The Issue An administrative complaint dated September 13, 1993, alleges that Respondent, Donald Gross, conducted auctions without a proper license. The issue is whether that violation occurred, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Donald E. Gross received an auctioneer apprentice license #AE 0000117 in August 1991; the license became "involuntary inactive, delinquent" by August 1993 and remains in that status. In response to a complaint that Mr. Gross was conducting unlicensed auctions, Henry Rivera, an agency investigator since 1981, made a site visit on April 4, 1993. He found Mr. Gross at his address, 1950 W. Memorial Blvd., Lakeland, conducting an auction. Mr. Gross did not have a licensed auctioneer with him and did not claim that any was supervising him. Mr. Gross claimed instead that he was exempted from license requirements as he was affiliated with Universal Life Church in California. When Henry Rivera followed up his investigation with contacts to Church headquarters, he was informed by Andrew Hinsley in July 1993 that the Church had no record of Mr. Gross' affiliation and no record of any proceeds from auctions which he may have conducted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Auctioneering enter a final order finding that Donald E. Gross violated Section 468.385(2), F.S. and revoking his inactive apprentice license. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 13th day of December, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles E. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald E. Gross 1950 West Memorial Boulevard Lakeland, Florida 33801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Board of Auctioneers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against H. Ernest Morris, Sr. be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire P. O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carmine M. Bravo, Esquire 1450 State Road 434 Longwood, Florida 32750 Steven H. Coover, Esquire P. O. Drawer H Sanford, Florida 32771 Fred M. Roche, Secretary 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Harold R. Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0034049 DOAH NO. 83-3273 H. ERNEST MORRIS, SR. Respondent. /
The Issue Has Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. (Fancy Farms) made proper accounting to Petitioner Wayne Sullivan in accordance with Section 604.22(1), Florida Statutes, for agriculture products delivered to Fancy Farms from November 8, 1994, through December 10, 1994, by Wayne Sullivan to be handled by Fancy Farms as agent for Wayne Sullivan on a net return basis as defined in Section 604.15(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Wayne Sullivan was in the business of growing and selling "agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(3), Florida Statutes, and was a "producer" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Fancy Farms was licensed as a "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes, as evidenced by license number 8453 issued by the Department, supported by bond number 57 92 20 in the amount of $75,000, written by Gulf Insurance Company with an inception date of September 1, 1994, and an expiration date of August 31, 1995. From November 8, 1994, through December 10, 1994 Wayne Sullivan delivered certain quantities of an agricultural product (zucchini) to Fancy Farms. It is the accounting for these zucchini (zukes) that is in dispute. It was stipulated by the parties that Fancy Farms was acting as agent in the sale of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms for the account of Wayne Sullivan on a net return basis. There is no dispute as the quantity or size of the zukes delivered by Wayne Sullivan to Fancy Farms during the above period of time. Furthermore, there is no dispute as to the charges made by Fancy Farms for handling the zukes, including but not limited to the commission charged by Fancy Farms. The agreed upon commission was ten per cent (10 percent) of the price received by Fancy Farms from its customers. There is no evidence that Fancy Farms found any problem with the quality of the zukes delivered to Fancy Farms by Wayne Sullivan during the above period of time. Upon delivering the zukes to Fancy Farms, Sullivan was given a prenumbered delivery receipt ticket (delivery ticket) showing Wayne Sullivan as Grower number 116 and containing the following additional information: (a) date and time of delivery; (b) produce number, i.e., 37 indicating fancy zukes and 38 indicating medium zukes; (c) description of the produce, i.e., zukes, fancy; (d) a lot number containing number of delivery ticket, grower number and produce number, i.e. 2074-116-37 and; (e) the number of units of zukes received by Fancy Farm. The accounting for the zukes from the following delivery receipt ticket numbers is being contested in this proceeding: (a) 2127 dated November 8, 1994, lot nos. 2127-116-37 and 2127-116-38; (b) 22145 dated November 10, 1994, lot nos. 2145-116-37 and 2145-116-38; (c) 2181 dated November 15, 1994, lot nos. 2181-116-37 and 2181-116-38; (d) 2242 dated November 29, 1994, lot nos. 2242- 116-37 and 2242-116-38; (e) 2254 dated December 1, 1994, lot nos. 2254-116-37 and 2254-116-38; (f) 2289 dated December 7, 1994, lot nos. 2289-116-37 and 2289- 116-38 and; (g) 2313 dated December 10, 1994, lot nos. 2313-116-37 and 2313-116- 38. Once Fancy Farms found a customer for the zukes, Fancy Farms prepared a prenumbered billing invoice. Additionally, a bill of lading and load sheet was prepared and attached to the invoice. The bill of lading and load sheet would have the same number as the invoice. Basically, the invoice and bill of lading contained the customer's name and address, produce number, description of produce, number of units ordered, number of units shipped and the price per unit. The load sheet contains the customer's name, produce number, description of produce, units ordered, units shipped and the lot number for the units that made up the shipment. On numerous occasions Fancy Farms made adjustments to the selling price after the price had been quoted and accepted but before the invoice was prepared. Fancy Farms did not make any written notations in its records showing the adjustments to the price or the reasons for the adjustments to the price. Salvatore Toscano testified, and I find his testimony to be credible, that this usually occurred when there was a decrease in the market price after Fancy Farms made the original quote. Therefore, in order to keep the customer, Fancy Farms made an adjustment to the price. Sullivan was never made aware of these price adjustments. In accounting for the zukes delivered by Sullivan, Fancy Farms prepared a Grower Statement which included the delivery ticket number, the date of delivery, the lot number, grower number, produce number, description of the produce, quantity (number of units), price per unit and total due. Payment for the zukes was made to Wayne Sullivan from these statements by Fancy Farms. Sometimes payment may be for only one delivery ticket while at other times payment would be for several delivery tickets for different dates. A portion of Petitioner's composite exhibit 1 is the Florida Vegetable Report (Market Report), Volume XIV, Nos. 19, 21, 23, 31, 33, 37 and 40, dated October 28, 31, 1994, November 8, 10, 15, 29, 1994, and December 7, 12, 1994, respectively. The Market Report is a federal-state publication which reports the demand (moderate), market (steady), volume (units) sold and prices paid per unit for numerous vegetables, including zucchini, on a daily basis. The prices quoted for zucchini is for 1/2 and 5/9th bushel cartons and includes palletizing. The average cost for palletizing in the industry is 65 per carton. Fancy Farms receives and sells zukes in one-half (1/2) bushel cartons. Fancy Farms does not palletize the cartons for handling at its warehouse or for shipment. On November 8, 10, 15, 1994, Sullivan delivered a combined total of 130 units of fancy zukes and a combined total 206 units of medium zukes represented by delivery receipt ticket nos. 2127, 2145 and 218l, for a combined total of fancy and medium zukes of 336 units for which Fancy Farms paid Sullivan the sum of $1,171.00 as evidenced by the Grower Statement dated November 25, 1994. Forty eight units of fancy zukes represented by lot no. 2127-116-37 was billed out by Fancy Farms to P. H. Lucks, Inc. for $5.00 per unit. Without an explanation, Fancy Farms reduced the price to $2.50 per unit. However, Fancy Farms paid Sullivan $5.00 per unit for the 48 units of fancy zukes. Five units of medium zukes represented by lot no. 2145-116-38 were not accounted for by invoice. Thirty two units of fancy zukes represented by lot no. 2181-116-37 were not accounted for by invoice. Nineteen units of medium zukes represented by lot no. 2242-116-38 were not accounted for by invoice. Where there is no invoice the price quoted in the Market Report is used to calculate the amount due Sullivan. The amount due Sullivan from the Grower Statement dated November 25, 1994, is: Lot No. 2127-116-37: $5.00 per unit x 48 units (Invoice 3814) = $ 240.00 Lot No. 2127-116-38: $3.50 per unit x 45 units (Market Report) = $ 157.50 $3.50 per unit x 35 units (Invoice 3783) = $ 122.50 Lot No. 2145-116-37: $5.00 per unit x 12 units (Invoice 3818) = $ 60.00 $5.00 per unit x 38 units (Invoice 3822) = $ 190.00 Lot No. 2145-116-38: $3.00 per unit x 13 units (Invoice 3820) = $ 39.00 $3.00 per unit x 22 units (Invoice 3822) = $ 66.00 $3.00 per unit x 5 units (Market Report) = $ 15.00 Lot No. 2l81-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 32 units (Market Report) = $ 256.00 Lot No. 2181-116-38: $3.50 per unit x 86 units (Invoice 3778) = $ 301.00 Total owed to Sullivan = $1,447.00 Less: Amount paid Sullivan = $1,171.00 Ten per cent commission = 144.70 Net due Sullivan = 131.30 On November 29, 1994, Sullivan delivered 53 units of fancy zukes and 69 units of medium zukes as represented by delivery ticket no. 2242 for a combined total of 112 units for which Sullivan was paid $472.00 by Fancy Farms as represented by the Grower Statement dated December 7, 1994. The prices of $3.25 and $3.00 as indicated by invoice nos. 3941 and 3947, respectively are not indicative of the market for fancy zukes as established by the Market Report for December 1, 1994. The Market Report established an average price of $8.00 per unit for fancy zukes. Likewise, the price of $3.00 per unit for medium zukes as indicated by invoice no. 3927 is not indicative of the market for medium zukes as established by the Market Report for December 1, 1994. The Market Report established an average price of $6.00 per unit for medium zukes. The amount due Sullivan from the Grower Statement dated December 7, 1994, is: Lot no. 2242-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 53 units (Market Report) = $ 424.00 Lot no. 2242-116-38: $6.00 per unit x 69 units (Market Report) = $ 414.00 Total owed Sullivan = $ 838.00 Less: Amount paid Sullivan = $ 472.00 Ten Percent Commission = $ 83.80 Net due Sullivan = $ 282.20 On December 1, 7, 1994, Sullivan delivered a combined total of 51 units of fancy zukes and a combined total of 87 units of medium zukes for a combined total of 138 units of fancy and medium zukes represented by delivery ticket nos. 2254 and 2289 and was paid $516.00 for these zukes by Fancy Farms as represented by the Grower Statement dated December 15, 1994. There was no invoice for lot nos. 2254-116-37 or 2254-116-38. The Market Report established a market price of $8.00 and $6.00 per unit for fancy and medium zukes, respectively. The amount due Sullivan from the Growers Statement dated December 15, 1994, is: Lot No. 2254-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 39 units (Market Report) = $ 312.00 Lot No. 2254-116-38: $6.00 per unit x 20 units (Market Report) = $ 120.00 Lot No. 2289-116-37: $6.00 per unit x 12 units (Invoice 4049) = $ 72.00 Lot No. 2289-116-38: $3.50 per unit x 67 units (Invoice 3946) = $ 234.50 Total owed Sullivan = $ 738.50 Less: Amount paid Sullivan = $ 516.00 Ten Percent Commission = $ 73.85 Net due Sullivan = $ 148.65 On December 10, 1994, Sullivan delivered 27 units of fancy zukes and 18 units of medium zukes for a combined total of 45 units as represented by delivery ticket no. 2313 and was paid $211.50 for those zukes by Fancy Farms as represented by Growers Statement dated December 23, 1994. The 18 units of medium zukes represented by lot no. 2313-116-38 are not covered by an invoice. The Market Report established a unit price of $6.00 for the fancy zukes. Invoice no. 4075 billed the fancy zukes at zero without any explanation. Fancy Farms paid Sullivan $5.50 per unit for the fancy zukes. The Market Report established a per unit price of $8.00 for the fancy zukes which is more in line with the market than is the $5.50 per unit paid by Fancy Farms. The amount due Sullivan from the Grower Statement dated December 23, 1994, is: Lot No. 2313-116-38: $6.00 per unit x 18 units (Market Report) = $ 108.00 Lot No. 2313-116-37: $8.00 per unit x 27 units (Market Report) = $ 216.00 Total owed Sullivan = $ 324.00 Less: Ten percent commission = $ 32.40 Amount received by Sullivan = $ 211.50 Net due Sullivan = $ 80.10 The net amount owed to Sullivan by Fancy Farms: From Grower Statements dated: November 25, 1994 $ 131.30 December 7, 1994 $ 282.20 December 15, 1994 $ 148.65 December 23, 1994 $ 80.10 Total owed to Sullivan $ 642.25
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. be ordered to pay Petitioner Wayne Sullivan the sum of $642.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 28th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3015A The parties elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Wayne Sullivan 49 Myrtle Bush Lane Venus, Florida 33960 James A. Crocker Qualified Representative Fancy Farms Sales, Inc. 1305 W. Dr. M. L. King, Jr., Blvd. Plant City, Florida 33564-9006 Gulf Insurance Company Legal Department 4600 Fuller Drive Irving, Texas 75038-6506
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
Findings Of Fact As project architect under contract to HRS, Greenleaf/Telesca Planners, Engineers, Architects, Inc. (Greenleaf) prepared a project manual (manual). The manual invited contractors to bid on a contract for construction of the forensic services building at the South Florida State Hospital in Pembroke Pines, Florida, project No. HRS-0278. The manual contained specifications for a base contract covering construction of the building itself, and for four alternate additive bids, covering various equipment and furnishings. The first alternate called for installation of mess hall tables and seats. For the first alternate, the manual specified tables and seats manufactured by Folger Adam Company, their model number 522, or "upon prior approval" the equivalent. From the floor plan it is clear that 24 tables and corresponding seats would be required. The language of the manual describing alternate No. 1 presents no particular ambiguity or difficulty. The Folger Adam Company is well known in the construction business. Harold Wayne Blackwell, petitioner's president, used the manual in preparing Blackwell's bid for the contract. Blackwell bid on the base contract and on each of the four alternates. There are seven or eight contract hardware suppliers in Dade and Broward Counties, all of whom have access to Folger Adam Company products. Folger Adam Company does not have exclusive distributors. To determine the price of the tables, Mr. Blackwell telephoned several contract hardware suppliers, including Christensen Hardware Services, Inc. (Christensen). Christensen quoted Blackwell a price of ten thousand eight hundred dollars ($10,800.00) for twenty-four sets of Folger Adam model number 522 tables and seats. Blackwell submitted a bid of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00) on alternate No. 1. Forsythe bid on the base bid but did not bid on alternate No. 1, because Forsythe failed to obtain a quote on the tables and seats, before preparing its bid. Richard B. Solomon, Greenleaf's project manager for the forensic services building, opened the bids on March 20, 1979. As tabulated by Greenleaf, the bids were: Base Bid Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 Alt. No. 3 Alt. No. 4 M.D. Forsythe Construction Co. $375,000 $ --- $50,842 $27,220 $33,020 Porfiri Construction Co. 406,200 7,000 45,534 25,315 44,130 Wayne Blackwell and Co., Inc. 397,735 11,000 47,000 25,000 35,000 Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. 405,000 14,900 52,000 28,300 47,650 McKee Construction Co. 407,000 --- 45,000 28,000 --- L.G.H. Construction Corp. 524,176 18,014 43,464 24,712 35,048 Creswell Construction Co. 394,000 41,000 43,000 23,000 33,000 Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. On the base bid, Forsythe was lowest, Creswell Construction Company next lowest, and Blackwell third lowest. Among contractors who bid on the base bid and all alternates, Blackwell's combined bids were lowest for the base bid plus alternate No. 1, the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1 and 2, the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Solomon was aware of two telephone calls received by Greenleaf during the time for preparation of the bids, inquiring about the price of the tables and seats. In examining the bids, he noticed that two contractors had not bid on alternate No. 1, and that the base bids as well as the bids on alternates Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were "pretty tight" as compared to the range of bids on alternate No. 1. From looking at the bids on alternate No. 1, it was hard for Mr. Solomon to tell what a reasonable price for the tables and seats was. Mr. Solomon recommended to HRS that the bids on alternate No. 1 be thrown out. Charles Robert Yates, an architect employed by HRS, concurred in Mr. Solomon's recommendation. He was under the impression that funding for the project would not be available unless the contract was let before April 1, 1979. Mr. Yates could not recall such diversity among bids in his thirty-year career, yet he had no difficulty learning what the tables and chairs cost when he called architectural firms to find out. After the bids were opened, Blackwell promptly protested Forsythe's bid. Under the heading of alternates, the manual states: If the Base Bid is within the amount of funds available to finance the construction contract and the Owner wishes to accept alternate additive bids, then contract award will be made to that responsible Bidder submitting the low combined bid, consisting of the Base Bid plus alternate additive bids (applied in the numerical order in which they are listed in the Bid Form). Petitioner's exhibit No. 1, Paragraph B-9, Alternates. HRS wrote Blackwell on April 3, 1979, denying Blackwell's protest and stating, as reasons: M.D. Forsythe Construction Co., Inc. did not ignore Alternate No. 1, but completed that section of their bid by stating "No bids received on this item." Proposals for Alternate No. 1 ran the gamut for "No Bid" to prices extending from $7,000 to $41,000. The Department holds, as concurred in by the attached letter from our consultants, that there was confusion in the marketplace regarding the intent of Alternate No. 1, as attested to by the disparity among the proposals, and therefore we choose not to consider Alternate No. 1. Provisions for this deletion include Sections B-17, B-22 and B-24 of the Contract Documents. Petitioner's exhibit No. 3. HRS then awarded the base contract and additive alternates Nos. 2 and 3 to Forsythe, and gave orders to proceed with construction on May 7, 1979. After construction began, Mr. Solomon wrote Forsythe to inquire what Forsythe would charge to install the tables and seats called for by additive alternate No. 1. Forsythe eventually agreed to do it for eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00), after first quoting a higher price. On August 1, 1979, Greenleaf prepared a change order at HRS' behest, directing Forsythe to install the tables and seats originally called for by additive alternate No. 1, at a price of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00). Other provisions of the manual relied on by the parties include the following: B-17 PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF BIDS Each Bidder shall copy the Proposal Form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for alternates on which he bids. Any erasure or other correction in the proposal may be explained or noted over the signature of the Bidder. Proposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternations, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDS Any or all proposals will be rejected if there is reason to believe that collusion exists among the Bidders and no participants in such collusion will be considered in future proposals for the same work. Proposals in which the prices obviously are unbalanced will be rejected. Falsification of any entry made on the Contractor's bid proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds, at the Owner's option, for rejection. REJECTION OF BIDS The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the proposal of a Bidder who is not in position to perform the contract. AWARD OF CONTRACT The contract will be awarded as soon as possible to the lowest qualified Bidder provided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The lowest bidder will be determined by adding to the Base Bid such alternates, in numerical order, as available capital funds will allow. The Agreement will only be entered into with responsible contractors, found to be satisfactory by the Owner, qualified by experience, and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each Bidder shall, if so requested by the Owner, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications, and ability to carry out the terms of the contract, including a financial statement. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. At no time did Forsythe attempt to influence the award of the contract improperly. At the time of the final hearing, the project was approximately 95 percent complete.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That, in the future, HRS adhere to the letter of language like that contained in paragraph B-9 of the manual whenever such language is used in an invitation for bids. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis L. LaFontisee, Jr., Esquire 200 South East First Street, Suite 802 Miami, Florida 33131 Leonard Helfand, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard Morgentaler, Esquire 1600 North East Miami Gardens Drive North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 =================================================================
The Issue As described in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation Petitioners are challenging the Respondent's (SJRWMD) solicitation process with regard to the "Invitation to submit an Offer to Purchase property known as the Zellwin Airstrip." Petitioners seek to set aside the award of purchase to Intervenors and to have the solicitation process re-advertised. The issue for resolution is whether Petitioners are entitled to that relief.
Findings Of Fact In 1996 the Florida Legislature mandated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) attempt to purchase farms on the north shore of Lake Apopka as part of a long-term restoration and reclamation project. Petitioners, Rex Shepherd and Dale Harper, are pilots and owners of an aerial advertising business, American Outdoor Aerial Advertising. In early 1998 the business was operating out of Crakes field, a small airstrip owned by Kent Crakes as part of Crakes' North Lake Apopka farm. Petitioners' business owned airplanes and banners which it flew for its advertising clients such as Sears and GEICO. Sometime in early 1998 it became obvious that Petitioners would need to move their operation to another field. There were break-ins at the hanger, and the airstrip was beginning to flood as a result of the reclamation project. Kent Crakes referred Rex Shepherd to Leonard Freeman, the individual with SJRWMD who was involved with land acquisition in the area. Around March or early April 1998 Petitioners commenced discussions with Mr. Freeman regarding their use of the farm airstrip at Zellwin Farms, also part of the SJRWMD Lake Apopka farms acquisition program. Mr. Freeman was the SJRWMD point of contact for the Zellwin Farms acquisition. By early 1998, the property was already under contract and was scheduled to close some time around June 1998. Mr. Freeman and the Petitioners met at the Zellwin Farms airstrip in June 1998, and Petitioners determined the property would be suitable for their operation. Eager to accommodate Petitioners because of their predicament and also in anticipation of the SJRWMD's eventual sale of the Zellwin parcel, Mr. Freeman gave permission for Petitioners to store their equipment on the site and gave them a key. Because Zellwin Farms was beyond what SJRWMD considered to be the lake's historic shoreline, the SJRWMD knew that it would need to dispose of its 1400 acres as surplus, in whole or part. Mr. Freeman's desire was to find a way to dispose of the property as the best thing for the SJRWMD. Thus, because of the Petitioners' immediate interest in relocating their business, Mr. Freeman began negotiating with them for their purchase of the airstrip and related buildings. In September 1998, Mr. Freeman met again with Petitioners at the airstrip and discussed a specific proposal. Petitioners talked about offering $250,000 under a lease-purchase arrangement, and sent a letter dated September 10, 1998, to Mr. Freeman with that offer. Mr. Freeman later suggested that since the appraised value was $275,000, an offer in that amount would be easier to get approved. Mr. Freeman did not have the authority to obligate the SJRWMD to sell the property and Petitioners understood that. Still, Petitioners felt they were negotiating in good faith with staff who could make a strong recommendation to the board. Petitioners believed in early October that they had a hand-shake deal subject to further discussions regarding specific terms. They knew that a competitive solicitation might be an option for the SJRWMD but they also believed that they would be given an opportunity to meet another third party's offer. This belief was based not on some specific agreement for a "right of first refusal," but rather on Mr. Freeman's good-natured assurances that they would work it all out. Mr. Freeman requested that the SJRWMD special counsel develop a draft contract based on Petitioners' offer. The offer would then need to be signed by Petitioners and approved by Mr. Freeman's supervisor before going to the SJRWMD governing board. The counsel never finished the draft and it was never given to Mr. Freeman or the Petitioners. By the end of October 1998, Robert Christianson, Mr. Freeman's supervisor and director of the SJRWMD Department of Operations and Land Resources, learned that Petitioners were flying in and out of the Zellwin airstrip and using it for their business base of operations. This activity was beyond the storage permission that Mr. Freeman had granted. (Even that permission was beyond his individual authority.) Mr. Freeman and Mr. Christianson met with Petitioners on October 27, 1998, to work out a license agreement for their use of the airstrip. Such an agreement was necessary to protect the parties' respective interests and to cover the SJRWMD for any liability in the landlord/tenant relationship. The result of that meeting was a written license agreement for Petitioners to use, maintain, and provide protection for the property for a period from October 30, 1998, to April 30, 1999, subject to revocation with advance notice. Petitioners used the airstrip property under that agreement and made improvements, mostly cleaning up the facility so it could be used. At the October meeting it became obvious to Petitioners that the informal negotiations for their purchase were terminated and that the SJRWMD was going to solicit competitive offers for the purchase. This concerned the Petitioners and they felt let- down by Mr. Freeman. Still, they concentrated on getting the license agreement worked out. Rex Shepherd's account of the October meeting was that Mr. Christianson was very clear about the fact that the SJRWMD had to go for competitive bid, that they were bound by a board and rules and regulations even though both he and Mr. Freeman would like for Petitioners to have the airport, and that they should be able to work it out. At the end of the meeting, and as they were leaving the trailer, Mr. Shepherd commented to Mr. Freeman that he really did not want to lose the airport and wanted to be apprised of what was going on so that if there were a higher bid, he could have the opportunity to match it, or if it were too high, that they would have 30 or 60 days to vacate the property. According to Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Freeman simply responded, "We'll work all that out, don't worry about it." On November 11, 1998, the SJRWMD governing board voted to surplus the Zellwin Farms property with direction to the staff that the sale be widely advertised in the aviation community and not be a sole source deal. Consistent with the board's direction and pursuant to Section 373.089(3), Florida Statutes, the SJRWMD advertised a "Notice of Intention to Sell" the airstrip property in the Orlando Sentinel for three consecutive weeks, November 9, 16, and 23, 1998. The notice identifies the airstrip property as an "Approximately 47-acre agricultural airport facility, 2,200'? square feet asphalt runway, 5,250 ? square feet metal hanger, 2,048 ? storage square feet building, well and septic tank at a location of northwest Orange County, Florida, Sections 20 and 29, T-20-S, R-27-E, on Jones Avenue, 1 ? mile west of U.S. Highway 441, Zellwood." The Notice of Intention to Sell states that "[a]ll interested persons are invited to submit an offer to the District for purchase of said lands. Contact the District . . . and request an Airport Sales Package." Both the Airport Sales Package and the Notice of Intention to Sell state that the airport property will be sold for the highest price obtainable. The sales package states that full cash offers to be paid at closing will be given first consideration and that 10 percent of the purchase price must be paid when the offeror was notified that it was successful. The sales package also states that any person adversely affected by an offer solicitation shall file a Notice of Protest, in writing, prior to the date on which the offers are to be received, and shall file a formal written protest within ten (10) days after filing the Notice of protest pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-1.801. * * * Failure to timely file a notice of protest or failure to timely file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (SJRWMD Ex. 3). Both the Notice of Intention to Sell and the sales package require that sealed "offers for purchase" be submitted to the SJRWMD prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 1998, the advertised time for opening of the offers. Nothing in the Notice or sales package reserves a right of first refusal for any person. Instead, both plainly state "no offer will be accepted after the date and hour specified for submittal of offers." (SJRWMD Exhibits 1 and 3) Although Petitioners did not see the newspaper notice, they had knowledge that the SJRWMD advertised the sale of the airstrip property through a competitive solicitation process in the newspaper. They had been clearly informed of need for the competitive process by Mr. Christianson at the October meeting and they were present when a pre-solicitation meeting/inspection took place at the airstrip in November prior to the offers being accepted by the SJRWMD. Intervenors requested a sales package from the SJRWMD on November 30, 1998, and December 2, 1998. Petitioners requested and received a sales package prior to the opening of the offers to purchase. The sales packages were not available to the public until December 2, 1998, the same day Petitioners received their package. Mr. Freeman told Petitioners they needed to submit their bid. Although the sales package stated that facsimile offers would not be accepted by the SJRWMD, Leonard Freeman informed Petitioners that they could fax their Offer to Purchase. The SJRWMD did accept a facsimile offer to purchase from Petitioners on December 4, 1998, at 1:07 p.m. Offers to purchase were opened by the SJRWMD at 2:10 p.m. on December 4, 1998. Petitioners submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $275,000, where Petitioners would pay $1,500.00 per month for 60 months ($90,000 with $72,000 applied toward principal) with a balance of $203,000 cash to be paid at the end of the 60-month term. Intervenors submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $310,000, where Intervenors would put 10 percent down ($31,000 earnest money deposit) at award of Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the balance of $279,000 cash would be paid at closing on or before May 1, 1999. Petitioners' offer to purchase was not the highest offer; it did not provide for cash at closing; and it did not meet the requirement of 10 percent to be paid upon notification. Staff recommended to the SJRWMD board that it award the purchase of the airstrip property to the highest offeror, Intervenors. The governing board approved staff's recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 1998. On December 9, 1998, Petitioners filed a Notice of Protest. On December 18, 1998, Petitioners filed a copy of their Formal Bid Protest with the SJRWMD. Petitioners never grasped the implications of the competitive solicitation process until after the offers were opened and the award was made to Intervenors. Even if Petitioners had seen the newspaper notice and had received the sales package sooner, they still would not have protested because they understood that their "agreement" was outside of the process. That is, they mistakenly perceived that after the offers were in they could negotiate further to exceed the high offer. Chagrined, and genuinely regretful of the misunderstanding, Mr. Freeman had to tell Petitioners that further negotiations were foreclosed after the offers were opened. Mr. Freeman's earlier assurances to Petitioners were the result of an excess of bonhomie rather than any deception. He wanted them to have the airport and he wanted to work out the sale of surplus property. Petitioners were aware that he did not have the authority to bind his agency to an agreement. Mr. Freeman never specifically told Petitioners they had a right of first refusal; they wanted that advantage and surmised agreement from Mr. Freeman's and Mr. Christianson's vague counsel to not worry and that it would all be worked out. The SJRWMD devised a competitive process for disposition of the Zellwin airstrip that was consistent with its statute and with the direction of its governing board. Intervenors responded with an offer that met all the published requirements. Petitioners did not, and any culpability of SJRWMD's staff for Petitioners' misunderstanding is not so egregious as to require that the process begin again. Petitioners occupied the property, used it, and made improvements to enhance their use. This, however, was in reliance on their license to use the property and not on some certainty that they would ultimately be able to own the property. As Petitioners testified at hearing, they were disappointed that the SJRWMD decided to solicit competitive proposals; they knew that it was possible someone would offer more than they could match. (Harper, Transcript pages 117-120).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the SJRWMD enter its final order denying Petitioners' request to reject all bids and re-advertise the sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 John W. Williams, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham And Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Stanley Dollen 1230 Kelso Boulevard Windermere, Florida 34786 Herbert Clark 5416 Trimble Park Road Mt. Dora, Florida 32757
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1989, the District Board of Trustees, Okaloosa-Walton Community College, issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for Phase I Construction of the OWCC-WUF Joint Use Campus. The total project was estimated to cost about $5,000,000.00. The funds for the project would come in large part from the Public Education Capital Outlay Funds appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget and to a limited extent from the college's renovation fund. Up to the time of hearing, the legislature had appropriated $3,000,000.00 for the project. The college's renovation fund contained approximately $70,000.00. The board hopes that the additional funding needed for the project (approximately $2,000,000.00) will be appropriated by the legislature this summer. However, until the additional funds are appropriated, the Board, by statute, is prohibited from contracting for projects in excess of the amount of money which has been appropriated for such projects. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. Michael Richardson, of Bullock-Tice Associates Architects, Inc., was the architectural project manager. Each bidder was asked to provide a base bid and a separate bid on each of ten alternatives. Eight bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. All eight bids were rejected. The bids were rejected because all eight bids for the base bid without the addition of any alternates exceeded the funds available for the project. The Board decided to rebid the project. The second ITB was issued on March 26, 1990. The second ITB was restructured in an effort to obtain a base bid within the amount of money which had been appropriated for the project. Alternates could then be added to the base bid until the funds ran out. Specifically, the project was revised to provide for a base bid and separate bids on six alternates. The base bid essentially provided for construction of a classroom (Building No. 3) and a utility plant. Alternates 1 and 2 provided for outside civil, electrical, and landscaping work related principally to the buildings covered by the base bid. Alternates 3 and 4 related principally to the construction of two additional buildings and landscaping related to those buildings. Alternates 1-4 added work to the project. Alternates 5 and 6 deleted certain work from the project. Paragraph 1A of the Instructions to Bidders required that: To receive full consideration, all bids must be executed and submitted in strict accordance with the "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS. Paragraphs 7C and 7D of the Instructions to Bidders required that: Unit Prices: Each bidder shall state in the schedule provided on the Form of Proposal the amount he proposes for each applicable Unit Price requested. Unit price amounts shall include all costs of material, labor, equipment, insurance, bonds, taxes, overhead and profit and shall be used for determining amounts to be paid for all additional work on the project. Credits for any work omitted shall be determined by Unit Price at the amount scheduled. The Owner reserves the right to reject any Unit Price if considered excessive or unreasonable, or to accept any and all such Unit Prices which may be considered fair and reasonable. Alternates: In order that the Owner may discern an alternative use or type of material, or an increase or decrease in the scope of the Project, such items will be defined as Alternates and will be specifically described by the Drawings and/or Specifications. Alternates will be listed in the Form of Proposal in such a manner that the bidder will be able to clearly indicate the sums that will be added to or deducted from the Base Bid. Alternates shall include all costs of materials, taxes, bonds, handling, overhead, and profits and the acceptance of any alternate shall be in strict accordance with applicable Specification Sections. At some point after the initial bid instructions were sent out, and prior to the bid opening, the project architect drafted and sent to bidders a document entitled "Clarification to All Bidders." This document stated: It is the intention of the Owner to award all add Alternates upon receipt of additional funding this Summer. Due to this circumstance, the determination of Low Bidder will most likely be based upon the Base Bid plus Alternate 1 through 4 and 5 & 6 if so desired. This procedure is in accordance with rules of the Florida State Board of Education for Educational Facilities. (emphasis supplied) No bidder challenged the clarification's inclusion in the specifications for the project. Bidders generally interpreted this "Clarification" to mean that the Board of Trustees intended to award a contract for the total project, and thus would make its determination of low bid based on the total sum of the bids for base bid and alternates 1-4. However, bidders were not uniform in their application of that language to developing their specific bids and were not uniform in their interpretation of whether the Board's method of award of the bid as set out in the clarification was guaranteed by the clarification's language. In other words, some bidders realized that the use of the words "most likely" in the clarification meant exactly what it said and was not a guarantee that the project would be awarded according to the method established in the clarification. Petitioner, on the other hand, at its peril ignored the words "most likely" and altered its normal method of calculating its bid. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the clarification's issuance and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the clarification. All bidders received the clarification and reacted to it in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. Six bids were received on the second ITB, including Jack Moore & Company, Inc. and Sharpe, Inc. The bids on the base bid and the various alternates were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID TOTAL SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 Under the method of determining low bidder set out in the clarification, Jack Moore & Company was the low bidder. However, the Petitioner's bid, as well as all other bidders' bids, exceeded the amount of money that the Board had on hand for construction of the project. Therefore, the Board of Trustees felt that it could not award the contract according to the method set out in the clarification and examined the bids to determine the amount of construction which could be accomplished for the amount of money it had on hand ($3,000,000.00 from the legislature and $70,000.00 from the renovation fund). By using only the $3,000,000.00 from the legislature, Opus South would have been the low bidder on the base bid. However, by adding approximately $25,000.00 from the renovation fund, the college had enough money to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Money for alternates 3 and 4 was not available. The Board decided to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Sharpe, Inc. was the low bidder on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board awarded the contract to Sharpe. Petitioner was approximately $100,000 over the amount bid by Sharpe on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board's reasoning was not arbitrary or capricious in the award of the bid to Sharpe. Since the language of the clarification was not binding on the Board, the method used by the Board was within the specifications. Finally, there was no substantial evidence of fraud or collusion on the part of the Board in its award of the bid to Sharpe and no evidence was submitted that Sharpe was not responsive to the ITB. In fact, all the bidders responded to the exact same specifications, thereby affording the Board an exact comparison between the various bids submitted to it for the project. The only difference in the bids was in how each individual bidder calculated its bid to arrive at it's price. Such differences occur in all bid situations and do not serve to lessen the exact comparison of the bids on the specifications. Therefore, Sharpe, having presented the lowest and best bid, should be awarded the contract on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Sharpe, Inc., submitted the lowest and best bid and awarding the bid on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2 to Sharpe, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed August 30, 1990, and assigned DOAH Case No. 90-6107, Respondent alleged that Petitioner, as a licensed auction business, accepted the consignment of property from Ms. Erma Grant in April, 1988. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to provide Ms. Grant a written agreement evidencing the consignment, as required by Section 468.388 for consignments involving property whose estimated value is over $500. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to pay Ms. Grant the auction proceeds within 30 days of the auction. Based on the factual allegations set forth above, the Administrative Complaint charges that Petitioner violated Section 468.389(1)(j), which prohibits a violation of any statute, through the violation of Section 468.388 by failing to obtain a written consignment agreement; Section 468.389(1)(c), which prohibits the failure to account for or to pay, within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days, money belonging to another which has come into the control of an auctioneer or auction business through an auction; and Section 468.389(1)(e), which prohibits conduct in connection with a sales transaction which demonstrates bad faith or dishonesty. Based on the alleged violations set forth above,the Administrative Complaint requests the Board of Auctioneers to enter a final order revoking or suspending Petitioner's license, imposing an administrative fine, issuing a reprimand, placing Petitioner on probation, and awarding other appropriate relief. Respondent predicated its allegations largely on a complaint that it received from Ms. Grant. By letter dated April 23, 1990, Ms. Grant recounted that she had advertised a moving sale in March or April, 1988. She reported that Petitioner contacted her and asked that she let him take everything to sell at an auction. Following the sale, she stated that she called Petitioner and consigned to him several items, including a davenport, china cabinet, a still- life picture, and two padded chairs. Ms. Grant charged in her letter that she did not hear from Petitioner following the consignment. Residing in Vermont, she returned to Florida in November, 1988, and immediately contacted Petitioner. She charged that Petitioner explained that he did not have the money, but thought that he had sent her a check. He reportedly promised to examine his records. Ms. Grant letter states that Ms. Grant returned to see Petitioner on March 6, 1989. The letter reads: "[Petitioner] had already told a cousin of mine that he had sent a check to me for $227. Some of my boys must have cashed it on me." It is unclear to whose "boys" the letter refers. Ms. Grant continued to pressure Petitioner for payment, according to the April 23 letter, but Petitioner refused to pay or show herrecords that he had already sent a check. Ms. Grant alleged that on April 11, 1989, Petitioner offered her $100. About a week later, Petitioner told her that he would be sending her a check for $50 and allegedly admitted that he had no copy of any prior check. Ms. Grant, who was 75 years old at the time and had recently been in poor health, ended her letter with a request for assistance and provided Respondent with her address in Vermont, to which she was returning in the next few days. Respondent opened a formal investigation shortly after receiving Ms. Grant's complaint. On June 4, 1990, Respondent's investigator contacted Ms. Grant, who stated that she had still not received anything from Petitioner. The following day, the investigator contacted Petitioner, who said that he could not remember accepting any property from Ms. Grant on consignment. They set up an appointment for June 6. On June 6, Ms. Grant telephoned the investigator and informed him that a friend of hers in Cocoa, Mr. Alcide Quesnel, had received a call from Petitioner, who offered him the sum of $200 to send to Ms. Grant. The investigator contacted Mr. Quesnel on the same day, and he confirmed that he had received from Petitioner the sum of $200 the prior evening to send to Ms. Grant. Mr. Quesnel explained that he had introduced Ms. Grant to Petitioner. Mr. Quesnel later tried to change his story by telling the investigator that Petitioner did not give him themoney. Instead, someone unknown to him put the money in his pocket and he assumed that it was for Ms. Grant because he had known that she and Petitioner had been having some problems. By letter dated June 9, 1990, Ms. Grant provided Respondent's investigator with a copy of the $200 check that she had received from Mr. Quesnel. She added that Mr. Quesnel had telephoned her on the evening of June 5 and informed her that Petitioner had given him the $200, she was to call the investigator and tell him that she had received the money, and Petitioner did not want a receipt. In addition to the interviews of Ms. Grant, Petitioner, and Mr. Quesnel, the investigator received an affidavit from Ms. Grant's sister, who swore that she witnessed Petitioner pick up the furniture from Ms. Grant's house in April, 1988. By internal memorandum dated December 31, 1990, a law clerk of Respondent advised the attorney handling DOAH Case No. 90-6107 that she did not believe that Respondent could prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was guilty of any violations of Chapter 468. Respondent served the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal the same day. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Respondent is a state agency and initiated the underlying case giving rise to the present claim for attorneys' fees; Petitioner is a prevailing small business party; and the attorneys's fees and costs are reasonable as to those expended in connection with theunderlying case. The fees in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107 are $1920. There is no indication that Petitioner incurred any costs in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107.
Findings Of Fact On May 3, 1996, the DEPARTMENT issued an Invitation to Bid, Bid Number 9596-RDC-011, titled "Bagged Snacks and Snack Crackers." The snacks were to be resold in the inmate canteens located throughout the DEPARTMENT's Region 2 facilities. The effective date of the awarded contract was from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. Inmate canteens are small grocery stores located in prison facilities that are operated for the convenience of the general prison population. The Invitation to Bid (ITB) contained eighteen different bagged snacks and snack crackers including, BBQ corn chips, pork rinds, potato chips, pretzels, tortilla chips, beef jerky products, peanuts, popcorn, and crackers. While the ITB was not brand name specific, it did contain specific size and flavor requirements. In addition, the ITB required price quotations and samples for each of the eighteen products. Except for Item 7, the ITB stated a weight that each product bid must meet or exceed. The product bid may weigh more than the amount stated in the ITB, but a product that weighs less is deemed non-responsive. Bid packages were sent to 28 vendors, and the DEPARTMENT received four bids. Bids were submitted by WISE, JOE WALKER, MAGIC, AND STEWART DISTRIBUTION. The remaining 24 vendors did not respond to the ITB. No protest challenging the terms and conditions of the ITB were filed. On May 29, 1996, the bids were opened, and MAGIC submitted the lowest bid at $673,564.97. WISE submitted the second lowest bid at $757,608.98. WALKER submitted a bid of $1,146,196.81 and STEWART submitted a bid of $1,417,208.42. Subsequently, on June 3, 1996, the DEPARTMENT disqualified MAGIC as unresponsive because it did not bid items as specified and because it did not provide samples for all the items that were bid. As a result of MAGIC's non-responsive bid, the DEPARTMENT issued an intent to award the bid to WISE. On June 14, 1996, MAGIC timely filed a protest to the award of the contract, asserting (1) that it submitted the lowest bid, (2) that it complied with the material requirements of the bid, (3) that any deviation was minor, and (4) that the award of the bid to WISE was arbitrary, capricious or illegal. The DEPARTMENT and WISE raised a series of arguments countering the allegations raised by MAGIC. Specifically, the DEPARTMENT and WISE asserted that MAGIC violated the terms of the ITB by not providing and marking samples, by failing to bid on certain products contained in the ITB, and by failing to meet the weight and size specifications of the ITB. In short, the DEPARTMENT and WISE asserted that MAGIC's bid was nonresponsive. The first issue raised by the DEPARTMENT and WISE related to samples of snacks provided by MAGIC. The DEPARTMENT and WISE asserted that the MAGIC proposal was unresponsive to the ITB because it did not provide a sample of every snack included within the ITB and that it failed to label the samples provided to the DEPARTMENT. On this issue, section 12 of the Special Conditions of the ITB provides that: On or before the scheduled bid opening date, the bidder shall forward, and/or otherwise cause to be delivered one (1) sample of each item to be considered to Regional Distribution Center, Region.... The section further provides: All samples must be marked with bidder's name, group number, item number, and bid number. Items not so marked may be disqualified. [Failure to submit all required samples shall be grounds for disqualification.] [emphasis provided]. MAGIC failed to meet the first requirement of section 12 of the Special Conditions of the ITB by failing to provide samples of each item bid. The testimony of DEPARTMENT personnel indicated that WISE presented its samples in an unsealed box. The testimony further indicated that the box was placed in a secure facility prior the opening and evaluation of the contents of the box. 4/ While MAGIC offered testimony that it did provide samples for all the snack products, the testimony was inconsistent and did not have the same reliability as the testimony of the DEPARTMENT'S personnel. Specifically, DEPARTMENT personnel Jesse Mosley and Carla Harris offered credible testimony that supports the finding that they properly reviewed samples from MAGIC, that they inventoried the samples, and that they discovered that some of the samples were missing. Failure to provide samples, alone, was grounds for the DEPARTMENT's disqualification of MAGIC. In addition to failing to provide adequate samples, MAGIC violated the second requirement of section 12 of the ITB by failing to properly mark its samples. A review of the samples submitted by MAGIC indicates that MAGIC failed to label any of its samples. 5/ Because MAGIC did not label its products, the DEPARTMENT was forced to guess as to which products corresponded with the list of products contained in the ITB. 6/ The absence of labels on the MAGIC samples also serves as grounds to disqualify each unmarked product. The other responsive bidders (WISE, WALKER, and STEWART) all complied with the requirements of Section 12 by providing and marking samples of each product bid. The second and third issues raised by the DEPARTMENT and WISE were that MAGIC's bid was nonresponsive because it failed to bid all the items contained in the ITB and the samples provided did not adequately comply with the size requirements of the ITB. As stated above, because MAGIC failed to mark its samples, it was difficult for the DEPARTMENT to match the samples provided with the item list. In some instances the DEPARTMENT, by a process of elimination, was forced to guess which MAGIC sample corresponded with an item on the item list. For example, the first item on the ITB list was "cheese flavored crackers" with a net weight of not less than 1-1/4 ounces. (Identified as Item 1-1). 7/ MAGIC specified in its bid that the product offered for the "cheese flavored crackers" weighed 1.5 ounces. Unfortunately, because the MAGIC samples were not marked, it was difficult to determine if MAGIC had complied with the bid size requirements relating to "cheese flavored crackers." It appears that MAGIC's bid was non-responsive as it relates to "cheese flavored crackers" because the product bid and found in the sample box, "Cheetos Cheesey Checkers," weighed only 1.0 ounce, less than the required 1-1/4 ounces provided by the ITB. In contrast to the MAGIC bid, WISE, STEWART, and WALKER all supplied samples that met or exceeded the requirements for "Cheese Flavored Crackers." A second example of non-compliance relates to Item 1-10, Pretzels. MAGIC failed to provide any samples for review by the DEPARTMENT in violation of section 12 of the Special Conditions of the ITB. A third example of non-compliance with the ITB relates to Item 2, "Beef Jerky." The ITB requires beef jerky with a specified weight of 1/4 ounce. A review of the sample submitted by MAGIC indicates that MAGIC was non- responsive to this item. Specifically, MAGIC provided samples for "Double Salami" (Exhibit 9-k). "Double Salami" is not beef jerky and it does not comply with the requirements of the ITB. A fourth example of non-compliance relates to Item 3, beef jerky in a single-serving size not less that .52 ounces in weight. MAGIC submitted "Beef and Cheese Sticks" (Exhibit 9-l). While the product exceeds the weight requirement of the ITB, "Beef and Cheese Sticks" are not beef jerky and do not comply with the requirements of the ITB. A fifth example of non-compliance related to Item 7, "saltine crackers." MAGIC is in non-compliance because it failed to provide a sample of the cracker. In addition, MAGIC failed to inform the DEPARTMENT of the size of the saltines being bid and therefore it was impossible for the DEPARTMENT to determine if MAGIC could comply with the minimum weight requirements contained in the bid. WISE bid on each of the eighteen items. Each product bid by WISE, and the corresponding sample that WISE submitted, equalled or exceeded the minimum requirements set forth in the ITB for that item. 8/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered accepting the proposal filed by WISE, in response to ITB No. 9596-RDC-011. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT, 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 30th day of September, 1996.
