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 Paragraph 8 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No proposal can be withdrawn after it is filed unless the Bidder makes his request in writing to the District prior to the time set for the opening of bids, or unless the District fails to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.
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Respondent's decision to rescind a previous notice of award of a bid to Petitioner First Master Lessors, Inc., on the basis that the original bid was nonresponsive, was appropriate. If rescission of that bid award was proper, a secondary issue is whether Respondent was also justified in rejecting the competing bid submitted on behalf of Petitioner DSJ Realty Company Inc.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid in order to obtain a leasehold of 15,397 square feet of office space to house operations of its child support enforcement office in Lakeland, Florida, for a term of seven years with an option to renew the lease for two additional three year periods. The Invitation To Bid (ITB) states Respondent's reservation of the right to reject, if in the best interest of the State of Florida, any and all bids. Further, the invitation states a number of conditions that submitting bidders must meet in order for their bids to be deemed responsive. Among the stated conditions is the requirement that bids be submitted on the standardized bid submittal form enclosed in the ITB in compliance with conditions specified on that form. Further, bidders are directed to complete the bid submittal form providing acknowledgements requested by the form. Another stated condition of the ITB is the requirement that a bidder be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas offered for lease; or, if a lessee seeking to sublease, submit with the bid proposal documentation of authority to sublease the facility and parking areas. A further ITB condition requires each bid to be signed by the owner, corporate officers or legal representative of the bidding entity. Corporate, trade or partnership titles of the bidding entity are to be stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature. Bid submissions signed by an agent are required to be accompanied by written evidence from the owner of record documenting the agent's authority. All bid submittal signatures are to be notarized. Page 4 of the standardized bid submittal form enclosed in the ITB requires, in paragraph 11, that any bid offering premises for consideration (including parking areas), which are presently occupied or which will covered by other active leases on the anticipated lease effective date, must be accompanied by documentation executed by those tenants indicating their acknowledgement of the bid and their ability to vacate the premises by the proposed lease effective date. Submitting bidders are required to indicate whether this requirement is applicable to their bid. Page 4 of the standard bid submittal form contains a number of other conditions which require agreement by the submitting bidder. Proof of the bidder's agreement to those conditions is to be documented by the bidder's initials on each page of the bid submittal package and the bidder's notarized signature on page 16, the submittal form's concluding page. Among the conditions on Page 4 of the form is the agreement of the successful bidder to provide leased space to Respondent for exclusive use on a 24 hour basis, seven days per week during the term of any lease resulting from the bid. This condition further explicitly states that the space to be leased will be fully occupied during normal working hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the week and may be fully or partially occupied at other times as necessary in Respondent's discretion. Respondent's bid request specified that bidders must offer a minimum of 65 parking spaces in conjunction with premises proposed for lease. Of those spaces, two spaces were required to meet requirements of accessibility for handicapped parking. Of the remaining spaces, 52 spaces were required to accommodate full size automobiles. All parking was required to be provided as part of the lease cost to Respondent and under the "control of the bidder, off street, suitably paved and lined." On May 16, 1989, five bids were opened, including those submitted on behalf of Petitioner DSJ Realty Company Inc. (DSJ), and Petitioner First Master Lessors, Inc. (MASTER). Out of the five bids opened, only the bids of MASTER and DSJ were determined to be responsive. After evaluation of the bids by Respondent's personnel, the bid was awarded to MASTER on July 6, 1989. On July 11, 1989, and in response to the award to MASTER, a notice of intent to protest the award was filed by counsel for Dale S. Jones, as trustee; DSJ; and Elizabethan Development, Inc. (ELIZABETHAN). By letter dated July 12, 1989, Alan Taylor filed a protest of the lease award to MASTER. That letter simply stated its efficacy as a protest with the words "[w]e hereby protest the award of lease # 590:2087 to First Master Lessors, Inc." No particular factual or legal basis for the protest was stated. Taylor is associated with ELIZABETHAN and his letter is typed on stationary of that business entity. Taylor, designated the bidder on page one of the DSJ bid submittal, was authorized to act solely on behalf of DSJ in the submission of its bid by its president, Dale S. Jones, Jr. Documentation of that authority is contained in a May 8, 1989 memorandum attached to the bid package. There is no documentation in the bid submittal package of DSJ that Taylor was empowered to act on behalf of ELIZABETHAN, or that ELIZABETHAN was authorized to act on behalf of any entity in regard to the bid submittal. While not set forth in the bid package, testimony at the final hearing establishes that Jones is the sole owner of DSJ. Subsequent to the filing of the DSJ protest, Respondent determined to reject the bids of MASTER and DSJ as nonresponsive. By letter dated August 28, 1989, Respondent informed both counsel for DSJ and MASTER of this decision. As set forth in the August 28, 1989 letter, Respondent's decision to reject the bid of DSJ was based upon the failure of DSJ's bid submittal to reflect that its agent, Alan Taylor, or the proposed lessee designated in that bid submittal, DSJ Realty Company, had control of the property offered for lease to Respondent. The August 28, 1989 letter also stated Respondent's rejection of MASTER's bid due to a lack of control of the property sought to be leased, specifically control over parking spaces to be provided in conjunction with the premises to be leased. MASTER's bid submittal stated that the bid requirements in paragraph 11 of the bid submittal form requiring documentation of acknowledgements by any existing tenants of the premises (including parking areas) offered for lease, and ability of those existing tenants to vacate the premises, was not applicable. In response to the bid requirement for 65 parking spaces, MASTER's bid proposed 17 "exclusive" spaces on site and 48 "nonexclusive" spaces off site. An attachment to the bid response was a copy of a letter dated June 10, 1983, from the First Christian Church to a predecessor of MASTER, First Bank of Lakeland. The church, located across the street from the site proposed to be leased to Respondent by MASTER, granted "permission to the First Bank of Lakeland to use our parking lot for the convenience of their employees." Subsequent to the opening of bids and receipt of DSJ's bid protest, MASTER provided Respondent with another letter from the church reciting permission for MASTER to use 48 spaces within the church parking lot for the parking of Respondent's employees and clients, provided that the church reserved the right to use those spaces at any time upon the giving of one week's written notice to MASTER. The church also reserved the right to cancel the agreement at any time upon the giving of 60 days written notice. The letter was dated May 15, 1989. Also, as established at the final hearing, yet another letter was sent to MASTER's authorized agent from the church. That letter documents the rejection by the church of any "formalization" of a reciprocal parking arrangement with regard to the premises proposed to be leased by MASTER. However, the letter, dated July 20, 1989, restated the church's consent to the use of the parking lot by tenants of the premises proposed for lease by MASTER in accordance with its previous letter of May 15, 1989. Another letter attached to the bid submittal of MASTER, is also dated May 15, 1989. Directed to Respondent's facilities services manager, this letter is signed by an individual named Geneva Pettus as "[a]gent for First Master Lessors, Inc." The letter signed by Pettus references the 1983 letter from the church and states in pertinent part: We further guarantee your parking requirements during the term of the lease and will accommodate such spaces either within our own building or other locations if changes in the above parking facilities should occur. The MASTER bid submittal contains no documentation of authority of Geneva Pettus to act as agent for MASTER. Further, as established by the proof at final hearing, the vast majority of on site spaces controlled by MASTER are leased to present tenants or their employees. Remaining unencumbered parking spaces are inadequate to meet Respondent's bid requirements. The "guarantee" by Pettus, absent her lack of authorization to act for MASTER, is further invalidated by failure of MASTER to provide acknowledgements, as required by paragraph 11 of the bid submittal form, from the existing lessees of those parking spaces controlled by MASTER which would have to be vacated in order to comply with bid requirements. The proof establishes that MASTER did not have control of a portion of the property submitted for lease consideration by Respondent, specifically the proposed parking areas. Such lack of control is nonresponsive to Respondent's bid requirements. Notably, the May 15, 1989 date of Pettus' letter coincides with the May 15, 1989 letter to MASTER from the church. Respondent's facilities service manager, involved in evaluation of the bid submittals, was understandably concerned that this letter's existence was not disclosed to Respondent's personnel prior to August 17, 1989. The position of the church as reflected in the letter caused Respondent's personnel to reevaluate the issue of whether MASTER's bid demonstrated the requisite control over the property submitted for bid consideration and concluded that such control was absent. The DSJ bid submittal contains the notarized signature of Dale S. Jones, Jr., in the space on page 16 reserved for the signature of the bidder. His signature is followed by the title "PARTNER." That term is not further described, nor is a partnership or connection of that partnership with Jones identified in the bid package. At the final hearing, Jones confirmed his signature. However, the proof fails to establish that the required initials on each page of the DSJ bid package are those of Jones. Jones was unacquainted with the bid package submitted on his behalf, having merely looked through the package before affixing his signature. Further, the bid submittal form, on page 16, has a blank space for insertion of the name of the bidder submitting the bid package. The bid package submitted on behalf of DSJ contains no name in this portion of the submittal form. Page 16 of the bid submittal form also requires that the bidder indicate the name of the entity in whose name the subsequent lease is to be written, if that entity is one other than the bidder. The bid, signed by Jones and submitted by Taylor on behalf of DSJ, contains the statement that any future lease resulting from the bid should be titled in the name of "DSJ REALTY COMPANY as managing and Leasing Agent for Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." Also attached to the DSJ bid submittal package is a copy of an instrument entitled "DEED TO TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT." By terms of that instrument, the fee simple title to the property and appurtenances of the site of the building proposed to be leased by DSJ, was purportedly conveyed to Dale S. Jones, Jr., as "Trustee under Land Trust Agreement dated June 15, 1987". By terms of the deed, Jones is granted specific authority to convey, lease or otherwise exercise those rights to property which are commensurate with ownership. The grantor of the deed, dated July 7, 1987, is Florida Southern College. The bid package of DSJ contains no documentation that either Jones or DSJ is authorized to act as an agent on behalf of "Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." Further, the bid package of DSJ offers no explanation as to the identity of this entity. As established by Jones' testimony at hearing, the entities "Dale S. Jones, Trustee" and DSJ Realty, Inc., are not interrelated businesses. The DSJ bid submittal further contains no documentation of authority for ELIZABETHAN or Taylor to act as an agent on behalf of "Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." It is found that the bid submittal of DSJ is nonresponsive to the requirements of Respondent's ITB. In response to Respondent's letter rejecting the bids of Petitioners, counsel for both parties filed petitions dated September 8, 1989, protesting the decision and requesting administrative proceedings. The petition filed on behalf of DSJ, ELIZABETHAN, and Dale S. Jones, as Trustee, was entitled "PETITION FOR FORMAL HEARING AND FORMAL BID PROTEST" and alleges the submitting bidder to be ELIZABETHAN. The document, in support of the July 12, 1989 protest of the bid award to MASTER, sets forth specific grounds for that protest. Further, it is alleged in the petition that DSJ was appointed to act as the agent of Dale S. Jones, as trustee, in appointing ELIZABETHAN as his agent. It is found that these allegations, with regard to the identity of the submitting bidder, are not supported by any competent substantial proof; that Dale S. Jones, as trustee was not a submitting bidder; and that ELIZABETHAN was not a submitting bidder. Each petition filed in opposition to Respondent's August 28, 1989 rejection letter, was accompanied by a $5,000 cashier's check payable to Respondent. MASTER subsequently substituted this check with a surety bond. DSJ's July 12, 1989 protest of the bid award was not accompanied by any bond.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bids of MASTER and DSJ to be unresponsive; finding the cancellation of the award to MASTER to be justified; dismissing ELIZABETHAN and Dale S. Jones, as trustee, as petitioners in this proceeding; and rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 14th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner Master's Proposed Findings. Petitioner MASTER's proposed findings consisted of 21 pages encompassing unnumbered paragraphs dealing with an intertwined mixture of legal conclusions, argument and proposed factual findings. Therefore, MASTER's submission cannot be treated by the Hearing Officer in this appendix on an individualized basis for each proposed finding. However, MASTER's submission has been reviewed and addressed, where possible, by the findings of fact set forth in this recommended order. Otherwise, all disputed issues of material fact have been addressed by the evidence adduced at the hearing held in this cause. Petitioner DSJ's Proposed Findings. Addressed in substance, remainder rejected as unnecessary. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Addressed in substance. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 7.-1I. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Addressed in substance. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. 16.-21. Not relevant inasmuch as Jones, in an individual capacity or the legal capacity of trustee or partner, was not a bidder. 22.-23. Adopted in substance. Rejected, legal conclusion, relevancy. Addressed in substance. 26 Rejected, not supported by the evidence. Taylor was authorized to act on behalf of DSJ Realty, Inc., by the corporate president. 27.-28. Rejected, not supported by the evidence; no evidence that Jones was a bidder. 29.-32. Rejected as unnecessary in view of result. 33.-42. Adopted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1-12. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, FL 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Bruce Marger, Esq. 1700 66th Street, North Suite 501 St. Petersburg, FL 33710 David H. Simmons, Esq. 120 South Orange Avenue P.O. Box 67 Orlando, FL 32602 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation can reject all bids on State Project No. 37906-9007?
Findings Of Fact In response to an invitation to bid, petitioner C & S Chemical Company (C&S) submitted a bid, No. 9059-86, offering to undertake complete maintenance operations to ensure Rest Area facilities located on State Road 93 (1-75) in Suwannee and Hamilton Counties are maintained in a safe, attractive, clean and sanitary manner." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Invitations to bid were mailed in October of last year, (T.9), and bids were to have been opened on December 2, 1987. C&S's bid price was $14,860.76 monthly or $178,329.12 for the year. By letter dated December 9, 1986, however, the Department of Transportation (DOT) advised C&S that all bids had been rejected, stating that the "Department reserved the right to reject any/or all bids when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Department. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. C&S mailed notice of protest the same day it received the Department's advice that all bids had been rejected. C&S's formal written protest took the form of a letter, dated December 18, 1986, in which C&S inquired: [H]ow can the Department of Transportation offend and deprive legitimate contractors of this work by negotiating a Contract with a non-profit organization after the bid prices have been made public knowledge? Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. In this letter, C&S took the position that DOT should not reject all bids: We feel that if the non-profit organizations are going to get Department of Transportation contracts, they should either bid compet[i]tively with private enterprises, or that certain contracts should be set aside for them well advance of the bidding process. At hearing, Mr. Sperring narrowed or clarified the grounds of the protest when he stated, "I have no objection to the concept of the nonprofit organizations as long as they are set aside," (T.12) before bids are invited. The parties agree that, after bids were solicited, DOT decided to award the contract for Project No. 37906-9007 to intervenor Florida Association of Rehabilitative Facilities, Inc. (FARF), even though FARF never bid on the project. By agreement dated August 21, 1985, the Commission for Purchase for the Blind and other Severely Handicapped designated FARF "the central nonprofit agency of the Commission . . . [and its] sole agent." Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2. The day before, DOT Secretary Thomas E. Drawdy had signed a policy statement proclaiming DOT's intention "to procure commodities or services from qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped when feasible unless otherwise restricted by budgetary constraints." Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1.
Findings Of Fact In March, 1992, the Department of Labor and Employment Security ("Department") issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Submittal ("RFP") seeking to lease approximately 21,033 square feet of office space in Pinellas Park, Florida. The RFP specifies that "approximately" 130 off-street no charge parking spaces were required for the exclusive use of the employees and clients of the Respondent. The RFP states that "[p]arking space must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, and bumper pads installed." The Department received two bids in response to the RFP; one submitted by Hart-Land Ext., Inc., ("Petitioner") and the other submitted by Resolving, Inc. Both bids were signed by James Hartley, as Vice President of the respective corporations. The Department initially determined that, on the basis of the representations contained in the bids, both bids were responsive. An evaluation committee determined that the bid submitted by the Petitioner was the lowest and best bid. On the basis of the evaluation, the Department awarded the bid to the Petitioner by letter dated May 13, 1992. Subsequent to the bid award, the Petitioner submitted several differing site plans to the Department. The site plans indicated various amendments to the configuration of parking spaces available. None of the plans indicated that there would be less than 130 parking spaces available for use by Department personnel. The Department suggests that the revisions of site plans raised doubts as to whether the property was under the control of the Petitioner, that such information was requested of the Petitioner and that appropriate responses were not forthcoming. Nothing in the site plans would suggest that the property was not under the Petitioner's control. The evidence establishes that sufficient information was provided by the Petitioner in response to Department inquiries related to property ownership. By letter dated August 24, 1992, the Department rescinded its award to the Petitioner. The stated reason for recission was that the Petitioner did not have control over 130 paved and lined parking spaces as the time of the bid opening. At the time the Petitioner submitted the proposal, it had the right, pursuant to an executed Contract for Sale and Purchase, to purchase the property which was identified in the proposal as the site upon which the office space was located. The contract was valid at all times material to this case. The Department accepts the existence of a valid Contract for Sale and Purchase as sufficient evidence of a bidder having control over the property proposed for use. The evidence establishes that at all times material to this case, the Petitioner controlled the property proposed for use in his response to the RFP. As to the parking requirements, the Department offered testimony asserting that the language in the RFP requires that such spaces be paved, lined, and bumper-pads installed, at the time the bid is submitted. The RFP includes no requirement, either express of implied, that the parking area proposed must be paved, lined, and bumpered at the time of bid submission. The Petitioner's response to the RFP met the parking requirements set forth therein. The Department asserts that because the parking spaces were not lined, it was unable to determine the number of spaces available in each area proposed for parking. The Department had ample opportunity to inspect the property proposed in the Petitioner's bid, and in fact, such inspections did occur. The Department reviewed site plans, floor plans, physically inspected the structure and had full access to the property. The fact that the parking spaces were not lined or bumper-padded at the time of bid submittal would have been obvious. Further, the RFP seeks to have "approximately" 130 spaces available. Of the 130 spaces the Petitioner said would be available, 118 spaces were paved at all times material to this case. The remaining 22 parking spaces were located in an unpaved area which would have been paved prior to the date upon which the Respondent would have occupied the building, at which time all 130 spaces would have been lined and bumper-padded also. Therefore, even if the agency's position that the RFP required paved spaces at time of bid submission were supported by evidence, the Petitioner's proposal would meet the requirement. Subsequent to the award of the project, the Petitioner closed the contract for sale in escrow and placed $150,000 in trust to close the sale. The Petitioner employed a general contractor, obtained completed floor plans, mechanical plans, electrical and plumbing plans for the structure, performed roof repairs and purchased new air conditioning equipment. At the request of Department's representatives, the Petitioner also made arrangements for additional parking spaces beyond the 130 spaces previously proposed, with the additional spaces being located off-site and across the street from the office space. The total cost of these actions is approximately $179,600. The purchase of the property and incurrence of related costs was done in good faith and in reliance upon the award of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order awarding proposed lease 540:0921 to Hart-Land, Ext., Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-5748BID The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected as to reference of difficulty in determining availability of parking spaces, not supported by greater weight of evidence. Measurement would have established whether space was adequate. There is no evidence that it was not. 6-9. Rejected as to inference that submission of amended site plans was inappropriate, not supported by greater weight of evidence. There is no evidence that the agency rejected the proposal based on the amendment of site plans, irrelevant. As to the amendment of site plans being indicative of a lack of 130 paved spaces, rejected immaterial. 11. Rejected as to determination that such spaces were not available on property controlled by the Petitioner, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Acting Secretary Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 William H. Walker, Esquire NCNB Bank Building, Suite 403 501 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Edward Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Whether the Department of General Services should award state contracts for "walk-up convenience copiers" to Xerox Corporation in categories where Xerox was the only responsive bidder, or should reject Xerox's bid and solicit new bids on grounds that competitive bids were not received and there is no basis or excepting the award from competitive bid requirements; Whether the Department should disqualify Xerox's bid in one category for alleged material deviation from bid specifications where Xerox failed to initial a change in its bid price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DGS reject Xerox's single responsive bids and readvertise; and That Xerox's bid for category Group-I, Type 3, Class 12, monthly rental acquisition plan, be rejected as nonconforming. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 11th day of July, 1984.
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether the BOARD can reject all bids, with or without cause. The second issue is to determine if the BOARD is required to have cause, was there a sufficient basis for the rejection of all bids in Bid NO. 3996?
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1987, the BOARD sent invitations to bid to a list of approved vendors in Bid NO. 3996. The purpose of the invitation was to obtain the lowest responsible bid on a purchase of one hundred and fifty typewriters. The bids were to be submitted prior to January 11, 1988 at 2:00 P.M.. They were opened by the BOARD on the same day. OFFICE did not receive an invitation to bid despite its request to be placed on the approved vendor's list in November of 1987. When OFFICE learned of the outstanding invitation to bid, its representative, Mr. Richard Foss, went to the BOARD's Purchasing Department and requested a bid package. The bid documents given to OFFICE mistakenly gave January 14, 1988 at 2:00 P.M. as the deadline for the bid submission. Because of the later date given by the BOARD to OFFICE, the company's bid was received after the opening of the bids. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, NAPLES bid was the lowest received. On January 14, 1988, after 10:42 A.M., it was discovered by the BOARD that OFFICE's bid price was lower than the price submitted by NAPLES. At this time, NAPLES bid had not yet been accepted by the BOARD, and no formal announcement had been made awarding the contract to NAPLES. During the BOARD's Purchasing Department's bid analysis, a request was made to reject all bids in Bid NO. 3996. The reason given by Purchasing for the request for rejection was that the specifications were being revised. The bids were rejected on the same date. The written reason sent to the vendors on January 14, 1988 for the bid rejection was that one vendor had been given an incorrect opening date. Attached to the written notice to the vendors was a new bid invitation for Bid NO. 4013. The BOARD explained its mistake was unfair to the one vendor. A new bid opening date was given of February 1, 1988. On January 14, 1988, in addition to the required bid documents, OFFICE submitted a letter which listed additional offerings or incentives that OFFICE would give the BOARD if OFFICE was awarded the contract. These additional purchasing incentives were: wall charts and teacher/student manuals for each typing classroom in the county. OFFICE also informed the BOARD that one of the BOARD's own service personnel was already trained in the servicing of Swintec typewriters. The bid submitted by OFFICE did not meet either the weight or the print wheel specifications as set forth in Bid NO. 3996. The specifications as written in Bid NO. 3996 were not written to eliminate all other typewriters but the Brothers 511-11. Weight specifications required were below the Brother's minimum weight, and at least two other manufacturers provide protected drop-in cassette print wheels in electronic typewriters. The Invitation to Bid contained specific provisions which encouraged the bidding of typewriters other than the Brother 511-11, and set up procedures under which other typewriters, which substantially meet the specifications, could be reviewed on their merits. NAPLES was the lowest responsible bidder for the electronic typewriter contract in the prior school year. The BOARD had rejected all bids at that time because of the decision to consider a different brand of typewriter once bids were opened. A notice of protest was filed by NAPLES, and the BOARD agreed to honor NAPLES bid and award the company the contract. The BOARD revised its bid specifications from last year prior to its solicitations for bids in Bid NO. 3996. The protected drop-in cassette print wheel and the weight requirements were two new technical specifications. During the hearing, the BOARD was unable to determine whether the weight factor or the protected drop-in cassette print wheel requirement will continue to be included in future revisions of the specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the BOARD reject the bid submitted by OFFICE as it was nonconforming and sought an advantage not enjoyed by the other bidders. Reinstate the bids which were rejected in Bid NO. 3996, consider the bids, and make an award of the contract to NAPLES. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA D. DONNELLY 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 30th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Emens, President Naples Business Equipment and Systems, Inc. 859 4th Avenue South Naples, Florida 33940 Harry A. Blair, Esquire 2138-40 Hoople Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Foss, Typewriter Sales Manager 8A-Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Karl Engel, Superintendent Lee County Public Schools The School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901
The Issue Whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Respondent) decision to reject all bids is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent and should be rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook own a building located at 205 Gus Hipp Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida. The address for Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook is 1950 Murrell Road, Rockledge, Florida. Petitioner Alan Taylor is an agent for Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook, and assisted the Cooks in the preparation and submittal of their Response to the Department's Request for Proposals for Lease Number: 800:0176-COCOA. Respondent, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, is the state agency that issued the Request for Proposals for Lease Number: 800:0176-COCOA. Intervenor, 11 Riverside Corp., is the bidder to whom the Respondent issued an award letter for the Lease prior to the Respondent's decision to reject all bids. On or about January 12, 1998, the Respondent advertised Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Lease No. 800:0176-COCOA. This was the second RFP issued by the Respondent for the Cocoa Lease. The Respondent did not receive any bids in response to the first RFP. Draft versions of both RFPs were prepared by Respondent's staff. There were only very "minor changes" in the contents of the first and second RFPs, such as revisions to the issuing and advertising dates. The Respondent received proposals from three entities: Robert and Sara Cook, 11 Riverside Corp., and James E. and Jacie Stivers. All three proposals were timely submitted. Respondent's General Services Manager, Fran Lyles, reviewed the three proposals and completed a responsiveness checklist for each proposal. When Ms. Lyles provided the three responsiveness checklists to Ms. Sandy Veal, the checklists for the proposals submitted by the Cooks and 11 Riverside Corp. did not contain any notations that said proposals were non- responsive. Ms. Lyles also informed Ms. Veal that the proposals submitted by the Cooks and 11 Riverside Corp. were responsive. On or about February 19, 1998, Sandy Veal traveled to Cocoa to perform site visits for the two responsive properties. On February 23, 1998, the Respondent issued a written letter of intent to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp. The letter was prepared by Ms. Veal and signed by Ms. Lyles. The Petitioners timely filed a written Notice of Protest with the Respondent on March 2, 1998, in which the Petitioners challenged the Respondent's February 23, 1988, decision to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp. In subsequent correspondent and telephone calls to the Respondent, Petitioners' agent provided a detailed analysis regarding the basis for the Petitioners' Notice of Protest. The primary basis was that the other two proposals were not responsive, and that, as the remaining responsive bidder, the Respondent should award the Lease to the Petitioners. Prior to the deadline for the filing of the Petitioners' Formal Written Bid Protest of the Respondent's February 23, 1988, decision to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp., the Respondent informed the Petitioners that the Respondent had decided to reject all three proposals that the Respondent had received for the Cocoa Lease. On March 12, 1998, the Respondent provided written notification to the Petitioners that the Respondent had rejected all proposals and would "re issue [sic] at a later date." This date coincided with the deadline for the Petitioners to file their Formal Petition in support of their Notice of Protest pursuant to Florida law. On March 17, 1998, the Petitioners timely filed a second written Notice of Protest with the Respondent, in which the Petitioners challenged the Respondent's March 12 decision. No entity other than the Petitioners timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest. The Respondent's contention that General Services Manager, Fran Lyles, did not review the RFP prior to its issuance is not credible. Ms. Lyles' testimony that she informed Ms. Veal that all three proposals were not responsive prior to Ms. Veal's trip to Cocoa for a site visit is also not credible. Ms. Lyles signed the award letter to 11 Riverside Corp., even though she had allegedly informed Ms. Veal that all three proposals were non-responsive. Ms. Lyles' explanation that she was very busy and simply didn't ask how an award could be made to a bidder that she had determined was non-responsive is also not credible. Ms. Lyles altered the responsiveness determination checklists after the Petitioners filed their Notice of Protest of the Respondent's award to 11 Riverside Corp. Words were added and white-out was used to cover up Ms. Lyles' initial responsiveness determination which was made prior to the filing of the Petitioner's first Notice of Intent. It appears that such alterations were made by Ms. Lyles in an attempt to shift the responsibility for errors made in the bidding process. The sole basis for the Respondent's contention that the proposals submitted by the Petitioners is non-responsive is that the site plan allegedly failed to show parking spaces. The evidence established that the site plan adequately showed the parking spaces, and that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was responsive. The Respondent erroneously determined that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was non-responsive. The proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. failed to include the public entity crime statement as required by the Respondent's RFP, and also failed to include proof of zoning. The floor plan included in the proposals submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. failed to include the calculations as required by the Respondent's RFP. The proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. also failed to include the documentation necessary to establish bidder control of the property as required by the Respondent's RFP. Any one of the aforementioned flaws in the proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. rendered the proposal non- responsive. The building included in the proposal submitted by James E. and Jacie Stivers failed to provide the square footage calculations and failed to provide a scaled floor plan with square footage calculations, as required by the Respondent's RFP. The proposal submitted by the Stivers consisted of two separate facilities. However, the proposal submitted by the Stivers only included the items required by the Respondent's RFP for one of the two separate facilities. The proposal submitted by the Stivers failed to include a letter of authority from the owners of both facilities as required by the Respondent's RFP. Any one of the aforementioned flaws in the proposal submitted by the Stivers rendered the proposal non-responsive. It is not arbitrary for Respondent to reject all bids if there is only one responsive bidder. The state has discretion to award, or not award, in the event of a single responsive bidder, so long as the basis for the rejection is not improper. Whether such rejection is in the best interests of the state may be based on several criteria to be taken into account by the Respondent. One of the criteria is the absence of competition for state business and the lack of offerings. Rejection of all bids can be premised on an omission from the RFP or change in the Respondent's needs that would affect the ability of the Respondent to perform the duties prescribed by the Respondent. The Respondent provided evidence of the importance of correct specifications in the RFP. The Respondent made a decision before January 1, 1998, to develop new specifications for use in lease RFPs. The new specifications were used in the "Bradenton" RFP (issued after the Cocoa lease). The new specifications in the Bradenton RFP include a three percent cap on increases in the lease rate. This specification was material because it is an important part of the Respondent's budget evaluation. It was the Respondent's intent to use this new specification in the Cocoa RFP. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring proposer to provide copies of licenses of contractors. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification in the part has caused delays in occupancy of the leased space by the Respondent. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring the proposer to provide a construction schedule. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification was deemed by the Respondent to impede the Respondent's ability to assess liquidated damages. The Respondent identified a lease in Sarasota that was negatively affected by the absence of this specification. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring proposer to pay all renovation costs and that there be no outstanding liens on the property. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification has resulted in liens imposed on office space the Respondent was procuring. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification clarifying whether the proposed space had to be in a single building. The absence of this specification was a concern to the Respondent and has created problems for other state agencies. The Department did not reject all proposals with the intent of avoiding a protest. The terms of the RFP do not specify when or how the Respondent is to notify proposers of the basis for the rejection of all bids. The evidence is insufficient to show that the Respondent's rejecting all proposals was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by Petitioners be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Theriaque, Esquire 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1989, the District Board of Trustees, Okaloosa-Walton Community College, issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for Phase I Construction of the OWCC-WUF Joint Use Campus. The total project was estimated to cost about $5,000,000.00. The funds for the project would come in large part from the Public Education Capital Outlay Funds appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget and to a limited extent from the college's renovation fund. Up to the time of hearing, the legislature had appropriated $3,000,000.00 for the project. The college's renovation fund contained approximately $70,000.00. The board hopes that the additional funding needed for the project (approximately $2,000,000.00) will be appropriated by the legislature this summer. However, until the additional funds are appropriated, the Board, by statute, is prohibited from contracting for projects in excess of the amount of money which has been appropriated for such projects. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. Michael Richardson, of Bullock-Tice Associates Architects, Inc., was the architectural project manager. Each bidder was asked to provide a base bid and a separate bid on each of ten alternatives. Eight bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. All eight bids were rejected. The bids were rejected because all eight bids for the base bid without the addition of any alternates exceeded the funds available for the project. The Board decided to rebid the project. The second ITB was issued on March 26, 1990. The second ITB was restructured in an effort to obtain a base bid within the amount of money which had been appropriated for the project. Alternates could then be added to the base bid until the funds ran out. Specifically, the project was revised to provide for a base bid and separate bids on six alternates. The base bid essentially provided for construction of a classroom (Building No. 3) and a utility plant. Alternates 1 and 2 provided for outside civil, electrical, and landscaping work related principally to the buildings covered by the base bid. Alternates 3 and 4 related principally to the construction of two additional buildings and landscaping related to those buildings. Alternates 1-4 added work to the project. Alternates 5 and 6 deleted certain work from the project. Paragraph 1A of the Instructions to Bidders required that: To receive full consideration, all bids must be executed and submitted in strict accordance with the "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS. Paragraphs 7C and 7D of the Instructions to Bidders required that: Unit Prices: Each bidder shall state in the schedule provided on the Form of Proposal the amount he proposes for each applicable Unit Price requested. Unit price amounts shall include all costs of material, labor, equipment, insurance, bonds, taxes, overhead and profit and shall be used for determining amounts to be paid for all additional work on the project. Credits for any work omitted shall be determined by Unit Price at the amount scheduled. The Owner reserves the right to reject any Unit Price if considered excessive or unreasonable, or to accept any and all such Unit Prices which may be considered fair and reasonable. Alternates: In order that the Owner may discern an alternative use or type of material, or an increase or decrease in the scope of the Project, such items will be defined as Alternates and will be specifically described by the Drawings and/or Specifications. Alternates will be listed in the Form of Proposal in such a manner that the bidder will be able to clearly indicate the sums that will be added to or deducted from the Base Bid. Alternates shall include all costs of materials, taxes, bonds, handling, overhead, and profits and the acceptance of any alternate shall be in strict accordance with applicable Specification Sections. At some point after the initial bid instructions were sent out, and prior to the bid opening, the project architect drafted and sent to bidders a document entitled "Clarification to All Bidders." This document stated: It is the intention of the Owner to award all add Alternates upon receipt of additional funding this Summer. Due to this circumstance, the determination of Low Bidder will most likely be based upon the Base Bid plus Alternate 1 through 4 and 5 & 6 if so desired. This procedure is in accordance with rules of the Florida State Board of Education for Educational Facilities. (emphasis supplied) No bidder challenged the clarification's inclusion in the specifications for the project. Bidders generally interpreted this "Clarification" to mean that the Board of Trustees intended to award a contract for the total project, and thus would make its determination of low bid based on the total sum of the bids for base bid and alternates 1-4. However, bidders were not uniform in their application of that language to developing their specific bids and were not uniform in their interpretation of whether the Board's method of award of the bid as set out in the clarification was guaranteed by the clarification's language. In other words, some bidders realized that the use of the words "most likely" in the clarification meant exactly what it said and was not a guarantee that the project would be awarded according to the method established in the clarification. Petitioner, on the other hand, at its peril ignored the words "most likely" and altered its normal method of calculating its bid. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the clarification's issuance and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the clarification. All bidders received the clarification and reacted to it in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. Six bids were received on the second ITB, including Jack Moore & Company, Inc. and Sharpe, Inc. The bids on the base bid and the various alternates were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID TOTAL SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 Under the method of determining low bidder set out in the clarification, Jack Moore & Company was the low bidder. However, the Petitioner's bid, as well as all other bidders' bids, exceeded the amount of money that the Board had on hand for construction of the project. Therefore, the Board of Trustees felt that it could not award the contract according to the method set out in the clarification and examined the bids to determine the amount of construction which could be accomplished for the amount of money it had on hand ($3,000,000.00 from the legislature and $70,000.00 from the renovation fund). By using only the $3,000,000.00 from the legislature, Opus South would have been the low bidder on the base bid. However, by adding approximately $25,000.00 from the renovation fund, the college had enough money to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Money for alternates 3 and 4 was not available. The Board decided to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Sharpe, Inc. was the low bidder on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board awarded the contract to Sharpe. Petitioner was approximately $100,000 over the amount bid by Sharpe on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board's reasoning was not arbitrary or capricious in the award of the bid to Sharpe. Since the language of the clarification was not binding on the Board, the method used by the Board was within the specifications. Finally, there was no substantial evidence of fraud or collusion on the part of the Board in its award of the bid to Sharpe and no evidence was submitted that Sharpe was not responsive to the ITB. In fact, all the bidders responded to the exact same specifications, thereby affording the Board an exact comparison between the various bids submitted to it for the project. The only difference in the bids was in how each individual bidder calculated its bid to arrive at it's price. Such differences occur in all bid situations and do not serve to lessen the exact comparison of the bids on the specifications. Therefore, Sharpe, having presented the lowest and best bid, should be awarded the contract on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Sharpe, Inc., submitted the lowest and best bid and awarding the bid on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2 to Sharpe, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance, acted illegally, arbitrarily, fraudulently, or dishonestly in rejecting all bids for lease #460:0119 and not awarding subject lease to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance established a requirement to lease 5371 square feet of office space in Daytona Beach, Florida, and a "Request for Space Need" was approved by the Department of Management Services on February 11, 1998. The Department of Insurance subsequently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for lease #460:0119 (Respondent's Exhibit 1). A non-mandatory pre-bid conference was held on June 1, 1998, in Daytona Beach and two prospective bidders, Petitioner and Nova Village Market partnership attended. The RFP provided that proposals which did not meet all mandatory requirements of the RFP would be rejected as non- responsive. The RFP provided for evaluation criteria are awards factors. The awards factors totaled 100 points with no minimum point total required. Ten of the points were allotted for moving costs defined as the costs of relocating communications, networks, furniture and other equipment. This factor gave the current landlord an automatic 10-point advantage since there would be no relocation costs. Moving costs provisions tend to discourage the presentation of bids because the bidders have to overcome an automatic 10-point advantage provided the current landlord. The RFP also provided that all proposals could be rejected, however, such "rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification." None of the conditions of the RFP were questioned or challenged by interested parties. Two responses were received by the Department of Insurance in response to the RFP and these were opened in Respondent's Tallahassee office on July 8, 1998, by Mr. Kip Wells of the Department. One was received from the current landlord, Nova Village Partnership, hereafter Nova, and the other from the Petitioner. The Nova proposal was deemed non-responsive. Neither Nova nor Petitioner contested the determination that Nova's proposal was non-responsive. Only one responsive proposal, the Petitioner's proposal, remained. On July 9, 1998, the Department representative, Mr. Kip Wells, called Petitioner to schedule an appointment for 9:00 a.m., on July 10, 1998, to visit and evaluate the proposed facility. No persons from the Department appeared at the scheduled appointment. At 10:45 a.m., on July 10, 1998, Kip Wells called Petitioner to say that since Petitioner's proposal was the only responsive proposal received, and that "all bids" were being rejected. Mr. Wells testified at hearing. His reason for rejecting the remaining bid was: When I saw that it was obvious the current landlord was not going to be very cooperative, I decided that one choice was not enough. If we were going to have to make a move, we needed more than one thing to choose from. So, I immediately - - since I had already set up with local people in Daytona to tell them that I was coming down to evaluate the bids, I sent them an E-mail and told them that I would not be meeting the following day to evaluate the bids. Mr. Wells decided to reissue the RFP without any moving costs criteria, and redistribute those 10 points among the other award factors. Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest and then a Formal Protest, both in a timely fashion. There is no state policy prohibiting the award of a lease to a sole bidder on a RFP. The "Leasing Policy" of the Department of Insurance states that "The Lease Administrator, with assistance from the Division employees, will establish bid or quote specifications. These specifications will include special needs for the Division(s) as well as the evaluation criteria upon which to evaluate the proposals." Neither the Department's Lease Policy (Petitioner Exhibit 3) nor the State's Real Property Leasing Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) give the Lease Administrator the authority to reject or evaluate bid responses. Neither does he have a vote in the bid evaluation process. His responsibility is to coordinate the process. Randall Baker, Manager of Private Sector Leasing of the Bureau of Property Management of the Department of Management Services (hereinafter DMS), testified. The DMS prepares a manual as a guideline for user agencies to assist in the leasing of property. The DMS manual is not binding on agencies and DMS has no review oversight; however, their comments on agencies' leases are reviewed by the state auditing authorities and failure to follow the guidelines can result in audit criticism. Baker confirmed that the agency's written procedures as outlined in the RFP were consistent with the DMS guidelines. The DMS manual states as follows regarding the receipt of only one responsive proposal: When only one responsive proposal is received it may be considered and accepted providing the following conditions are documented: Adequate competition was solicited. The rate is within established rental rate guidelines. The proposal meets stated requirements. The proposal was processed as though other proposals were received. The Petitioner's bid was responsive to the RFP and the lease rate bid by the Petitioner was less than the average rate for state leases in the Daytona area and less than the amount budgeted by the Department for this lease. The lease rate by the Petitioner was reasonably priced and competitive. Although the agency failed to complete the process as envisioned, see paragraph 20 below, this was in no way the fault of Petitioner. The Department's leasing policy requires that the lowest and best response to an RFP be determined through cost analysis and evaluation by an evaluation committee. Mr. Wells did not forward Petitioner's bid to or discuss with the evaluation committee Petitioner's bid, but unilaterally rejected it. It was clear from Mr. Wells' testimony that this was his individual decision and was based upon his personal belief that it was the best thing to do.1 At hearing, the stated justification for rejecting "all bids" was that it gave the Department the opportunity to delete the requirement of moving costs from the awards factors; however, the evidence does not indicate that the moving cost provision result in non-competitive bids. The sole responsive bidder was within the local lease price range and within budget. Neither the Respondent nor DMS has established a policy prohibiting the acceptance of a sole responsive bid if there is competition solicited. The Department of Insurance has accepted a sole bid on at least one project in the past. There was no evidence that the RFP was not an open and fair competition. The evidence shows that it was properly advertised, that all conditions were known, and that all interested parties had an equal opportunity to participate. In sum, there was adequate competition in submitting the bids. Mr. Baker testified regarding the policy of DMS. The DMS policy is that if there is one responsive bidder, there has been competitive bidding. The RFP provides that the Respondent may reject all bids if it has strong justification. See paragraph 5 above. Mr. Baker also provided examples of "strong justification for rejecting proposals." His examples include facilities which are proposed outside the required geographic area, prices considerably in excess of state guidelines and agency budgets, specification changes due to modification of the agency's program requirements, and "intervening external forces." No evidence establishing a strong justification for rejecting the Petitioner's bid was presented. Without completing the process and evaluating the Petitioner's bid, the agency never considered whether the bid was in the state's best interest. However, this was not the fault of the Respondent, and the agency's failure to follow its procedures should not inure to its benefits. Further, Because there was no minimum score required on the evaluation criteria of the RFP, there is no need to evaluate Petitioner's proposal because it is the only responsive proposal. For all the reasons stated above, the rejection of Petitioner's bid was contrary to the terms of the RFP, contrary to state policy, and arbitrary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds that: Respondent's actions in rejecting Petitioner's responsive bid were arbitrary; The Respondent did not follow the requirements set forth in the Department of Insurance Leasing Policy, nor the Department of Management Services Real Property Leasing Manual, or the Request for Proposal itself; That no adverse interest to the State or the Department would have occurred had Petitioner's responsive bid been accepted; and therefore, Petitioner's claim shall be upheld as the lowest cost and best proposal for RFP #460:0119, and that the Department of Insurance shall award Petitioner Lease #460:0119. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1998.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 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 social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (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. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: 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 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) 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: 10) 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: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, 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 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. 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 committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, 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 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
