that "an addendum may follow containing the following information." No bids are solicited thereby and for no item contained thereon is the State obligated to contract. This document was provided all bidders before bids were open and no unfair advantage to anyone or detriment to the State was shown. In a project containing some 400 bid items, many modifications of the contract during construction is required to cover unforeseen circumstances that arise. While it would be better to get competitive bids on every bit of work done on this project, in this imperfect world unforeseen items will appear. The document complained of attempts to alert the bidders to some anticipated work not foreseen when the bid proposal was prepared, but it is not a part of the bid solicitation.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation’s decision to reject all bids for Financial Project No. 209278-1-52-01 (J. Turner Butler Blvd.) a major interchange in Duval County, Florida, was exercised illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly or fraudulently.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 2004, the Department of Transportation advertised its Bid Solicitation Notice (BSN), for the JTB Project. H. W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) designed the JTB Project. Petitioner, Superior Construction, and Archer Western Contractors, LTD, submitted bids on May 26, 2004. Petitioner had the apparent low bid, and Superior had the second apparent low bid. On or about May 27, 2004, Robert Burleson, President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association (“FTBA”), contacted the State Construction Engineer, Ananth Prasad, P.E., and alerted him to potential issues regarding MOT phasing. (T. p. 876, lines 18-24; p. 880, lines 14, 15). Richard Ayers, of Superior Construction, called the Jacksonville Urban Office of the Department of Transportation, District 2, alerting the District to the concerns regarding the maintenance of traffic issues. Ayers had reviewed the bid and plans generally to assess its bid in light of the Petitioner's bid, and had discovered in the process MOT issues that he believed would add substantially to the costs and time required to construct the project. As a result of these calls, Robert Hansgen, P.E., District 2 Resident Engineer, was directed by someone within the Department to review the MOT plans. On June 1, 2004, Mr. Hansgen forwarded to Henry Haggerty and Al Moyle a memorandum outlining seven areas of MOT concern relating to the "constructability" and safety of the JTB project. On June 1, 2004, Hansgen's memorandum was forwarded to Mohammed Majboor, P.E., Design Consultant Engineer for the Department, who forwarded the memo to Lochner. Lochner reviewed its plans in light of the Hansgen memorandum and forwarded its response on June 3, 2004, to Hansgen, who reviewed the responses and added his comments. He e-mailed Henry Haggarty seven concerns he had with the MOT plans. On June 2, 2004, Allen Moyle, Jacksonville Construction Engineer, received Hansgen's and Lochner's responses regarding the MOT plans and determined that the project plans needed revisions because of safety issues. Moyle concluded that all the bids needed to be rejected in light of the MOT revisions. He transmitted a request to Cathy Thomas at the Department's headquarters to arrange a meeting with Lochner to commence revision of the plans at the earliest possible date. On June 8, 2004, Hansgen briefed the District 2 Secretary, Schroeder, and other District 2 staff members on the issues regarding maintenance of traffic issues based on his memo, a marked-up copy of the MOT sheets, and pictures. Rejection of all bids was discussed at this meeting. Mr. Hansgen testified at the formal hearing concerning his findings and his actions with the aid of the original memorandum and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Hansgen's concerns were about safety issues and included the reduction of traffic lane widths in areas to 11 feet where barrier walls would be erected on both the inside and outside medians where traffic would be traveling at 55 miles per hour. Another concern was the length of these lanes that would be restricted by concrete barriers. These barriers prevented easy access of emergency vehicles in these areas, which presented a significant hazard at this interchange, which accesses a major hospital complex. Mr. Hansgen’s also identified an inconsistency regarding where the contractor could work in an area close to the barrier wall; a portion of the roadway where a cross slope or tilting of the traveling lane created dangerous vehicle control issues; and plans to widen a portion of the roadway while vehicles traveled on the same portion of roadway which would require further narrowing of lanes. Because the State of Florida has one of the highest fatality records in the nation in work zones, the Department is very concerned about this issue. After the meeting on June 2, 2004, the Jacksonville Urban Office for District 2 recommended rejection to DOT in Tallahassee of all bids based on the need to “clarify uncertainties within the phasing of the maintenance of traffic (MOT) plans.” The recommendation of District 2 was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, which is comprised of six voting members. On June 9, 2004, the Technical Review Committee recommended rejection of all bids on the JTB Project to the Contract Awards Committee based upon MOT safety issues. The Contracts Award Committee, composed of three voting members, met on June 15, 2004, to consider the recommendations regarding the JTB Project of the Technical Review Committee and District 2. The Contracts Award Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee and District 2 and rejected all bids based upon MOT safety issues. The Department posted its notice of intent to reject all bids on June 17, 2004. The Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the Department’s rejection of all bids with a Formal Written Protest, filed on July 1, 2004, including an appropriate protest bond. The Department’s engineers met with engineers from H.W. Lochner, Inc., to discuss the issues of concern raised in the Hansgen memorandum. The Department commissioned Lochner to revise the plans to enhance the safety features for MOT, and certain other enhancements. Lochner and the Department entered into Supplement Agreement #13 that included both the requested enhancements and the changes to accommodate the concerns referenced in the Hansgen Memorandum. Richard Kelly testified regarding “animus,” and “dislike” displayed by employees of the Department. He pointed to past decisions and actions of Department employees as proof of “dislike” and “animus." These included a Letter of Concern to the Petitioner, on April 16, 2004, from the Department outlining five areas the Department had identified as important in making a determination on the pre-qualification of the Petitioner for bidding on Department contracts for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Also mentioned were disputed issues between the Department and the Petitioner arising during construction of the I-95/I295 Interchange Project, including Jacksonville ordinances on noise ordinance, and trees and deficiency letters from the Department to AMEC Civil. In addition, the disqualification of Morse Diesel, LLC, as the Petitioner was formerly named, from bidding on construction contracts with the State of Florida, and in 2002, the revocation of the pre-qualification of the Petitioner to bid on DOT projects were described. Ananth Prasad, P.E., who was identified by the Petitioner's witnesses as a primary source to opposition to the Petitioner, testified that he did not hold the position of State Construction Engineer in 2000, and was not involved in the decision to deny pre-qualification of Morse Diesel. Mr. Prasad also was not involved with the initial decision to revoke the pre-qualification of AMEC in 2002. Mr. Prasad does not personally hold a position on the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Prasad did not vote on the decision to recommend rejection of all bids on the JTB project. The decision to reject all bids for the JTB Project was made by the Contracts Award Committee based on recommendations from the Technical Review Committee, and District 2. The Department’s Contracts Award Committee exercised its statutory authority to reject all bids based on concerns regarding the MOT phasing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Formal Written Protest concerning the bid rejection for the project in this litigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 28th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Alan Cummings, Esquire S. Elysha Luken, Esquire Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Mike Piscitelli, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 305 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Calvin C. Johnson, Esquire C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether Intervenor's bid materially deviated from the project specifications and, if so, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the construction contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), Respondent Department of Management Services ("DMS") solicited bids on a project known as the ICARE Baypoint School Classroom Addition (the "Project").3 Bids were due on September 22, 2005. As a condition of submitting a bid, interested contractors needed first to be "prequalified" by DMS. DMS prequalified Petitioner Merkury Corporation ("Merkury") and Intervenor E.L.C.I. Construction Group, Inc., ("ELCI"), among several others. Each bidder was required to submit a "Base Bid" (i.e. the total price for all work, including labor and materials, specified in the ITB), together with a price for each of six numbered "Alternates."4 The contract would be awarded to the responsive bidder offering the lowest bid, the latter being defined as, generally speaking, the bid proposing the lowest aggregate price on the Base Bid plus the cost(s) of any Alternate(s) chosen by DMS.5 Of interest in this case is Alternate No. 1, which, in the ITB as originally issued, appeared as follows: Alternate No. 1 — Allowance for Owner [=DMS] contribution for buried feeder conduit to the electrical transformer (Owner will provide number). Alternate No. 1 referred to the work——described in the Electrical Site Plan (which was part of the ITB)——that would be necessary to bring electricity to the Project (hereafter, the "electric service connection"). In brief, establishing the electric service connection entailed installing the wiring between the electrical panel in the new building and the nearest transformer, which latter belonged to the local electric company, Florida Power & Light ("FP&L"). DMS knew that the Project would need power. Thus, Alternate No. 1 was not optional, as the nomenclature might suggest. But the cost of establishing the electric service connection would be largely dependent on factors exclusively within FP&L's control. And as of the time the ITB was issued, DMS had been unable to obtain from FP&L sufficient information to allow bidders accurately to estimate the cost of this particular item. The purpose of Alternate No. 1, therefore, was to make the electric service connection a non-competitive item. This would be accomplished by DMS's providing prospective bidders with a cost estimate based on information to be obtained from FP&L. DMS expected that each competing contractor would bid the same amount on Alternate No. 1, namely, the amount that DMS had provided. As initially defined, however, Alternate No. 1 was somewhat confusing, and at the pre-bid meeting in early September 2005, an issue was raised about DMS's intent regarding this item. As a result, Addendum No. 1 to the ITB, which was issued on September 8, 2005, to address questions raised at the pre-bid meeting, included the following: ADDENDUM NO. 1 — ITEM NO. 5: An allowance shall be carried for the cost of new service connection from new transformer to nearest FP & L point of service. Owner will provide budget number to be carried for this allowance. This addendum amended the description of Alternate No. 1, making clearer (it was believed) DMS's intent that the electric service connection not be a point of competition between the bidders, as each would carry, as an allowance, the Owner-provided budget number for this item. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, DMS never provided the interested contractors the budget number reflecting the estimated cost of establishing the electric service connection.6 Consequently, none of the bidders proposed a dollar figure for Alternate No. 1. Instead, each responded to Alternate No. 1 by stating, in effect, that the requested allowance could not be provided according to the specifications (which unambiguously instructed that DMS would provide the number to be carried for this allowance). To be sure, the bidders' respective responses to Alternate No. 1 were not identical. Merkury, for example, wrote "N/A," which is commonly understood to mean "not applicable." ELCI's bid proposal, on the other hand, stated, "By Owner." Merkury argues that the phrase "By Owner" means that DMS, rather than ELCI, should be responsible for establishing——at DMS's expense——the electric service connection. The undersigned rejects this interpretation of ELCI's bid as unpersuasive and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In the instant context, the phrase "By Owner" is most readily and reasonably understood, objectively, as being functionally the equivalent of "N/A." ELCI was simply expressing the idea that the budget number (not the work) would be provided by DMS——a reasonable response, given the language of Alternate No. 1. In sum, despite some differences in wording, every one of the responses to Alternate No. 1, including ELCI's, was the product of the bidder's inability, in the absence of the Owner-provided budget number, to carry as an allowance the Owner-provided budget number. Of the five contractors who timely submitted a bid proposal, Merkury's Base Bid of $2,874,597 was the lowest, followed closely by ELCI's Base Bid of $2,877,000. DMS decided to take all six Alternates, however, and after the additional costs were added, ELCI was deemed the lowest responsive bidder, Merkury the second lowest. Accordingly, on October 17, 2005, DMS announced its intent to accept ELCI's bid in toto and award ELCI the contract for the Project. Protesting the intended award, Merkury takes the position that DMS's failure to provide the budget number for Alternate No. 1 effectively rendered this item a nullity, compelling the bidders to include in their respective Base Bids the cost of the electric service connection, which work remained a part of the Project, by virtue of the bid specifications, notwithstanding the loss of Alternate No. 1. Consistent with this understanding of the effect of DMS's silence regarding the budget figure, Merkury took into account the anticipated cost of establishing the electric service connection when working up its Base Bid, ultimately adding $33,388 to the bottom line as a result. ELCI, in contrast, assuming that DMS eventually would provide the figure for the allowance, did not factor into its Base Bid calculation the cost of the electric service connection. ELCI guessed correctly, for in choosing Alternate No. 1, DMS decided that it would provide the successful bidder with the budget number when such became available and thereafter pay the cost of establishing the electric service connection via a change order. Merkury maintains that DMS should have rejected ELCI's bid as materially non-responsive (because the costs that were used in preparing ELCI's Base Bid did not include the cost of establishing the electric service connection) and awarded the contract to Merkury as the lowest responsive bidder. In light of Merkury's argument, it is relevant to note that the ITB called for the Base Bid to be given as a lump sum, without breaking out individual costs; that is, in fact, how each of the six responding contractors presented their respective Base Bids. Thus, there was no way for DMS to know, upon opening the bids, that Merkury's Base Bid included a cost component relating to the electric service connections, while ELCI's did not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered directing that the proposed award to ELCI be implemented in accordance with DMS's intentions. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 July, 2006.
