Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "District") advertised for bids on Contract No. M-0137, Bid No. B-85-91, for the construction of a structure maintenance facility. The Specifications and Contract Documents for the project required that bidders submit a "Base Bid," which related to the essential components of the project, and three "add alternates," which related to additional items that the District might contract for over and above the Base Bid. The Notice To Contractors regarding this project included the following language: The right is reserved, as the interest of the District may require, to reject any or all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposal, or to readvertise for other or future proposals. Paragraph 2 of the Instructions To Bidders includes the following language: "The intent of the Proposal Form is to secure a price, based on unit prices, for the work described in the Contract. . . ." (emphasis added) Paragraph 4 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: The District reserves the right to reject any and all proposals (i) when such rejection is in the interest of the District; (ii) if such proposal is void per se; or (iii) if the proposal contains any irregularities, PROVIDED, however, that the District reserves the right to waive any irregularities and to accept the lowest responsible bidder's proposal determined by the Engineer on the basis of the gross sum for which the work will be performed, arrived at by a correct computation of the base bid plus the alternate bid item or items selected by the District. Bid items will be considered by the District on the has is of budgetary capability. (First emphasis in original; second emphasis added.) Paragraph 5 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: Proposals will be considered irregular if they show omissions, unauthorized alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or other irre- gularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are unbalanced either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values, or incomplete in any manner, including failure to bid on all items on the bid form. Paragraph 8 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No proposal can be withdrawn after it is filed unless the Bidder makes his request in writing to the District prior to the time set for the opening of bids, or unless the District fails to accept it within sixty (60) days after the date fixed for opening bids. Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No interpretation of the meaning of the Plans, Specifications or other Contract Documents will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation should be in writing addressed to the Engineering & Construction Division, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, Post Office Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33402, and to be given consideration must be received at least Ten (10) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the Specifications which, if issued, will be mailed by registered mail to all prospective bidders (at the respective addresses furnished for such purposes) not later than Five (5) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Failure of any bidder to receive any such Addendum of interpretation shall not relieve any bidder from any obligation under his bid as submitted. All addenda so issued shall become part of the Contract Documents. The bid items are described in Section 01021 of the Specifications and Contract Documents. Subsection 1.01 of that Section describes what is included in the Base Bid as follows: The Base Bid includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for: Structure Maintenance Facility, complete. Building utilities including all rough-in required for alternate bid items whether or not alternate bids are accepted. Site work including utilities. All other costs of the project not attributable to Items 1 thru 3 above or Alternate Bid Nos. 1 thru 3 below. Subsection 1.02 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 1 as follows: In the Base Bid all structural supports to receive the monorail trolley beams and hoists are included. Alternate No. 1 includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for two 15 ton capacity monorail hoists and trolley beams complete and operational. Work includes all final utility connections to points indicated on drawings, shipping, unloading at site, installation and final check-out and instruction to owner on operation of equipment as well as all other costs not attributable to items previously mentioned. Subsection 1.03 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 2 as follows: In the Base Bid all mechanical and electrical rough-in is to be provided for the two offices and the toilet and locker rooms above. Alternate No. 2 includes all costs over the Base Bid for completing the offices, toilets and locker rooms including all plumbing and lighting fixtures, partitions, lockers finishes, structure and metal stair as indicated and specified in the applicable sections of these specifications. Subsection 1.04 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 3 as follows: The Base Bid includes all site grading to finish elevations indicated. Alternate No. 3 includes all costs over the Base bid for providing subsurface preparation and asphaltic concrete paving to finish elevations indicated as described in Section 02513 for all areas where asphaltic concrete paving is shown. In September of 1984 the District had received bids for a similar project. Similar contract documents and bid forms were used for the project. Cox & Palmer Construction Company, Overland Construction Company, Inc., and Booth Construction, Inc., all submitted bids on the September 1984 project. All of the bids submitted on the September 1984 project, including the Booth bid, were submitted on an add alternates" basis. All of the September 1984 bids were rejected. A total of seven bidders submitted bids on the instant project. With the exception of Booth Construction, Inc., all of the bidders on the instant project calculated their bids on an "add alternates" basis. It was the clear intent of the architecture firm that prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents that the bids should be submitted on an add alternates" basis. There were no irregularities in the bidding process regarding the instant project prior to the opening of the first bid. At the duly appointed time a representative of the District began the process of opening and announcing the amounts of the bids. The first bid to be opened was the bid submitted by Overland Construction Company, Inc. The amounts bid by Overland were as follows: Base Bid $ 378,800 Alternate No. 1 64,000 Alternate No. 2 18,000 Alternate No. 3 11,200 Immediately after the announcement of the amounts bid by Overland, Mr. York, the Director of the District's Engineering and Construction Division, asked, "Is that an add-on or deduct?" Someone in the audience answered that it was an "add-on" bid. Mr. Gerachi, on behalf of Booth, promptly stated that the alternates should have been bid as "deducts". A general discussion ensued among members of the audience regarding whether the alternates should have been bid as "add-on" or "deducts." In order to continue with the bid opening process and to restore order in the room, a representative of the District announced that the matter would be resolved when the bids were tabulated and another representative of the District began the process of opening the rest of the bids. The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was the fourth bid to be opened. The amounts written on the Booth bid were as follows: Base Bid $ 396,586 Alternate No. 1 54,072 Alternate No. 2 14,597 Alternate No. 3 9,185 Immediately after the amounts of the Booth bid were announced, Mr. Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. stood up and stated that the Booth bid had been calculated on the basis of "deduct" alternates. The essence of his statement was that in calculating the amount of his company's Base Bid he had added to the base bid the sum of the three alternate bids with the understanding that the amounts shown for any of the three alternates would be deducted from his Base Bid if the District decided not to award a contract for one or more of the alternates. This statement following the opening of the Booth bid was the first time that anyone on behalf of Booth had made a specific unambiguous statement to representatives of the District responsible for this bidding process regarding the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated. 1/ The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company was opened after the Booth bid. The amounts bid by Cox & Palmer were as follows: Base Bid $ 392,225 Alternate No. 1 38,770 Alternate No. 2 19,200 Alternate No. 3 11,456 The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was prepared by both Vincent Gerachi, an estimator and project manager employed by Booth Construction, Inc., and by Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. Mr. Gerachi has been an estimator on construction projects for approximately 12 years. Mr. Booth has been in the construction business for approximately 30 years and has had his own construction company for about 18 years. Both Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth were uncertain whether the alternate bids were supposed to be bid as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Neither of them attempted to do anything to resolve their uncertainty until the morning of the very day on which bids were to be submitted. On that morning Mr. Gerachi called a representative of the District to ask whether the bid should be prepared with the alternate bids calculated as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Mr. Gerachi spoke to Mr. Brown at the District, who suggested that Mr. Gerachi call the architecture firm that had prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders (see paragraph 6 of these findings of fact, above), it is a customary practice of the trade for bidders to communicate directly with project architects to resolve any uncertainties in the Specifications and Contract Documents. Indeed, it is generally understood in the trade that it is the duty of the bidder to communicate with the project architect to seek resolution of any ambiguities. Mr. Gerachi tried to reach the project architect by telephone, but was unable to reach him because the architect had already left his office to drive to the bid opening. Mr. Gerachi did not have an opportunity to talk to the architect prior to filing the Booth Construction bid because the architect did not come into the bid opening room until about one minute after 2:00 p.m. Mr. Gerachi talked to Mr. and Mrs. Booth before turning in the Booth bid. Mr. Gerachi prepared the Booth bid with the alternate bids calculated as "deducts" from the Base Bid. In other words, the amount of the Base Bid on the Booth bid included the sum of the three alternate bids, which alternate bids were also separately stated on the Booth bid. Alvin Booth participated in the preparation of the bid and was aware of the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated before the bid was submitted to the District. Even though the Base Bid on the Booth bid is in the amount of $396,586, it was the intention of Booth Construction, Inc., to bid $318,732 for the work described as being within the scope of the Base Bid. The reason for the higher amount being entered for the booth Base Bid is that Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth misinterpreted the Specifications and Contract Documents and added to the Booth Base Bid the sum of the Booth bids on each of the three Alternate Bids. 2/ This misinterpretation of the Specifications and Contract Documents was caused by the culpable negligence or willful inattention of Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth. After all of the bids were opened a representative of the District announced that the District would consider the matter and notify all bidders of its decision at a later date. Thereafter the District, having concluded that Booth Construction, Inc., had acted in good faith and that the irregularities in the form of its bid were "minor irregularities," decided to treat the oral statements by Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth as amendments to the Booth bid, to treat the Booth Base Bid as being $318,732, and to award a contract to Booth Construction, Inc., for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $372,804, calculated as follows: $318,732 (Amended Booth Base Bid) 54,072 (Booth Alternate No. 1 Bid) $372,804 (Total Contract) Booth Construction, Inc., has the ability to perform the contract and can perform the contract for the proposed contract amount of $372,804. Booth Construction, Inc., is a responsible bidder. The District estimate of the cost of the work covered by the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 was $329,000. There are no irregularities in the bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company. Cox and Palmer Construction Company is a responsible and responsive bidder. The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer is the lowest responsive bid for the combination of the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1. 3/ The foregoing findings of fact include the substance of the majority of the findings proposed by the parties, although I have rejected a number of unnecessary details and editorial comments in the parties' proposals. Any proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are rejected on the grounds of not being supported by competent substantial evidence or as being contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the irregularities in the Booth Construction, Inc., bid may not be waived and that the bid will be considered, as submitted, to be a Base Bid in the amount of $396,586; Concluding that in view of the foregoing treatment of the Booth bid, the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company is found to be the lowest responsive bid for the Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1; Concluding that the District will accept the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company and enter into a contract with Palmer & Cox Construction Company consistent with the amounts bid by Palmer & Cox Construction Com- pany for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1; and Concluding that the petition of Overland Construction Company, Inc., is dismissed for lack of standing. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before January, 1989, The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide for social services in Haines City, Florida. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease of 9041 square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3%. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given by advertisement in four central Florida newspapers. HRS had prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS' requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of % (Weighting: 30) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 5) Associated moving costs i.e. furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc. (Weighting: 0) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 5) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 20) Facility Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 20) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 15 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100% The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: rental rates environmental factors efficient space layout The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to several hundred people every month. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the influx of people. Because of servicing so many people, factors two and three received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by Intervenor, Unirealty Services, Inc. (bid A), and Petitioners, Messrs. Matthews and Walker (bid B). The bids were opened February 20, 1989, and Mr. Michael T. Akridge, former Facilities Services Manager, District VI HRS, determined both bids were responsive. At the time the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had an option contract to purchase the subject facility, and an authorization from the optionees (two principals of Intervenors) for Unirealty to act as their agent. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committee's choice of lowest and best bid. The purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Six individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. The bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Unirealty was the "lowest and best." The bid evaluation committee consisted of six representatives of the Department who visited each bidders' site and questioned the bidders' representatives. Each of the committee members worked with or supervised HRS programs that were to be located in the leased space. The solicitation for bids provided each bidder, among other things, with the bid evaluation criteria, a 100 point scale, which the committee used to evaluate the bids. Each committee member's evaluation scores were averaged and totaled to score Petitioners at 90.8, and Unirealty at 83.9. Each committee member gave a higher score to Unirealty. The three major bid evaluation criteria were FISCAL COSTS, LOCATION and FACILITY. Under the FISCAL COST criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioners received 30 points out of 30 possible, and Unirealty got 23.1. For Renewal Rates, Petitioners got 5 out of 5 possible points, and Unirealty received 3.7 points. No points were awarded for Moving Costs. The evaluation committee did not assess points for Rental or Renewal Rates. These were scored by Michael T. Akridge, bid manager, based on a present value analysis of bidders' proposed rates. Mr. Akridge did not give the Committee the points for Rental and Renewal Rates until after they had completed their evaluations of the LOCATION and FACILITY criteria. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Central Area-- 10 points--with both bidders receiving 9.3; Public Transportation--5 points-- which both bidders received; and, Environmental Factors--20 points--out of which Petitioners received 12.8 points and Unirealty 20 points. The Environmental Factors sub-category included building physical characteristics and surrounding area and their effect on the efficient and economical conduct of Department operations. Unirealty received a higher score than Petitioner because the committee believed its building had a better appearance, and was in better shape. The area surrounding the building was more open, while Petitioners' building was in a less desirable neighborhood with a bar or liquor store and bus station nearby which could create problems for clients because of transients. It had far more window space which creates a better work environment, and allows staff to be watchful of clients and their children outside, and the windows would be tinted. The windows at Petitioner's site were limited and no more could be added. Unirealty had more adjacent parking spaces, with handicapped parking closer to the building, and part of it was fenced which provided added protection to clients and staff. Petitioners' site had adjacent businesses whose patrons were using some of the parking spaces which the committee felt could create a problem. The Unirealty building could have an outside food stamp issuance facility which would be far more accessible to clients and to make the lobbies less crowded. It had an existing alarm system. It did not have side streets adjacent to the building, thus there would be less traffic congestion and therefore safer for clients; and, it had outside gathering areas where clients could go to smoke. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, Petitioners received 11.8 points out of 20 for Layout/Utilization and Unirealty received 19.7 points; for Single Building, both bidders received 10 points out of 10 possible. For the Layout/Utilization sub-category Unirealty received more points because its building configuration was more flexible and conducive to design of interior space, with less maze effect. The members of the committee each testified that it was important that the Unirealty building had no support poles to get in the way as they did in Petitioners' building. The support poles in Petitioner's building created a safety problem for clients and inhibited the location of desks and corridors. At Unirealty's site each worker could have a window, and mechanical and service areas could be put in the center of the building, with a playroom for clients' children. It provided a better restroom location near the front of Petitioner's building and lobby areas, and clients would not have to wander through work areas to get to the restrooms. Unirealty's building provided better control of clients' movements and thus better security. Members of the committee also upgraded the Unirealty building because its pitched roof was less likely to leak and its air conditioning was zoned thus providing better air quality and temperature control. At Unirealty there was better ingress and egress, and entry ways could be added. This could not be done at Petitioners' site. The Unirealty building could have different entrances for each HRS program, with separate lobbies for each program with less client congestion and better control. During the Committee members inspection of the sites they were told of an existing security alarm system already in place at the Unirealty site and were told that system would remain in place. When asked, the Petitioner's representative was unsure if his client would install a similar system at their site. A security system for the entire building was not included in the bid specifications, and it was improper for the committee to give Unirealty extra points for this unsolicited item. The proposed lease agreement calls for 9041 square feet of office space and a minimum of 66 parking spaces. Unirealty offered 72 parking spaces and Petitioner offered 75. The committee awarded more evaluation points to the Unirealty site based on future expansion capability of the building and the existing additional on-site parking spaces which were visible at the site at the time of inspection. The committee erroneously believed that the extra square footage of building space and extra parking spaces would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was not in the bid specifications and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The evaluation committee included the improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the Unirealty property. The two improper factors cannot be considered here. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was clearly to award the lease to the Intervenor. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Petitioners presented greater problems for design and flexibility due to the rectangular configuration of the building. The other consideration was that the physical characteristics of the Unirealty site and the surrounding area were considered far superior to the Petitioner's site. A close review of each evaluation sheet and the testimony of each committee member at the hearing shows that the improper factors were not so heavily weighted as to invalidate the committee recommendation. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after inspection of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Intervenor's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Intervenor's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. Over an eight year period the Petitioner's rental cost was significantly lower than the Intervenor's. However, it is clear the legitimate considerations of the committee were crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder. The conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. After the committee recommendation was scored and tabulated, Mr. Akridge requested the committee chair, Ms. Gail Newell, to prepare a draft letter of the proposed bid award. This was done in collaboration with the other committee members. Mr. Michael T. Akridge then prepared the bid award letter for the signature of the Administrative Services Director based on the draft letter. In it the two improper considerations were mentioned. The authority to award the lease to Unirealty was approved on March 8, 1989, by King W. Davis, Director of General Services for HRS based on the bid award letter, dated February 26, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:2057 to Unirealty Services, Inc., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39 (in part), 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 81, 83 (in part) are adopted in substance in so far as material. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 37, 73, 74, 80 are rejected as conclusions of law. Paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 44, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 72, 75, 778, 82, are rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66 are rejected assubordinate or immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1-17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Matthews, Jr. 2405 Hideaway Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire HRS District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Neal A. Sivyer, Esquire Paul J. Ullom, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P. A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Respondent on the ground that the proposed space was not "dry and measurable" at the time of the bid.
Findings Of Fact The bid specifications in the solicitation by the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES) for its Lease No. 540:0977 (office space in Orange County) required that proposed space be in an existing building "dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage at the time of bid submittal." The requirement that proposed office space in response to Lease No. 540:0977 be "dry and measurable," as described in the preceding finding, is a long-standing, standard requirement found in the bid specification form developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS) (formerly the Department of General Services (DGS)) for use by all agencies of the State of Florida. DMS' (and, formerly, DGS') long-standing interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement in the standard bid specification form is that the building must have a roof and walls, with windows either in place or covered over so that the building interior stays dry in adverse weather conditions. In response to the DLES solicitation for bids for its Lease No. 540:0977, the Petitioners submitted a bid for space in a former Publix strip shopping mall, formerly known as the Northgate Shopping Center, located at 5023 Edgewater Drive, in Winter Park, Florida. At the time of the bid, the mall was unoccupied and in the process of being renovated and was a designated construction site. The building had been gutted, and the glass in the front of the building had been removed. The glass could be referred to as "windows" but actually would make up the top two-thirds of the front wall of the building. As a result, without the glass, the front "wall" consisted of a three to four foot rise of concrete blocks, and the front of the building was otherwise open. There was a 12-foot, eight-inch overhang over the front "wall," but wind-blown rain could enter the building, and apparently did. (There was standing water on the floor of the gutted building. There also were missing or unsecure doors along the back wall of the building.) When Susan Early, the DLES employee in charge of the bid solicitation, received the Petitioners' bid and saw the photographs of the building required by the bid solicitation, she questioned whether the building was "dry and measurable." To help answer her question, she asked another DLES employee, who was located in the Orlando area, to go to the site, take pictures, and send a report of her findings, together with the photographs. The report and photographs indicated to Early that the building was not "dry and measurable." But, instead of relying on the information she had, she sent another, Tallahassee-based DLES employee to the site and received confirmation of her understanding as to the condition of the building. She then contacted Mary Goodman, the person at DMS who had the most experience in the area of soliciting and evaluating bids of leased office space, and who ultimately would be responsible for approving the DLES lease. Goodman advised Early that the DLES should reject the Petitioners' bid as non-responsive because it was not "dry and measurable." The DLES also rejected, as being non-responsive, the only other bid received in response to the bid solicitation. In the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, DOAH Case No. 88-3357BID, entered September 21, 1988, the Division of Administrative Hearings rejected a bid as not offering "dry and measurable" space because the building "had a roof, a slab, and walls, which comprised 50 percent of the vertical plane from the slab to the roof." The bidder's argument that the building "had a four foot overhang" and that "the overhang prevented rain from entering the building" was rejected as not being credible "given the large amount of window space which was not enclosed." The winning bid, which was upheld as being a "dry and measurable" was an abandoned bowling alley that "had walls, a slab, and portions of the exterior walls were boarded over, possibly in the location of existing windows or window openings. The roof did have a hole, which was approximately three feet in length and allowed water to leak into the building." (Citations to the record omitted.) The facts derived from the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, supra, do not in themselves prove that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid. Although the Petitioners' bid in this case was for a building that once had a certificate of occupancy, the Petitioners' bid in this case is more similar in other respects to the rejected bid than the successful bid in the Koger Company case. For example, like the rejected bid in the Koger Company case, the Petitioners' bid had partial exterior walls. The Petitioners proved that they also submitted a bid for the lease of office space in the Northgate Shopping Center in response to a bid solicitation by the Florida Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission). The bid was evaluated, along with others, and the lease was awarded to another bidder. It can be inferred from this that the Department of Corrections made a determination that the Petitioners' bid was "dry and measurable." However, those facts alone do not prove the DLES, in this case, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly. They only would prove that the two agencies interpreted the phrase "dry and measurable" differently. There also was evidence that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) interprets the phrase "dry and measurable" differently than DLES does. But it was not proven whether HRS would have accepted a bid for space having the characteristics of the Petitioners' bid. The Petitioners argued persuasively from the evidence presented that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities. Sometimes, space in a building under construction or substantial renovation can be leased at lower rates. Presumably for that reason, the Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission) and HRS interpret the requirement differently. But, given the requirement that bid space be "dry," it cannot be said that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, enter a final order rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Department in Winter Park, Florida, Lease Number 540:0977. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3922BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should be noted, however, that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Rejected as not proven, according to the DLES interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement, that the bid space was "existing." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected in part as not proven, in part as argument, and in part as irrelevant. It also should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. In part, rejected as irrelevant and not proven. (Evidence as to the HRS manual and related facts was excluded as being irrelevant.) The rest is accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Irrelevant and unnecessary. (It was established at the hearing that the Petitioners' bid was rejected only because the bid space was not "dry"; DLES does not contend that it was not "measurable.") Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In part, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary (what Mr. Taylor's definition is.) In part, cumulative. In part, rejected as argument. In part, accepted and incorporated (that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities.) Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. (Assuming it acts consistently from case to case, an agency's choice not to waive technicalities cannot be called "acting fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.") Rejected as being argument and as not proven. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Except for the number of square feet, which is in error, accepted and incorporated. 2.-5. Accepted and incorporated. 6. Rejected as contrary to the findings of fact and the greater weight of the evidence that there were no walls in front. (They extended only about a third of the way up to the ceiling.) 7.-8. Accepted and incorporated. 9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Taylor 170 East Lake Elbert Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issues are whether the bids submitted by Daffin and Gulf Coast were responsive, and whether the failure by the Department of Corrections to evaluate each proposal at the time the proposals were opened to determine if the proposal was responsive is fatal to consideration of the bids under the terms of the ITB.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued Invitation to Bid No. 94-DC-6279 (the ITB) on May 27, 1994. The ITB requested bidders to submit proposals to provide receipt, storage and delivery of frozen and non-frozen food products. The bid was separated into five distinct regions and vendors could bid on any or all of the regions. Proposals had to be filed with the Department by July 20, 1994, and were opened on that date. The bid was divided into two parts for purposes of point distribution. Sixty (60) points were allotted for price criteria, and forty (40) points were allotted for additional, non-price criteria. [Joint Exhibit A.] The Additional Criteria, which related to non-costs issues and were not mandatory criteria, were listed in Section 4.8.2. of the ITB as follows: Additional Criteria 40 Points Prior experience and history of timely deliveries Condition of equipment/type - # (number of) trucks-conditions Location of contractor's facilities Personnel/staffing [Joint Exhibit A.] Addendum 2 to the ITB further provided that: 4. Direct your attention to the additional criteria used for evaluation. The low bid will be 60 points (Note: 4.3 states erroneously 50 percent; 60 is correct). Forty [40.] will be for additional criteria listed in the ITB. We suggest that you list the information in additional criteria for consideration and evaluation. Jim Morris, Bureau Chief of General Services for the Department of Corrections, was the individual responsible for monitoring the ITB. [R. pg. 66, line 14-16; pg. 75, line 5-12.] Bill Bowers, Chief of Food Services for the Department of Corrections, participated in defining the scope of the contract, and assembled the criteria for the ITB. [R. pg. 108, lines 10-25; pg. 117, lines 18-21.] The Department's evaluations were conducted by Howell L. Winfree, III, J.L. (Joe) Murphy; Fred J. Boyd; Robert Sandal and Chris Dennard. [Joint Exhibit M and N.] The criteria used by the Department's evaluator were as follows: Prior experience and history of timely deliveries (15) (Length of time in distribution business and any known complaints by customers) Condition of Equipment/type (10) Task- related experience (Age of trucks/with freezer) Location of Contractor's facilities (10) (Location of distribution points in relation to regions being served) Personnel/Staffing (5) (Is sufficient staff available) [Joint Exhibit L.] The criteria scoring sheet used by the Department in evaluating the bids submitted, specifically Joint Exhibit L, was not included in the ITB. [Joint Exhibit A.] Six vendors submitted bids on the Department's five regions. Pride submitted a bid for all five (5) regions requested by the Department's ITB. [Joint Exhibit D.] After the evaluation of the bids was conducted by the Department, the following awards were made: Region I - Daffin Region II - C & W Region III and V - Gulf Coast Region IV - Pride [Joint Exhibit F.] COMPETITIVE BID PROCEDURE At the time the bids were publicly opened the Department did not make a determination that the bids were responsive. [R. pg. 73, lines 4-8.] No one in the legal office made a determination that the bids were responsive to the ITB. [R. pg. 77, lines 2-6; pg. 85, lines 2-17.] No one made a determination, written or otherwise, that the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 94-DC-6279 were responsive to the ITB. [R. pg. 76, lines 6-10; pg. 97, lines 13 The Department transmitted the bids and evaluation materials to the evaluators after the bids were opened. There is no evidence that any of the bids failed to meet technical qualifications. [R. pg. 78, lines 4-8; pg. 79, line 17 through pg. 80 line 2; pg. 83, lines 18-25; pg. 85, lines 2-17.] Paragraph 4.11 of the ITB permitted the Department to obtain from a vendor information by questioning the vendors if necessary to resolve questions which might arise about the vendors' responses. None of the vendors controverted this provision in the ITB. The Department did seek and consider such additional information from Daffin during a site visit. [R. pg. 141, line 21 through 147.] Daffin's bid response included the following documents: Signed Invitation to Bid Cover Sheet Signed Public Entity Crimes Form One page memo re: Requested Criteria Signed Addendum #1-4 to the Invitation to Bid Signed Price Quote Sheet [Joint Exhibit C.] Daffin Supply Company (Daffin) and Pride were the only vendors that submitted bids for Region I in response to the ITB. [Joint Exhibit F and H.] Daffin's price was $1.389 per case for receipt, storage and delivery of the food items, and Pride's price was $2.5296 per case for receipt, storage, and delivery of the food items. Daffin received a total of 69.26 on its evaluation, and Pride received 46.49 on its evaluation for Region I. Daffin received the highest point score for its bid for Region I, and Pride received the second highest point score for its bid for Region I. [Joint Exhibit H.] In response to the Additional Criteria requirements, Daffin included only the following information: As additional criteria, we have been in the Supply and Distribution business for over twenty Drive in Panama City, Fla. The warehouse has three receiving docks and a large enclosed staging area. [Joint Exhibit C.] Howell L. Winfree, III, indicated regarding Daffin's bid that no information was available regarding the condition or type of Daffin's equipment or its personnel. J.L. Murphy's evaluation of Daffin's bid states, "Insufficient detail to evaluate properly." Chris Dennard's evaluation of Daffin's bid states, "This bidder did not provide sufficient information about their experience, equipment, personnel to give this evaluator an indication they could handle this bid if awarded." Fred Boyd's evaluation of Daffins bid states, "This vendor did not supply information which shows qualification for this bid." [Joint Composite Exhibit L.] Only one of the five evaluators gave Daffin points for these criteria, and Daffin received only 9.26 points of the 40 available non-costs criteria points. Pride received a significant number of the total points awarded for the non-costs criteria. However, Pride trailed Daffin by 23 points overall because Pride's cost was almost a dollar more per case. Subsequent to the bid evaluations, Mr. Morris and Mr. Bowers made a site visit to Daffin Supply Company. The purpose of the visit was to become familiar with the vendor, and to determine the company's capacity to store and transport the food items. R. pg. 75-76, lines 22-25; 1-2; pg. 85, line 18 through pg. 86, line 7; pg. 118, lines 4-14.] Until Mr. Morris and Mr. Bowers spoke to Mr. Daffin, the Department was not certain whether Daffin had facilities, truck and staff to carry out the bid. [R. pg. 114, lines 19-23.] After the site visit, the Department determined that Daffin could provide the services required by the bid for Region I. [R. pg. 118, lines 4- 18.] On September 1, 1994, subsequent to the bid opening, the Department received a letter from Daffin evidencing that they had an agreement with Ryder Truck Leasing company to lease trucks to carry out the services requested in the ITB; the letter is dated September 1, 1994. The Department did not conduct a site visit of Pride or any other bidder's facilities. Pride had been providing the services being bid upon to the Department prior to the ITB. The Department awarded Gulf Coast Food Service (Gulf Coast) the highest point score for its bid for Regions III (90.60 points) and V (90.60), and awarded Pride the second highest point score for its bid for Regions III (59.56 points) and V (59.56 points). Gulf Coast bid $1.63 per case and Pride bid $2.5296 per case to receive, store, and deliver the food items in both Regions III and V. [Joint Exhibit H.] Gulf Coast's bid response included the following documents: Signed Invitation to Bid Cover Sheet Signed Public Entity Crimes Form One page Letter re: Company Criteria Signed Addendum #1-4 to the Invitation to Bid Signed Price Quote Sheet Annual Report - Suncoast [Joint Exhibit B.] Gulf Coast's bid included the following information relating to the non-cost criteria: The Condition of the Equipment. The Bid stated "15 fully equipped [sic] temperature controlled trucks." [Joint Exhibit B; R. pg. 129, lines 1-3.] Prior Experience/Timeliness of Deliveries. The bid stated "8 years of excellent service to Foodservice Industry." [Joint Exhibit B; R. pg. 59, lines 9-13; pg. 129, lines 7-21.] Personnel/staffing attributed to the bid. The bid stated "Fully trained delivery staff with 5 years no accident safety record," and "Fully trained senior staff of buyers with over 90 years combined experience." [Joint Exhibit B; R. pg. 129, lines 7-21.] Pride's bid response included the following documents: Signed Invitation to Bid Cover Sheet. Unsigned Public Entity Crimes Form (Pride exempt.) Signed Addendum #1-4 to the Invitation to Bid. Signed Price Quote Sheet 29 page attachment covering the requirements of the bid and the additional criteria listed in Section 4.8.2 of the ITB. [Joint Exhibit D.] Pride listed the type of equipment by model name, size, and the quantity, as well as the condition of such equipment utilized for transportation and for the other requirements of the project [Joint Exhibit D; R. pg. 59, lines 18-21]; listed information regarding its shipping and receiving procedures; customer surveys to indicate prior experience and history of timely deliveries [Joint Exhibit D]; the staff positions that would be dedicated to the project for each location, and the location of all its facilities. [Joint Exhibit D; R. pg. 59, line 25 through pg. 60, line 5.] Pride submitted information relating to each of the criteria listed in the ITB. The total savings on the award of these three contracts to Daffin and Gulf Coast as opposed to Pride is $228,548.09. Pride filed a timely challenge to the award of the contracts for Regions I, III and V.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, That the Petition of Pride be dismissed, and the bids be awarded to Gulf Coast and Daffin. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1995. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of those facts were adopted and which were rejected and why: PETITIONER'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraphs 2,3 Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Rejected as contrary to facts Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraphs 5,6 Paragraphs 6,9 Subsumed in 5,6 Paragraphs 10-19 Paragraphs 9-17 Paragraphs 20,21,22 Conclusions of Law Paragraphs 23-26 Paragraphs 18-21 Paragraph 27 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 28 Subsumed in 22 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 30 Irrelevant, and subsumed in 15 Paragraphs 31,32,34 Paragraph 23 Paragraph 33 Irrelevant. Although information may have been provided about staff, the evaluations had already been completed and there is no evidence that this added information changed the already completed evaluations. Paragraphs 35-37,39-41 Paragraphs 24-29 Paragraph 38,42 Contrary to facts. Paragraph 43-47 Paragraphs 30-33 RESPONDENT'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 4,5 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in 12 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 19 Paragraph 8 Subsumed in 35 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 20 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 35 Paragraphs 12,13 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 14 Subsumed in 35 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 27 Paragraphs 16,17 Paragraphs 34,35 Paragraph 18,19 Respondent's order deleted 18,19 Paragraph 20 The evaluation was proper; however, the Department did not follow Rule 60A-1.001, F.A.C. Paragraph 21 There was no evidence of fraud or dishonesty. See comments to Paragraph 20, above, and Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 22 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 23 Subsumed in 22 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 23 Paragraphs 25,26 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 27 Subsumed in 22 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 33 Paragraph 29 Subsumed in 22 and 27 Paragraph 30 Conclusions of Law Paragraph 31 Paragraph 12 Paragraphs 32,33 Conclusions of Law Paragraphs 34,35 Paragraph 23 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 37 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 38 Argument Paragraph 39 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 40 Paragraph 23 Paragraph 41 Conclusion of Law COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire I. Ed Pantaleon, Esquire 225 South Adams Street, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Steven Ferst, Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
The Issue Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?
Findings Of Fact Background The Legislature charged the Department with protecting the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders and rehabilitating offenders through work, programs, and services. The Department is required to provide telephone access to inmates in its custody. Inmate telecommunication services provide inmates the ability to stay in contact with friends and family. The services promote and support efforts to help inmates re-enter society by fostering communications with the community outside jail and prison. The Department does not pay for these services. The inmates and their designated family members and friends pay for the services. The contract to provide the telecommunications service generates revenue for the Department. The provider pays the Department for access to the consumers. The provider charges the inmates and their designees for the service. The provider pays the Department a commission calculated as a percentage of revenues received. The commission is calculated as part of the charge for the services and is included in it. The price competition portion of the RFP is based on the prices charged to the inmates and designees and the commissions paid to the Department. According to the RFP, the State of Florida presently has a total inmate population of approximately 102,000 people. In fiscal year 2010-2011, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $14,180,345 from 9,587,040 calls. In fiscal year 2011-2012, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $13,513,495 from 8,226,577 calls. And in 2012-2013, the inmate calling services generated total revenue of $14,749,021 from 8,853,316 calls. In 2012–2013, interstate calls generated 11.6 percent of calls and 12.9 percent of revenues from the contract. Securus holds the contract with the Department to provide inmate telephone services and has for over six years. Before February 11, 2014, Securus paid a 35 percent commission to the Department on all of its call revenue from the contract. That changed as of February 11, 2014, when the Department interpreted a stayed order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), discussed in more detail later, to prohibit collecting the commissions on interstate calls. The record does not reveal if Securus stopped collecting the commission portion of the rates charged to inmates and their designees. The Department does not collect commissions because it interprets the FCC order to say that it cannot receive commission revenue because it is a state agency. The Department also declines to accept commissions because it fears finding itself in a position where it may have to refund money which has already been transferred to the general fund, possibly an earlier year's general fund. During the RFP process, Securus was aware of the Department's interpretation of the FCC order, because it had negotiated the change to its existing contract to end commission payments. The changes did not affect Securus charging inmates the commission. The Department did not include its interpretation of the order in the RFP, as modified by the Addenda. Commissions on interstate calls are significant revenue for the Department. This case involves the Department's second attempt to award a new contract for inmate telecommunication services. Earlier, the Department issued an Invitation to Negotiate for these services. CenturyLink, Global, and Securus all responded. The Department negotiated with all three. The Department initially decided to award the contract to CenturyLink. Eventually, the Department rejected all bids after it determined that the scoring language and selection criteria were poorly worded. They were subject to different reasonable interpretations that made how the Department would select the winning vendor unclear and made the playing field for vendors unequal. The vendors protested the decision to reject all bids. In upholding the decision to reject all bids, Administrative Law Judge Scott Boyd found at paragraph 70: The Department concluded that the wording and structure of the ITN and RBAFO did not create a level playing field to evaluate replies because they were confusing and ambiguous and were not understood by everyone in the same way. Vendors naturally had structured their replies to maximize their chances of being awarded the contract based upon their understanding of how the replies would be evaluated. The Department concluded that vendor pricing might have been different but for the misleading language and structure of the ITN and RBAFO. Global Tel Link Corp. v. Dep't of Corr., Case No. 13-3041BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 1, 2013), adopted in whole, except for correcting two scrivener's errors, FDOC Case No. 13-81 (Fla. DOC Nov. 25, 2013). The Request for Proposals The Department released the RFP seeking to establish a five-year contract with a vendor to provide inmate telecommunications services on March 7, 2014. The Department subsequently issued Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. The Addenda included vendor questions and the Department's answers. No vendor protested any term, condition, or specification of the RFP or the Addenda. The RFP sought vendor proposals to provide an inmate telephone system, video visitation system, and other services for inmates housed in the Department's facilities. The requested services included the actual service, system design, equipment, installation, training, operation, repair, and maintenance at no cost to the Department. The RFP included security, reporting, auditing, and monitoring requirements. It also established the procurement process, including scoring criteria. Of the RFP's 66 pages, only the commissions' role in pricing, scoring procedure, the score given Securus for its response to RFP section 3.15, and treatment of refunds are the focus of the disputes in this proceeding at this point. Review and Scoring The RFP established proposal scoring based upon four categories. The chart below reflects the categories, the tab of the RFP in which the scored categories are described, and the maximum points allowed for category. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements 0 points Executive Summary and Other Proposal Submissions 0 points Category 1--Business/Corporate Qualifications (Tab 3) 50 points Category 2--Project Staff (Tab 4) 200 points Category 3--Technical Response (Tab 6) 400 points Category 4--Price Proposal 350 points TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 1,000 points The RFP breaks each of the categories into components, each referencing and correlating to specific RFP sections. These are found at RFP "Attachment 4--Evaluation Criteria." For each component, the Evaluation Criteria posed a question. For example, in Category 3, a question asks "How adequately does the Respondent describe their overall capability and process for providing a video visitation system?" The RFP provides a maximum score for each scoring component, which range from 15 to 50 points depending on the relative importance of the particular component. Each proposal was graded on the following qualitative scale: Omitted, Poor, Adequate, Good, and Exceptional. The RFP associates a point value with each qualitative description for each particular scoring component. For instance, if a component had a maximum score of 25 points, the scoring framework was as follows: Omitted--0; Poor--6.25; Adequate--12.5; Good--18.75; and Exceptional--25. A score of zero meant that a vendor completely omitted any information for the item from which a qualitative assessment could be made. The RFP directed the vendors how to generally format and package their proposals. Specifically, RFP Section 5 (Proposal Submission Requirements) stated: All Project Proposals must contain the sections outlined below. Those sections are called "Tabs." A "Tab," as used here, is a section separator, offset and labeled, (Example: "Tab 1, Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements"), such that the Evaluation Committee can easily turn [t]o "Tabbed" sections during the evaluation process.Failure to have all copies properly "tabbed" makes it much more difficult for the Department to evaluate the proposal. Vendors were to include seven "tabs" within their proposals: Tab 1 Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Tab 2 Transmittal Letter with Executive Summary Tab 3 Business/Corporate Qualifications Tab 4 Project Staff Tab 5 Respondent's Financial Documentation Tab 6 Technical Response Tab 7 Minority/Service Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification The RFP gave further instructions about the contents within each tab. RFP Section 5.6 provided the requirements for Tab 6, Technical Responses. It required vendors to provide a narrative technical response identifying how vendors will meet the scope of services required by the RFP and, more specifically, the scope of services described in RFP Sections 2 (Statement of Need/Services Sought) and 3 (Scope of Services). The RFP did not mandate any other formatting requirements for the contents of Tab 6. This becomes significant in the analysis of Securus's response to section 3.15 of the RFP. The RFP advised that the Department would assign an evaluation committee to evaluate proposals. It did not state how many evaluators would be selected to score proposals or whether evaluators would be responsible for scoring proposals in their entirety or just specific portions. The Department appointed a team of six evaluators: Jon Creamer, Shane Phillips, Randy Agerton, Steve Wilson, Charles Lockwood, and Richard Law. Mr. Law, a certified public accountant, reviewed each vendor's financial submissions on a pass/fail basis. The other five evaluators scored the technical responses, categories one through three. Julyn Hussey, the procurement officer, trained the evaluators, except for Mr. Law. She provided the evaluators with a training manual, the RFP, the vendors' proposals, and scoring sheets. During training, Ms. Hussey instructed the evaluators to review proposals in their entirety to properly evaluate and score their various components. The Department gave the evaluators approximately eight days to evaluate and score the proposals. The evaluators did not consult with each other during their evaluation. Each evaluator turned his completed score sheet in to Ms. Hussey. She then compiled the technical response scores. Ms. Hussey also calculated the price scores by taking the prices from the vendors' price sheet submissions and applying the RFP price scoring formula. The Department combined the technical and price scores to calculate each vendor's total score. Global received the highest total score with 2,960.42 points. Securus was second with 2,911.04 points. CenturyLink was third with 2,727.94 points. Global outscored Securus by 49 points on a 3,600-point scale. Global outscored CenturyLink by 232.48 points. Securus outscored CenturyLink by 183.10 points. Commissions, Pricing, and an FCC Order The vendors' price proposal was a critical category of the RFP review and evaluation. It was worth 350 of the 1,000 points available. Only the technical response could score more points, 400. Of the 350 points, 300 points were directed toward the inmate telephone service price proposal and 50 points were for the video visitation service price proposal. The RFP subdivides the inmate telephone service points into 150 possible points for the provider offering the highest commission payments to the Department; 125 points for the lowest intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate per-minute rates; and 25 points for the lowest local and local extended area per-minute rates. The vendor with the most favorable numbers in each subcategory received the maximum points. The rest received a percentage of the maximum points based on a ratio between their bid and the most favorable bid RFP Section 3.8.3, "Rate and Call Charge Requirements"3/ provided: For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service and the video visitation service. Local and local extended area service calls shall be billed as local calls and shall not exceed $0.50 for a 15 minute phone call. For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls which shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. Note: In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64[WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113]--Rates for Interstate Calling Services--effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract Call charges for international calls shall not exceed the maximum rate allowed by the appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed thirty-five cents (.35) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC's. Long distance call charges for coin-operated phones at the Work Release Centers shall be at the same rates for inmate telephone calls. The Contractor shall agree that charges for calls shall include only the time from the point at which the called party accepts the call and shall end when either party returns to an on-hook condition or until either party attempts a hook flash. There shall be no charges to the called party for any setup time. The Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for collect or prepaid calls any charges referred to as Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC's) or Competitive Local Exchange Carrier's (CLEC's) billing costs, or any bill rendering fee or billing recovery fee. The Contractor shall also ensure that LEC's and CLEC's do not charge or pass on to the customer any additional fee or surcharges for billing. The Contractor shall be responsible for any such LEC or CLEC surcharges incurred if billing through the LEC or CLEC. In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Bill Statement Fee, Funding Fee, Mail-In Payment Fee, Western Union Payment Fee, Refund Fee, Regulatory Recovery Fee, Wireless Admin Fee, Single Bill Fee, Paper Statement Fee, Account Setup Fee, Account Maintenance Fee, Inactive Account Fee, Account Close-Out Fee, Non-Subscriber Line Charge, Inmate Station Service Charge, Third-Party Payment Processing Fee, State Regulatory Recovery Fee, Check/Money Order Processing Fee, Biometric Service Charges, JPay Payment Fee, Federal Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee, Regulatory and Carrier Cost Recovery Fee, Validation Surcharge or Wireless Termination Surcharge. The Contractor shall ensure, inmates' family and friends utilizing the Florida Relay Service to receive calls from inmates are charged the same rates as those family and friends receiving calls from inmates not utilizing this service. [emphasis added]. The Department intended for the boldface note to advise responding vendors that the vendor would not pay commissions on interstate call revenues. The language raised questions which the Department replied to in the Addenda issued after the RFP issued. None of the Addenda modified the plain statement in section 3.8.3 that "the Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate on the price sheet (attachment 5) for the inmate telephone service." Section 7.3.1 of the RFP established the requirements for commission and monthly payments. It states: The Contractor shall pay to the Department a monthly commission based on the percentage of gross revenues as determined through this RFP process. The Department will begin to receive payment for a facility on the date the Contractor assumes responsibility for the operation of that facility's inmate telecommunication service in accordance with the Final Transition and Implementation Plan. Sections 7.3.2 through 7.3.4 contain additional requirements for commission payments, supporting documentation for the commission calculation, and penalty, if the vendor does not timely make the final commission payment at the end of the contract. They make the importance of commission payments to the Department clear. Attachment 5 is a mandatory form for vendors to provide their proposed call and commission rates. It contains the same boldface note about the FCC order as section 3.8.3. The form solicited a blended rate and a single commission rate for telephone services. FCC, 47 C.F.R. Part 64 (WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113) (FCC order), referred to in RFP Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5, is a commission decision and regulation, effective May 31, 2013, addressing a need for reform in what the FCC determined were "egregious interstate long distance rates and services" in the inmate telecommunications business. The FCC identified paying commissions to correctional institutions and including them in the rates charged inmates and their families and other designees as a significant factor contributing to unreasonably high rates for inmate telecommunications services. The decision also addressed surcharges and fees. The FCC determined that inmate telecommunications charges must be cost- based and that commission payments, among other things, could not be included in the costs. The FCC adopted subpart FF to 47 C.F.R. part 64 of its regulations to regulate inmate calling services. The FCC included in subpart FF, section 64.010, titled, cost-based rates for inmate calling services. It states: "All rates charged for Inmate Calling Services and all Ancillary Charges must be based only on costs that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS [inmate calling services]." This is the rule implementing the FCC's decision that commission payments are not included in the reasonably and directly related costs. The FCC made clear that it was not prohibiting payment of or collection of commissions, only prohibiting including them in the costs determining the fee paid by inmates and their designees. The FCC addressed this in paragraph 56 of the order, which states: We also disagree with ICS providers' assertion that the Commission must defer to states on any decisions about site commission payments, their amount, and how such revenues are spent. We do not conclude that ICS providers and correctional facilities cannot have arrangements that include site commissions. We conclude only that, under the Act, such commission payments are not costs that can be recovered through interstate ICS rates. Our statutory obligations relate to the rates charged to end users—the inmates and the parties whom they call. We say nothing in this Order about how correctional facilities spend their funds or from where they derive. We state only that site commission payments as a category are not a compensable component of interstate ICS rates. We note that we would similarly treat "in-kind" payment requirements that replace site commission payments in ICS contracts. Providers of inmate calling services, including all three vendors in this proceeding, sought review of the decision and regulation by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court stayed section 64.010, along with sections 64.6020, and 64.6060. Following release of the RFP, the Department received and answered inquiries from vendors. The inquiries, the Department's responses, and changes to the RFP are contained in Addenda 1, 2, and 3 to the RFP. Rates and commissions received a fair amount of attention in the process. In response to inquiries about section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5, the Department changed both with Addendum 2. The questions and Department responses follow. Question No. 4 states: Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements and Attachment 5 – Blended Call Rates. Regarding the blended rate (inclusive of all surcharges) to be bid – the current wording could be opportunistically misinterpreted in a few different ways: First in the treatment of per-call versus per-minute fees, based on our understanding, one bidder could possibly offer a flat $1.80 per call fee for non-local inmate telephone calls and claim to have the same blended rate ($1.80/15 minutes = $0.12) as someone bidding $0.12 per minute with no per-call fee. This could occur even though calls average less than 15 minutes (and many calls are less than 10 minutes), meaning these two offers are not comparable in terms of overall cost to family members. Second, the RFP wording could also possibly be interpreted as allowing a Contractor to set different rates for different call types (collect/prepaid, intraLATA/interstate) and then averaging them using assumptions they define. Question 1: To minimize cost to family members and make offers comparable, would the Department please explicitly disallow per-call fees for the inmate telephone system (for example, per-call setup charges, per-call surcharges), allowing only a true per-minute rate? Question 2: If no to Question 1, would the Department require separate disclosure of per-call fees and per-minute rates? Question 3: Would the Department please verify that ALL non-local domestic calls-- intraLATA, interLATA, and interstate, for both collect and prepaid-–must be charged at an identical rate? Answer No. 4 states: Question 1: Per this Addendum #2, the following revisions will be made to Section 3.8.3: In 3rd paragraph after first sentence add: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates delete: which Delete 4th paragraph beginning with Note. In 6th paragraph first sentence revised to read: Local call charges for coin-operated telephone calls at the Work Release Centers shall not exceed forty-five cents (.45) per local call plus the Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) charges, which vary between LEC's. In 9th paragraph following In addition, the Contractor shall not charge, pass on, or pass through to the customer paying for the collect, prepaid calls or video visitation visits any of the following charges and/or fees: Add Pre-call setup charges, Pre-call surcharges, Delete last paragraph; Question 2: Not applicable, Question 3: Confirmed, per Section 3.8.3 all non-local and local extended area calls must be charged at an identical rate. Question No. 5 states: Attachment 5 - Price Sheet. Page 30--Section 3.8.3 states that on the price sheet, the Respondent will provide a "single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges . . . ." Attachment 5 states "Blended Telephone Rate for All Calls . . ." To eliminate ambiguity, would the Department consider changing the language in Attachment 5 to read "Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls . . . ?" [sic] Answer No. 5 states: Attachment 5 will be revised to include "Blended Telephone Rate Per Minute for All Calls". Question No. 6 states: Page 30: 3.8.3 - Rate and Call Charge Requirements. The fourth paragraph states that "In accordance with Federal Communications Commission 47 CFR Part 64 [WC Docket No. 12-375; FCC 13-113]--Rates for Interstate Calling Services--effective February 11, 2014, no commission shall be paid on revenues earned through the completion of interstate calls of any type received from the Contract." Respectfully, this interpretation of the FCC's Order is incorrect. The Order, without question, does not prohibit the payment of commissions on interstate calls. Also, rules regarding future cost-based regulation (including consideration of commissions in rate-setting) have been stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and FL DOC interstate rates are well below the FCC rate caps that have been left in place by the Court. This is why most providers have continued to pay commissions on interstate calling, in compliance with their contracts. Q. Will the State consider removing this paragraph from the RFP in order to ensure revenue for the State and a level playing field across providers? Answer No. 6: Section 3.8.3 and Attachment 5--Price Sheet is amended, per this Addendum to remove the paragraph. In addition, Section 7.3.1 has also been amended, per this Addendum, to state that commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines. Further questions and clarifications followed. They are found in Addendum 3 to the RFP. Question No. 2 states: In Addendum No. 2; Answer #4 Revises Section3.8.3 by revising the 3rd paragraph Instructions are to add the following language: The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates (delete: which) For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls which shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. The Respondent shall establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. These per minute rates (deIete [sic]: which). In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. The instructions to add "These per minute rates (delete: which)" does not fit with the instructions. The word "which" is not included in this area of paragraph 3. Question #2: Can the Department please clarify? Answer No. 2 states: To further clarify 3.8.3, paragraph 3 is revised to read as follows: For the price sheet, the Respondent shall establish a single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges, for all calls on the North American Dialing Plan, including intralata, interlata, intrastate, and interstate calls. The Respondent shall also establish a separate single, blended rate per minute inclusive of all surcharges for all local and local extended area calls. Both of these per minute rates shall not exceed the maximum rate per minute allowed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and appropriate regulatory authority during the time the call is placed. In addition to the FCC, vendors can contact the state consumer protection agency, Better Business Bureau, or State Attorney General's Office to obtain maximum rate per minute information. Question No. 3 states: Question: Is the Department requiring the successful Respondent to pay commissions on revenues generated through the completion of interstate calls? Answer No. 3 states: The Department's position is that the collection of commission rates will be determined by the FCC ruling 47 CFR Part 64 [WC docket no. 12-375; FCC13-113]. For purposes of this solicitation the Department requests respondents submit a commission rate for interstate calls. The Department will comply with any future FCC ruling. Question No. 10 states: Section 7.3.1 was revised to include: "Commissions will be paid in accordance with all Federal, State and Local regulations and guidelines." There are no Federal, State, or Local regulations and guidelines which require phone vendors to pay commissions on interstate calling. Thus, in not paying commissions on interstate calling, there would be no violation of any Federal, State, or Local regulation or guideline. The requirement as to whether or not commissions will be paid on interstate calling must come from FL DOC and must be clearly indicated in the RFP. If not clearly indicated one way or another, we fear some vendors may have an unfair advantage as commissions are not currently being paid and there does not seem to be a compliance issue with the current contract which requires such commissions. Please, clearly specify whether or not commissions are required to be paid on interstate calls. Answer No. 10 states: Please see answer to question 3. The Department never definitively stated whether it would ultimately collect commissions on interstate revenues. Nor did it provide a means for vendors to propose rates or commissions based upon whatever the Department concluded were the most likely scenarios resulting from the FCC order and appeal. But the Department's RFP persisted in the RFP requirement that the bidders must include the commission in the calculation of their blended rate for the price proposal. This stands in contrast to the RFP's lengthy list of items, such as bill statement fees, paper statement fees, and account setup fees, which could not be included in the rate. These are items, like the commissions, that the FCC order said could not be part of the fee base. A vendor, who did not calculate the commission in the blended rate, would have a significant price advantage over a vendor who included the commission in its blended rate. It could propose lower rates and/or higher commissions while maintaining its profit margin. That is because although the price sheet identifies a commission, the commission is not accounted for in the blended rate. CenturyLink included payment of a commission rate of 65.3 percent on interstate calls in the blended rate it provided on Attachment 5. This action is a reasonable application of the statements of the RFP and the Addenda about blended rates, commissions, and the cryptic statement about plans to follow the FCC order. CenturyLink proposed a blended rate that did "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." If CenturyLink had not included the commission payment on interstate calls in its blended rates, it could have bid higher commissions, lower rates, or a combination of both. Securus identified a commission percentage for all calls of 73 percent on its Attachment 5 price sheet. Securus did not include the cost of paying a commission on interstate calls in calculating the blended rate that it submitted. This allowed Securus to submit a lower blended rate than it would otherwise have had to submit to achieve the same revenue from the contract. The blended rate that Securus proposed did not "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." Global identified a commission percentage of 46 percent for all calls in its Attachment 5 price sheet. In determining the proposed rates for interstate calls, Global did not include or assume payment of the commission percentage rate. This allowed it to submit lower blended rates and/or a higher commission rate. Global did not intend to or think it would be required to pay commission rates on interstate calls. This was based on its evaluation of the FCC order, the appeal, and the Department's decision not to accept commission payments on interstate calls under its current contract with Securus. This is why it did not include the commission as a cost when calculating the blended rate. Global chose to take the business risk that its evaluation of the FCC order would be correct. If it was incorrect and a commission payment was required, Global was prepared to make the payment, even though it would not have been collected from inmates and their designees through the blended rate. The blended rate proposed by Global did not "establish a separate single, blended rate per minute, inclusive of all surcharges and department commission rate." Ms. Hussey applied the formula in the RFP to determine points awarded each vendor for its price proposal. This calculation was a ministerial function that did not call for any exercise of judgment or discretion. The overall cost ranking scores were: Global 280.42, Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94. The scores for the commissions were: Global 94.52, Securus 150, and CenturyLink 134.18. The scores for the blended rates for inmate telephone services that included interstate services were: Global 125, Securus 56.25, and CenturyLink 50.90. This difference reflects the vendors' differing treatment of commissions when proposing their blended rates. The Department did not know during the evaluation process that Global and Securus had not included or assumed payment of the commission in its proposed rates for interstate calls. The Department learned this during discovery in this proceeding. Not including commission payments on interstate calls in the proposed blended rate was contrary to the instructions of the RFP. Securus Response to RFP Section 3.15 The Department awarded Securus zero points for the question of "[h]ow adequate is the Respondent's plan to meet the performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of the RFP?" This criterion related to the performance measures of RFP Section 3.15, for which proposals could earn 125 total points. The difference between zero and the possible maximum points would have made a difference in winning and losing the contract award for Securus. The score of zero is a factual finding by the Department that Securus's 600-plus-page proposal had no information from which evaluators could qualitatively assess the proposal by that criterion. A score of zero is not a qualitative assessment, like a score of "poor" or "exceptional." A score of zero reflects a finding that information is completely absent. The evaluation criteria score sheet, RFP Attachment 4, provided factors to be considered in evaluating and scoring proposals. It presented the factors to evaluators in the form of questions to evaluators. For section 3.15, the question and accompanying scores allowed were: How adequate is the Respondent's plan to meet the performance measures outlined in section 3.15 of this RFP? (Omitted-0; Poor-6.25; Adequate-12.5; Good-18.75; and Exceptional-25.) Because the Department allowed each evaluator to score this factor, a total of 125 points was ultimately available to the vendors. RFP Section 3.15 provides: Performance Measures Upon execution of this contract, Contractor agrees to be held accountable for the achievement of certain performance measures in successfully delivering services under this Contract. The following Performance Measure categories shall be used to measure Contractor's performance and delivery of services. Note: the Contractor shall comply with all contract terms and conditions upon execution of contract and the Department may monitor each site upon implementation of services at that site to ensure that contract requirements are being met. The Department reserves the right to add/delete performance measures as needed to ensure the adequate delivery of services. Performance Outcomes and Standards; and Other Contract Requirements. A description of each of the Performance Measure categories is provided below: RFP Section 3.15 was divided into two components. Section 3.15.1 listed key "Performance Outcomes and Standards" deemed most critical to the success of the contract and required that "the contractor shall ensure that the stated performance outcomes and standards are met." The key elements were: (1) Completion of Routine Service, (2) Completion of Major Emergency Repair Service, and (3) Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation). The first is RFP Section 3.15.1. It provides: Performance Outcomes and Standards Listed below are the key Performance Outcomes and Standards deemed most crucial to the success of the overall desired inmate telecommunication service. The contractor shall ensure that the stated performance outcomes and standards (level of achievement) are met. Performance shall be measured as indicated, beginning the second month after which service has been fully implemented. Completion of Routine Services Outcome: All requests for routine service (as defined in Section 1.22) shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of request for service from the Department, unless otherwise instructed by the Department. Measure: Compare the date/time that service is completed to the date/time that the request for service was received from the Department by the Contractor. (Measure Monthly). Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine service requests shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of notice from the Department. Completion of Major Emergency Repair Service Outcome: All major emergency repair service (as outlined in Section 3.10.8) shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of request for repair from the Department, unless otherwise instructed by the Department. Measure: Compare the date/time that major emergency repair service is completed to the date/time that the request for major emergency repair service was received from the Department by the Contractor. (Measure Monthly). Standard: Ninety percent (90%) of routine service requests shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of notice from the Department. Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation): Outcome: The Contractor shall provide the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report to the Contract Manager or designee as specified in Section 7.3.3 within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. Measure: Compare the date the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report was received with the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. (Measure Monthly). Standard: One hundred percent (100%) of Commission and Call Detail Reports shall be received within thirty (30) days of the last day of the Contractor's regular billing cycle. Upon execution of this Contract, the Contractor hereby acknowledges and agrees that its performance under the Contract shall meet the standards set forth above. Any failure by the Contractor to achieve any outcome and standard identified above may result in assessment of Liquidated Damages as provided in Section 3.17. Any such assessment and/or subsequent payment thereof shall not affect the Contractor's obligation to provide services as required by this Contract. Section 3.15.2 advised that the Department will monitor the contractor's performance to determine compliance with the contract. It states: Other Contract Requirements Standard: The Department will monitor the Contractor's performance to determine compliance with other contract requirements, including, but not limited to, the following: Video Visitation System (as outlined in Section 3.7) Inmate Telecommunication System Functionality (as outlined in Section 3.7) Transition/Implementation/Installation of System Bi-Annual Audit Timely Submittal of Corrective Action Plans (when applicable) Measure: Failure to meet the agreed-upon Final Transition/Implementation/Installation schedule or failure to meet (compliance with other terms and conditions of the contract or contract requirements listed above) may result in the imposition of liquidated damages Each of the three items in section 3.15.1 and the five items in section 3.15.2 relate directly to a particular provision within RFP Section 3 titled, "Scope of Services." Section 3.15.1 related to RFP Sections 1.22 and 3.10.7 (Routine Maintenance), 3.10.8 (Major Emergency Repair Service), and 7.3.3 (Detail Report). Section 3.15.1 specifically identifies the last two. Similarly, section 3.15.2 cross referenced section 3.7 (Telecommunications Services System Functionality) for the first two performance measure items. Two others items relate directly to sections 3.5 (Facility Implementation Plan and Transition of Service), 3.6 (Installation Requirements), and 3.11 (Bi-Annual Audit). This is significant because Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.11 were independently scored. In other words, the RFP required that the proposals contain a narrative explaining how vendors planned to provide the services required by each of those sections. The RFP did not require the proposals to contain a separately delineated section titled, "3.15." It only required that each proposal include, under "Tab 6," a narrative description of the vendor's solution and plan to meet the performance measures. Evaluation of Responses to Section 3.15 Global included a specifically labeled section 3.15 in its response. It essentially copied and pasted the RFP language for Sections 3.15, 3.15.1, and 3.15.2, and after each subsection, inserted the words "GTL [Global] Response: GTL understands and complies." Global did not provide a substantive narrative under the heading, section 3.15. CenturyLink's labeled response to section 3.15 was very similar. The evaluators reviewed the section of Global's proposal labeled as responsive to section 3.15. The maximum score the evaluators could award per evaluator was 25 points. Global earned scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from Messrs. Lockwood, Agerton, Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively. The evaluators reviewed CenturyLink's proposal labeled as responsive to section 3.15. It also earned scores of 25, 18.75, 12.5, 12.5, and 12.5 from Messrs. Lockwood, Agerton, Phillips, Creamer, and Wilson, respectively. All five evaluators reviewed copies of the vendors' proposals. Some evaluators performed a section-by-section and some performed side-by-side evaluations of the proposals. Since Securus did not have a labeled section 3.15 and the other proposers did, the evaluators scored Securus's proposal as "Omitted-0" for section 3.15. After their initial review of Securus's proposal, three evaluators raised concerns with the Department's procurement officer, Ms. Hussey, over their inability to find a section in the Securus proposal specifically identified as a response to Section 3.15. Ms. Hussey reiterated the instruction given during evaluator training to review proposals in their entirety when scoring any component of the RFP. None of those evaluators changed their scores of "omitted" for section 3.15 of Securus's proposal after receiving Ms. Hussey's additional instruction and presumably performing a second review of Securus's proposal. RFP Section 3.15 included cross references to sections 3.7 and 3.10.8. Following these referenced sections to the matching section numbers in the Securus proposal reveals narratives addressing the section 3.15 requirements. In addition, these cross-referenced sections were separately scored by each evaluator during his review of each vendor's Telecommunications Service System Functionality and Telecommunication Service Equipment Requirements. Securus's proposal complied with the RFP specifications by affirming Securus's commitment to comply with section 3.15 throughout the proposal. Although Securus's proposal did not include a separate tabbed section addressing Securus's plan to meet the section 3.15 performance measures, Securus provided a narrative explaining how Securus would meet each performance measure required in section 3.15. Securus also provided narratives explaining how it would meet and provide the scope of service of each one of the performance measures of Section 3.15. The first performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that 90 percent of all routine service be completed within 24 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor. The routine service requirement was located at section 3.10.7. In its proposal, behind Tab 6 and labeled "3.10.7 Routine Service," on page 388, Securus's response stated: All routine service shall be completed within twenty-four (24) hours of the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus has read, understands, and complies. Securus Field Repair staff is strategically located throughout the state to be able to respond to all repair service needs in order to meet all repair service needs. Securus will continue to complete all routine service, as we do under the existing contract, within twenty-four (24) hours if the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. This response complied with the RFP requirement. It could not rationally be deemed omitted. The second performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that 90 percent of all major emergency repair services (as outlined in section 3.10.8) be completed within 12 hours of the Department giving notice to the vendor. This performance measure cross-referenced section 3.10.8. Securus's proposal behind Tab 6 and labeled "3.10.8 Major Emergency Repair Service," addressed the emergency repairs stating: All major emergency service shall be completed within twelve (12) hours of the initial system failure notice request or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus has read, understands, and complies. Securus Field Repair staff is strategically located throughout the state to be able to respond to all repair service needs in order to meet all repair service needs. Securus will continue to complete all major emergency service, as we do under the existing contract, within twelve (12) hours if the initial system failure notice, service request for service or equipment failure or liquidated damages may be imposed as stated in Section 3.17. Securus's response complied with the RFP requirement. It could not rationally be deemed omitted. The third performance measure in RFP Section 3.15.1 required that the Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Report (Invoice Documentation) be provided to the contract manager or designee, as specified in section 7.3.3 at the end of every month with the contractor's regular billing cycle. Securus addressed this requirement behind Tab 6 in a section labeled "2.4 Revenue to be Paid the Department," on page 107. Securus's response stated: This RFP will result in a Revenue Generating Contract. The Contractor shall pay the Department a commission based on a percentage of gross revenue. The Contractor shall be responsible for collections and fraud, and shall not make any deductions from gross revenue for uncollectible accounts, billing fees or other administrative costs prior to applying the commission percentage. Notwithstanding the above, gross revenue shall not include taxes charged by an appropriate governmental entity. The monthly commission amount is obtained by multiplying the commission percentage times each month's total charges. The successful contractor shall submit a Commission and Call/Video Visitation Detail Documentation for Monthly Payment report as indicated in Section 7.3.3 with the monthly commission payment. Securus has read, understands and complies. Securus will provide the monthly payment report as required and will provide all appropriate auditing detail required upon request from the Department. This response complies with the RFP requirement and cannot rationally be deemed omitted. Some evaluators acknowledged that they did not factor Section 3.15.2 into their scoring of Securus's proposal. The terms of the RFP require considering section 3.15.2 during the scoring of section 3.15. It is part of that section. Failing to consider Securus's narrative related to section 3.15.2 is not rational. As with section 3.15.1, Securus's proposal complied with the RFP Section 3.15.2. Securus committed to complying with the requirements of section 3.15.2 throughout its proposal. The record does not prove whether each evaluator re-reviewed the cross-referenced sections identified in Section 3.15. But Mr. Phillips did. Despite seeing the exact language in those sections as required in the "Outcome" portion of Section 3.15, Mr. Phillips awarded Securus a score of zero because, in his mind, "key parts of 3.15" were not addressed. The conclusion that Securus entirely omitted a plan to address Section 3.15's requirements is irrational and clearly erroneous. Something was there. A score of omitted is not supported. Mr. Phillips also did not score section 3.15 consistently with the way he scored another section of Securus's proposal. He originally gave Securus a score of zero for section 3.14 entitled, Training, because he did not find a specifically delineated section titled section 3.14 in Securus's response. But Mr. Phillips changed his score before submitting it to Ms. Hussey because upon further review of Securus's proposal, he found some aspects that addressed the training requirements of section 3.14. He scored that section accordingly. This highlights the error in evaluators not doing the same with section 3.15. The evaluators irrationally concluded that Securus failed to include in its technical proposal any information explaining how it would meet the performance standards and outcomes of section 3.15. Some evaluators relied on the theory that Securus did not "acknowledge" the outcomes and standards. As established above, Securus acknowledged that "the Performance Outcomes and Standards are crucial to the success of the overall inmate telephone service," and throughout its technical response, Securus addressed all the required outcomes and standards. Securus mentioned and acknowledged the performance outcomes and standards a total of six times in its proposal: twice on page 42 and once on each of pages 100, 138, 160, and 392. Three of those pages were narrative responses to sections 3.7 and 3.11, which are specifically included as part of section 3.15. Some evaluators also claimed that Securus never expressly agreed to be bound by the performance measures of section 3.15. That may theoretically affect the qualitative evaluation of the response, but it does not support a finding that the information was omitted. Also, the RFP did not require a vendor to specifically delineate each of the 18 subsections of section 3 in its response. To comply with the Technical Response section of the RFP, a vendor needed to address, in narrative form, its plan to provide the scope of services outlined in section 3. This was not disputed. Several Department employees testified and agreed that a response to the RFP did not require specifically delineated sections of the response that mirrored the delineation of the RFP. Inclusion of Prohibited Fees In Addendum 2, the Department asked the vendors to provide a sample refund policy. The policies were not described as or intended to be final refund policies that would be used in administration of the contract. The terms of a refund policy, if any, would be negotiated with the winning vendor, subject to the requirements of the RFP, including the prohibition against including fees in the blended rate. The sample policies of Securus and Global included some costs or forfeitures for obtaining a refund depending on how and when the inmate sought the refund. These are not prohibited fees or even items agreed to in the RFP. They are only samples. The evidence does not prove that the sample refund policies violate the requirement of section 3.8.3. Scoring The review and evaluation process described in section 6 of the RFP identified the maximum number of points that could be awarded for each part of the inmate calling services project. The total number of possible points was 1,000. The sections and points allotted to them were as follows: Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements--0, Executive Summary and Other Proposal Submissions--0, Business/Corporate Qualification--50, Project Staff--200, Technical Response--400, and Price Proposal--350. This allowed 350 points for the pricing section and 650 for the remaining technical sections. Because each evaluator scored the technical sections, the cumulative totals of their scores exceed 1,000. Securus maintains that this scoring is inconsistent with the process described in the RFP. But each evaluator scored the technical portion of the proposals within the maximum 650 total points available to each vendor. And the procurement staff scored the price proposals within the maximum 350 points available for price to each vendor. Applying the RFP's mathematical scoring methodology to the price proposals, the procurement staff scored the pricing as follows: Global 280.42, Securus 276.04, and CenturyLink 232.94. The scoring for each was within the RFP's 350-point maximum. The scores given by each evaluator for the technical portion of the vendors' proposals are as follows: EVALUATORS: Shane Phillips Steve Wilson Jon Creamer Charles Lockwood Randy Agerton CenturyLink 722.94 857.94 707.94 776.69 734.19 Securus 749.79 808.54 702.29 834.79 779.79 Global 782.92 880.42 751.67 859.17 802.92 Each evaluator's technical score when combined with the pricing score was within the RFP's 1,000-point maximum. Ms. Hussey totaled all the evaluator's technical scores for each vendor with the pricing score for that vendor. The resulting number exceeded 1,000. The award memorandum presented the totals, as follows: Ranking = Cost + Total Evaluator Scores (As Posted) Commission + Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking Global 280.42 2,680.00 2,960.42 1 CenturyLink 232.94 2,495.00 2,727.94 3 Securus 276.04 2,635.00 2,911.04 2 This method of compilation did not affect the relative ranking of the vendors. If the technical scores awarded by the five evaluators are averaged and added to the pricing scores, the points total for each vendor is under 1,000. And the ranking of the vendors does not change. Ranking = Cost + Evaluator Scores (Evaluator Scores Averaged) Commission + Rates Evaluation Scores Total Ranking Global 280.42 535.00 815.42 1 CenturyLink 232.94 499.00 731.94 3 Securus 276.04 527.00 803.04 2 Averaging in this fashion is consistent with the RFP. The evidence does not prove the Department erred in scoring the proposals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order rejecting all proposals for Request for Proposal DC RFP-13-031. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issues are whether Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool (MPP), is the lowest qualified bidder on Contract No. R- 2119 or whether Suwannee Valley Medical Personnel Corporation (Suwannee) is entitled to the award of Contract No. R-2119 or is entitled to have all bids rejected and the contract relet for bids.
Findings Of Fact The ITB on Contract No. R-2119 was developed jointly between the Department's Central Office and the Region II contracting staff. The Region II staff sent a draft of the ITB to the Central Office, where it was reviewed by Gerald Ellsworth, the Department's Human Service Program Specialist. Mr. Ellsworth is responsible for reviewing the Department's contracts and plans, as well as for development of the Department's proposed invitations to bid and other related types of documents. Mr. Ellsworth has considerable experience in drafting and reviewing governmental contracts for purchasing of services at the state, local and federal government levels. The ITB was also reviewed by the Department's legal office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Correctional Medical Authority, with regard to both the specifications and the contract language in the ITB. The Department properly published the ITB on or about June 28, 1989. The ITB was published under cover of a formal State of Florida Invitation to Bid for Contractual Services, Form PUR: 7031 (Rev. 10/18/88), containing the State of Florida standard general conditions for bids for contractual services. Among those conditions were detailed requirements regarding the sealed nature of bids, requirements for the execution of bids, requirements regarding the opening of bids and conditions regarding prices, terms and payment, interpretations and disputes, conflict of interest, awards, governmental restrictions, default, legal requirements, advertising, assignment, liability, facilities, cancellation and public records. The same general conditions on the first page of the ITB specifically provided an exclusive mechanism for the bidders to resolve questions and disputes regarding the conditions and specifications of the ITB: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis added.) The body of the ITB stated that the Department was soliciting bids for registered and licensed practical nurse services in the Department's Region II, on all shifts, for the care and treatment of inmate patients, as further defined in the ITB's section entitled "Responsibilities of Successful Bidder; Scope of Work." The ITB also contained detailed requirements regarding Nurse Professional Qualifications, Quality Management Standards, Scheduling of Nurses, Records, Invoicing, Insurance, Legal Requirements, Conflict of Interest, Unsatisfactory Performance, Brokering of Contract, Subcontracts, Verbal Instructions, detailed procedural requirements regarding the submission, review and evaluation of the bids, a description of the institutions covered and a copy of the sample contract. One of the procedural requirements in the body of the ITB repeated that: All inquiries from Bidder's [sic] concerning this Invitation to Bid shall be submitted in writing to the office identified on the cover of this Invitation to Bid. Such inquiries shall be received by the office on or before the date indicated above in the Calendar of Events as the "Last Day for Written Inquiries" [July 10, 1989]. (Emphasis added.) The ITB contained a "Bid Price Sheet" which contained separate blanks for RN and LPN services, separate blanks for each service for weekdays and weekend/holidays, and separate blanks for each of these categories for each of the three geographic areas of Region II, in each of the three years of the contract. That Bid Price Sheet stated that prices quoted "shall be firm net prices regardless of travel involved. . . " The body of the ITB specified that bidders must submit "all costs in the format specified on the Price Quote Sheet provided." (Emphasis added.) Further, the "Proposal Evaluations" section of the ITB specified that the figures to be inserted in the blanks on p. 15 were to be "hourly rates" for each type of nursing service. The next paragraph of this section of the ITB, however, stated that "Total cost, and cost breakouts on the Price Quote Sheet shall be clearly stated." The undisputed testimony of Gerald Ellsworth established that the intent of these provisions of the ITB was to require the bidders to state the total cost (i.e., net firm price) for each hour of nursing services in a particular geographic area at a particular point in time. Even though the ITB set forth an estimate of the hours that would be required under the contract, this information was clearly only in the nature of an estimate, and it was never the intent of the ITB to require the bidders or the Committee to project or evaluate, respectively, the total cost of the contract (as opposed to the total cost of each hour of service) by multiplying the bidders' bid costs for each hour of service by the corresponding estimate of hours needed over the three- year life of the contract for each of those categories. The primary reason for this focus upon the cost of an hour of service, rather than the cost of the entire contract, is that the estimated hours needed, as indicated by the ITB, are only estimates. Actual demands for service and workloads are likely to vary considerably, both by type of nursing position and geographic area. These demands could also vary as a result of factors such as the vacancy levels in the Department's own staff of employee nurses or changes in administrative personnel at a given institution. The ITB called for a mix of both objective and subjective evaluation of materials submitted by the bidders. The cost data, submitted in response to p. 7, para. E; p. 12, para. F.2.e; and p. 15, para. 7 was entirely objective, as was the Committee's role in evaluating that data. On the other hand, the information required from bidders under p. 12, para. F.2.a ("Project understanding and statement of work and reference from clients"), and p. 12, para. F.2.b ("Nurse Professional Qualifications"), called for a mix of both subjective and objective information and evaluation. The former, referred to throughout the testimony as "Criterion A," required the bidder to submit "a narrative statement of work to be performed, and references from clients in accordance with the specifications appearing at p. 4, para. 2.A. The latter, referred to in the testimony as "Criterion B," required bidders to: submit professional qualifications, experi- ence, and CPR certification for Department reviewers which documents the Bidders [sic] capability to provide registered and licensed practical nurse personnel that meet the training specifications. as set forth at pp. 4-5, para. 2.B. Within Criterion B, for example, an entirely objective requirement is the proof of the bidders' nurses' CPR qualification. A subjective element of this same criterion would be the quantity and quality of documentation of available nurses. The ITB required the Committee to award points to the respective bidders based on a formula which takes into account each of these objective and subjective criteria. That Formula, at its first level, assigned a point value of 20 points for Criterion A (Project understanding and statement of work, and references from clients), 30 points for Criterion B (Nurse Professional Qualifications) and 50 points for Criterion C (Bid Cost). Specifically as to Criterion C (Bid Cost), this criterion was entirely objective and did not require any subjective analysis by the Committee. The ITB specified that the lowest bidder "shall" be awarded 50 points, based on the average of the three years' quotes for cost of hours of nursing services. The ITB specified that the remaining bidders "shall" be awarded points for bid cost based on the following formula: Points Awarded Equals 50 x (1-A/B) where A equals the difference between the respective bidders' average bid and the lowest average bid, and B equals the lowest bidder's average bid. Unlike Criterion C, the Committee members' evaluation of the bidders' responses to Criteria A and B was left to their judgment and discretion. While the ITB set forth factors that were to be taken into consideration by the Committee members under these criteria, there was no required method by which an evaluator was to assign points for Criteria A and B. Specifically, there was no requirement in the ITB that the evaluators rank the bidders under Criteria A and B. An evaluator was free, for example, to give all bidders full point credit under either criterion, or to assign them any variation of points. This type of point system for mixed weighing of subjective and objective criteria is not unusual in governmental purchasing contracting and competitive bidding and is, in fact, normal procedure. The bid criteria set forth in the ITB, as well as the system set forth therein for evaluation of those bids by a mix of subjective and objective criteria, is rational. Further, and specifically, the ITB's requirement that costs be quoted as a rate per hour of service, by geographic area and point in time, is rational. It would be irrational to evaluate bid cost under this ITB by multiplying each bidder's price quotes for individual hours of service, broken down by geographic area and point in time, by the corresponding estimates of hours needed, set forth at p. 3 of the ITB, and then comparing the resulting "total cost" of the contract under each bid, since the estimated hours were intended to be no more than estimates, and the Department recognizes that these hours are subject to significant variation over the term of the contract. This probable variation would make the latter calculation entirely meaningless and baselessly speculative. It was not the intent of the ITB to find the "lowest and best" bidder. Instead, the intent of this ITB was to find the lowest bidder who met the qualifications and specifications set forth in the ITB. This is not the same as "lowest and best." The Bidders and Their Bids Medical Personnel Pool MPP, the successful bidder on Contract No. R-2119, timely submitted its bid for that contract. MPP's bid showed that MPP is a nationally recognized health care provider, with over twenty years of experience in serving the health care needs of both home health clients and facility clients. Its franchise office in Gainesville, Florida, is one of four offices operated in the Region II area by Mr. Ed Bixby, a former vice president of MPP's parent company, Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Bixby personally has over fifteen years of experience in medical staffing. All MPP offices follow the same national corporate standards for quality assurance, office operation and general business practice. Further, MPP is a financially sound and viable business, with an ongoing corporate recruitment program that regularly attracts new employees. MPP's client service representatives are on-call and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet the Department's staffing needs. The agency has been managed since October 1987, by Mr. Duane Gorgas, who has seventeen years of experience in facility clinical laboratory medicine, and who is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a clinical laboratory supervisor. MPP demonstrated compliance with Criterion B of the ITB by showing that each of its nurses is carefully and personally screened and tested for nursing skills prior to being sent into the field. In addition, MPP personally verifies all nurses' licenses with the Department of Professional Regulation, as well as their CPR certifications. A minimum of one year's documented current clinical experience is required prior to a nurse's being sent into the field. Further, MPP is itself an approved provider of nursing and other professional continuing education programs (DPR Provider No. 27M0938) and provides continuing education directly to its employees on a regular basis. MPP's Gainesville franchise already provides RN's and LPN's to correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes throughout sixteen counties in north central Florida. A list of the prisons and county jails currently and historically staffed by MPP in both Regions II and III was included in the bid, and includes thirteen corrections facilities in those two regions. A broad range of references from these and other clients, both institutional and personal, was included as Attachment II to MPP's bid. Copies of the licenses of 48 experienced MPP nurses, qualified and available to provide the services called for under Contract No. R-2119, were attached to the bid as Attachment III. Suwannee Suwannee's bid was also timely submitted. Whereas Suwannee now protests that the Department's manner of determining bid costs as net cost per hourly unit of service is irrational, that contention is belied by Suwannee's own bid. In the first place, Suwannee did not quote cost as a multiplication of hourly rates times total estimated hours anywhere in its bid, even though its president, Mr. Fortner, now contends this is the only rational way to quote or determine bid cost under the ITB. Further, Mr. Fortner expressly conceded that the ITB did not call for any such calculation of "total cost" by multiplication of rates by estimated hours. Even so, Suwannee has waived any objection or question it may now have as to the method of determining bid cost. Mr. Fortner conceded that he was fully aware of the standards set forth at pp. 1 and 11 of the ITB, requiring that questions or objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB be submitted in writing in a timely manner prior to July 10, 1989. Mr. Fortner nevertheless conceded that he failed to submit any such questions or objections regarding the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, until the filing of his protest after the award of the bid to MPP, and long after July 10, 1989. Having failed to file any timely written objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, therefore, Suwannee has waived any objections to the Department's method of calculating bid costs by averaging each bidder's unit net price for an hour of service by geographic area and point in time, as opposed to Suwannee's after- the-fact preferred method of multiplying these rates by estimated hours to determine Suwannee's definition of "total cost." Suwannee's bid, as supported by its president's testimony, showed that Suwannee was only incorporated in late July 1988, less than a year before the ITB was published. Prior to that time its then-22-year-old president's business experience consisted of operating a video store. Mr. Fortner conceded he had no prior experience whatsoever in providing any sort of nursing or medical services. Prior to the bid letting, Suwannee's sole experience in attempting to staff a correctional facility was at Baker Correctional Institute. Mr. Fortner testified that his first client was Lake City Medical Center, yet no reference from that facility appears in his bid. On the other hand, MPP's bid contains a highly favorable reference from Lake City Medical Center's director of nursing, indicating a completely satisfactory contractual relationship with MPP since 1987. Whereas MPP directly provides continuing education to its nurses under its own provider number, Suwannee takes the position that continuing education requirements are the nurses' responsibilities, and that they must meet these requirements at their own expense. Further, while Mr. Fortner stated that he believes Suwannee tests its nurses, he admitted he did not know how, and Suwannee's bid was silent on this aspect of Criterion B of the ITB. Suwannee's bid was also silent on screening of new nurse applicants. Suwannee has only recently hired a full-time director of nursing. Whereas MPP submitted qualifications for 48 nurses to staff the estimated hours under contract, Suwannee proposed to staff the same number of estimated hours with only 31 nurses. Mr. Fortner testified that the number of licenses in Suwannee's bid constitutes the full complement of nurses he deems necessary to provide the number of hours of service estimated in the ITB. The Bid Evaluation Process Objective Evaluation of Criterion C Initially, because of a confusing misprint in the ITB regarding the mathematical formula for calculating points to be awarded to bidders, other than the lowest average cost bidder, under Criterion C (bid cost), some of the four Bid Evaluation Committee members calculated the ranking of bidders under that criterion differently. That calculation was corrected by Dr. Rechtine, the Committee chairperson, however, in consultation with officials of the Region II office. The correction did not alter the ultimate overall ranking of the bidders, although it made slight differences in the points awarded individual bidders by some members of the Committee, and in one case the second and third bidders under Criterion C were reversed on one evaluator's tally sheet. All four of the Committee members testified that they agreed with the corrected calculation of points to be awarded each of the bidders under Criterion C. At no time was any other part of any Committee member's points awarded altered or changed. Subjective Evaluation of Criteria A and B Steven Smith Committee member Steven Smith, Regional Health Services Administrator for Region II, responsible for assisting institutions in the region with health service issues, including contracting for health services, evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Mr. Smith thoroughly reviewed the entire bid document of each bidder and made judgments as to the merits of each bid. His evaluations were based on how the bidders presented their respective documents, including the presentation and content of the narratives. While he did not assign any greater weight to either MPP's or Suwannee's references, Mr. Smith felt that MPP better articulated its understanding of the nature of the work. Mr. Smith was particularly impressed with MPP's understanding of the Department's court-ordered duty to improve access for inmates' to nursing services, which Mr. Smith felt was indicative of MPP's understanding of the contract's service requirements. He was also impressed with MPP's documentation of its 24-hour coverage. In sum, Mr. Smith felt MPP's bid was much clearer than Suwannee's. Cynthia Vathauer Committee member Cynthia Vathauer is a Department accountant, in charge of the inmates' welfare fund, who has previously served as an evaluator of competitive bids. Ms. Vathauer evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Ms. Vathauer reviewed the ITB and next performed a detailed analysis of whether the bid components called for by the ITB under Criteria A and B were present in each bid. Her review of the bids under Criteria A and B consisted of listing all of the required components under each criterion and then checking off whether each bidder had adequately provided the required components, making notes where there was partial or questionable compliance and deducting points from the total allowable for each criterion which was missing or incomplete. Whereas Suwannee contends Ms. Vathauer made "no analysis" of the bids under Criteria A and B, simply because Ms. Vathauer stated that she did not read these components of the bids in detail for comparative content, this allegation is not supported by the weight of the competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Vathauer's detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the factors called for by the ITB, supported by her contemporaneous notes, shows that Ms. Vathauer made a rational and reasoned analysis of the bids under those criteria, fully supporting her allocation of points to the bidders under those criteria. She admitted candidly that she was not familiar with the clinical or operational aspects of health service provision. Thus, for example, rather than attempt to compare the relative quality of nurse evaluations (which, incidentally, was not required under the ITB), Ms. Vathauer based her judgment of compliance with this criterion on the presence or absence of valid copies of actual licenses. Dianne Rechtine, M.D. Dianne Rechtine, M.D., is the medical executive director at North Florida Reception Center and acting medical services director for Region II. Dr. Rechtine also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids under the standards of the ITB. Dr. Rechtine read the respective bids and, with respect to Criteria A and B, assigned points based on her evaluation of those bids. Her notes of how she allocated points under these criteria appear as Joint Exhibit No. 4D and show that Dr. Rechtine actually scored Suwannee higher than MPP under Criterion A and the same as MPP under Criterion B. Suwannee has not been heard to assert that Dr. Rechtine's analysis under these criteria was other than rational and reasoned. Thus, it is found that Dr. Rechtine's analysis and evaluation of the bids was in fact rational and reasoned. Peggy (Richardson) Patray Since Peggy (Richardson) Patray was not called to the witness stand, MPP offered into evidence, without objection, her deposition testimony, taken prior to MPP's intervention and without benefit of cross-examination by MPP or its counsel. Nevertheless, that deposition and Ms. Patray's own evaluation notes appearing as Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate that Ms. Patray, a registered nursing services consultant employed by the Department and previous nursing supervisor at New River Correctional Institute, carefully reviewed the ITB and analyzed and evaluated the bids under Criteria A, B and C prior to awarding points to the bidders. Ms. Patray looked at the types of facilities from which references were obtained and considered, for example, related jail-type experience to be a positive factor. Ms. Patray actually scored Suwannee superior to MPP under Criterion A for reasons related to the bidders' statements of understanding of work. She scored the two bidders evenly under Criterion B, even though she was favorably impressed by one (at the time of her deposition, she could not recall which) bidder's emphasis on pre-employment screening and in-service training, when contrasted with the other bidder's leaving of this responsibility to the individual nurses. Finally, Ms. Patray testified that she was favorably impressed with MPP's sources of references, as opposed to Suwannee's, and that there was not enough information in Suwannee's bid, in her opinion, regarding nurse professional qualifications. In sum, Ms. Patray's testimony and notes in Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate clearly that she also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids of the parties under the terms and conditions of the ITB. Suwannee's Allegations There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support Suwannee's allegations that political or media pressure adverse to Suwannee influenced the decision to award Contract No. R-2119 to MPP. Each Department witness who testified in this proceeding testified that no such political pressure was brought to bear upon them or even attempted. The competent, substantial and unrebutted evidence of record demonstrates clearly that no such pressure or influence occurred or was attempted. In the same vein, Suwannee has alleged that the Committee improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors or information outside of the ITB and the bid documents. The only evidence of record of Committee members having considered information outside of the ITB or the bids was the testimony of several of the Committee members that they either were aware of or considered allegations of past difficulties with MPP, not Suwannee. For example, Mr. Smith testified that he was aware of one past problem with MPP, but none with Suwannee. In any event, he did not consider anything outside of the bid documents in his review. Ms. Vathauer said nothing relating to this issue. Dr. Rechtine testified that she was aware of, and had considered, past problems with MPP, that she had received favorable input as to Suwannee and, to the extent that this knowledge affected her evaluation, she agreed that it did so to the advantage of Suwannee (scored 20 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B), and to the disadvantage of MPP (scored 12 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B). Finally, even Ms. Patray testified that she had received some negative reports on MPP, whereas she mentioned no such information regarding Suwannee. In sum, there is no evidence of record to support Suwannee's allegations that the Committee members improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors outside the bid documents. Any error which may have occurred in this regard was entirely harmless as to Suwannee, and if it had any effect at all, it worked to Suwannee's benefit. Results of the Bid Evaluation Process The result of the bid evaluation process was that MPP received 88 overall points under the formula set out in the ITB, Suwannee received 85.62, Quality Care received 73.05 and Upjohn received 58.87. MPP was also the low bidder on cost, i.e., Criterion C. The weight and preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that Contract No. R-2119 should have been awarded to MPP, as it was, and that there is an ample, rational, reasoned and logical basis in the record supporting the decision of the Department to award the contract to MPP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding Contract No. R-2119 to Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Office 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4566BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Suwannee Valley Medical personnel Corporation 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (page 5). Proposed findings of fact 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6, 17, and 19 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Corrections Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3); 3 (19, 25); 4 (page 5); 6 (11); 7 (12); 8 (16); 9 (46); 14 (44); and 15 (45) Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, and 10-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Medical Personnel Pool Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 16-50 (1-35) and 53-63 (36- 46) Proposed findings of fact 12-15 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 51 is included on page 5 of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 52 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Older COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Attorney at Law Haben & Culpepper 306 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Drucilla E Bell Perri M. King Attorneys at Law Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Thomas D. Watry Attorney at Law Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
