The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services' (FDCF) notice of intent to award the contract for RFP No. MF650TH was contrary to the agency's rules or policies, or the proposal specifications and whether the Petitioner established that FDCF's decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact 1. The parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation specified, in pertinent part, as follows: ADMITTED FACTS The following facts are admitted by all parties and will require no proof at hearing: On or about January 23, 1998, the Department issued RFP No. MF650TH ("the RFP"), Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). The purpose of the RFP was to solicit proposals from qualified proposers to design, develop and implement an automated fingerprint identification system, or AFIS, and to procure a statewide fingerprint identification capability for applicants and recipients of public assistance. The RFP was subsequently amended by Addendums 1, 2, 3, and 4 dated February 18, February 26, March 9, and March 16, 1998, respectively. Two vendors, Lockheed Martin and Sagem Morpho, submitted proposals in response to the RFP on March 23, 1998. The Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract described in the RFP to Morpho on April 17, 1998. On April 22, 1998, Lockheed Martin timely submitted a notice of intent to protest the proposed award to Sagem Morpho, pursuant to the terms of the RFP and Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. On May 1, 1998, Lockheed Martin filed its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding. Jayne Paris served as Procurement Manager for the AFIS RFP. Connie Reinhardt served as Project Manager for the AFIS project. AGREED UPON ISSUES OF LAW The parties have agreed on the following issues of law: The Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. All parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. ISSUES OF FACT WHICH REMAIN TO BE LITIGATED. The following issues of fact remain to be litigated: Whether Morpho's AFIS proposal was responsive to the RFP. Whether Lockheed Martin's AFIS proposal was responsive to the RFP. Lockheed Martin contends that the following additional facts remain to be litigated: What the Department's policy is with respect to evaluation of cost proposals on RFPs. Whether and when the Department altered its method of evaluating the AFIS cost proposals. The reason the Department decided not to use the cost proposal ranking and fatal criteria checklist which had been previously prepared. Whether the addenda to the RFP provided supplemental RFP instructions and incorporated clarifications in response to questions submitted by potential proposers. ISSUES OF LAW WHICH REMAIN FOR DETERMINATION BY THE JUDGE The following issues of law remain for determination by the Court: Whether Morpho's AFIS proposal was materially responsive to the RFP. Whether Lockheed Martin's AFIS proposal was materially responsive to the RFP. Lockheed Martin contends that the following additional issues of law remain for determination by the Judge: Whether any minor irregularities waived by the Department in evaluating and scoring the AFIS proposals met the definition of a "minor irregularity" under Rule 60A- 1.002(16), F.A.C. Whether the Department may alter its proposal evaluation methods after proposals have been received by it. Whether the Department's proposed award of the AFIS contract to Morpho is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the AFIS RFP specifications. Whether the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, to determine whether the Department's proposed action is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the AFIS RFP specifications. Lockheed's unilateral statements of issues do not bind the parties or the undersigned but are included so that the pending Motion to Strike may be addressed in the Conclusions of Law, infra. At formal hearing, Petitioner Lockheed contended that Morpho's proposal was not responsive to the RFP and that Lockheed should be awarded the contract. Intervenor Morpho contended that its proposal was responsive and that Lockheed's proposal was not responsive. FDCF contended that both proposals were responsive and that the proposed final agency action to award the contract to Morpho should be carried out. The RFP solicited proposals from qualified proposers to design, develop and implement an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and to procure a statewide fingerprint identification capability for applicants and recipients of public assistance. (Agreed Facts). AFIS is intended to support the client certification process for the benefit programs delivered through the Department's electronic Benefits Transfer program (EBT). The current EBT programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families -- Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency (TANF-WAGES), and the Refuge Assistance (RA) programs. The Department had determined that AFIS is the only acceptable biometric technology. The RFP included the following pertinent provisions: General Provisions – The procurement process will provide for the evaluation of proposals and selection of the winning proposals according to applicable state and federal laws and administrative regulations. All responses received by the closing deadline, unless determined to be non-responsive will be evaluated by an evaluation team. (Exhibit P-1. pp. 66-67). Statement of Purpose The objective of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain proposals from qualified proposers to design, develop and implement the AFIS in accordance with the requirements defined in Section B of this RFP. FDCF intends to procure a statewide fingerprint identification capability for applicants and recipients of public assistance programs as stated above. Through this competitive solicitation, the FDCF desires to obtain a comprehensive identification service which represents the best value for the state, and which provides all hardware, (with the exception of existing administrative terminals as discussed in RFP Section B, subsection 6), software, communications networks, central site operations, terminal operations training, system administration training, operational support, maintenance, and other services. State personnel will be utilized to operate the system's imaging, fraud investigation, and administrative workstations located at state facilities. The system will include a central identification system to maintain fingerprint and photographic identification records and perform duplicate fingerprint record search and verification. It will also include workstations for creation of the fingerprint and photo identification records and for support of administrative and fraud investigation activities. Evaluation of Technical Proposals Part A Fatal Criteria Failure to comply with all Fatal Criteria will render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. For a list of Fatal Criteria, see Appendix XIX. Any technical proposal that is incomplete, non-responsive, contains cost or pricing data, or in which there are significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies will be rejected by the FDCF. No points will be awarded for complying with the Fatal Criteria. 1.7 Acceptance of Proposals . . . Untimely proposals will be rejected as unresponsive. * * * All responsive proposals timely submitted will be evaluated. No proposed changes to the terms and conditions set out in this RFP, its appendices and any addenda will be accepted and submission of a proposal which purports to do so will make the proposal non- responsive. The FDCF may waive minor irregularities, but need not do so. Where the FDCF waives minor irregularities, such waiver shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the proposer from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the proposer is awarded the contract. * * * The FDCF reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, cancel the RFP, or waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interest of the State of Florida. Minor irregularities are those which will not, in the opinion of the contact person, have significant adverse effect on overall competition, cost or performance. 2. Proposal Format * * * The proposal should be prepared concisely and economically, providing a straightforward description of services to be provided and capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the evaluation of proposals, it is essential that proposers follow the format and instructions contained herein. For purposes of this section, the terms "shall, will and must" are intended to identify items that are required to be submitted as part of the proposal. Failure to comply with all such requirements will result in the proposal being rejected as non-responsive. 3.3 Tab 3. Transmittal Letter Each copy of the proposal must include a transmittal letter in the form of a standard business letter and must be signed by an individual authorized to legally bind the proposer. It shall include at a minimum: * * * A statement indicating that the proposer and any proposed subcontractors are corporations or other legal entities and that each satisfied all licensing requirements of state or federal law and that they are authorized to do business within the State of Florida. All subcontractors must be identified. A statement indicating the percentage of work to be done by the proposer and by each subcontractor as measured by the percentage of total proposed price. A statement identifying the proposer's and any proposed subcontractor's federal tax identification number(s). 3.12 Tab 11. Technical Proposal: Corporate Qualifications . . . This section must also identify and describe the corporate capabilities of any proposed subcontractors and must include three (3) references for each subcontractor including names, addresses, and telephone numbers, and a description of the services which are being provided. Subcontractors not identified in the proposal will not be permitted to perform any work under any contract which results from the RFP. Cost Proposed Format The following information is intended to provide proposers with instructions and a format for submitting cost quotations. Cost quotations must be submitted using the provided pricing schedules. Responses that do not provide cost proposals in the required format will be rejected. Unless otherwise noted, the costs quoted shall apply for the entire term of the contact. Proposers are encouraged to identify means to reduce the cost of AFIS services in Florida. As part of the cost proposal, proposers should identify cost reduction factors, the rationale for costs savings, and any options in service that would produce such cost savings. In order to assess FDCF options, proposers are requested to submit AFIS system costs in two ways—as a bundled price per add transaction and as an unbundled price. The selection of the contract pricing method— either bundled or unbundled—shall be at the sole discretion of the FDCF. The FDCF will not make any corrections to arithmetic or other errors in the cost proposal. All numbers submitted will be assumed by the FDCF to be accurate even if an error appears likely. Proposers are cautioned to assure the accuracy of any amounts submitted because they will be held to the amounts which appear in the cost proposal throughout the term of any contract which results from this RFP as well as any extension or renewals of that contract. The RFP provided blank pricing schedules in the required format for submitting bundled and unbundled proposals. The RFP required proposers to submit prices based on alternative bundled and unbundled methods. Under the first method, proposers were to provide one lump sum price per record added to the AFIS database. An "add" is the function by which a fingerprint image is programmed into the computer and no match is found, indicating that fingerprint is not already in the system. Under that method, the provider was to be paid based on the number of fingerprints added to the database. (Schedules 1A and 1B). Under the second method, proposers were to provide a price per add, a price per inquiry (when the system searches the existing database), and prices for all hardware, broken down by type of hardware. This is called unbundled pricing. (Schedules 2A and 2B). As to unbundled pricing, the RFP specifically provided: Proposers must also provide unbundled pricing under the two communications network assumptions. Unbundled pricing includes a unit price per record added to the database, a unit price per workstation, and a unit price per printer. The cost of system development, implementation and operations must be reflected in the unit prices per add or inquiry. Schedule 3 applied to a POS Verification Study. The RFP also required a way to resolve smudged print identifications: 5.3.7. Identification Searching c) Workstations must provide the capability to launch identification search transactions using selected client records with or without minutiae editing. The RFP also required proposers to submit a thumb print option: Option to Add Thumb Prints . . . The department is also considering the option of capturing and storing both thumb prints, in addition to both index fingers, for each applicant household member required to comply. In order to help the department assess this option, the proposer shall provide an incremental price per record added to the database. . . There is no guarantee that the department will exercise the option to capture and store thumb prints. However, should the department decide to exercise this option, the successful proposer's system must be capable of supporting this option. The proposer was to provide the incremental price to capture and store thumb prints in Schedule 4. The RFP required proposers to submit a technical proposal and a separate sealed cost proposal. The RFP contemplated FDCF doing a completeness review against the "Fatal Criteria" provided in the RFP before the agency technically evaluated the proposals. The RFP presumed that those proposals which failed the completeness review would not be technically evaluated. No points were to be assigned via the completeness review. The RFP also contemplated that the cost proposals would remain sealed unless, and until, a proposer had passed the technical evaluation with at least 400 points. The evaluation system set out in the RFP provided for ranking proposals based on 600 possible points for the technical proposals and 400 possible points for the cost proposals. Any score less than 400 points on the technical proposal would mean the proposer could not be evaluated for cost. On March 23, 1998, the day of submittal, the technical responses were opened by Jayne Paris. She was FDCF's Procurement Manager and contact person for this RFP. In doing the completeness review, Ms. Paris compared the technical proposals with the Fatal Criteria checklist for completeness. She also reviewed each proposer's Supplemental Proposal Sheet for completeness and to be sure each proposer had promised compliance with all RFP requirements. She also reviewed each proposer's transmittal letter to be sure neither proposer intended to deviate from the RFP requirements. This completeness review was witnessed by Project Director, Connie Reinhardt, to assure the integrity and accuracy of the process. Although a consultant's checklist geared to federal contract review of cost proposal compliance was in the contract file which FDCF is required to maintain on every project, this checklist was only a suggestion which FDCF had rejected and had not included in the RFP. Ms. Paris did not apply it. Both Morpho and Lockheed used conditional language in their respective transmittal letters. Morpho's transmittal letter stated, "In the event that these stated requirements and assumptions are subsequently altered by the issuing agency, or are proved [sic] to be invalid due to actual experience, Sagem Morpho, Inc. reserves the right to make appropriate modifications to its scheduling or pricing." Lockheed asserts that by this language Morpho attempted to change the terms of the RFP, condition Morpho's prices, and include "pricing information" contrary to the RFP. The RFP required that each proposer identify in its transmittal letter all proposed subcontractors by name, corporate status, eligibility through licensure for state projects, the percentage of subcontract work each subcontractor would be doing, and federal tax identification number, and also provide three references for each contractor. It also provided that any subcontractors not identified by the proposer could not work on the contract. Lockheed's transmittal letter did not propose any subcontractors. It merely stated that Lockheed anticipated the need for a maintenance subcontractor beginning in June 1999, approximately 13 months after the start of the contract, and that Lockheed anticipated submitting a request for approval of a subcontractor by March 1999. Lockheed stated as its reason for the absence of subcontractor information that waiting until June 1999 would result in selection of a subcontractor that would provide the service levels demanded by Lockheed and FDCF. FDCF concedes that if a proposer intended to deviate from the RFP requirements, i.e. if the transmittal letter created a significant variance from the RFP specifications, that variance would have rendered that proposal substantively unresponsive at the completeness review, and no further evaluation of that proposal should have taken place. (TR-133; Exhibits P-2; P-3; DCF's PRO at page 7) However, in her initial completeness review of the respective proposals for the Fatal Criteria, signed management summary material checklist, and transmittal letter, Ms. Paris, in fact, only considered whether all necessary parts of each proposer's response were included. The Fatal Criteria only applied to the technical response. Ms. Paris deferred consideration of the content or effect of each proposer's "extraneous language" related in Findings of Fact 18-20 to the subsequent technical and cost evaluations. Therefore, Lockheed and Morpho were treated equally at the completeness review, because neither was disqualified as non-responsive nor docked any points on the basis of their respective transmittal letters. Ms. Paris' reason for not finding the transmittal letters unresponsive was apparently based at that stage on Section 1.7 of the RFP, which would hold the proposer to the RFP specifications despite waivers of irregularities. The next day, March 24, 1998, Ms. Paris provided the technical evaluation team with Sections I and III of an Evaluation Manual, which included the introduction and the substantive Evaluation Criteria Parts C-K. Ms. Paris also conducted a training session during which she provided a briefing on the evaluation process and instructions to the evaluation team members. The evaluation team was to evaluate only the technical merit of each proposal. Sections II and IV of the Evaluation Manual, which had been prepared for FDCF by outside consultants, were removed before the manual was distributed to the evaluation team on the basis that these sections were cost-related and the technical evaluation team members, whose duties did not include consideration of cost, were not to use them. The technical evaluation team members individually and independently evaluated the technical portion of each proposal and scored each technical response using a scale of 0 to 4 points, as instructed in Part I of the Evaluation Manual. With the exception of questions requiring a "yes" or "no" answer, scores were assigned as follows: 0 = no value; proposer demonstrated no capability to satisfy the Department's needs, ignored this area, or has so poorly described the proposal for this criteria that understanding it is not possible. 1 = poor; proposer demonstrated little or no direct capability to satisfy the Department's needs, or has not covered this area, but there is some indication of marginal capability. 2 = acceptable; proposer demonstrated adequate capability to satisfy the department's needs 3 = good; proposer demonstrated more than just adequate capability and good approach to satisfy the Department's needs. 4 = superior; proposer demonstrated excellent capability and an outstanding approach to satisfy the Department's needs. This scoring concept comports with the RFP, pp 67-68. A proposer had to receive a minimum score of 400 technical points before FDCF would open, review, and rank that proposer's cost proposal. FDCF determined that both Petitioner and Intervenor met this requirement. Morpho received 582.99 points out of a possible 600 points. Lockheed received 559.88 points. Under the scoring system, neither the Fatal Criteria nor the management summary were entitled to any points, so neither proposer was scored any points on those bases during the technical evaluation. "Minutiae editing" is the process of correcting misinformation details in an original fingerprint image which is smudged. Under Section 5.3.7 of the RFP, the system's workstations were required to have the capability to launch identification searches of fingerprint images "with or without minutiae editing." Morpho's system as proposed can launch a search and find a match after minituae editing. Lockheed's system could search, but its proposal candidly admitted that the Lockheed system could not match prints after minutiae editing. FDCF waived this technical problem with Lockheed's proposed system as an "immaterial irregularity" because the RFP expressly provided that proposers would be bound by the terms of the RFP. The RFP required submittal of a thumb print option but reserved the right of FDCF to unilaterally exercise the option. Lockheed submitted Schedule 4, providing for the thumb print identification option, quoting a cost of $0. However, Lockheed conditioned that $0 quote on FDCF accepting Lockheed's proposal at the time of the initial contract. Morpho did not submit any Schedule 4, and Morpho's technical proposal shows this omission was probably inadvertent. FDCF waived as "immaterial" Lockheed's extraneous language conditioning the thumb print option in its proposal and likewise waived Morpho's complete failure to submit a Schedule 4 for the thumb print option pursuant to the RFP. The optional thumb print function had no impact on ultimate scoring of the respective proposals because no value was assigned to it. FDCF has taken the position that since the technical evaluation team did not consider either proposal to be technically "nonresponsive," then all flaws or omissions were properly waived. The cost proposals remained sealed until after the technical proposals were scored by the technical evaluation team. At formal hearing, FDCF personnel testified that it was never FDCF's intent to enter into a contract for the thumb print option at the time of the initial contract and that the thumb print option was purely for future informational purposes. The RFP used mandatory language to ensure that cost proposals would be submitted in two ways -- a bundled price and an unbundled price. The bundled and unbundled pricing schedules were mutually exclusive, and the point system set up in the RFP assigned equal weight to the scoring of the bundled and unbundled price schedules. FDCF reserved the unilateral right to select either bundled or unbundled pricing as its procurement method. Cost proposals were to be scored using a formula which compared each proposer's price to the lowest price proposal. Of the 400 points possible for cost proposals, 195 points were allocated by the RFP to the bundled pricing schedules (Schedules 1A and 1B), 195 points were allocated to the unbundled pricing schedules (Schedules 2A and 2B), and 10 points were allocated to the POS Verification Study (Schedule 3). The RFP clearly indicated that both bundled and unbundled prices were required to be submitted on the provided Schedule format "in order to assess FDCF options." FDCF did not decide until after scoring the cost proposals and immediately before it was ready to post the Notice of Intent to Award to Morpho, that it would elect to contract based on the bundled cost proposals. Up until that moment, the bundled and unbundled price schedules had some significance to FDCF, if only for flexibility in procurement. The RFP specified that FDCF would not own any of the equipment (hardware) for which it was seeking single unit prices in the unbundled schedules. Nonetheless, on the unbundled pricing schedules provided in the RFP, proposers were required to provide an unbundled unit price per workstation and unit price per printer. On Schedules 2A and 2B, "Unbundled Pricing," Morpho did not provide an entry in dollars and cents for fraud workstation printers or administrative workstation printers. Rather, Morpho's schedule inserted in those spaces, "included in w/s (workstation) price" or "included above." Lockheed also had some extraneous language on one of its schedules as opposed to just a dollar amount, but cost breakout was clear. Morpho considered the printers part of the imaging and fraud investigation workstations because the RFP required a dedicated printer for each workstation and the RFP specified FDCF would not own or maintain any hardware. Ms. Paris reviewed each cost proposal for compliance with Section C of the RFP. She was concerned about whether Morpho's "unbundled" schedules complied with the RFP. The RFP defined waiveable "minor irregularities" as "those which will not, in the opinion of the contact person, have significant adverse effect on the overall competition, cost or performance." Upon advice of her supervisor, Connie Reinhardt, and FDCF's General Counsel, Ms. Paris determined both proposals to be responsive, and substituted a price of "zero" in the questionable spaces on Morpho's "unbundled" schedules, despite the absence of a pricing break-out between the fraud workstations and printers or between the administrative workstations and printers on Morpho's "unbundled" schedules. Ms. Paris conceded that she was never referred to Rule 68-1.001(16) Florida Administrative Code,1 which defines "minor irregularity" in terms of effect on cost. Ms. Paris was told that only items which had an effect on the overall scores of the responding proposers' cost proposals could not be waived. The cost proposals were not evaluated and scored subjectively as the technical proposals had been. No Fatal Criteria applied to this third review phase. Scoring was to be based on a purely mathematical formula devised prior to distributing the RFP. The RFP drafters had contemplated ranking the respective cost proposals by simply inserting the dollar values each proposer placed on the unbundled unit price list into a computer program. Ms. Paris attempted to rank the cost proposals. To assure the integrity of the process, Chris Haggard, Automation Specialist, physically entered cost proposal figures into the computer program. Ms. Paris instructed him to ignore any "extraneous language" on the schedules of both proposers. The computer program would not accept the "zeros" inserted by FDCF. Without any substitutions by Ms. Paris, Morpho had bid "zero" in the space indicating there would be no charge for the unbundled unit price per inquiry, thereby intending to signify that there would be no charge for this function. The record does not suggest that this proper use of "zero" had any effect on the computer program. Ms. Reinhardt viewed the problem with FDCF's imputed zero components as a purely technical problem with the computer program and not an "irregularity" under the RFP. The computer program was adjusted to accommodate the imputed zeroes and produce a spreadsheet. On unbundled Item 14, FDCF ranked Morpho with a score of one and Lockheed with 15, the maximum. On Item 15, the fraud workstation color printer, Morpho was ranked 15 and Lockheed was ranked zero. On Item 16, the administration workstation, Morpho was ranked three; Lockheed was ranked 15. On Item 17, the administration workstation printer, Morpho was ranked 15 and Lockheed was ranked zero. Pursuant to the adjusted spreadsheet, Morpho received a score of 343 for its cost proposal, and Lockheed received a score of 240. Even if Morpho had received zero points for the printers and work stations (lines 14-17 of the Unbundled Schedules), and if Lockheed had received the maximum number of points available on these items, Morpho still would have received the higher score for its cost proposal. At the disputed fact hearing, FDCF gave as its justification for imputing "zero" for bundling language in Morpho's "unbundled" schedules the following reasoning: because FDCF had requested unbundled prices purely for future contracts, not the contract to arise out of this RFP, for informational purposes, or for a cost benefit analysis for state budget purposes; because the RFP specified that FDCF would neither own nor maintain any of the hardware proposed for this RFP; because Morpho's failure to conform to the unbundled price format was not "irregular" if Morpho did not sell printers independently and Morpho used the unbundled schedules in a manner consistent with Morpho's offer; because the zero imputed by FDCF reflected accurately the integrated costs in effect; because Morpho was not charging separately for the printers; because FDCF's insertion of "zero" constituted no unfair economic advantage to Morpho; and finally, because having chosen the bundled option, FDCF believed the Morpho proposal will save a great deal of money and "represent the best value for the state."2 The RFP specified that the successful proposer would be responsible for the "cost of system development, implementation, and operations" for the contract term as well as any extensions and include that cost in either the unbundled unit price per record added (per add) or the price per inquiry (per inquiry) in Schedules 2A and 2B. There is no RFP requirement that the maintenance portion be "unbundled" further. "Cost of . . . operations" meant "cost of maintenance." According to Richard Woodard, who was responsible for the Morpho cost proposal, including Item 9, Morpho's price per add of $6.70 on Schedule 2A included $.80 for maintenance. However, at formal hearing, Lockheed elicited from Ms. Paris testimony that even though Morpho had indicated that maintenance was not included in its unbundled schedules, FDCF had decided to hold Morpho to the prices shown in their per add or per inquiry line item (TR-61), and that because of Morpho's own extra schedule attached to the bottom of unbundled pricing Schedule 2A, Morpho's maintenance price over 5 years could be calculated on current maintenance prices. (TR-62) When the prices are calculated mathematically over the life of the contract they do not correspond to the $.80 per add testified to by Mr. Woodard.3 Morpho's maintenance cost schedule and the provisions within Morpho's "Comments on Unbundled Pricing" indicated that only 12 months of warranty were included with the equipment identified in Morpho's unbundled pricing schedules and that after 12 months, maintenance contracts would be negotiated. FDCF ignored this as "extraneous language," and did not consider it to be a material irregularity. The Morpho bundled cost proposal was calculated on an average of 2.2 persons per file who would require finger imaging and matching. Morpho asserted that these calculations had been made on a "worst case scenario" based on RFP Addendum 3's specification that an actual number cannot be provided. It is expected that less than 2.2 persons per case will be printed. Lockheed selected a number less than 2.2 per file, and asserted that Morpho's "worst case" scenario is, in effect, a "best case" scenario because the higher the number of prints, the less Morpho can afford to charge per add; that by selecting the 2.2, Morpho has materially failed to comply with the RFP specification which estimated less than 2.2 persons per file, and that because Morpho also inserted the extraneous language in its transmittal letter as set out in Finding of Fact 19, supra., Morpho's proposal not only varied the express terms of the RFP by the use of "2.2" but also included "pricing information" in its transmittal letter and conditioned its prices on the potentially false assumptions stated or on a figure greater than a figure "less than 2.2," as required by the RFP.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order rejecting all proposals. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Wayne H. Wagie, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on August 11, 2004, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Ch. 689, Fla. Stat (2005). Respondent, Wayne H. Wagie, is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Wagie was originally licensed as a certified general contractor on or about December 28, 1978, license number CGC 13331. At all times material hereto, the status of his license has been "Current, Active." At all times material, Mr. Wagie was the qualifying agent for Unified Construction Technologies, Inc (hereinafter referred to as "Unified Construction"), a Florida corporation. Unified Construction did not have a certificate of authority as a qualified business organization. The Department has jurisdiction over Mr. Wagie's license. The Spiegel Brothers. At the times material to this matter, Mr. Wagie engaged in a business arrangement with two brothers, Abraham and Yosef Spiegel (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Spiegel Brothers), whereby Mr. Wagie allowed the Spiegel Brothers to use his general contractor's license number and qualifying number to pull permits for a company through which the Spiegel Brothers conducted construction business. The Spiegel Brothers' construction company was Mega Construction Group, Inc., d/b/a Mega Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Mega Construction"). Pursuant to their agreement, Mega Construction, through the Spiegel Brothers, was to handle all aspects of any construction contracts the Spiegel Brothers were able to enter into, including negotiating the contract, handling funds received from customers, and performing all necessary work. The only function not to be carried out by the Spiegel Brothers or Mega Construction was to actually obtain the necessary building permits; that was Mr. Wagie's responsibility. In exchange for his services, Mr. Wagie was to receive a percentage of the sales price, with half paid upon execution of the contract and half after completion of the work. Neither of the Spiegel Brothers was a licensed general contractor in Florida. Nor was Mega Construction certified as a contractor qualified to do construction business in Florida. Mr. Wagie was aware of these facts. The Sicre Contract. In 2001, Candida Sicre owned and resided at a house located at 650 82nd Street, Miami Beach, Florida. Ms. Sicre was interested in adding a handicap accessible bathroom to her home and, when she received a flyer in the mail advertising Mega Construction, she contacted the Spiegel Brothers. On August 13, 2001, Ms. Sicre entered into a written contract with Mega Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "Sicre Contract"). Pursuant to the Sicre Contract, Mega Construction agreed to construct a new handicap-accessible bathroom for which Ms. Sicre agreed to pay a total of $15,762.00. As part of their contract, it was agreed that an air-conditioning unit would be relocated. While the relocation of the air-conditioning unit is listed as "1" and the construction of the new bathroom is listed as "2" in the Sicre Contract, in fact the relocation of the air-conditioning unit was a necessary component of the construction of the new bathroom, for the new bathroom was to be constructed from where the air-conditioning unit was to be relocated. Ms. Sicre paid a total of $7,762.00 on the agreed Sicre Contract price. On September 17, 2001, Mr. Wagie, pursuant to his agreement with the Spiegel Brothers, signed a building permit application required to complete the Sicre Contract. That application was filed with the City of Miami Beach building department on or about January 4, 2002. On the permit application, Unified Construction was listed as the "Company," Mr. Wagie was listed as "Qualifier," and Mr. Wagie's license number was listed as the "License No." under "Contractor Information". The permit application was approved by the City of Miami Beach on or about May 31, 2002, and permit number KB0201178 was issued. Pursuant to an agreement between the Spiegel Brothers and Ms. Sicre, the starting date for the Sicre Contract was postponed to August 15, 2002, just over a year after it had been entered into. At some time after the Sicre Contract was entered into, the air-conditioning unit was relocated as specified in the contract. Except for the relocation of the air-conditioning unit, no further work specified under the Sicre Contract was performed. The actual construction of the new bathroom was never started. Eventually, Ms. Sicre was told that the work would not be performed because Mega Construction was going to declare bankruptcy. After being told that the new bathroom would not be completed, Ms. Sicre sold her house. She attempted, however, to obtain a refund of some of the $7,762.00 she had paid Mega Construction. Eventually, Ms. Sicre learned of Mr. Wagie's involvement with the Spiegel Brothers and, through a series of negotiations, it was agreed that she would receive a refund of $2,000.00 through Mr. Wagie from the Spiegel Brothers. She was eventually given two $1,000.00 checks in furtherance of this agreement, but the checks ultimately "bounced." The only work performed on the Sicre Contract by Mega Construction was the drawing of a building permit and the relocation of the air-conditioning unit. For this work, Ms. Sicre paid a total of $7,762.00. Ultimately, Mega Construction, although beginning the project by relocating the air-conditioning unit, abandoned the project without its completion. Prior Disciplinary Action. On July 15, 1996, the Department filed a Final Order reflecting that a settlement stipulation had been approved by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), pursuant to which Mr. Wagie agreed to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00, plus investigative and legal costs in the amount of $368.30 to resolve charges against his license, which Mr. Wagie denied. The Department's Costs of Investigation and Prosecution. The Department has incurred $597.69 in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department: Finding that Wayne H. Wagie violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint; and violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2000), as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; Dismissing Counts IV and V of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $3,250.00; requiring that Mr. Wagie pay Ms. Sicre $2,000.00 in restitution; requiring that Mr. Wagie pay $597.69 as the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter; and that his license be suspended for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 8685 Northwest 53rd Terrace, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166 Wayne H. Wagie 220 Northeast 45th Street Miami, Florida 33137 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent should award a contract for a new telecommunications system to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC, Inc., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Florida. Respondent is a political subdivision and agency of the state. Intervenor is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Florida. The System Respondent's telecommunications system lacks the capacity to meet current and future needs. Respondent seeks a new telecommunications system to serve a minimum of seven high schools, 10 middle schools, 29 elementary schools, and 12 support offices (the "system"). 1/ The Expert Respondent contracted with Omnicom, Inc. ("Omnicom") to assist Respondent in obtaining a new system that is in Respondent's best interest. Omnicom is an expert in telecommunications. The contract requires Omnicom to perform several functions. Omnicom must prepare an RFP, administer the solicitation and receipt of proposals, evaluate the proposals on a point system, issue a report of its evaluation, and recommend a selection that is in Respondent's best interest. Subjectivity There are two primary means of public procurement. One is an invitation to bid ("ITB"). The other is an RFP. The consulting contract refers to a "Request for Bid." The contract indicates that the document will establish an award to the "low fixed price bid meeting specifications." An ITB is significantly different from an RFP. An RFP is inherently more subjective than an ITB. An ITB requires bids to comply closely with the specifications prescribed in the ITB. An ITB prescribes specifications and a solution sought by the issuer. A bidder estimates the cost that the issuer will pay for the solution prescribed in the ITB. An RFP is more subjective. An RFP generally asks proposers to propose a solution to the issuer's stated needs and to estimate the cost of the proposed solution. Proposals generally describe the proposer's sense of the best solution and its cost. The criteria and procedures prescribed in an RFP are intended to minimize, but not eliminate, the subjectivity inherent in the RFP process. The procurement document Omnicom prepared is an RFP. The consulting contract does not require Omnicom to design and implement a new system for Respondent and then obtain bids for the cost of such a system. The RFP solicits solutions to Respondent's telecommunication needs. It prescribes criteria important to Respondent, and Respondent then evaluates proposals on the basis of those criteria. Those criteria include service. Intent Respondent paid Omnicom to recommend a proposal that is in Respondent's best interest. However, neither Omnicom nor Respondent intended the recommendation to usurp Respondent's authority to exercise discretion in taking final agency action. The RFP makes it clear that the proposal selected will be the system that Respondent determines to be in its best interest. The RFP states: The proposal selected will be the . . . system that meets the present and future needs of [Respondent] and is in the best interest of [Respondent]. * * * The objective of [Respondent] in soliciting and evaluating proposals . . . is to obtain a system that best meets the present and future needs of [Respondent] at a cost that is consistent with the features and services provided. * * * It should be understood that the information provided in this RFP is not to be construed as defining specific system equipment, features, or solutions, but rather is intended to present [Respondent's] needs and objectives in terms of system services and control. * * * The submission and acceptance of proposals does not obligate [Respondent] in any way. . . . [Respondent] reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. [Respondent] makes no representation, implied or expressed, that it will accept and approve any proposal submitted. * * * Proposals submitted may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of [Respondent]. * * * In submitting a proposal, the proposer understands . . . [Respondent] will determine at [its] discre- tion, which proposal, if any, is accepted. RFP at 1-2, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-11. The RFP The evaluation criteria and procedures established in the RFP are consistent with Respondent's intent in contracting with Omnicom. The RFP establishes a fixed rule or standard by which Respondent selects the proposal that is in Respondent's best interest. Respondent paid Omnicom with public funds to formulate that fixed rule or standard. Final Decision The RFP requires the proposal with the greatest total awarded points to be selected for a contract award. The RFP does not require the proposal with the greatest total awarded points to be recommended for selection. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points. . . . The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. (emphasis supplied) RFP, Appendix E, E-2. Alleged ambiguities within the RFP are resolved by the clear and unambiguous meaning of the underscored words in the quoted language. The proposal with the greatest total awarded points is to be selected by Respondent for a contract award. The clear and unambiguous words in the RFP are reasonable. Respondent hired a recognized expert in telecommunications to oversee the acquisition and implementation of a new system. The evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP reflect Respondent's intent to rely on the expertise it purchased with public funds unless Respondent: rejects all proposals; rejects Omnicom's evaluation and recommendation and asks Omnicom to re-evaluate the proposals; or conducts an independent evaluation of the proposals and substitutes Respondent's own independent judgment. The underscored language in the RFP is specific. It is consistent with general language in the RFP. For example, selection of the proposal with the most points awarded by Omnicom is consistent with the following general provision: Proposals submitted may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of [Respondent]. * * * In submitting a proposal, the proposer understands . . . [Respondent] will determine at [its] discre- tion, which proposal, if any, is accepted. RFP at 2-7, and 2-11. Other general language in the RFP authorizes Respondent to reject all proposals and either develop a new RFP, seek a system through the ITB process, or seek a system through a process that is exempt from public procurement requirements if the system or Respondent qualify for such an exemption. The RFP states: The submission and acceptance of proposals does not obligate [Respondent] in any way . . . [Respondent] reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. [Respondent] makes no representation, implied or expressed, that it will accept and approve any proposal submitted. RFP at 2-6. Such language is "boiler plate" in public procurement documents. Nothing in the RFP is intended to, or has the effect of, exempting Respondent from the law applicable to public procurement. The RFP states: [Respondent] reserves the right to . . . negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. RFP at 2-6. Respondent can not solicit proposals and then negotiate separately with a select proposer or a third party in violation of the body of law applicable to public procurement. The language quoted in the preceding paragraph does not authorize Respondent to take final agency action in a manner that is not governed by fixed rule or standard. The fixed rule or standard that governs Respondent's determination of its best interest is prescribed in the RFP and sanctioned by Respondent. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points. . . . The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. (emphasis supplied) RFP, Appendix E, E-2. The quoted language is specific, clear, and unambiguous. To the extent it is inconsistent with general provisions in the RFP, the plain meaning of the specific language controls any general provisions that may be contrary to either the specific language or the law applicable to public procurement. Scope Of Review The RFP limits the scope of review to information contained in the proposals submitted by the proposers. The RFP states: . . . Only the information contained in the proposal and references verifications will be used in the evaluation. RFP at E-2. Respondent fixes the scope of review by limiting it to the information contained in the proposals. Review And Approval Respondent reviewed the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent approved the RFP on July 11, 1995. On July 12, 1995, Omnicom issued the RFP. Omnicom's Evaluation And Recommendation The RFP solicits base proposals and alternate proposals that achieve Respondent's objectives for a new system. No alternate proposal is authorized without a base proposal that complies with the basic configuration prescribed in the RFP. Seven proposals were submitted to Omnicom. Omnicom determined that one proposal did not satisfy mandatory requirements. Omnicom evaluated the six proposals that satisfied mandatory requirements. They are: Petitioner's base proposal; Petitioner's alternate proposal; Intervenor's proposal; a base proposal from Bell South Business Systems, Inc. ("Bell South"); a base proposal from Orlando Business Telephone Systems ("OBTS"); and a base proposal from WilTel Communications, Inc. ("WilTel"). Omnicom awarded the following technical, cost, and total points. PROPOSAL TECHNICAL COST TOTAL NEC (Alternate) 699 200 899.0 Siemens ROLM 715.5 179 894.5 Bell South 719.5 161.1 880.6 NEC (Base) 700 172.8 872.8 WilTel(Base) 617 157.2 774.2 OBTS 595.5 158.4 753.9 Omnicom ranked Petitioner's alternate proposal highest in total points and points awarded for cost. Omnicom ranked Intervenor's proposal highest in technical merit. Omnicom conditioned its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal on resolution of several concerns Omnicom expressed in its evaluation report. Those concerns are included in the discussion in paragraphs 108-124, infra. Omnicom recommended Petitioner's alternate proposal for selection if Respondent could resolve the concerns Omnicom had with Petitioner's alternate proposal and if Respondent deemed it to be in Respondent's best interest. Omnicom recommended Intervenor's proposal if Respondent either could not resolve Omnicom's concerns or if Respondent did not deem Petitioner's alternate proposal to be in Respondent's best interest. Arbitrary Selection Respondent selected Intervenor's proposal over Petitioner's alternate proposal. Respondent's selection of Intervenor's proposal was within the scope of the recommendation made by Omnicom. However, the manner in which Respondent exercised its agency discretion is arbitrary. The manner in which Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is in Respondent's best interest is not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent did not conduct an independent evaluation and substitute Respondent's own judgment. Respondent did not apply the rule or standard fixed in the RFP to the information included in the proposals and substitute its judgment for that of Omnicom. Respondent did not substitute a fixed rule or standard different from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent substituted a rule or standard that is not fixed but is invisible and known only to Respondent. Respondent expanded the evaluation procedure and scope of review fixed in the RFP. Respondent improperly applied criteria fixed in the RFP and applied improper criteria not established in the RFP. 6.1 Scope Of Review The RFP assignes a maximum of 800 points to criteria prescribed in six technical categories. It assigns a maximum of 200 points to cost. The maximum total score for technical and cost criteria is 1,000 points. The points Respondent fixed for the criteria in the RFP indicate the relative importance of the criteria. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points and a short list of proposals established for further evaluation. The short listed proposals will then be evaluated on a cost basis and points awarded accordingly. Awarded cost points will then be summed with the awarded technical and administrative points. The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. RFP, Appendix E, at E-2. 38. Omnicom evaluated the six proposals that met mandatory requirements and submitted an evaluation report in accordance with the evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP. The report recommends that the contract be awarded to Petitioner. In accordance with the evaluation procedure established in the RFP, Omnicom's evaluation report was submitted to a review committee on September 8, 1995. The committee consisted of knowledgeable representatives from the community and select employees of Respondent. The committee reviewed the evaluation report for accuracy and objectivity. The committee took no exception to any portion of the evaluation report and recommendation. In accordance with the evaluation procedure established in the RFP, the Superintendent of the Seminole County School District (the "Superintendent") recommended that Respondent award the contract to Petitioner for its alternate proposal. Respondent did not take issue with the recommendations of Omnicom, the committee, or the Superintendent. Respondent issued a notice of intent to award the contract to Petitioner on September 8, 1995. Respondent scheduled a work session for September 12, 1995, to consider the evaluation report from Omnicom and to vote on Omnicom's recommendation. 6.1(a) Intervenor's Expanded Proposal On September 11, 1995, Intervenor sent a letter to each of Respondent's members. Separately, each member obtained a report on user ratings of telecommunications equipment. The letter urged Respondent to consider Intervenor's local presence, including the local presence of Siemens Stromberg Carlson, Intervenor's corporate sibling. The letter asserted that Petitioner has no significant local presence. It claims that Intervenor is a "Tier 1" telecommunications vendor and that Petitioner is not. None of these matters were included in Intervenor's proposal even though service was one of the criteria for evaluation. Intervenor's solicitation provided Respondent with information not included in Intervenor's proposal. The additional information exceeded the scope of review and evaluation procedure fixed in the RFP. 6.2(b) Altered Procedure At the work session conducted on September 12, 1995, Respondent accepted comments from the public and from proposers. Intervenor emphasized its status as a Tier 1 vendor. One of Respondent's members expressed concern that Petitioner had only one local representative and that he worked out of his home. Petitioner has four technicians and stated in its alternate proposal that two additional technicians would be added. No member read any of the proposals. A second member stated that cost is an insignificant matter. The second member opined that cost should not be an issue considered in making the final decision. The second member is a senior management employee for Bell South. Bell South was ranked third in total points by Omnicom. The second member seconded a motion to postpone the contract award. In considering postponement of their vote, the members relied on information contained in Intervenor's expanded proposal. The members voted to postpone the award of the contract until September 20, 1995. At that meeting, each proposer was to make a twenty minute presentation to Respondent. 6.2(c) Improper Consideration Of Fixed Criteria And Consideration Of Improper Criteria The background statement in the agenda to the meeting scheduled for September 20, 1995, stated that Omnicom's point scores could not be used as the determining factor in awarding the contract because all but one of the proposals "did not meet all mandatory requirements." This was the first instance in which either Respondent or Omnicom indicated that any proposal except the alternate proposal submitted by WilTel failed to satisfy mandatory requirements in the RFP. 2/ None of Respondent's individual members read any portion of the proposals submitted to Omnicom. The members did not make independent determinations of whether the proposals submitted by Petitioner or Intervenor in fact satisfied mandatory requirements established in the RFP. On September 18, 1995, Petitioner notified Respondent that Petitioner protested the meeting scheduled for September 20, 1995. Petitioner stated that it would participate in the meeting under protest; without waiving any right it had to protest Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria, procedure, and scope of review fixed in the RFP. In the Notice of Public Meeting issued for the September 20 meeting, Respondent stated it may add up to 200 points to the total points awarded by Omnicom. The additional points were to be based upon the information the proposers submitted at the meeting. This was the first time Respondent disclosed the availability of points other than the 1,000 points fixed in the RFP. The Notice of Public Meeting stated no criteria upon which the additional points would be awarded. Respondent did not formulate any criteria upon which to award the additional points. 6.2(d) Final Decision: Expanded Scope, Altered Procedure, Improper Consideration Of Fixed Criteria And Consideration Of Improper Criteria At the meeting conducted on September 20, 1995, the proposers gave presentations to Respondent and Omnicom. The proposers answered questions posed orally by Respondent's individual members. Omnicom responded to comments made by the proposers. Each proposer was then allowed two minutes for "surrebuttal." The majority of comments related to reasons why specific points were deducted during Omnicom's evaluation. The proposers did not have access to a specific point award matrix to which the members may have referred during the meeting. The subject matter of the inquiry included criteria established in the RFP, including service capability. The inquiry did not focus on conditions Omnicom attached to its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal. See, paragraphs 108-124, infra. Intervenor repeated its representation that it is a Tier 1 vendor. Intervenor asserted that it is the number one PBX supplier in the world and the number two vendor in annual expenditures for research and development. Intervenor submitted documents substantiating its claims. None of this information was included in Intervenor's proposal. After the presentations, the Superintendent suggested the members write down three of the five proposers. The Superintended stated that the additional points would not be written down because they were for the use of the individual members. The first round of voting produced a new short list that deleted Petitioner and consisted of Intervenor and Bell South. The members then discussed the two proposals on the new short list. During the discussion, one member stated that she felt the RFP assigned too many points for cost. The members voted to award the contract to Intervenor. The member who is an employee of Bell South recused himself from the final vote. The voting members did not disclose the criteria they relied on for their vote, the weight assigned to the criteria relied on, the additional points assigned, or the fixed rule or standard which governed Respondent's determination of which proposal was in Respondent's best interest. On September 21, 1995, Petitioner received Respondent's formal notice to award the contract to Intervenor. The notice states only that Respondent's decision is based on the evaluations by Omnicom and the presentations on September 20, 1995. 3/ The manner in which Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is in Respondent's best interest was not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent selected Intervenor's proposal in a manner contrary to the rule or standard fixed in the RFP and on the basis of criteria and procedures that are not fixed in the RFP. Major Variation Respondent's deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP is a major variation. The deviation affects the price of the contract selected. It gives Intervenor a benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. It adversely impacts the interests of Respondent. 4/ Contract Price Respondent's deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP affected the contract price in two ways. First, it affected the stated cost of the contract. Second, it added costs that are inherent, but not stated, in Intervenor's proposal. 7.1(a) Stated Cost The complete system is to be installed in all 58 facilities over five years. The useful life of the system is between 7 and 10 years. Omnicom valued the system included in each proposal over its 10 year life expectancy. Omnicom placed the cost for each facility on a spread sheet correlating to the anticipated time of installation. The cost of each facility was discounted to its net present value at the time of evaluation. The evaluation report rates costs through 10 years because that is the reasonable life expectancy of the system. The cost of Intervenor's system was less in years 1-5. For the total life expectancy of the system, however, the cost of Petitioner's alternate proposal was less. During the 10 year useful life of the new system, the cost of Petitioner's alternate proposal would save Respondent $1,547,726 over the cost of Intervenor's proposal. The net present value of that savings is $1,212,528. Omnicom awarded the following technical, cost, and total points for the seventh year of operation. PROPOSAL TECHNICAL COST TOTAL NEC (Alternate) 699 200 899.0 Siemens ROLM 715.5 179 894.5 Bell South 719.5 161.1 880.6 NEC (Base) 700 172.8 872.8 WilTel(Base) 617 157.2 774.2 OBTS 595.5 158.4 753.9 The total point differential between Petitioner and Intervenor widened for years 8-10. The points awarded for the cost of Intervenor's proposal dropped to 178.4, 177.8, and 177.3, respectively, in years 8-10. The corresponding total scores for Intervenor's proposal dropped to 893.9, 893.3, and 892.8. 7.1(b) Unstated Cost The RFP requires five out of eight categories of work station devices to be two-way speaker phones. Two-way speaker phones eliminate the need for ancillary intercom equipment. Two of the five categories required to be two-way speaker phones are noncompliant in Intervenor's proposal. Compliant telephones are more expensive than the telephones used by Intervenor to calculate the cost Omnicom evaluated. Compliant telephones would cost approximately $736,901 more than the cost evaluated by Omnicom; based on information available in Intervenor's proposal. 5/ Respondent will either incur additional costs to acquire compliant telephones or incur the cost of ancillary intercom equipment. Benefit Not Enjoyed By Others Intervenor enjoyed a benefit not enjoyed by others. Intervenor obtained a competitive advantage and a palpable economic benefit. 7.2(a) Expanded Scope Respondent's reliance on a rule or standard not fixed in the RFP resulted in a benefit to Intervenor. Other proposers did not enjoy a similar benefit. 6/ The proposers relied upon the point distribution, evaluation procedure, and criteria fixed in the RFP. Any of the proposers could have solicited Respondent to consider information not included in the proposals, to follow procedures not established in the RFP, to assign an undisclosed weight to criteria fixed in the RFP, and to consider undisclosed criteria. However, only Intervenor successfully solicited Respondent to do so and then enjoyed the benefit of being selected for the contract. Respondent made concessions that favored Intervenor. No other proposer enjoyed the benefit of Respondent's concessions in a manner that changed the outcome of the contract award. 7.2(b) Alternate Proposal The base proposal required in the RFP included a configuration using analog tie lines. Intervenor prepared only one proposal. It included only digital tie lines. Intervenor's proposal is an alternate proposal. It does not include the analog tie lines required in the basic configuration prescribed in the RFP. Omnicom deducted points for Intervenor's failure to include analog tie lines. However, Omnicom evaluated Intervenor's alternate proposal in the absence of a base proposal. 7/ All other proposers complied with the provision in the RFP that prohibited alternate proposals in the absence of a base proposal. The prohibition, in effect, required Petitioner to submit two proposals. Petitioner prepared a base proposal and an alternate proposal. Petitioner prepared two quotes for each of the 58 facilities contemplated in the new system. Intervenor prepared only one quote for each of the facilities contemplated in the new system. Intervenor did not invest the time, energy, and expense invested by Petitioner in its two proposals. 7.2(c) Cost By using noncompliant telephones in its proposal, Intervenor lowered the cost evaluated by Omnicom. If other proposers had proposed noncompliant telephones, they would have been able to affect their evaluation scores in a positive manner. Intervenor received a palpable economic benefit from its omission. A cost difference of $50,000 to $100,000 translates to approximately two points in the evaluation process. An increased cost of $736,901 would have lowered Intervenor's cost score between 7.36 and 14.7 points. 8/ Omnicom did deduct points from Intervenor's technical score for the failure to include compliant telephones in its proposal. However, Omnicom did not deduct points for Intervenor's failure to include unit prices for compliant telephones. 9/ Unit prices are necessary for Omnicom to accurately calculate the increased cost of compliant telephones. Omnicom could not calculate the increased cost of compliant telephones based on the information available in Intervenor's proposal. Omnicom evaluated the cost of Intervenor's proposal based on the cost stated in the proposal. Adverse Impact On Respondent Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP has an adverse impact on the financial interests of Respondent. The award of the contract to Intervenor will cost Respondent approximately $1,212,528 in present value. Respondent may need to purchase compliant telephones at an additional cost of up to $736,901. Alternatively, Respondent may need to purchase ancillary intercom equipment at an unknown cost. Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria and procedures established in the RFP has an adverse impact on the Respondent's technical needs. The award of the contract to Intervenor may result in the use of noncompliant telephones, ancillary intercom equipment, or, in the event of an unforseen budget shortfall at the time, none of the technical capabilities needed by Respondent. Public Policy There is a "strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical deficiencies. . . ." 10/ Although an RFP inherently demands more subjectivity than an ITB, Respondent disqualified the low proposer for reasons that are not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent could have rejected all six proposals and sought to obtain its system through a new RFP, the ITB process, or a process exempt from public procurement requirements; if the system or Respondent qualifies for such an exemption. 11/ However, Respondent did not reject all proposals and start over or seek to obtain its system through an exempt process. Respondent paid public funds for Omnicom's expert advice. Respondent paid Omnicom to evaluate Respondent's technical needs, formulate criteria, develop an evaluation procedure, prepare an RFP, evaluate proposals, and recommend the proposal that was in Respondent's best interest. Respondent approved the RFP prepared by Omnicom, including the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent then deviated from the fixed rule or standard. Respondent added points to change the relative importance of the technical and cost criteria fixed in the RFP. Respondent awarded up to 200 points in addition to the 1,000 points fixed in the RFP. The members neither disclosed the criteria they used to award additional points nor disclosed the number of points awarded. The members did not reveal, explain, or define either the weight assigned to each fixed criteria or any other fixed rule or standard used to evaluate the oral presentations made by the proposers. Respondent did not conduct an independent evaluation of the proposals and substitute its own judgment for that of Omnicom. None of Respondent's members read any of the proposals. Omnicom evaluated the proposals fairly, objectively, and reasonably. Omnicom's evaluation and recommendation was an honest exercise of agency discretion by the agency's own expert. 12/ Respondent neither rejected Omnicom's evaluation of the proposals nor rejected the proposals. Respondent did not request that Omnicom re-evaluate the proposals and did not request that Omnicom start over with a new RFP, an ITB, or pursue a system through an exempt process. Respondent neither explained its exercise of agency discretion on the record in this proceeding nor disclosed a fixed rule or standard Respondent used to govern its action. Respondent made an arbitrary decision. Illegal Respondent made an emergency award of a portion of the contract to Intervenor during the pendency of this proceeding. The award is limited to a purchase order for one switch out of 52 switches that will comprise the complete system. The single switch is necessary for Respondent to occupy its new administrative offices. Occupancy of the new administrative offices has always been a critical element in procurement of the entire system. Respondent is currently engaged in accomplishing this critical element. Respondent's award of part of the contract is not required by an immediate and serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondent awarded part of the contract to Intervenor for public convenience. Installation of the system at the new administrative offices is necessary to occupy the new building. Occupancy is necessary so that various administrative offices of the School District can be consolidated. The School District has incurred costs since October, 1995, for utilities and maintenance associated with the unoccupied building. The reasons evidenced by Respondent constitute neither an immediate nor serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. It is not necessary to award any portion of the contract prior to final agency action in this proceeding. Minor Irregularities Omnicom conditioned its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal on resolution of four concerns. Petitioner's alternate proposal failed to include detailed price information for one of the elementary schools in the new system ("Elementary School D"). Petitioner failed to separate its installation price from the price for hardware and software. Petitioner conditioned the mandatory commitment to discounted pricing beyond July, 1997, on a requirement that Respondent accept Petitioner's full contract. Finally, Petitioner failed to base its cost on required response times. Elementary School D Petitioner failed to include information for Elementary School D on the individual system detail price sheet. Petitioner's failure does not affect the contract price, does not result in a palpable economic benefit to Petitioner, and does not adversely affect Respondent's interest. Omnicom sent out approximately six addenda to the RFP before completing its evaluation. One of the addenda failed to include Elementary School D. Omnicom discovered the error and evaluated the cost of all proposals with Elementary School D excluded. The omission of Elementary School D was an honest exercise of agency discretion by Omnicom and did not result in disqualification of the low proposal for technical reasons. Combined Pricing The detailed price sheets for each school and support office includes a space for the price of hardware and software. A separate space is provided for the price of installation. Petitioner did not provide separate prices but provided one price for hardware, software, and installation. The purpose of the separate pricing requirement is twofold. Separate pricing allows Omnicom to determine if individual prices are out of line with industry standards. It also provides information needed for additional purchases of separate items. Petitioner's deviation from separate pricing requirement did not violate the strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical reasons. Omnicom awarded Petitioner the highest number of points and recommended Petitioner for the contract. Petitioner's deviation did not result in a competitive advantage for Petitioner. The purpose of the separate pricing requirements was informational. Petitioner's deviation did not adversely impact the interests of Respondent. It did not impact the lowest price posed or the technical capability of the proposal. Discounted Pricing The RFP instructs proposers to base their pricing on the assumption that the proposer would install the entire system. Petitioner's conditional commitment to discount pricing through July, 1997, merely restates the assumption mandated in the RFP. The RFP instructs all proposers to assume they will be awarded the contract for the entire system in preparing their proposals. Even if Petitioner's conditional commitment were a deviation from the RFP, it would not be a major variation. It does not violate the strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical reasons. It does not result in a competitive advantage for Petitioner. It does not adversely impact the interests of Respondent. Response Time The RFP requires an emergency service response time of two hours. It mandates damages for violation of the response time of $250 per hour up to $2,500 a month. Petitioner's alternate proposal does not conform with this requirement. It proposes a four hour response time. Petitioner took exception to the liquidated damages provision and proposed a maximum damage of $500. Petitioner's deviation is a minor irregularity. Omnicom adequately addressed the deviation in the evaluation report so that the deviation will not affect contract price, afford Petitioner a palpable economic benefit, or adversely impact Respondent's interest. Honest Exercise Of Agency Discretion Omnicom's response to the deviation's in Petitioner's proposal is an honest exercise of agency discretion by Omnicom. Omnicom applied the same methodology in a consistent manner for all of the proposals. Omnicom's decision is a reasonable exercise of its expertise in telecommunications based on independent knowledge and experience. Respondent did not reject Omnicom's evaluation of the proposals or reject the proposals. Respondent did not request that Omnicom re-evaluate the proposals. Respondent stated in its notice of intent to award the contract to Intervenor that its decision is based on the presentations at the September 20 meeting and on Omnicom's evaluation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's protest of the selection of Intervenor. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1995.
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 1976, the School Board of Orange County and ITEL Data Product Corporation (ITEL) entered into a lease agreement providing for the lease of data processing equipment to the Board from ITEL by which ITEL supplied a computer central processing unit (CPU) and related equipment. Concomitantly, by agreement, ITEL provided for servicing and maintenance of the equipment. In October, 1977, IBM announced its new 303X series of computers with delivery schedules to customers for the newly introduced equipment to take up to two years. IBM has had a long-standing policy, well-known in the data processing industry, of filling customer orders for equipment in the sequence in which they are received, called "sequential delivery." With public agency customers, such sequential orders are not envisioned by the agency nor IBM to be a firm order because of the often protracted procurement process, involving competitive bidding, that public bodies typically have to engage in before making such a major purchase. IBM therefore permits public agencies, such as the School Board in this case, to place non-binding orders in anticipation of a future procurement so that a sequential delivery position will be available to the public agency and thus cause no delay in acquisition of the equipment should IBM become the successful bidder upon a particular procurement. On October 6, 1977, the School Board placed a "reservation" for an IBM 3031 CPU and related data processing equipment. In a letter of October 11, 1978, the School Board informed IBM that this equipment would be needed in approximately November, 1979, subject to availability of funds and subject to IBM being selected as a winning vendor in a competitive bidding process. There was no executed contract or other commitment between IBM and School Board at this point in time. Sometime in the summer of 1979, the School Board, which had become dissatisfied with the service and maintenance it had received from ITEL pursuant to the ITEL lease, engaged certain members of its staff in a study regarding its future data processing equipment needs. The School Board staff study resulted in a determination by the staff, and ultimately by the Board, to acquire additional data processing equipment capacity in excess of the capacity supplied under the ITEL lease. On August 28, 1979, the School Board terminated the ITEL lease effective December 31, 1979, and on or about September 5th, notified ITEL of that termination. On or about October 2, 1979, after determining that it wished to lease new and greater capacity equipment, the School Board Issued an "Invitation to bid" to eleven vendors, providing for the leasing, with option to purchase, of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal." In response to this invitation to bid, ITEL, Menrex Corporation, as well as IBM, submitted bids and on November 13, 1979, the School Board rejected all the bids as being not responsive, as it had reserved the right to do in the invitation to bid document. The rejection of these bids on November 13, 1979, provided only slightly over a month during which the School Board would have to acquire equipment by rental or purchase and have it installed, since the ITEL lease would be terminated on December 31, 1979. Accordingly, acting on the advice of counsel, the School Board determined that it could legitimately develop an interim emergency leasing plan for meeting its data processing needs upon the expiration of the ITEL lease starting December 31, 1979. This leased equipment was expected to be in place for approximately three to six months or until such time as a new bidding effort and procedure could be developed. The School Board, upon advice of counsel, determined that under its procurement regulations, it could rent equipment on a month to month basis without engaging in a competitive bidding process if it solicited quotations from at least three vendors. Thus, on November 13, 1979, the School Board solicited quotations from three potential vendors, Comdisco, ITEL and IBM, for purposes of securing an interim rental of an IBM 3031 CPU, "or equal", and related equipment. IBM and the Petitioner herein, NAS, which is the successor in interest to ITEL, responded to the solicitation of quotations and NAS informed the Board that it could not supply the particular equipment specified, but offered a NAS CPU at a monthly charge and suggested other related equipment to the Board that NAS considered to be suitable. The School Board staff informed NAS that the CPU unit itself would be a suitable alternative to the IBM 3031 CPU mentioned in the solicitation of quotations. On November 20, 1979, the School Board elected to select IBM's quotation and entered into the lease arrangement with IBM on a month-to-month rental basis. NAS did not challenge that action by the School Board. This rental agreement was entered into on or about December 7, 1979. It was a standard IBM lease and contained a provision whereby IBM offered the customer an option to purchase the equipment, although there was no obligation imposed therein on the customer to purchase the equipment, which was the subject of the lease. The agreement provided that the customer would be contractually entitled to certain "purchase-option credits" or accruals if it was leasing the equipment on a long-term basis and subsequently elected to exercise the option to purchase that same equipment. IBM grants such purchase-option credits as a general rule in month-to-month rental situations such as this, although they are not always a matter of contractual right on behalf of the customer. In any event, no consideration was shown to have been given at the time of entering this rental agreement to the existence or non-existence of any purchase-option credit provision since the only authorized contract at that time was a month-to- month rental agreement. No purchase or option to purchase which would be binding on either party was contemplated since both IBM and the School Board were aware that before a purchase of this magnitude could be made, that a competitive bidding procedure must be utilized. Equipment was installed pursuant to the rental agreement in December, 1979. Neither at the time of the contracting, nor at the time of the installation of the IBM 3031 CPU, did NAS or Comdisco challenge the award of the month-to-month rental contract to IBM. In early 1980, the rental agreement being only temporary, the School Board began studying various alternatives for making a permanent acquisition of needed data processing equipment. In early May of 1980, upon advice of its attorney and various staff members assigned to study the matter, the School Board determined that it would be more economical for the School Board to purchase a CPU and related equipment and service either by cash or installment payment, than to continue renting a CPU and related equipment or to lease those items with an option to purchase as had originally been contemplated in the October, 1979, aborted procurement effort. Thus, it was that on about April 20, 1980, the School Board appointed a committee of five persons to help draft technical specifications to ultimately be promulgated in bidding invitation documents with a view toward acquiring the required data processing equipment through competitive bidding and ultimate purchase. The committee included School Board employees and outside consultants with knowledge of the field of data processing. The members were: Louis Nall, Education Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; Kim Anderson, Information Systems Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations for the School Board; and Craig Rinehart, Director of the Systems Development/Systems Support staff of the School Board. Upon this committee agreeing upon required specifications for the equipment to be acquired, the bidding documents or "invitation to bid" and related supporting documents were developed by the committee in conjunction with assistance of certain other members of the staff of the Board as well as the School Board's attorney. The bid documents were approved by the School Board on May 27, 1980, and they were issued on May 23, 1980, to eight potential vendors, including NAS, IBM, and Amdahl Corporation. The bid documents invited bids for the sale of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal" (plus service and maintenance) for delivery no later than July 15, 1980. In addition to specifying an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal.," the pertinent specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents provided as follows: The manufacturer of the equipment described in the bid was required to currently manufacture it and offer for sale or lease along with it, an upgradable attached word processor subsystem the same as, or equal to, the IBM 3031 "attached pro- cessor." The Central Processing Unit, or CPU, being bid had to be capable of hosting or accommodating an attached processor. (The purpose of requiring this was so that the School Board could later ob- tain more processing capability if and when it needed it, rather than having to pay for more capacity than it needed at the time of the initial purchase. The vendors were not required by the bidding documents, however, to bid at the time of this procurement for the actual sale of such an attached processor, to be added later.) The School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informal- ity in any bid. The bid documents initially stated that the School Board would not pay any separately stated interest or finance charges in arriving at its total purchase price for all equipment to be bid. Each bidder was required to offer a certain number of support or maintenance personnel in the Orlando area at the time the bid was submitted and the Board would enter into a separate service and maintenance agreement with the successful vendor. NAS did not protest the bid specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents. NAS did request and receive several interpretations and clarifications of the bid documents from the Board in a manner favorable to NAS. These favorable clarifications or interpretations were as follows: The unavailability of serial numbers for data processing equipment at the time the bid was prepared would not adversely affect the bid's validity. NAS could temporarily rent equipment from other manufacturers which it could not itself deliver by the July 15, 1980, date required in the bid documents. (emphasis supplied) NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the requirement that support personnel be present in the Orlando area, provided it had the required support personnel in the area at the time the equipment was actually delivered, rather than at the originally stated time of submission of the bid. The NAS 7000N CPU, which was a computer of greater capacity than the IBM 3031, even after the IBM had the attached processor added, was specifically determined by the Board to be con- sidered as equivalent to the IBM 3031 and thus ap- propiately responsive to that specification and the invitation to bid documents. NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the term "manufacturer" even though NAS did not in itself manufacture the equipment, but only marketed it for the maker, Hitachi Corporation. IBM also had a role in determining and securing clarifications or interpretations of the specifications in the invitation to bid from the School Board. Thus, it was that IBM suggested that the Board could save money if it allowed each vendor (not just IBM) to separately state an interest or finance charge in its bid, since IBM was of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service would not tax as ordinary income to the vendor any separately stated interest charges or financing charges received by such vendor from a public governmental body such as the School Board. Thus, to the extent that vendors could save on income taxes from the total payment, if successful, then the School Board could reasonably expect all vendors to submit correspondingly lower bids in response to the invitation to bid. In response to IBM's request, the School Board amended the bid documents to allow a "separately stated time-price differential" for any item of equipment, not to exceed seven and one-half percent of that item of equipment. At NAS' request, the School Board also amended the bid documents to state that a single central processor (the NAS 7000N), with equivalent power to the IBM 3031 CPU, which was upgradable in the field, would be an acceptable alternative to the requirement that a separate processor must be capable of being attached to the CPU in order to increase data processing capacity. In fact, the NAS 7000N actually has somewhat greater data processing capacity than the IBM 3031. A further amendment to the bid documents provided that in determining the lowest and best bid, the Board would consider each vendor's total charges for service, maintenance and support of the equipment for a one- year period following the award of bids. Additionally, at the request of IBM, an amendment was approved to the bid documents stating that instead of seeking equipment "new and not refurbished," that that requirement would be changed to "new and not refurbished or not more than one-year old." These amendments were sent to all potential bidders. Prior to disseminating the May, 1980, invitation to bid documents, the School Board established an Evaluation Committee to review and analyze bids to be received in response to those documents. The Committee was composed of the following individuals: David Brittain, the Director of the Educational Technology Section, Florida Department of Education; William Branch, Director of Computer Service, University of Central Florida; Louis Nall, Education Consultant, Florida Department of Education; Ronald Schoenau, Director of Northeast Regional Data Center, Florida University System; Craig Rinehart, Director of Systems Development/Systems Support of the Orange County School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations of the School Board; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Dale Brushwood, Director of Production Control, School Board; and David Brown, Attorney for the School Board. The Evaluation Committee was charged with conducting a review and analysis in accord with certain instructions given by the Board and to recommend to the Board the bid the Committee believed was the lowest and best bid. The Committee was instructed that objectivity is of prime importance. Five vendors submitted bids in response to the Invitation documents, as amended. They were NAS, IBM, Amdahl, CMI and Memorex. On June 17, 1980, the bids were opened by the Board. On a recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, the School Board found the bids submitted by CMI and Memorex to be not responsive to the bid documents. The bids submitted by NAS, IBM and Amdahl Corporation were found responsive to the bid document. The Evaluation Committee met for approximately 5 hours evaluating the bids by a number of different criteria, including the consideration of both a one-year and a three-year maintenance cost, as well as an assumption arguendo that the bid documents did not merely call for the IBM 3031 CPU upgradable by the addition of an attached processor, as the specifications actually requested, but instead that the $330,000 (estimated) attached processor was to be bought at the outset from IBM. The result was that the Evaluation Committee reported that the IBM bid was the lowest and best response, even if the cost of a $330,000 attached processor was added to their bid, which was not actually to be the case because the attached processor was not included in this procurement process. Even had that been added to the IBM bid, making it the second lowest dollar bidder, the Evaluation Committee still felt it to be the lowest, best bid. The IBM bid for the 3031 CPU and related equipment was $1,412,643 plus a time-price differential of $58,738 for a total of $1,471,381. The related bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $74,201.34, making a grand total for IBM's bid of $1,545,582.34. The NAS bid for the sale of an NAS 7000N CPU and related equipment was the next lowest bid at $1,575,751 plus a time-price differential of $74,722 for a total of $1,650,473. The accompanying bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $64,603. The total of the NAS bid was thus $1,715,076. The Amdahl Corporation's bid was higher than either IBM or NAS. In evaluating and in arriving at the decision that the IBM bid was the lowest and best, the Evaluation Committee was concerned with the previous poor record of maintenance and support provided by NAS's predecessor in interest, ITEL Corporation, as well as by the fact that there were then no NAS 7000N computer systems installed in the United States, so that some knowledge of its performance record could thus be gained. Further, the residual value for NAS' equipment had not yet been proven to the extent that IBM's had. Thus, the Committee determined that the IBM bid would still be the lowest and best even had the attached processor, at an estimated cost at time of $330,000, been added to the bid, making it the second lowest in dollar terms because the IBM bid combined the least risk, with the maximum equipment capacity growth flexibility at maximum benefit to the School Board in terms of financial flexibility. The NAS machine would provide more capacity than the Board needed for several years at higher cost, without the Board having an option regarding when that extra capacity should be obtained. The financial flexibility benefit of the IBM bid in terms of allowing for future capacity growth was borne out because the attached processor, by the time it was actually acquired from IBM in 1982, only cost $172,000, due to price decreases made possible by technological advances. The Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the IBM bid as the lowest and best received, and in official session on June 24, 1980, after hearing presentations by an NAS representative, the School Board unanimously voted to award IBM the contract for the subject equipment. On July 1, 1980, the contract submitted by IBM was executed by IBM and the School Board. It provided for a purchase by the Board of the equipment and services described above, payable in two installments, $600,000 on or before August 15, 1980, and the balance on or before July 5, 1981. On July 16, 1980, NAS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the Board, also filing an emergency motion for stay with the School Board, seeking a stay of all further agency action on the contracts with IBM, including any payment, pending disposition of the case. On July 29, 1980, the School Board, after hearing argument of NAS counsel, denied that petition for Administrative Hearing and motion for stay on the basis that the contract between the Board and IBM had already been executed and that the NAS request for a 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was not timely. On August 4, 1980, NAS appealed the Board's decision to deny a hearing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal and also filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The emergency motion requested the court to prohibit any further action pursuant to the contract, including payment of any sums pending determination of the issues raised in the appeal. On August 15, 1980, the court granted the emergency motion for stay on the condition NAS post a supersedes bond on or before August 18, 1980. On August 26, 1980, the court vacated that order because of failure to timely post the supersedes bond. The School Board then paid IBM the first installment payment of $600,000, when due, shortly thereafter. On May 6, 1981 the Fifth District Court of Appeal ultimately rendered a decision that NAS ". . . should have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1980), that its bid was the lowest and best response to the bid document." Thus, the case was remanded to the Board to conduct an administrative hearing, and the Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 4, 1981, NAS filed with the Board a motion for stay to prevent the Board from making the final payment to IBM on the purchase price. After hearing arguments of NAS' attorney, the Board, on June 23, 1981, denied the motion for stay and NAS appealed. On July 3, 1981, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the School Board's denial of the stay. Final payment was thereafter made by the Board to IBM, thus completing the purchase and all performance of the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Orange County denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire 630 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter J. Winders, Esquire Nathaniel L. Doliner, Esquire Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel E. O'Donnell, Esquire 400 Colony Square, Suite 1111 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 James L. Scott, Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are: (1) whether the decision by Respondent, Department of Transportation, to reject all bids for the contract at issue was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and (2) if so, whether Respondent's actions in cancelling the notice of intent to award the contract at issue to Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., ("CECOS") and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.2/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency that issued the RFP to procure the Contract for Respondent's District IV. CECOS is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB was granted party status to DOAH Case No. 16-0769 by Order dated February 29, 2016, and by Order dated March 9, 2016, was determined to have standing in that case as a party whose substantial interests were affected by Respondent's decision to reject all proposals. Overview of the Procurement Process for the Contract Respondent issued the RFP on or about October 1, 2015. The RFP sought to obtain support services related to environmental impacts review for projects in Respondent's District IV work program; wetland mitigation design; construction, monitoring, and maintenance; permitting of mitigation sites; exotic vegetation control and removal in specified locations; relocation of threatened, endangered, or rare flora and fauna; permit compliance monitoring; and other services specified in the RFP. The RFP stated Respondent's intent to award the Contract to the responsive and responsible proposing vendor6/ whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to Respondent. The responses to the RFP were scored on two components: a technical proposal, worth a total of 60 points, that addressed the proposing vendor's experience, qualifications, and capabilities to provide high-quality desired services; and a price proposal, worth a total of 40 points, that addressed the proposed price without evaluation of the separate cost components and proposed profit of the proposing vendor, compared with that proposed by other vendors. The price proposal evaluation was based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) X Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 3, stated in pertinent part: In accordance with section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes, respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72- hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, . . . any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response. The period between the release of the solicitation and the 72-hour period after posting of the intended award is commonly referred to as the "cone of silence." The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 19, informed vendors that Respondent reserved the right to reject any or all proposals it received. Exhibit B to the RFP, addressing compensation, limited compensation for all authorizations for work performed under the Contract to a total of $5,000,000. Exhibit B stated that the schedule of rates listed in the Price Proposal Form C (i.e., the rates submitted for the sections comprising Exhibit C to the RFP) would be used for establishing compensation. On October 7, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 1 to the advertised RFP. Addendum 1 revised Exhibit A to the RFP, the Scope of Services; and also revised Exhibit C to the RFP, the Bid Sheet, to provide it in Excel format. As revised by Addendum 1, Exhibit C consists of an Excel spreadsheet comprised of six sections, each of which was to be used by the responding vendors to propose their rates for the specified services being procured in each section of the Bid Sheet. Section 6 of the Excel spreadsheet, titled "Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover, consists of eight columns and 258 rows, each row constituting a plant item on which a price proposal was to be submitted. The columns are titled, from left to right: No.; Scientific Name; Common Name; Unit; Estimated of [sic] number of Unites [sic]; Rate; Extension (Unit X Rate); and Multiplier 2.5 (Price X 2.5). Each row of the spreadsheet in Section 6 identified, as a fixed requirement for this portion of the proposal, the specified type of plant, unit (i.e., plant size), and estimated number of units (i.e., number of plants). For each row of the Section 6 spreadsheet, only the cells under the "Rate" column could be manipulated. Vendors were to insert in the "Rate" cell, for each row, the proposed rate for each plant item. The cells under all other columns for each row were locked, and the RFP stated that any alteration of the locked cells would disqualify the vendor and render its proposal non-responsive. The instructions to Exhibit C, Section 67/ stated: Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover Price of plants shall include project management, field supervision, invoicing, installation, mobilization of traffic, water throughout the warranty period, fertilizer and [sic] six (6) month and demobilization, minor maintenance guarantee. Installation of plant material shall be per the Scope of Services. All planting costs shall include the cost to restore area to pre-existing conditions (i.e., dirt, sod, etc.). On October 20, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 2, and on October 29, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 3. Both addenda changed Respondent's schedule for reading the technical proposal scores, opening the sealed price proposals, and posting the intended awards. Addenda 1, 2, and 3 were not challenged. However, a key dispute in these consolidated proceedings is whether the Addendum 1 Bid Sheet in Section 6 and the instructions for completing that Bid Sheet were ambiguous, or whether Respondent reasonably believed them to be ambiguous. The vendors were to submit their responses to the RFP, consisting of their technical proposals and price proposals, by October 16, 2015. CECOS, DB, and four other vendors timely submitted responses to the RFP. On November 2, 2015, the scores for the technical proposals submitted by the vendors were presented to the Selection Committee ("SC") at a noticed meeting. DB received the highest number of points on the technical proposal portion of the RFP. The SC met again on November 3, 2015. At that time, Respondent's Procurement Officer, Jessica Rubio, read the total awarded points for each vendor's price proposal, as well as each vendor's total combined points——i.e., total points for technical proposal and price proposal. CECOS received the highest number of points for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and also received the highest total combined points. Respondent recommended, and the SC concurred, that Respondent should award the Contract to CECOS. At 10:00 a.m. on November 3, 2015, Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation, constituting its notice of intent that CECOS would be awarded the Contract.8/ CECOS submitted a price proposal of $4,237,603.70. DB submitted a price proposal of $9,083,042.50. The other four vendors' price proposals ranged between $4,540,512.90 and $5,237,598.55. The "cone of silence" commenced upon Respondent's posting of the Proposal Tabulation, and ended 72 hours later, on November 6, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. As discussed in greater detail below, after the Proposal Tabulation was posted, Respondent discovered an apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, regarding the instructions to that section and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column on the Bid Sheet. After an internal investigation, Respondent decided to cancel its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, Respondent posted a notice that it was cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, DB filed a Notice of Protest, stating its intent to challenge the award of the Contract to CECOS. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, DB contacted Respondent by electronic mail ("email") to withdraw its Notice of Protest.9/ Due to the apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4 to the RFP. Addendum 4 required the responding vendors to submit new price proposals for all sections (i.e., sections 1 through 6) of Exhibit C to the RFP. Addendum 4 also established a new timeline for a mandatory pre-bid conference to be held on November 12, 2016; set a sealed price proposal due date of November 19, 2016; and identified new dates for opening the price proposals and posting the Notice of Intended Award of the Contract. On November 12, 2015, Respondent conducted a mandatory pre-bid conference to address Addendum 4. The participating vendors expressed confusion and posed numerous questions regarding the submittal of new price proposals and their technical proposals. Immediately following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued Addendum 5, which consisted of a revised Exhibit A, Scope of Services; revised Exhibit C, Bid Sheet in Excel format for all six sections; and responses to the questions posed at the pre-bid conference.10/ The Addendum 5 Bid Sheet comprising Exhibit C, Section 6, was substantially amended from the version that was published in Addendum 1. Specifically, the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit"; the "Extension (Unit X Rate)" and "Multiplier 2.5" columns were deleted; and a new column titled "Proposed Cost (Rate per Unit X Est. No. of Units)" was added. Additionally, the instructions for Section 6 were substantially amended to read: "'Rate Per Unit' must include all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, travel, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, mobilization and demobilization, staking and guying, maintenance of planting site throughout the 180[-]day plant warranty." These amendments were intended to clarify that the proposed rate for each plant unit was to include all overhead costs associated with performance of the Contract with respect to that particular unit. On November 13, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest to Respondent's issuance of Addendum 4, requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 23, 2015, CECOS filed the First Petition challenging Respondent's decision, announced in Addendum 4, to require the responding vendors to submit new proposals for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and its decision to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS.11/ Once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest on November 13, 2015, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. On December 17, 2015, Respondent posted notice that it was rejecting all proposals and that the Contract would be re- advertised through issuance of a new RFP. On December 22, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest, and on January 4, 2016, filed its Second Petition challenging Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and re-advertise the Contract. Bases for Respondent's Actions Shortly after Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation noticing its intent to award the Contract to CECOS, Christine Perretta, owner and president of DB, sent an email to Respondent, then called Rubio to inquire about Respondent's decision to award the Contract to CECOS. The evidence shows that these contacts occurred sometime on or around November 3, 2016.12/ In her telephone discussion with Rubio, Perretta inquired about how to file a notice of protest13/ and also asked whether Respondent had reviewed the vendors' price proposals for correctness or accuracy, or had simply chosen the lowest price proposal. In the course of the discussion, Perretta informed Rubio that DB had submitted a "loaded" rate for each plant unit ——meaning that DB's rate proposed for each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet consisted not only of the cost of the plant item, but also the cost for all associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 and in the RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), plus compensation.14/ Rubio could not clearly recall whether, in the course of their discussion, Perretta had inquired about the use of the 2.5 multiplier, and there is conflicting evidence as to whether Perretta related her view that CECOS may not be able to perform the Contract based on the price proposal it had submitted. In any event, as a result of Rubio's discussion with Perretta, Rubio determined that she needed to review Exhibit C, Section 6. In the course of her investigation, Rubio called Wendy Cyriaks, owner and president of CECOS.15/ Cyriaks confirmed that CECOS had submitted an "unloaded" rate for each plant item—— meaning that it had included only the cost of each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, and had not included, in the proposed rate for each plant item, the cost of the associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 or RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), or compensation. Cyriaks told Rubio that CECOS expected that its overhead costs and compensation for each item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier. Also in the course of her investigation, Rubio asked Bogardus whether he had intended the 2.5 multiplier to be used to cover all costs, including vendor compensation, associated with obtaining, installing, and maintaining the plant items listed in Section 6. Bogardus initially confirmed that his intent in including the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet was to cover all of the overhead costs and compensation. However, the persuasive evidence establishes that Bogardus subsequently agreed with Rubio that the 2.5 multiplier should not have been included in Section 6. Pursuant to her discussions with Perretta and Cyriaks, Rubio realized that the wide discrepancy between DB's and CECOS' price proposals was due to their differing interpretations of the instructions in Section 6 regarding plant item rates and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet. Rubio testified, persuasively, that the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column rendered Exhibit C, Section 6, of the RFP ambiguous. To that point, the RFP does not contain any instructions or discussion on the use of the 2.5 multiplier. Therefore, to the extent the multiplier was intended to be used by the vendors to build overhead costs and compensation into their price proposals, the RFP fails to explain that extremely important intended use——leaving the significance and use of the multiplier open to speculation and subject to assumption by the vendors in preparing their price proposals. Rubio reasonably viewed DB's and CECOS' divergent interpretations of the instructions and the inconsistent use of the 2.5 multiplier as further indication that Section 6 was ambiguous. She explained that in order for Respondent to ensure that it is procuring the most advantageous proposal for the State, it is vitally important that the RFP be clear so that responding vendors clearly understand the type of information the RFP is requesting, and where and how to provide that information in their price proposals. Rubio persuasively testified that in her view, the instructions in Section 6 had, in fact, called for a loaded rate, but that CECOS had erroneously assumed, based on the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that overhead and compensation for each plant item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier, and that as a consequence, CECOS incorrectly proposed unloaded rates for the plant items. In Rubio's view, CECOS' error was due to the ambiguity created by the unexplained and unsupported inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. Rubio testified that CECOS had been awarded the Contract because it had submitted the lowest price proposal, but that its proposal was based on an unloaded rate for the plant items, contrary to the instructions for Section 6. In Rubio's view, CECOS' price proposal was unresponsive, and CECOS should not have been awarded the Contract. Rubio also testified, credibly and persuasively, that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 for compensation purposes rendered the RFP arbitrary. Respondent's District IV historically has not used a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes for commodities contracts, and no data or analyses exist to support such use of a 2.5 multiplier.16/ This rendered the RFP both arbitrary and unverifiable with respect to whether it was structured to obtain the most advantageous proposal for the State. To this point, Rubio credibly explained that Respondent's existing environmental mitigation services contract with Stantec was procured through the "Invitation to Negotiate" ("ITN") process. In that procurement, Respondent negotiated to obtain the best value for the State. The ITN bid sheet contained a 2.5 multiplier that was used only for weighting purposes to evaluate and determine which firms would be "short- listed" for purposes of being invited to negotiate with Respondent for award of the contract. Importantly——and in contrast to the RFP at issue in this case——the multiplier in the ITN was not used to determine the final prices, including compensation, to install trees, shrubs, and ground cover under that contract. Rubio also testified, credibly, that the Bid Sheet was structurally flawed because it did not allow the vendor to clearly indicate the "unit price" inclusive of all overhead costs, and that this defect would result in Respondent being unable to issue letters of authorization to pay invoices for the cost of installing the plant items or compensating for work performed. For these reasons, Respondent determined that it needed to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. As noted above, Respondent posted the cancellation of the intent to award the Contract on November 5, 2015. At a meeting of the SC conducted on November 9, 2015, Respondent's procurement staff explained that the intent to award the Contract had been cancelled due to ambiguity in the instructions and the Bid Sheet for Exhibit C, Section 6. Ultimately, the SC concurred with Respondent's cancellation of the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and agreed that the vendors should be required to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4, announcing its decision to solicit new price proposals from the responding vendors. Respondent conducted a pre-bid meeting with the vendors on November 12, 2015, and immediately thereafter, issued Addendum 5, consisting of a revised Scope of Services and a substantially revised Bid Sheet for all six sections of Exhibit C. As previously discussed, the Section 6 Bid Sheet issued in Addendum 5 was revised to, among other things, delete the "2.5 Multiplier" column and the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit." Also as discussed above, the instructions to Section 6 were revised to clarify that the "Rate Per Unit" provided for each plant unit must contain all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, and other costs specified in the instructions——i.e, constitute a loaded rate. All of these changes were made in an effort to clarify, for the benefit of all vendors, the specific information that Respondent needed to be provided in the price proposals. Rubio testified, credibly, that in requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C, Respondent did not give, or intend to give, any vendor a competitive advantage over any of the other vendors, nor did Respondent place, or intend to place, CECOS at a competitive disadvantage by requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C. As noted above, once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. Consequently, the vendors did not submit new price proposals and the scheduled meetings at which the new price proposals would be opened and the intended awardee announced were cancelled. On December 17, 2015, Rubio briefed the SC regarding the problems with the RFP and described her concerns about proceeding with the procurement. She explained that Respondent's procurement staff was of the view that the instructions in Section 6, as previously published in Addendum 1, were ambiguous because they did not clearly provide direction on how to complete the Bid Sheet for that section. Additionally, the Section 6 Bid Sheet, as structured in Addendum 1, did not allow the vendors to provide a plant unit rate that was inclusive of all overhead costs. To this point, she noted that unless the vendors provided a loaded rate——i.e., one that included all overhead costs——Respondent would not be able to issue work orders for any plant items in Section 6.17/ She explained that these flaws constituted the bases for Respondent's decision, announced on November 9, 2015, to require the submittal of new price proposals. Rubio further explained that in Respondent's rush to issue a revised Scope of Services as part of Addendum 5, mistakes had been made18/ and Respondent's Environmental Office needed more time to carefully review the Scope of Services and Bid Sheet, to ensure the RFP was correctly drafted and structured so that the Contract could be accurately solicited and procured. Additionally, the vendors——including Mark Clark of CECOS——had expressed confusion regarding the revised Bid Sheet and submitting new price proposals, and some vendors had inquired about submitting new technical proposals. Further, under the revised procurement schedule issued as part of Addendum 4 on November 9, 2015, the vendors had a very compressed timeframe in which to prepare and submit their new price proposals, heightening the potential for mistakes to be made. Because of these substantial problems and concerns with the RFP, Rubio recommended that Addendum 5 be rescinded, that all vendor proposals (both technical and price) be rejected, and that the entire procurement process be re-started. The SC concurred with her recommendation. As noted above, on December 17, 2015, Respondent rejected all proposals and announced that the Contract would be re-solicited in the future through issuance of another RFP. CECOS' Position CECOS takes the position that the RFP and the Section 6 Bid Sheet published in Addendum 1 were not ambiguous. Specifically, CECOS contends that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 clearly indicated that Respondent was seeking an unloaded rate for the plant items listed on the Section 6 Bid Sheet. In support of this position, CECOS notes that all of the vendors other than DB had submitted unloaded rates for the plant items in Section 6. CECOS contends that this shows that Section 6 was not ambiguous, and that DB simply did not follow the RFP instructions——of which it was fully aware——in preparing and submitting its price proposal.19/ CECOS also contends that Rubio's failure to contact the other vendors to determine if they found the instructions or use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 ambiguous evidences that Rubio's conclusion that Section 6 was ambiguous lacked any factual basis, so was itself arbitrary. CECOS asserts that Bogardus' intent to use a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes was evidenced by its inclusion on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that its use on the Section 6 Bid Sheet did not render the RFP flawed, and that Bogardus' intent to compensate using the multiplier should control the structure of compensation paid under Section 6.20/ CECOS also notes that the use of the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet mirrors the 2.5 multiplier in the existing environmental mitigation support services contract with the current contractor.21/ CECOs further contends that there was no material difference, with respect to structuring compensation for the plant items, between the ITN process used for procuring the existing contract and the RFP process used to procure this Contract. As additional support for its argument that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 was valid, CECOS points to a request for proposal for environmental mitigation services issued by Respondent's District VI. In that contract, a 2.5 multiplier was used for compensation purposes, albeit for specific plant items that were not contained in the original list of specific plant items for which rate proposals had been solicited in the request for proposal. CECOS further contends that Respondent——and, most particularly, Rubio——did not conduct a thorough investigation into the historic use of 2.5 multipliers in Respondent's commodities contracts. CECOS argues that as a consequence, Respondent's determination that the use of the 2.5 multiplier rendered the Section 6 Bid Sheet structurally flawed and arbitrary was unsupported by facts, so was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that cancelling the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals placed CECOS at a competitive disadvantage and was contrary to competition because once the Proposal Tabulation was posted, the other vendors were informed of the price that CECOS had bid, so knew the price they had to beat when the Contract was re-solicited. CECOS also points to what it contends are procedural irregularities with respect to Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS and DB once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS. Specifically, CECOS contends that Respondent did not respond to its calls or email asking why the intent to award the Contract to CECOS had been cancelled. CECOS also contends that Respondent communicated with DB on substantive matters during the "cone of silence." CECOS further notes that Respondent did not convene a resolution meeting within the statutorily- established seven-day period after CECOS filed its First Petition, but instead held the meeting over 60 days later, on January 28, 2015, and that even then, Respondent did not engage in good faith negotiation to resolve the challenge. Finally, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions (discussed above) that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that it followed the instructions in the RFP in preparing its price proposal, submitted the lowest price proposal, and is ready, willing, and able to perform the Contract at the rates it proposed in its response for Section 6. On that basis, CECOS contends that it is entitled to the award of the Contract. Findings of Ultimate Fact CECOS bears the burden in this proceeding to prove that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.22/ Even if CECOS were to meet this burden, in order to prevail it also must demonstrate that Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. For the reasons discussed herein, it is determined that CECOS did not meet either of these burdens. The Multiplier Rendered Section 6 Ambiguous, Arbitrary, and Structurally Flawed As discussed in detail above, Respondent decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the submittal of new price proposals by the vendors only after it had conducted an extensive investigation that included a careful review of numerous provisions in the RFP and the instructions to Section 6 and had analyzed the structure of Section 6 in relation to other provisions in the RFP. That investigation showed that nowhere in the RFP was the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6, discussed or explained. Thus, to the extent the multiplier was to be used in determining reimbursement for overhead costs and compensation, the RFP failed to explain this extremely important point, leaving the multiplier's purpose, use, and significance open to speculation and assumption by the vendors in submitting their price proposals. This rendered the multiplier's use in Section 6 ambiguous. This ambiguity is further evidenced by DB's and CECOS's widely divergent price proposals for Section 6, and the credible testimony of Perretta and Cyriaks regarding their differing views of the purpose of the 2.5 multiplier. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the ambiguity in Section 6 caused the vendors to have differing interpretations of the manner in which they were to propose plant unit rates in Section 6; that the vendors submitted plant price proposals predicated on differing assumptions; and that this resulted in Respondent being unable to fairly compare the price proposals for purposes of obtaining the most advantageous proposal for the State. On these bases, Respondent reasonably concluded23/ that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6, rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. As extensively discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that Respondent concluded, based on its investigation and review of Section 6, that inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier rendered Section 6 both arbitrary and structurally flawed.24/ The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that Rubio investigated Respondent's use of multipliers in commodities procurements and contracts to the extent necessary and appropriate for her to reasonably conclude that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 rendered this portion of the RFP ambiguous, arbitrary, and structurally flawed.25/ In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a thorough and thoughtful investigation before concluding, reasonably, that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6 rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. Respondent's Actions Were Not Contrary to Competition Although the evidence shows that CECOS may suffer some competitive disadvantage because competing vendors were informed of the lowest "bottom line" price they would have to beat, it does not support a determination that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require the vendors to submit new price proposals were contrary to competition. To that point, in Addendum 5, Respondent substantially restructured the Section 6 Bid Sheet and also amended the Bid Sheet comprising the other price proposal sections in Exhibit C, so that CECOS' and the other vendors' price proposals submitted in response to Addendum 5 may have substantially changed from those submitted in response to Addendum 1. In any event, it cannot be concluded that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals are contrary to competition such that they should be overturned in this proceeding. Procedural Irregularities CECOS also points to certain procedural irregularities in Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals. CECOS apparently raises these issues in an effort to show that Respondent's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The undisputed evidence establishes that Rubio communicated with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" following the posting of its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. The undersigned determines that the "cone of silence" applied to Rubio and her communications with DB and CECOS within the 72-hour period following Respondent's posting of the intent to award the Contract. Specifically, she is an employee of Respondent's District IV Office, so is an employee of the executive branch of the State of Florida. Further, the evidence shows that her communications with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" period dealt specifically with substantive, rather than "administrative" issues regarding the RFP and the vendors' price proposals. Accordingly, it is determined that these communications did, in fact, violate the "cone of silence." However, this does not require that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS be overturned. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that while DB's conversation with Rubio may have spurred Rubio to decide she should investigate the Section 6 instructions and use of the 2.5 multiplier, it was not the reason why Respondent ultimately determined that the intent to award the Contract should be cancelled. Rather, Respondent's discovery of the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, through Rubio's investigation, was the reason that Respondent determined that the intent to award the Contract to CECOS should be cancelled. In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that notwithstanding Rubio's communications on substantive matters during the "cone of silence" with both DB and CECOS, the integrity of the procurement process was not undermined such that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. CECOS failed to present persuasive evidence establishing that other procedural irregularities rendered Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decisions to Cancel Intent to Award the Contract and Require Submittal of New Price Proposals Based on the foregoing, it is determined that CECOS did not meet its burden to show that Respondent's decisions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decision to Reject All Proposals As noted above, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. However, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all bids was factually supported and was reasonable. As discussed above, Respondent initially decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals after it discovered the ambiguity and structural flaws resulting from the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. At that point, rather than rejecting all proposals, which would require the vendors to go to the time and expense of preparing completely new proposals, it decided to instead only require the vendors to submit new price proposals. Due to the interrelated nature of the six sections of Exhibit C comprising the complete price proposal for the RFP, Respondent determined revision of Section 6 would also require revision of the other five sections of Exhibit C, in order to ensure that they were internally consistent with each other. At the mandatory pre-bid meeting preceding the issuance of Addendum 5, the participating vendors had numerous questions about the sweeping revisions to all six sections of Exhibit C, and they expressed confusion about the revisions and their effect on preparation of new price proposals. Some vendors also expressed concern that they may have to change their personnel in order to be able to accurately prepare new price proposals, raising the question whether the technical proposals needed to be revised. As a result of vendor confusion and concern, and also because Respondent's Environmental Office needed additional time to carefully review and revise the RFP as needed, Respondent decided to reject all proposals and to start the procurement process anew. Respondent's decision to reject all bids was made after fully considering all of the pertinent information regarding the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, vendor confusion and concern caused by Respondent's revisions to Exhibit C needed to address the ambiguity and flaws in Section 6, and Respondent's need for additional time to ensure that its RFP accurately and clearly solicited the needed environmental mitigation support services. Accordingly, Respondent did not act arbitrarily in deciding to reject all bids. Further, no persuasive evidence was presented to show that Respondent's decision to reject all bids was illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation: Issue a final order in Case No. 16-0769 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and Issue a final order in Case No. 16-3530 finding that the decisions to cancel the award of the Contract for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM were not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Transportation’s intended decision to conduct negotiations with Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., under ITN-DOT-13/14-8001-SM is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The ITN The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with planning, acquiring, leasing, constructing, maintaining, and operating toll facilities and cooperating with and assisting local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system. § 334.044(16)-(22), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill these duties. See §§ 20.23(6) and 334.044(7), Fla. Stat. FTE is a legislatively created arm of the Department and is authorized to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate, and manage the Florida Turnpike System. § 338.2216(1)(b), Fla. Stat. FTE is also authorized to cooperate, coordinate, partner, and contract with other entities, public and private, to accomplish these purposes. Id. The Department has the express power to employ the procurement methods available to the Department of Management Services under chapter 287, Florida Statutes.2/ § 338.2216(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of Transp., Case No. 06-1541BID (Fla. DOAH July 20, 2006; Fla. DOT Aug. 21, 2006). OOCEA (now known as the Central Florida Expressway Authority), MDX, and THEA are legislatively created or authorized agencies of the State with the power to fix, alter, charge, establish, and collect tolls, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges for the services and facilities system. §§ 348.0003(1)- .0004(2)(e), Fla. Stat. Each of these authorities has the power to enter contracts and to execute all instruments necessary or convenient for the carrying on of its business; to enter contracts, leases, or other transactions with any state agency or any other public body of the State; and to do all acts and things necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business and the general welfare of the authority in order to carry out the powers granted to it by law. § 348.0004(2)(g), (h), (k), Fla. Stat. On November 1, 2013, the Department advertised the ITN, soliciting proposals from vendors interested in participating in competitive negotiations for the award of a contract to provide a CCSS and associated operations and maintenance. The ITN was issued pursuant to section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the ITN is to replace the existing customer service center systems of FTE, OOCEA, THEA, and MDX with a CCSS that can be expanded over time to include other tolling and transit agencies in the State of Florida. The CCSS is expected to process nearly all electronic toll transactions in Florida. The successful vendor will enter a contract directly with the Department. The Department will then enter agreements with the other authorities to address coordinated and joint use of the system. Generally, the ITN sets forth a selection process consisting of two parts. Part one involves: (a) the pre- qualification, or shortlisting, of vendors in order to determine a vendor’s eligibility to submit proposals; and (b) the proposal submission, evaluation, and ranking. Part two is the negotiation phase. The instant proceeding relates only to part one. Part two -- negotiations -- has yet to occur. The TRT and Selection Committee – The Evaluators Cubic alleges that “not all of the members of either [the Technical Review or Selection Committee] teams had the requisite experience or knowledge required by section 287.057(16)(a)1., Florida Statutes.” Accenture alleges that “the Selection Committee did not collectively have expertise in all of the subject areas covered by th[e] ITN.” Section 287.057(16)(a) provides in part that the agency head shall appoint “[a]t least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought.”3/ In accordance with the requirements of section 287.057(16)(a), the ITN established a Technical Review Team (TRT) that would be “composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff.” The ITN also provided for a Selection Committee that would be “composed of executive management at the Agencies.” Each agency executive director appointed two individuals from their agency to the TRT. Each agency director was familiar with the background and qualifications of their appointees, who had experience in various aspects of tolling operations including tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals were appointed to serve on the TRT. Bren Dietrich, a budget and financial planner for FTE, has an accounting degree and has worked at FTE for 12 years in budget and financial planning. Mr. Dietrich has been a technical committee member for seven or eight procurements. Mohamed Hassan, a senior operations manager for FTE, has been in information technology for nearly 40 years and with FTE for 22 years handling all aspects of software development and maintenance for the state’s largest tolling authority. Mr. Hassan’s expertise is in software development and maintenance. Mr. Hassan oversees staff that is responsible for maintaining the database application systems, hardware, communications coming in and going out of the customer service center, and any development projects such as transaction processing or account management system upgrades. Steve Andriuk is a deputy executive director for MDX and oversees all tolling operations within MDX’s jurisdiction. Mr. Andriuk’s tolling background goes beyond his tenure at MDX, as he previously was an executive director at Chesapeake Bay Bridge Authority. Jason Greene, MDX’s comptroller of financial controls and budget manager, has a background in finance and accounting and in project management. Mr. Greene has been with MDX for 11 years. Lisa Lumbard, who has been with OOCEA for 16 years, is the interim chief financial officer and previously was the manager of accounting and finance. Ms. Lumbard runs OOCEA’s finance and accounting office and has both procurement experience and substantial experience in the financial aspects of back- office tolling. David Wynne is the director of toll operations of OOCEA and is responsible for the overall collection of all tolls and for the violation enforcement process. Mr. Wynne has held some iteration of this position for approximately 11 years and worked for OOCEA for 16. He also has both procurement and substantial tolling experience. Robert Reardon, THEA’s chief operating officer, is responsible for THEA’s day-to-day operations, including tolls. Mr. Reardon has been with THEA for six years and has experience as a technical evaluator for public procurements. Rafael Hernandez is THEA’s manager of toll operations and oversees all toll operations within THEA’s jurisdiction. The TRT members collectively have the requisite knowledge and experience in tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals constituted the Selection Committee. Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti has been FTE’s executive director since 2011 and worked for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for over 20 years, the last two as executive director and the previous 14 as deputy executive director. Laura Kelley is OOCEA’s deputy director over finance administration and the interim executive director. Ms. Kelly has 30 years’ experience in transportation finance and management, 15 of which occurred at the Department and eight of which occurred at OOCEA overseeing information technology, finance, and procurement. Javier Rodriguez, MDX’s executive director, oversees all MDX operations, including planning, finance, operations, and maintenance functions. Mr. Rodriguez has been with MDX for seven years and was with the Department for over 15 years prior to his employment with MDX. Joseph Waggoner has been THEA’s executive director for approximately seven years. Prior to joining THEA, he was with the Maryland Department of Transportation for nearly 30 years, six of which were in tolling operations. ITN section 2.6.2 provides as follows: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. The ITN is structured such that both the TRT and the Selection Committee have shared responsibility for evaluating proposals, with the Selection Committee having ultimate responsibility for ranking the Proposers for the negotiations stage of the procurement process. Combining the eight members of the TRT with the four members of the Selection Team means that there were a total of 12 individuals tasked with the responsibility of evaluating the proposals prior to the negotiations stage of the process. Pre-Qualification and Rankings In the pre-qualification portion of the ITN, interested vendors initially submitted reference forms to demonstrate that the vendors met the minimum project experience set forth in the ITN. Vendors meeting this requirement were invited to give a full-day Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation to the TRT in which each vendor was given the opportunity to demonstrate its proposed system. Under ITN section 2.6.1, A Technical Review Team will attend the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations and will develop scores and written comments pertaining to the reviewed area(s) identified in Section 2.5.1. The Technical Review Team will be composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff. The scores provided by each Technical Review Team member for each area of the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations will be totaled and averaged with the scores of the other Technical Review Team members to determine the average score for an area of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation. The average score for each area of a Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation will then be totaled to determine a total Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation score. Each vendor’s Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation was then scored based on criteria set forth in ITN section 2.5.1. Any vendor that received a score of 700 or higher was “short- listed” and invited to submit proposals. Put differently, those receiving a score of at least 700 were deemed qualified to submit formal proposals. ITN section 2.5.1 provides that the “review/evaluation of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list of Proposers to proceed in the ITN process.” Accordingly, the scores assigned in the pre-qualification phase were irrelevant after the short-listing. Six vendors submitted pre-qualifications responses, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. On January 21, 2014, the Department posted its short-list decision, identifying that all six vendors, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, were deemed qualified to submit formal written proposals to the ITN (the “First Posting”). As required by section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the posting stated, “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” This posting created a point of entry to protest, and no vendor initiated a protest. After the First Posting, short-listed vendors submitted technical and price proposals and made Proposal Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.24 provides detailed instructions for technical and price proposal preparation and submission. ITN section 2.25 (as amended by Addendum 8) sets forth the process for short-listed vendors to make Proposal Oral Presentations to the TRT. Short-listed Proposers will each be scheduled to meet with the Technical Review Team for Proposal Oral Presentations of their firm’s capabilities and approach to the Scope of Work and Requirements within the time period identified in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. Short-listed Proposers will be notified of a time and date for their Proposal Oral Presentation. Proposal Oral Presentation sessions are not open to the public. The Selection Committee will attend these Presentations. In advance of the Proposal Oral Presentations Proposers will be given detailed instructions on what the format and content of the Proposal Oral Presentation will be, including what functionality shall be demonstrated. The Department may also provide demonstration scripts to be followed. Proposers should be prepared to demonstrate key elements of their proposed System and Project approach and to respond to specific questions regarding their Proposals. These Proposal Oral Presentations will be used to present the Proposer’s approach and improve understanding about the Department’s needs and expectations. The Technical Review Team will participate in all Proposal Oral Presentations. After each Oral Presentation, each individual on the Technical Review Team will complete a written summary evaluation of each Proposer’s technical approach and capabilities using the criteria established in Section 2.5.2 in order to assure the Technical Proposal and Oral Presentations are uniformly ranked. The evaluation will consider both the Technical Proposal and the Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.5.2 is titled “Best Value Selection” and provides as follows: The Department intends to contract with the responsive and responsible short-listed Proposer whose Proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Department. “Best value,” as defined in Section 287.012(4), F.S., means the highest overall value to the state, based on objective factors that include but are not limited to . . . . ITN section 2.5.2 goes on to delineate seven “objective factors,” or evaluation criteria, on which proposals would be evaluated: Company history Project experience and qualifications Proposed Project approach to the technical requirements Proposed approach to the Project plan and implementation Proposed approach to System Maintenance Proposed approach to Operations and performance Price ITN section 2.6.2 explains the process for evaluation of technical proposals and Proposal Oral Presentations and states that: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see Section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review Team and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. Of the six short-listed vendors, five submitted proposals and gave Proposal Oral Presentations, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. The Department then undertook a ranking using the evaluation criteria delineated in ITN section 2.5.2. To perform this ranking, TRT members individually evaluated the proposals and prepared detailed, written evaluations that tracked the evaluation criteria factors. The TRT’s evaluations, together with proposal summaries prepared by HNTB, were provided to the Selection Committee in preparation for a joint meeting of the TRT and Selection Committee on April 9, 2014. At the April 9th meeting, the TRT and Selection Committee members engaged in an in-depth discussion about the bases for and differences between the individual TRT members’ rankings and evaluations. Thereafter, the Selection Committee made its ranking decision. On April 10, 2014, the Department posted its ranking of vendors, with Xerox first, Accenture second, and Cubic third (the “Second Posting”). The Second Posting also announced the Department’s intent to commence negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked vendor.4/ If negotiations fail with Xerox, negotiations will then begin with second-ranked vendor Accenture, then Cubic, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. Accenture and Cubic each timely filed notices of intent to protest the Second Posting and timely filed formal written protest petitions and the requisite bonds. Negotiations are not at Issue ITN section 2.26 provides: Once Proposers have been ranked in accordance with Section 2.6.2 Proposal Evaluation, the Department will proceed with negotiations in accordance with the negotiation process described below. Proposers should be cognizant of the fact that the Department reserves the right to finalize negotiations at any time in the process that the Department determines that such election would be in the best interest of the State. Step 1: Follow the evaluation process and rank Proposals as outlined in Section 2.6 Evaluation Process. Step 2: The ranking will be posted, in accordance with the law (see Section 2.27), stating the Department’s intent to negotiate and award a contract to the highest ranked Proposer that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. Step 3: Once the posting period has ended, the Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established, or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be achieved with such Proposer. If negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract. The Department reserves the option to resume negotiations that were previously suspended. Negotiation sessions are not open to the public and all negotiation sessions will be recorded by the Department. Step 4: The Negotiation Team will write a short plain statement for the procurement file that explains the basis for Proposer selection and how the Proposer’s deliverables and price will provide the best value to the state. Step 5: The Department will contract with the selected Proposer. As Accenture and Cubic protested the decision by the Department to enter negotiations with Xerox (and because of the automatic stay provision of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes) the negotiation phase of the procurement never commenced. Thus, this proceeding concerns the Department’s actions up to the Second Posting, and not what may happen during future negotiations. Second Posting and Intended Award Section 1.2 of the ITN sets forth the procurement timeline for the CCSS project. The ITN originally indicated that the “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” would occur on March 31, 2014. By addendum issued on February 13, 2014, the date for “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” was changed to April 10, 2014. Section 1.3.1 of the ITN provides an agenda for the April 10, 2014, “Meeting to Summarize and Determine Ranking/Intended Award.” Section 2.27 of the ITN is labeled “POSTING OF RANKING/INTENDED AWARD.” Section 2.27.1, Ranking/Intended Award, provides that “[t]he Ranking/Intended Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Proposer that is determined to be capable of providing the best value and best meet the needs of the Department.” Section 2.27.2 is labeled “Posting of Short- list/Ranking/Intended Award” and provides in part that “[a]ny Proposer who is adversely affected by the Department’s recommended award or intended decision must . . . file a written notice of protest within seventy-two hours after posting of the Intended Award.” Joint Exhibits 10 and 12 are copies of forms used to announce the rankings of the Proposers. It is not clear from the record if these forms are a part of the ITN. Nevertheless, the forms are identical in format. Each form has three boxes that follow the words “TYPE OF POSTING.” The first box is followed by the word “Shortlist,” the second box is followed by the word “Ranking,” and the third box is followed by the words “Intended Award.” The form also has three columns that coincide with the three boxes previously referenced. The three columns are respectively labeled, “X indicates shortlisted vendor,” “ranking of negotiations,” and “X indicates intended award.” With respect to the last two columns, explanatory comments appearing at the bottom of the form read as follows: ** Ranking: The Department intends to negotiate separately and will award a contract to the highest ranked vendor that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. The Department will commence negotiations with the number one ranked vendor until an acceptable contract is agreed upon or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with such vendor. If negotiations fail with the number one ranked vendor, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department is able to negotiate an acceptable agreement. *** Intended Award: “X” in the Intended Award column indicates the vendor whom the Department intends to award the contract to, but does not constitute an acceptance of any offer created by the vendor’s proposal or negotiations. No binding contract will be deemed to exist until such time as a written agreement has been fully executed by the Department and the awarded vendor. If irregularities are subsequently discovered in the vendor’s proposal or in the negotiations or if the vendor fails to submit required [b]onds and insurance, fails to execute the contract, or otherwise fails to comply with the ITN requirements, the Department has the right to undertake negotiations with the next highest vendor and continue negotiations in accordance with the ITN process, reject all proposals, or act in the best interest of the Department. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a posting wherein the “Ranking” box was checked and the “Intended Award” box was not. According to Sheree Merting, it was a mistake to have only checked the “Ranking” box because the box labeled “Intended Award” should have also been checked. Petitioners contend that by not simultaneously checking both the “Ranking” and “Intended Award” boxes that the Department materially changed the process identified in the ITN. Protesters’ arguments as to this issue appear to be more related to form than substance. In looking at the plain language of the ITN, it reasonably appears that the Department intended to simultaneously announce the “Ranking” and “Intended Award.” The fact that the Department failed to combine these two items in a single notice is of no consequence because neither Cubic nor Accenture have offered any evidence establishing how they were competitively disadvantaged, or how the integrity of the bidding process was materially impaired as a consequence of the omission. In other words, Sheree Merting’s confessed error of not checking the “Intended Award” box contemporaneously with the “Ranking” box is harmless error. See, e.g., Fin. Clearing House, Inc. v. Fla. Prop. Recovery Consultants, Inc., Case No. 97-3150BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 25, 1997; Dep’t of Banking & Fin. Feb 4, 1998)(applying harmless error rule to deny protest where agency initially violated provisions of section 287.057(15), Florida Statutes, by selecting two evaluators instead of three required by statute, but later added required evaluator). Sequential Negotiations As previously noted, section 2.26 of the ITN provides that following the ranking of the short-list proposers, the “Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first- ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established . . . [and] [i]f negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract.” Petitioners assert that the Department has abandoned the sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 and has announced “that it will conduct the procurement negotiations only with Xerox as the number one ranked proposer” and that the process of negotiating with only one proposer is contrary to the law because section 287.057(1)(c) “requires that the Department negotiate with all proposers within the competitive range.” Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti testified as follows (T: 1119): Q: Now, you understand that as a result of the rankings that were posted on April 10th, negotiations under this ITN are to proceed with only a single vendor, is that right? A: I believe the ITN provided for consecutive negotiations starting with the first-ranked firm and then proceeding down until we reached a contract. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertions, the evidence establishes that the Department intends to follow the negotiation process set forth in section 2.26. Petitioners’ contention that section 287.057(1)(c) does not authorize sequential negotiations is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Petitioners have waived their right of protest with respect to this issue. Petitioners’ waiver notwithstanding, section 287.057(1)(c) does not preclude the type of sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 of the ITN. Section 287.057(1)(c) provides in part that “[t]he invitation to negotiate is a solicitation used by an agency which is intended to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem and identifies one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” (Emphasis added). Section 287.057(1)(c)4. provides that “[t]he agency shall evaluate replies against all evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation to negotiate in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award [and] [t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). The opening paragraph of section 287.057(1)(c), which is essentially the preamble portion of the ITN provisions, expresses the purpose for which the ITN process was developed, to wit: “to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem.” In furtherance of the stated purpose, the Legislature instructs, in the preamble, that the process should “identif[y] one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” If the preamble is read in statutory isolation, then one could reasonably conclude that if the agency identifies more than one responsive vendor then the agency should negotiate with each of the vendors “in order to receive the best value.” Arguably, the preamble merely looks at vendor “responsiveness” as the guidepost for determining with whom the agency shall negotiate. Mere “responsiveness” however, is clearly not the only standard for selecting a vendor through the ITN process and illustrates why this portion of the statute cannot be read in isolation. As previously noted, subparagraph four of section 287.057(1)(c), provides that the agency “shall . . . establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award,” and once this is done, “[t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). By using the word “may” in subparagraph four, the Legislature is authorizing agencies to exercise discretion when selecting vendors with whom to negotiate. In exercising its discretion, agencies can decide to negotiate with a single vendor or with multiple vendors. An agency’s exercise of its discretion is not absolute and the “check” on the exercise of its discretion, in the context of the instant case, is a bid protest whereby an unsuccessful bidder can attempt to prove that the procurement process was impermissibly tainted. Contrary to Petitioners’ allegations, the sequential negotiation process utilized by the Department in the present case does not run afoul of section 287.057. Petitioners forcefully argue that they have been shutout of the negotiation process because neither of them was ranked first. This assertion mischaracterizes the nature of the sequential negotiation process used by the Department. The evidence shows that if the Department fails to come to terms with Xerox, then negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. The truth of the matter is that neither of the protesters has been shutout of the negotiations. It is simply the case that neither occupies the preferred position of being the highest ranked, short-listed vendor. Petitioners also argue that the Florida Department of Transportation Commodities and Contractual Services Procurement Manual – 375-040-020, prohibits sequential negotiations. For invitations to negotiate, the manual provides: There are two general negotiation methods used: Competitive Method A – Vendors are ranked based on technical qualifications and negotiations are conducted commencing with the first ranked vendor. Competitive Method B – Vendor qualifications are evaluated and vendors may be short-listed. Negotiations of scope and price will be conducted with short-listed or all vendors. An award is made to the vendor with the best combination of proposal, qualifications, and price. According to Petitioners, the ITN does not comport with either Method A or Method B. Again, Petitioners failed to timely challenge the ITN specifications regarding sequential negotiations and thus have waived this argument. Even if the merits of the argument are considered, Petitioners’ argument fails. The methods described in the manual are not the only methods available to the Department; in fact, the manual, by stating that “there are two general negotiation methods used (emphasis added),” recognizes that the methods are subject to refinement or modification as the Department deems best to meet the perceived needs of a particular solicitation as long as the final method complies with section 287.057(1), Florida Statutes. Further, the procurement manager for the ITN, Sheree Merting, testified that the shell, or template, provided by the Department’s central office, and used when drafting an invitation to negotiate, contains a combination of the manual’s methods A and B, which is referred to as A/B. The order of negotiations provided for in the ITN and reiterated in the First and Second Postings is not, therefore, inconsistent with the Department’s policies or procedures. Best Value Decision Petitioners contend that the Department, via the Second Posting, has already (and improperly) determined which vendor will provide the best value to the State even though negotiations have not yet occurred. This contention is not supported by the evidence. ITN section 2.5.2 states the Department’s intent to contract with the vendor whose proposal is determined to provide the best value and sets forth the statutorily mandated objective factors, or criteria, on which proposals will be evaluated. ITN section 2.6.2 provides that the TRT and Selection Committee will review and discuss the TRT members’ individual summary evaluations and the Selection Committee “will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities and best value.” The evidence reflects that the evaluation factors were applied during the evaluation process to formulate a best value ranking, but the question of which vendor ultimately provides the best value to the State will not be conclusively determined until after negotiations are concluded. See § 287.057(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. (“After negotiations are conducted, the agency shall award the contract to the responsible and responsive vendor that the agency determines will provide the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.”). As testified by Ms. Gutierrez- Scaccetti, “[t]he Selection Committee agreed upon the ranking of firms. It has not made an award.” This is consistent with the ITN and Florida law, which require award to the best value proposer after negotiations. Evaluation Criteria Properly Followed As explained above, ITN section 2.5.2 sets forth the evaluation factors that the TRT and Selection Committee were to use in evaluating proposals. Petitioners allege that the TRT and Selection Committee did not follow the ITN and based their evaluations and rankings on factors other than those listed in ITN section 2.5.2. The evidence establishes that the TRT did in fact use these factors, as evidenced by the detailed evaluation summaries prepared by each of the eight TRT members, which almost uniformly tracked these factors. Seven of these summaries are organized by headings that mirror the seven criteria of section 2.5.2. The remaining summary, prepared by TRT member Mohamed Hassan, was formatted in terms of pros and cons, but nonetheless addressed all of the section 2.5.2 evaluation criteria. Reflective of the TRT’s approach, TRT member David Wynne prepared detailed, typed proposal summaries that are four pages long and single-spaced for each proposal. Mr. Wynne’s summaries capture his deliberate thought process in ranking the proposals and include headings that directly tie back to the evaluation criteria in the ITN. His summaries include specific details from each proposal justifying his qualitative assessment of the proposals. For example, he discusses the benefits of Xerox’s Vector 4G tolling platform, Xerox’s proposed project schedule, and maintenance. Mr. Wynne even included a breakdown of the pricing and his thoughts on how the pricing compared to the other vendors. The other TRT members had equally detailed summaries. When read as a whole, these summaries demonstrate that the TRT engaged in a rational, deliberative, and thoughtful evaluation of the proposals based on the ITN criteria. Additionally, the TRT members testified that they applied the ITN section 2.5.2 factors in conducting their evaluations. Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the TRT members did as instructed in the ITN and evaluated proposals based on ITN section 2.5.2’s factors. There is no credible basis to find that the section 2.5.2 criteria were not the bases of the TRT’s evaluations, rankings, and narratives. The evidence also establishes that the Selection Committee applied ITN section 2.5.2 factors in reaching its decision. The Selection Committee reviewed the TRT summaries, along with a detailed notebook prepared by HNTB, the Department’s consultant. The HNTB notebook was a comprehensive summary of information compiled from the vendors’ voluminous proposals and organized in a digestible format to aid the Selection Committee’s review, including helpful summaries providing head-to-head objective comparisons of vendor pricing, software development, and vendors’ exceptions and assumptions. The HNTB notebook of materials objectively compiled the content taken directly from the vendors’ own proposals and included no editorial comments or opinions by the Department’s consultants. Moreover, the HNTB notebook contained a chart summarizing the TRT’s rankings by TRT member, along with copies of each TRT member’s detailed written summaries. It also contained a detailed, 36-page pricing summary that pulled price information directly from the vendors’ proposals and summarized the information in a manner that allowed for easy side-by-side comparison. The notebook also included a systems matrix summary that was prepared by taking proposed systems information directly from the vendors’ proposals and combining it in a format that could be easily processed. In fact, the notebook even included pages copied directly from the proposals. Armed with the comprehensive TRT summaries and the HNTB notebook, the Selection Committee then engaged the TRT in a thoughtful and detailed discussion and analysis of the qualitative merits of each vendor’s proposal -- all within the bounds of the section 2.5.2 criteria. Petitioners contend that during the TRT and Selection Committee’s discussions, issues such as risk were improperly considered. Although “risk” was not a separately labeled criterion under section 2.5.2 (“risk of solution” is, however, referenced as a sub-bullet), risk is inherently a significant consideration in each of the evaluation factors. Stated differently, the concept of risk is integral to the ITN section 2.5.2 factors, and the Department properly considered such risks. For example, a vendor’s prior project experience -- whether it has successfully completed similar projects before -- was a listed criterion, which is directly relevant to the risk the Department would take in selecting a vendor, that is, the risk that the vendor’s experience is or is not sufficient to assure a timely project completion and quality services under the ITN. Indeed, section 287.057(1)(c) requires that the Department consider prior experience. Another example of risk considered by at least one Selection Committee member was the potential that Accenture’s project manager would not be assigned solely to this project, but might be shared with Accenture’s Illinois tolling project (“local presence commitment” is referenced as a sub-bullet in section 2.5.2). The evidence shows that Accenture stopped short of saying without qualification that its project manager would be released from Illinois and solely assigned to CCSS. This uncertainty raised a risk concern whether the critical project implementation would be properly managed. Considerations such as these are rational and reasonable. There is a Reasonable Basis for the Department’s Ranking Petitioners further contend that there was no reasonable basis for the Department’s intended decision to begin negotiations with Xerox. However, as explained above, the evidence demonstrates the opposite as the TRT and Selection Committee collectively discussed and considered the evaluation criteria and the Selection Committee reached consensus on moving forward to negotiations with Xerox. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Selection Committee’s decision was rational and reasonable. The TRT and Selection Committee’s discussion at the April 9, 2014, meeting where the ranking decision was reached, demonstrates the studied analysis by which the evaluations were conducted. At the meeting, the four Selection Committee members, who had already reviewed the TRT members’ individual rankings and evaluations, each questioned the TRT members about their assessments of the proposals. Selection Committee members asked about the bases for the differences between the individual TRT members’ evaluations, and the TRT members explained why they ranked the vendors the way they did. The discussion revolved around the top three ranked vendors, Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, which one TRT member described as being “head and shoulders above the rest” -- that is, above the vendors ranked fourth and fifth. As noted above, the Selection Committee members’ primary focus in these discussions was on risk assessment -- the financial risks, operations risks, and information technology risks that the TRT members believed accompanied each proposal. Major Selection Committee items of discussion included modifications to the existing systems, proprietary versus off- the-shelf software issues, and the vendors’ proximity to Florida. Additional discussion points included the risk associated with Accenture’s use of multiple subcontractors and Cubic’s lack of experience with certain tolling systems. From these discussions, it appears that the overriding factor behind the Selection Committee’s ranking decision at the April 9 meeting was Xerox’s proven experience with other similar and large tolling projects, including some of the country’s largest tolling systems, which Accenture and Cubic simply did not possess.5/ As one Selection Committee member expressed, Xerox brought a “comfort level” that did not exist with Accenture and Cubic. Moreover, Xerox, with 78 percent, is the leader in the evaluative category that looks at the percentage of the company’s existing baseline system that meets the CCSS requirements -- more than Accenture’s and Cubic’s combined percentages. As the percentage of existing baseline system compliance increases, the implementation risks decrease. Selection Committee members Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti and Joseph Waggoner expressed the importance of this based on their firsthand experience with existing tolling systems in use for their respective agencies. In sum, this analysis and assessment is a valid and reasonable basis for the Department’s decision. Cubic also contends that such analysis is improper because the ITN allowed transit firms to submit proposals, thus making tolling experience an irrelevant evaluative factor. This contention fails because by prequalifying transit firms to bid, the Department was not precluded from considering a vendor’s specific tolling experience as part of the evaluative process. Contrary to Cubic’s allegation, the factors listed in ITN section 2.5.2, including “Project Experience and Qualifications,” contemplate tolling experience as being part of the relevant analysis. Therefore, the Selection Committee was fully authorized under the ITN to consider the benefits of a proven commodity -- a firm with Xerox’s extensive tolling experience. The Selection Committee’s qualitative assessment that, on the whole, Xerox was the better choice for commencing negotiations was supported by reason and logic and was wholly consistent with the ITN specifications. Petitioners further argue that the Department’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the pre-qualification scoring, where Accenture and Cubic each scored slightly higher than Xerox. This argument fails as ITN section 2.5.1 expressly provides that the evaluations and scoring of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list. Regardless, these three vendors were essentially tied in that scoring: Accenture’s score was 885.38, Cubic’s was 874.75, and Xerox’s was 874.00. Petitioners also contend that the Selection Committee’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the ranking decision of the TRT majority. The ITN is clear, however, that the Selection Committee would be the final arbiter of ranking. No Demonstrations Were Cancelled The procurement timeline in the original ITN allotted ten business days for Proposal Oral Presentations. The revised timeline in Addendum 8 allotted two days. Cubic asserts that this reduction in presentation time occurred because the Department, without explanation, cancelled planned vendor demonstrations that were to occur during Proposal Oral Presentations, thus placing Cubic at a disadvantage as it was unable to present its demonstrations to Selection Committee members. Cubic also asserts that the cancellation of demonstrations is an indication that the Department had already made up its mind to select Xerox. The ITN and the testimony are unequivocal that no demonstrations were “cancelled.” ITN section 2.25 contemplates that the Department may request demonstrations in the proposal evaluation phase but in no way states that demonstrations will be held. Section 2.25 also provides that if any demonstrations were to be held, they would be as directed by the Department. Thus, the ITN did not guarantee Cubic any presentation, as Cubic suggests. Moreover, all vendors were treated equally in this regard. Further, the evidence reflects that the decision to hold demonstrations only during the Pre-Qualification Presentations was made when the ITN was released and that the Department never planned to have vendor demonstrations at the Proposal Oral Presentations. Indeed, during the mandatory pre- proposal meeting, the Department informed all vendors of the planned process, to include one demonstration at the pre- qualification phase and an oral presentation and question-and- answer session during the proposal and ranking phase. In short, Cubic presented no credible evidence in support of its allegations regarding the alleged cancellation of the demonstrations or any resulting harm. Exceptions and Assumptions were properly considered The ITN required vendors, in their technical proposals, to identify assumptions and exceptions to contract terms and conditions. Significantly, the ITN states that the Department is not obligated to accept any exceptions, and further that exceptions may be considered at the Department’s discretion during the evaluation process. ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 provides, in its entirety: Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions If Proposers take exception to Contract terms and conditions, such exceptions must be specified, detailed and submitted under this Proposal section in a separate, signed certification. The Department is under no obligation to accept the exceptions to the stated Contract terms and conditions. Proposers shall not identify any exceptions in the Price Proposal. All exceptions should be noted in the certification provided for in Proposal Section 9. Proposers shall not include any assumptions in their Price Proposals. Any assumptions should be identified and documented in this Section 9 of the Proposal. Any assumptions included in the Price Proposals will not be considered by the Department as a part of the Proposal and will not be evaluated or included in any Contract between the Department and the Proposer, should the Proposer be selected to perform the Work. Failure to take exception in the manner set forth above shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department. Petitioners allege that the ITN did not clearly set forth how vendors’ exceptions and assumptions would be treated and that the Department accordingly failed to consider such exceptions and assumptions. This is a belated specifications challenge and therefore has been waived. Regardless, the evidence demonstrates that both the TRT and Selection Committee did, in fact, consider the exceptions and assumptions in the evaluation and ranking of proposers. The TRT and Selection Committee were instructed to consider exceptions and assumptions and to give them the weight they deemed appropriate subject to staying within the confines of the ITN’s section 2.5.2 criteria. Consistent with these instructions, some TRT members included comments regarding exceptions and assumptions in those members’ evaluation summaries, reflecting that exceptions and assumptions were considered during the evaluation process. Other TRT members considered the exceptions of minimal significance given that the Department would address them during negotiations and was not bound to agree to any. Indeed, the evidence was that it was the Department’s intent to sort out the exceptions and assumptions in the negotiation process and, again, that the Department need not agree to any exceptions initially set forth by the vendors. Thus, the Department acted rationally and within the bounds of the ITN and its discretion when considering exceptions and assumptions. The Selection Committee Reached Consensus Accenture alleges that the Selection Committee failed to carry out its duty to reach a “consensus” in ranking vendor proposals. The evidence establishes the exact opposite. The ITN provides that the Selection Committee will come to “consensus” about ranking the vendors in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities, and best value. A consensus does not require unanimity. According to the testimony of Selection Committee member Javier Rodriguez, who was the only Selection Committee member who voted for Accenture as his first choice, “at the end, Xerox got three votes from the Selection Committee; Accenture got one. So for me, consensus meant: Are we in consensus to move forward with Xerox? And as I said at the selection meeting, I didn’t object. So from a consensus standpoint, we’re moving on to starting negotiations with Xerox, and that was the intent.” Therefore, the unrebutted evidence is that the Selection Committee did, in fact, reach consensus. Subject Matter Experts Accenture contends that the TRT and Selection Committee made use of subject matter experts in the course of the evaluation and ranking in violation of Florida statutory requirements and governing procurement policies. The record, however, is void of any substantial competent evidence in support of these allegations. Tim Garrett is the tolls program manager for HNTB under the General Engineering Consulting contract for FTE. Mr. Garrett was the overall project manager assigned to support FTE in the development and execution of the ITN. He and other HNTB employees, such as Wendy Viellenave and Theresa Weekes, CPA, provided support to both TRT and Selection Committee members in regards to summarizing proposals and defining the process. There is no evidence that any employee of, or sub-consultant to, HNTB communicated qualitative assessments or opinions about any of the competing proposals to TRT or Selection Committee members. Rather, the evidence shows that HNTB facilitated the TRT’s and Selection Committee’s evaluation work by presenting to the committee members data in the form of summaries, charts, and recapitulations pulled from the voluminous technical and price proposals submitted by the five competing vendors. Other than the support provided by HNTB, the record is essentially devoid of evidence that proposal evaluators made use of subject matter experts.6/ But in any event, neither Petitioner has made a showing that the use of subject matter experts is proscribed by governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of the ITN. Although the use of subject matter experts was not addressed in the ITN itself, the Department, before the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations in early January 2014, issued written “Instructions to Technical Review Committee.” These instructions authorized TRT members to confer with subject matter experts during the procurement process on specific technical questions and subject to certain additional parameters, as follows: Subject Matter Experts Subject matter experts are authorized to support the TRC on specific technical questions that the TRC members may have throughout the procurement process. Subject matter experts may respond to questions on any aspect of the procurement or proposal, but may not be asked to, nor will they support, the evaluation of proposals, which is the responsibility of each TRC member. A subject matter expert can discuss the specific elements of the ITN and a vendor’s proposal with a TRC member, but they cannot meet with more than one TRC member at a time, unless in a public meeting – subject to the Procurement Rules of Conduct stated above. The subject matter experts are fact finders. A subject matter expert cannot disclose the specific questions asked by another TRC member. No evidence has been presented to establish that the Instructions to Technical Review Committee, as to the use of subject matter experts, violated Florida law or the terms of the ITN, or that any subject matter expert -- whether affiliated with HNTB or not -- failed to perform within the parameters set forth in the Instructions.7/ Both Petitioners devoted significant hearing time to the FTE consultancy work of John McCarey, McCarey Consultants, LLC, and John Henneman, an employee of Atkins Engineering, Inc., and sub-consultant to HNTB. There has been no showing by Petitioners that either Mr. McCarey or Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert to any member of the TRT or Selection Committee or that either had improper contacts in regards to the evaluation or ranking of the vendors. The undisputed evidence is that Mr. McCarey did not serve as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators. As for Mr. Henneman, although one TRT member testified in deposition that he “believe[d]” Mr. Henneman was a technical expert or considered one of the subject matter experts, there is no evidence that Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators -- TRT or Selection Committee. In sum, there is simply no evidence that any of the subject matter experts had any improper influence on the TRT or Selection Committee members.8/ No Improper Contacts, Attempts to Influence, or Bias Cubic alleges that there was improper contact between the Department and Xerox during this protest that violates the statutorily imposed “cone of silence” for procurements. Cubic also asserts that there were attempts by Xerox to influence the evaluations or rankings based on the Department’s, or the other agencies’, past or existing relationships with Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. There simply is no record support for the assertions that there was any improper contact or any attempt by any person to influence the Department’s evaluations or rankings based on past or existing relationships between the Department and Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. Xerox’s counsel did not have any contact with the TRT or the Selection Committee prior to the filing of the protests and the attendant “stop” of the procurement process pursuant to section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The only contact Xerox’s counsel had with TRT or Selection Committee members was as a participant with the Department’s counsel in pre-deposition meetings with some witnesses designated by Petitioners -- all in the context of ongoing litigation following the filing of Accenture’s and Cubic’s protest petitions. This contact is essentially no different than Petitioners’ contact with Department personnel in depositions and the trial, as well as during the section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes, settlement conference with the Department. Furthermore, all such contact was after both the TRT’s and the Selection Committee’s work under the ITN was completed and the said contact was of no import to the procurement process. In short, there is no evidence of attempts by Xerox to influence the process, improper contact between Xerox and the Department, or Department bias in favor of Xerox. Responsiveness of Xerox’s Proposal The evidence, at best, is that the Department has yet to fully vet the representations made in the proposals by the respective Proposers, including Xerox. Protesters suggest that such a full vetting is a condition precedent to negotiations. Such an argument, however, ignores ITN section 2.12, which has to be reconciled with ITN section 2.9.1 b). ITN section 2.9.1 b) provides in part that “[t]he Proposer shall have Key Team members with the following experience at the time of Proposal submission.” The section then goes on to list several positions that fall within the “Key Team Personnel” category. Petitioners contend that the Contract Project Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Human Resources Manager proposed by Xerox fail to meet the “Qualifications of Key Team Personnel” set forth in ITN section 2.9.1 b), thus rendering the Xerox proposal nonresponsive. ITN section 2.12 provides in part that “[a]fter the Proposal due date and prior to Contract execution, the Department reserves the right to perform . . . [a] review of the Proposer’s . . . qualifications [and that] [t]his review will serve to verify data and representations submitted by the Proposer and may be used to determine whether the Proposer has an adequate, qualified, and experienced staff.” Xerox’s omission, at this point in the process, amounts to a non-material deviation from the ITN specifications given that ITN section 2.12 reserves in the Department the right to review key personnel representations made by Xerox, and any other short-listed Proposer, at any time “prior to Contract execution.” Cubic also contends that Xerox and Accenture submitted conditional Price Proposals rendering their proposals non- responsive under ITN section 2.16. The analysis turns on the provisions of Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions, which provides a detailed description of how exceptions and assumptions are to be provided by vendors, and explains that “[e]xceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department.” As provided by the ITN, all vendors included a detailed listing of exceptions and assumptions in their Technical Proposal. Consistent with the discretion afforded to the Department under ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 to consider listed exceptions during the Proposal evaluation process, the Department then made the following inquiry of each of the Proposers: Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Exceptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Assumptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Xerox responded to both inquiries as follows: “The Xerox price proposal is based on the assumptions and general risk profile created by the inclusion of Section 9. We assume the parties will reach mutual agreement on the issues raised in Section 9 without a material deviation in the price proposal.” In addition to providing written answers to the questions, the vendors also addressed these issues in the Proposal Oral Presentations in response to questions by the Department. By the end of the Proposal Oral Presentations, all three vendors had made clear to the Department that resolution of exceptions and assumptions would not affect the proposed price. For example, Xerox’s senior executive in charge of the procurement, Richard Bastan, represented that there is no financial implication to any of the exceptions and that Xerox would honor the terms and conditions and the scope of services in the ITN for the price set forth in the Price Proposal. Accordingly, none of the proposals were improperly conditioned, and Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic were treated equally. Cubic also contends that Xerox’s proposal was nonresponsive as Xerox allegedly failed to meet the stated experience minimums for transactions processed and accounts maintained. There is, however, no credible evidence to support this contention. Indeed, the evidence is that the Department, through its consultant HNTB, verified these requirements by calling the referenced projects. Moreover, Xerox met or exceeded the stated minimums with its New York project reference. The Department’s decision that Xerox was responsive on this issue is logical, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. Price Proposals ITN section 2.5.2 lists “price” as a factor to consider in determining “Best Value.” The vendors’ price proposals were presented to the TRT members for purposes of conducting their evaluations. Price was also an appropriate factor for consideration by the Selection Committee. Accenture argues that “[t]he ITN does not indicate how pricing will be considered by FDOT during the selection process.” Accenture’s contention that the ITN failed to disclose the relative importance of price is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation, as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Accenture has waived its right of protest with respect to this issue. Conflict of Interest Accenture complains that “[n]either Mr. Henneman nor Mr. McCarey submitted conflict of interest forms as required under the Department’s Procurement Manual . . . [because both] were present during the oral presentations made by the vendors in connection with this procurement.” Accenture also complains that Wendy Viellenave never disclosed that her husband works for TransCore, a company that is a subcontractor for Xerox. Ms. Viellenave’s husband currently works for TransCore as a maintenance and installation manager in California and has not worked in Florida in nearly twenty years. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Viellenave, through the relationship with her husband, has any “significant” direct or indirect -- financial or otherwise -- interest in TransCore that would interfere with her allegiance to the Department. The fact that Ms. Viellenave is married to an individual that works for a Xerox subcontractor is insufficient, in itself, to establish a real or potential conflict of interest. Jack Henneman currently runs the back office operation for FTE at its Boca Raton facility. His future role for the CCSS is as project manager for the implementation of the CCSS. Mr. Henneman became aware of the CCSS procurement through his work on a Florida Transportation Commission Report that culminated in 2012. This report documented the cost efficiencies for all of the tolling authorities in Florida. Mr. Henneman attended some of the Pre-Qualification Demonstrations as his schedule would permit because he is the “go-forward” project manager for the CCSS implementation. Mr. Henneman formerly worked for ACS from 2002 – 2009, and met Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti during his employment with the company. Mr. Henneman was the transition manager for the transfer of the back office operation of the New Jersey Turnpike from WorldCom to ACS. Mr. Henneman did not have any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti from approximately 2009 to 2012. In his capacity as the “go-forward” project manager, Mr. Henneman reviewed the technical proposals submitted by the vendors in the instant proceeding but he did not have any discussions with the TRT members or the Selection Committee members about the proposals. He reviewed the technical proposals for the purpose of educating himself so that he would be better prepared to carry out his functions as the “go-forward” project manager. John McCarey is a sub-consultant to FTE general engineering contractor, Atkins. Mr. McCarey has a future role as being a part of the negotiations group for the CCSS. Mr. McCarey formerly worked for Lockheed for approximately 25 years and then spent 5 years working for ACS. Mr. McCarey was the chief financial officer for ACS’s State and Local Solutions Group at one time. Mr. McCarey left the employment of ACS in 2006. Mr. McCarey currently assists with various functions, including work on issues with the consolidation of the back office systems of OOCEA and FTE. For approximately 10 years before becoming a sub-consultant, Mr. McCarey had not had any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti. As it relates to the CCSS project, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. McCarey provided recommendations to the TRT or the Selection Committee.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioners’ protests be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2014.
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 1983, Respondent, Department of State, Bureau of Systems Management, issued Invitation to Bid No. DOS 80-82/83 to prospective bidders to provide 22,059 square feet of office space for use as offices for the Division of Licensing and Division of Corporations in Leon County, Florida. According to the general specifications and requirements, the space was to be located within one mile of the Capitol Building and available by August 1983, or within 30 days after execution of a valid lease. Sealed bids were to be received no later than 2:15 p.m. on July 27, 1983. At that time, all bids would be publicly opened. Petitioner, George E. Winchester, a partner in George and Lewis Winchester Construction Company, is the current lessor to Respondent of space used by the two divisions that will utilize the space requested in the bid. The monthly rental amount is $12,639.50. Although the lease expired on August 11, 1983, Respondent continues to lease the office space from Petitioner while this controversy remains pending. As is pertinent here, paragraph eleven of page seven of the Invitation to Bid contained the following miscellaneous requirements: Pest control. Soundproofing in specified areas (see floor plan Attachment H). Office must be prewired for telephone service (DMS-100 telephone system) 50-pair cable to support 20-button sets. Special climate control for selected areas where a concentration of heat-producing machines are located. All such equipment must be maintained at a maximum of 78 degrees. Capability for coaxial cable to be installed in all areas at lessor's expense. Capability for lessee to install additional coaxial cable at a later date. Office space must be able to receive dedicated electrical outlet for EDP and other specialized equipment. Offices to be prewired to provide for public announcement system in specified areas (Space 8,060 square feet). Offices to be located on one floor in reasonably close proximity (desired for Space 8,060 square feet). Window coverings to be provided on all windows. If office space has structural pillars or protrusions, lessee reserves the right to require decorative treatment of those struc- tures. Attached to the Invitation to Bid was a one-page document entitled "Attachment H" which provided a suggested configuration of offices and rooms. The "specific electrical, telephone and soundproofing requirements" within the office area were also reflected in Attachment H. Paragraph five of the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: INTERPRETATIONS Any questions concerning conditions and specifica- tions shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening. No inter- pretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Petitioner was in possession of The Invitation to Bid for several weeks prior to The bid deadline of July 27, 1983. However, because he considered the matter to he only a "small lease," and one which would not take a great deal of time to prepare, he waited until five or six days before July 27 to begin preparations for submitting a bid. In reviewing paragraph eleven on page seven of the general specifications and requirements, he concluded that items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were too "vague" to prepare a bid. In an effort to clarify the alleged ambiguities, he sought assistance from Department personnel on Thursday, July He was advised to contact a Mr. Cushing, chief of the Department's Bureau of Management Systems. He did so by telephone on July 22 but did not receive satisfactory information. Finally, on the afternoon of July 26, he met with five or six employees of the Department of State to discuss the items in question. After the meeting, Winchester did not indicate he was still confused. Based upon Winchester's questions, the Department decided to issue a revised page seven. The revisions were not substantive in nature but were merely intended to provide further clarification and assistance to the bidders. As revised, paragraph eleven of page seven provided as follows: Pest control (once monthly--professional exterminator.) Soundproofing in specified area (see floor plan Attachment H). (Maximum soundproofing acoustical tile to be used in two rooms-- llx7 and 18x10--which will house computer equipment; other rooms specified for sound- proofing should have material to prevent voices from being heard through the walls.) Office must be prewired for telephone service (DMS-100 telephone system) 50-pair cable to support 20-button sets. Special climate control for selected areas where a concentration of heat-producing machines are located. All such equipment must be maintained at a maximum of 78 degrees. Capability for coaxial cable to be installed in all areas at lessor's expense. Capability for lessee to install additional coaxial cable at a later date. Breaker box or fuse box must be able to receive three 220 lines for EDP and other specialized equipment. Offices to be prewired to provide for public announcement system in specified areas (Space A 8,060 square feet only). (Muzak-type sys- tem with PA capability is acceptable.) Offices to be located on one floor in reasonably close proximity (desired for Space A 8,060 square feet). Window coverings to be provided on all windows (flame-retardant drapes or mini-blinds) If office space has structural pillars or protrusions, lessee reserves the right to require decorative treatment of those struc- tures. (The structural protrusions shall be made compatible with the wall areas in the rooms in which they are located.) All three prospective bidders were either advised by telephone or in person that afternoon that a revision was being issued. The Petitioner received his copy shortly after his meeting with the Department's representatives. After receiving the revision, Winchester called several subcontractors the next morning to obtain price quotations for the various items. Although he still maintained the bid was a guess" and he did not know if he could make any profit, he was nonetheless sufficiently informed to prepare specific prices for each item he had questioned. The bid package was filed prior to the deadline. Winchester did not use other professionals to interpret the specifications or to assist him in the preparation of his bid. He also did not avail himself of the provisions in paragraph five of the General Conditions which permitted him to make written inquiry to the Department concerning any alleged ambiguities. On the afternoon of July 27, 1983, the bids, numbering three, were opened by Respondent. 1/ Thereafter, on August 1, 1983, the Director of the Department's Division of Administration wrote Intervenor/Respondent, Hobco, Inc., a letter which reads in pertinent part as follows: In response to your bid to provide 22,089 square feet of office space to the Department of State, you are hereby notified that you are awarded the bid. The award prompted the instant proceeding. Although item 9 stated that offices were "to be located on one floor in reasonably close proximity," this was not a mandatory requirement. Rather, it was a preference on the part of the Department. This was confirmed by a letter from the Department to Crown Properties, another bidder, which had made a written inquiry to the Department on June 23, 1983, concerning that provision. Further, the specifications indicate that one floor was "desired," and that in the weighting process, the providing of one floor was not a dispositive attribute in determining the award. The evidence is conflicting as to whether certain items within the miscellaneous requirements in question are vague and ambiguous. However, it is found that the evidence is more persuasive that the specifications were sufficiently clear to allow a bidder to formulate a competitive bid to lease office space. A reading of the specifications themselves, including Attachment H, a visual inspection of the presently leased premises, and the use of other professionals for assistance would provide sufficient information relative to soundproofing, communications and electrical requirements to prepare a bid that would conform with specifications. Moreover, the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provided all prospective bidders with the opportunity to make written or oral inquiry concerning any "conditions and specifications" that they questioned.
Recommendation Based on The foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent award Invitation to Bid No. DOS 80-82/83 to Hobco, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the single state agency in Florida authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). In order to participate in the federal Medicaid program, AHCA is required to maintain a state plan for Medicaid in compliance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. AHCA is required to operate the Florida Medicaid program in compliance with the state plan. AHCA is apparently concerned by costs associated with the Florida Medicaid program's hemophilia population. Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries constitute a relatively small, but costly population to serve. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous "clotting factors," which normally causes a persons' blood to coagulate. Hemophilia is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to the person with the disorder. AHCA seeks to control the cost of providing hemophilia-related services to this population through a combination of case management and medication discounts known as the Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management (MCHM) program. AHCA believes that a single vendor responsible for operation of the MCHM program can provide managed care to the population while achieving significant drug-cost savings. Through a federal requirement referred to as "freedom of choice," Florida's Medicaid program state plan must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service and who undertakes to provide such services. The freedom of choice requirement is subject to being waived in accordance with applicable federal law. Such waiver requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). AHCA began seeking approval from CMS for an amendment to an existing "Managed Care Waiver" to implement the MCHM program in October 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2003, CMS approved AHCA's request to amend the existing waiver to permit implementation of the MCHM program. Subsequent correspondence between the agencies has further established AHCA's authority to implement the MCHM program. AHCA issued the RFP ("RFP AHCA 0403") on October 1, 2003. The RFP seeks to implement the MCHM program. There were no timely challenges filed to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2003), requires that an agency must make a written determination that an invitation to bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or contractual services prior to issuance of an RFP. AHCA did not make such a written determination prior to issuance of the RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA will contract with a single provider for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. RFP Section 10.2 sets out an extensive list of vendor requirements designed to provide care to Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries and better management of related costs. The RFP provides that the successful vendor will be paid only on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement for factor product costs. No additional payment beyond payment of factor product costs will be provided. The RFP stated that the successful vendor would be reimbursed for factor product cost based on the average wholesale price (AWP) of the factor product minus a minimum discount of 39 percent. The RFP provided that vendors may offer a greater discount than 39 percent. An Addendum to the RFP indicated that if a vendor proposed a discount greater than 39 percent, the increased discount must apply to all factor products and that vendors could not propose varying discounts for individual factor products. The RFP contains language in the background section referencing budget "proviso" language adopted by the Legislature and referring to the MCHM program as a "revenue enhancement program." HHS asserts that because this RFP does not create a revenue enhancement program, AHCA had no authority to proceed with the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that this program will enhance revenue. The evidence fails to establish that based on the "proviso" language, AHCA is without authority to issue the RFP. RFP Section 20.11 sets forth the "proposal submission requirements." The section included a number of requirements set in capital letters and highlighted in boldface. The terms of each requirement indicated that failure to comply with the requirement was "fatal" and would result in rejection of the proposal submitted. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. RFP Section 20.16 provides that AHCA may waive "minor irregularities," which are defined as variations "from the RFP terms and conditions, that [do] not affect the price of the proposal or give one applicant an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others or adversely affect the state's interest." RFP Section 20.17 provides as follows: Rejection of proposals Proposals that do not conform to all mandatory requirements of this RFP shall be rejected by the Agency. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal was received after the submission deadline; The proposal was not signed by an authorized representative of the vendor; The proposal was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.11 of this RFP; The vendor failed to submit a proposal guarantee in an acceptable form in accordance with the terms identified in Section 20.12 of this RFP or the guarantee was not submitted with the original cost proposal; The proposal contained unauthorized amendments, deletions, or contingencies to the requirements of the RFP; The vendor submitted more than one proposal; and/or The proposal is not deemed to be in the best interest of the state. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. RFP Section 30.1 provides that the "total cost of the contract will not exceed $36,000,000 annually." RFP Section 30.2 provides in part that the "total cost for the contract under any renewal will not exceed $36,000,000 per year." The RFP's contract amount apparently was based on historical information and assumed that some level of cost control would occur through case management. The contract amount cannot operate as a "cap" because Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries are an "entitled" group and services must be provided. If the amount of the contract is exceeded, AHCA is obliged to pay for necessary factor products provided to the beneficiaries; however, in an Addendum to the RFP, AHCA stated that if the contract fails to contain costs "there would be no justification to renew or extend the contract." The RFP required vendors to submit a performance bond based on 20 percent of the $36 million contract amount. The RFP stated that proposals could receive a maximum possible score of 2000 points. The proposal with the highest technical evaluation would receive 1340 weighted points. The proposal with the lowest cost proposal would receive 660 weighted points. The combined technical and cost proposal scores for each vendor determined the ranking for the proposals. The RFP set forth formulas to be used to determine the weighted final score based on raw scores received after evaluation. AHCA conducted a bidder's conference related to the RFP on October 8, 2003. All parties to this proceeding attended the conference. At the conference, AHCA distributed a copy of a spreadsheet chart that listed all factor products provided to Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries during the second quarter of 2003. The chart identified the amount of each factor product used and the amount paid by AHCA to vendors for the factor product during the quarter. The chart also showed the amount that would have been paid by AHCA per factor product unit had the vendors been paid at the rate of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA received six proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were received from Caremark, HHS, Lynnfield, PDI Pharmacy Services, Inc., Advance PCS/Accordant, and Coram. RFP Section 60 contained the instructions to vendors for preparing their responses to the solicitation. As set forth in RFP Section 60.1, the technical response was identified as "the most important section of the proposal with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." The section requires vendors to include "evidence of the vendor's capability through a detailed response describing its organizational background and experience," which would establish that the vendor was qualified to operate the MCHM program. Vendors were also directed to describe the proposed project staffing and the proposed "technical approach" to accomplish the work required by the RFP. Vendors were encouraged to propose "innovative approaches to the tasks described in the RFP" and to present a detailed implementation plan with a start date of January 10, 2003. The technical responses were opened on October 29, 2003. AHCA deemed all six proposals to be responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP and each technical proposal was evaluated. For purposes of evaluation, AHCA divided the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria. AHCA assembled the technical evaluators at an orientation meeting at which time an instruction sheet was issued and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals were delivered. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. The five AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposal were Maresa Corder (Scorer "A"), Bob Brown-Barrios (Scorer "B"), Kay Newman (Scorer "C"), Jerry Wells (Scorer "D"), and Laura Rutledge (Scorer "E"). AHCA employees Dan Gabric and Lawanda Williams performed reference reviews separate from the technical evaluations. Reference review scores were combined with technical evaluation scores resulting in a total technical evaluation score. Reference review scores are not at issue in this proceeding. Kay Newman's review was limited to reviewing the financial audit information provided by the vendors. Technical evaluators reviewed each technical response to the RFP and completed evaluation sheets based on the 50 evaluation criteria. Other than Mr. Wells, evaluators included comments on the score sheets. Mr. Wells did not include comments on his score sheet. The technical proposal scoring scale set forth in the RFP provided as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each evaluator worked independently, and they did not confer with each other or with anyone else regarding their evaluations of the responses to the RFP. Janis Williamson was the AHCA employee responsible for distribution of the technical proposals to the evaluators. She received the completed score sheets and evaluation forms from each of the technical evaluators. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to technical proposals as follows: The total final point scores for proposals will be compared to the maximum achievable score of 1340 points, and the technical proposal with the highest total technical points will be assigned the maximum achievable point score. All other proposals will be assigned a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when a proposal's total technical points are divided by the highest total technical points awarded. S = P X 1340 N Where: N = highest number of final points awarded to t technical proposal P = number of final points awarded to a proposal S = final technical score for a proposal According to the "Summary Report and Recommendation" memorandum dated December 4, 2003, after application of the formula, Caremark received the highest number of technical points (1340 points). Of the parties to this proceeding, HHS was ranked second on the technical proposal evaluation (1132.30 points), and Lynnfield was ranked third (1101.48 points). Lynnfield and HHS assert that the scoring of the technical proposals was arbitrary based on the range of scores between the highest scorer and the lowest scorer of the proposals. Review of the score sheets indicates that Scorer "A" graded "harder" than the other evaluators. The scores she assigned to vendor proposals were substantially lower on many of the criteria than the scores assigned by other evaluators. The range between her scores and the highest scores assigned by other evaluators was greater relative to the Lynnfield and the HHS proposals than they were to the Caremark proposal, indicating that she apparently believed the Caremark technical proposal to be substantially better than others she reviewed. There is no evidence that Scorer "A" was biased either for or against any particular vendor. The evidence fails to establish that her evaluation of the proposals was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to establish that AHCA's evaluation of the technical proposals was inappropriate. After the technical evaluation was completed, cost proposals were opened on November 21, 2003. Section 60.3 addressed the cost proposal requirements for the RFP. RFP Section 60.3.1 provides as follows: The cost proposal shall cover all care management services, hemophilia specific pharmaceuticals dispensing and delivery, and pharmacy benefits management activities contemplated by the RFP. The price the vendor submits must include a detailed budget that fully justifies and explains the proposed costs assigned. This includes salaries, expenses, systems costs, report costs, and any other item the vendor uses in arriving at the final price for which it will agree to perform the work described in the RFP. The maximum reimbursement for the delivery of services and factor products used in factor replacement therapy (inclusive of all plasma-derived and recombinant factor concentrates currently in use and any others approved for use during the term of the contract resulting from this RFP) will be at Average Wholesale Price (AWP) minus 39%. Proposals may bid at a lower reimbursement but not higher. All other drugs not otherwise specified in factor replacement therapy will be paid at the normal Medicaid reimbursement. RFP Section 60.3.2 provides as follows: A vendor's cost proposal shall be defined in terms of Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and conform to the following requirements: The first tab of a vendor's original cost proposal shall be labeled "Proposal Guarantee" and shall include the vendor's proposal guarantee, which shall conform to the requirements specified in this RFP, Section 20.12. Copies of the cost proposal are not required to include the proposal guarantee. The second tab of the cost proposal shall be labeled "Project Budget" and shall include the information called for in the RFP, including the total price proposed, a line item budget for each year of the proposal, a budget narrative, and other information required to justify the costs listed. The RFP does not define the "detailed" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.1 and does not define the "line item" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.2. No examples of such budgets were provided. RFP Section 80.1 provides as follows: Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Cost Proposal Upon completion of the evaluation of all technical proposals, cost proposals will be opened on the date specified in the RFP Timetable. The Agency will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the evaluation team will review each cost proposal against the following criteria: Was the cost proposal received by the Agency no later than time specified in the RFP Timetable? Did the vendor submit an original and ten copies of its cost proposal in a separate sealed package? Was the vendor's cost proposal accompanied by a proposal guarantee meeting the requirements of the RFP? Did the cost proposal contain the detailed budget required by the RFP? Does the proposal contain all other mandatory requirements for the cost proposal? The AHCA employee who opened the cost proposals apparently determined that each proposal met the requirements of RFP Section 80.1, including providing a "detailed" budget. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to cost proposals as follows: On the basis of 660 total points, the proposal with the lowest total price will receive 660 points. The other proposals will receive a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when the total cost points are divided by the highest total cost points awarded. Where: S = L X 660 N N = price in the proposal (for two years) L = lowest price proposed (for two years) S = cost points awarded The cost proposal scoring process clearly required comparison of each vendor's total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Caremark's proposal included estimated total costs of $44,797,207 for FY 2002-2003, $43,245,607 for FY 2003-2004, and $44,542,975 for FY 2004-2005. According to RFP Section 30.1, the maximum annual contract was not to exceed $36,000,000. All of Caremark's estimated annual costs exceeded the contract amount set forth in the RFP. Caremark's proposal also provided as follows: The above budget includes all salary expenses for Caremark employees involved in providing services for the program including the Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist, Care manager, additional pharmacist(s), Client Service Specialists in Florida for the expanded hemophilia program. Also included are the support staff such as pharmacy technicians, materials management, field service representatives, warehouse, reimbursement, marketing, sales and administrative staff. Also included are all delivery, data and report development, educational and marketing communication expenses. Product costs including medically necessary ancillary supplies, medical waste disposal and removal, protective gear and therapeutic devices. Caremark's proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that Caremark indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. The HHS proposal projected estimated costs identified by month and year. The HHS proposal estimated total first-year costs of $14,261,954 and second-year costs of $27,333,389. HHS did not propose to assume responsibility for serving all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries at the start of the contract, but projected costs as if beneficiaries would "migrate to our service at a rate of 20 per month" during the first year and that full service provision would begin by the beginning of year two. RFP Section 10.2 provides as follows: The purpose of this RFP is to receive offers from qualified vendors wishing to provide the services required by the Florida Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management Program. The contract resulting from this RFP shall be with a single provider for up to two years commencing on the date signed, with an option to renew for two additional years. Otherwise stated, all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries would be served though the program's sole provider from the start of the contract period. The RFP provides no option for a vendor to gradually increase service levels through the first half of the two-year contract. The HHS proposal also included a breakdown of costs by factor product unit, identifying the AWP for each listed factor product and applying a discount of between 39 percent and 45 percent to indicate the product cost-per-unit that would be charged to AHCA. In Addendum 2 to the RFP, AHCA stated that it has received a written inquiry as follows: Knowing that the minimum accepted discount is AWP less 39%, can different products have different discounts. AHCA's response to the inquiry was as follows: No. The proposed discount will apply to all factor products. As to the costs included in the proposal annual total, the HHS proposal provided as follows: The product price above will include the following costs incurred in servicing the patients: The cost of the product dispensed to the patient. The cost of freight and other delivery expense of transporting the product to the patient. Pharmacy, warehouse and patient supplies. Cost incurred for patient protective gear and education materials Salary costs for the following: o Project/Contract Manager Clinical Pharmacist Staff Pharmacist Case Management Coordinator Pharmacy Care Coordinators Shipping Clerk Warehouse Coordinator Community Advocates Insurance Reimbursement Specialist The cost of Information Technology support for systems and reporting The cost of rent, office supplies, equipment, postage, printing. The HHS proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that HHS indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. Lynnfield's proposal estimated total costs of $34,000,000 for calendar year 2004 and $36,000,000 for calendar year 2005. Lynnfield's budget proposal included information identifying the specific expense lines which form the basis for the cost estimation, including salary costs by position, travel costs, employee insurance, postage, equipment costs, and various office expenses. Lynnfield's budget proposal included a significantly greater level of detail than did either the Caremark or the HHS proposals. Jerry Wells was assigned the responsibility to evaluate the cost proposals. Mr. Wells failed to review the RFP or the related Addenda prior to evaluating the cost proposals submitted by the vendors. Mr. Wells asserted that it was not possible, based on the information submitted by the vendors, to perform an "apples- to-apples comparison." Each vendor set forth information in its proposal sufficient to calculate a total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Mr. Wells testified at the hearing that his cost review was intended to determine what AHCA would be paying for each of the individual factor products that AHCA provides hemophiliacs through Medicaid because the cost of the products was all AHCA would be paying to the vendors. The RFP did not require vendors to include a detailed list of, or unit prices for, factor products. The RFP specified only that factor products be provided at a minimum of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA employees, under the direction of Mr. Wells, created a cost comparison chart which purported to identify the price proposed by each vendor for certain factor products and which projects an estimated quarterly factor product cost for each vendor. HHS's cost proposal included a listing of specific prices to be charged for factor products. The list was based on products being used by existing HHS patients. Caremark offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. Caremark also suggested various "innovative cost savings," which specified use of factor products and indicated discounts greater than the 39 percent required by the RFP. Lynnfield did not include a product-specific listing of factor costs in its proposal, but offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. The AHCA employees used the HHS cost proposal, including the HHS range of discounts, as the basis for preparation of the cost comparison chart that included the other vendors. The factor products listed on the AHCA cost comparison mirror those listed in the HHS cost proposal. AHCA employees apparently applied the factor product usage information from the second quarter of 2003 that was included on the spreadsheet distributed at the bidder's conference to the HHS factor product list. The AHCA spreadsheet distributed at the bidder conference lists 29 factor products by name and dosage. Of the 29 products, 15 are listed in the HHS cost proposal. The AHCA cost comparison created at Mr. Wells' direction includes only the 15 factor products listed on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison assumed no costs would be incurred, where the AHCA spreadsheet information indicated no usage of the factor product that had been included on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison did not include factor products which have been supplied by AHCA to Medicaid beneficiaries, but which do not appear on the HHS list. Mr. Wells relied on this cost comparison to determine that the cost proposal submitted by HHS offered the lowest cost to the agency and was entitled to the 660 points. Lynnfield and Caremark were both ranked according to cost proposals of AWP minus 39 percent, and according to the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum, were awarded 652.74 points. Calculation of the points awarded to Lynnfield and Caremark in the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum does not appear to comply with the formula set forth in the RFP. The AHCA cost comparison spreadsheet identifies the HHS proposed cost as $10,706,425.66 and identifies the AWP minus 39 percent cost as $10,795,477.48 (assigned as the Lynnfield and Caremark cost proposal). The Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum states the lowest cost proposal to be $10,706,405.66 (perhaps a typographical error). The methodology applied by AHCA assumed that all vendors would utilize identical quantities of identical factor products (based on historical usage in Quarter 2 of 2003 of those listed in the HHS cost proposal) and that there would be no cost savings related to disease management. The application of methodology to compare vendor cost proposals outside the process established by the RFP is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. The vendors who are party to this proceeding assert that each other vendor's budgetary submission is insufficient, flawed, or unreliable for varying reasons. It is unnecessary to determine whether the budgetary information submitted by the vendors meets the requirements of the RFP because, despite having requested the information, AHCA has no interest in the data. There is no evidence that in making an award of points based on the cost proposals, AHCA relied on any of the budgetary information required by the RFP or submitted by the vendors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted in response to the RFP AHCA 0403. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Thomas R. McSwain, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Martin R. Dix, Esquire Akerman & Senterfitt Law Firm 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Community Development Board (the "Board") to deny the application of Petitioner for flexible development approval to erect a telecommunications tower should be upheld pursuant to the City of Clearwater Land Development Code (the "Code"). (All section references are to the Code adopted on January 21, 1999, unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of building telecommunication towers for co-location of antennae to send and receive cellular telephone signals. Proper location of telecommunication towers is essential to efficient and effective cellular telephone communications. There must be an available tower to pick up the signal as a user moves from a distant tower to the available tower. Without an available tower, the user would lose signal. It is undisputed that three telephone carriers, identified in the record as GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo, need an available tower in the vicinity of Clearwater High School (the "high school"). Another telephone carrier, identified in the record as AT&T, shares an existing tower at the high school with the Pinellas County School Board (the "school board"). No reasonable use can be made by GTE, Nextel, or PrimeCo of the existing tower at the high school without modification to the tower. The existing tower is not adequate in height and structural capacity to meet the requirements of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. The school board and AT&T repeatedly rejected efforts by GTE, Nextel, and Petitioner to discuss the possibilities of modification of the existing tower to accommodate co-location. In 1996, AT&T advised GTE that the school board was not interested in co-location activity. The school board repeated that position in a separate meeting with GTE. GTE and PrimeCo searched for over two years for an alternative structure, tower, or location that would provide reasonable use for their technical requirements. In 1997, GTE requested a permit from Respondent to build a new tower approximately two blocks from the existing tower at the high school. Respondent contacted the superintendent of the school board to encourage co-location. Respondent did not issue a permit to GTE for a new tower. Early in 1998, GTE and PrimeCo approached Petitioner to locate a site for construction of a new tower in the vicinity of the high school. Over the next eight months, Petitioner searched for a suitable site for building a new tower. Petitioner found a site surrounded by commercial property and bordered by mature trees which are 20 to 40 feet tall. On October 13, 1998, Petitioner optioned the portion of the property on which Petitioner intended to build the tower, and Petitioner now owns the property. On May 17, 1999, Petitioner filed its application for site plan approval. The application proposed the construction of a 160-foot wireless communications tower for co-location by GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo (the "proposed tower"). Petitioner sent a notice of the proposed tower to Mr. Kevin Becker at AT&T. The staff for the Board conducted a technical review of the application. The staff recommended approval of the application subject to certain conditions. Petitioner complied with each of those conditions. The staff also recommended approval by the Development Review Committee (the "DRC"). The DRC must review each application before it is submitted to the Board. The staff report to the DRC stated that the existing tower at the high school was the only other tower in the area and was in poor condition. The report found that the tower cannot structurally hold more weight and cannot accept more antennae. Before the Board reviewed the application, Nextel again contacted Mr. Becker at AT&T to discuss modification of the existing tower for co-location of Nextel's antenna. Mr. Becker responded for AT&T with a terse e-mail that stated, "This is the THIRD TIME I have told Nextel that . . . tower is not available for anyone." The Board conducted five hearings to review the application by Petitioner. The hearings spanned six months. The Board conducted the first hearing on July 20, 1999, a second hearing on October 5, 1999, a third hearing on November 16, 1999, a fourth hearing on December 14, 1999, and the last hearing on January 25, 2000. The Board did not follow the staff recommendation at the first hearing. After hearing testimony and receiving other evidence, the Board continued the first hearing, in relevant part, to "allow the City to do whatever it may want to do in terms of addressing that issue." The Board directed Petitioner to contact the school board concerning the condition of the tower and directed the City Planning Director to also contact the school board. After the July hearing, Petitioner contacted the school board concerning the existing tower. Neither the school board nor AT&T had any plans for modification of the existing tower at the high school. The City Planner conducted an independent inquiry and determined that there is not much of a desire on the part of the school board or AT&T to "create other opportunities at this time." Petitioner and the City Planner reported their findings to the Board at the second hearing conducted on October 5, 1999. No one from the school board or AT&T appeared at the hearing. Petitioner presented an engineering study concerning the inadequacy of the existing tower at the high school. One Board member asked whether a new tower could be constructed at the high school to replace the existing tower. Petitioner and the Board's attorney stated that the Code encourages the use of existing towers rather than new towers. The Board continued the hearing over objection from Petitioner so that City representatives could contact school board representatives at a higher level and also allow consideration of a new tower at the high school. After the October hearing, the City Manager contacted the superintendent of schools to discuss the tower at the high school. On November 10, 1999, the superintendent stated that he would meet with city representatives only if AT&T representatives were also present. The superintendent eventually met with the City Manager without the presence of an AT&T representative. The superintendent indicated a willingness to consider modification of the existing tower but no agreement was reached due to the absence of AT&T participation. Another Board member prevailed on the superintendent four times to make a decision without success. The Board conducted the third hearing on November 16, 1999. Representatives from GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo testified at the hearing. Modification to the existing tower at the high school would accommodate one of the three companies but not the other two. The proposed tower is the only tower that would accommodate all three companies. The proposed tower is necessary to provide effective and efficient service to the customers of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. GTE has been at a competitive disadvantage since 1996. The Board voted to approve Petitioner's application. The Board conducted a fourth hearing on December 14, 1999. At that hearing, the Board voted to reconsider Petitioner's application on the ground that the Board had received timely requests for reconsideration from an interested party. The Board determined that Petitioner had misrepresented the position of the school board and AT&T concerning their willingness to modify the existing tower at the high school. The catalyst for the Board's reconsideration was a letter from Mr. Becker, dated September 16, 1999, stating that AT&T was willing to consider co-location. Mr. Becker sent a copy of the letter to the Board the day after the Board approved Petitioner's application. The letter stated that AT&T was very interested in considering co-location with other carriers but that the existing tower at the high school was inadequate for the purpose. The letter represented that AT&T would be willing to discuss replacement of the tower with other carriers. Petitioner had never seen the letter prior to the Board's approval and had no knowledge of the change in position by AT&T. The Board conducted a final hearing of Petitioner's application on January 25, 2000. The Board considered the letter from Mr. Becker and a letter from legal counsel for AT&T. Both letters stated that the existing tower does not have the structural capacity to add additional wireless antennae. A staff member for the Board again concluded that the term "existing" meant a tower in existence at that time. Respondent's expert confirmed that the existing tower, without reconstruction, was not a reasonable alternative to the tower proposed by Petitioner. Mr. Becker testified that AT&T was not proposing to modify the existing tower to accommodate the proposed antennae needed by GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo and that the existing tower was beyond reinforcement to accommodate additional loading. The Board denied Petitioner's application. The Board found that the existing tower "can be modified to accommodate carriers and thus reasonable use may be made of the existing tower." The evidence does not support a finding that the existing tower can be modified to accommodate GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. To do so, the existing tower would need to be replaced rather than modified. Reasonable use of the existing tower cannot be accomplished by modification. Replacement of the existing tower with a new tower would not provide reasonable use of the "existing" tower. As a threshold matter, an interference study would be necessary before a determination could be made that the replacement tower would accommodate all of the carriers. PrimeCo cannot commit to the replacement tower until the interference study is completed. In addition, there are other problems. AT&T proposes to place seven carriers on the replacement tower. That configuration would not provide adequate coverage to each carrier. A second tower would be required in the "short term." AT&T's proposed location of each antenna on the replacement tower would reduce the amount of coverage that is available to each carrier on the tower proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner's proposal locates GTE at 155 feet to accommodate GTE's technical needs. AT&T would locate GTE no higher than 120 feet thereby substantially reducing the area served by GTE. If GTE is located at 120 feet, GTE would need to construct another tower a mile away in order to obtain the coverage achieved at 155 feet in Petitioner's proposal. The replacement tower proposed by AT&T imposes additional limitations on AT&T's competitors. It requires GTE to reduce the size of its antenna to four feet from the eight-foot antenna in Petitioner's application. AT&T imposes a similar reduction on Nextel and requires Nextel to agree to a "compromising antenna" to co-locate on the replacement tower. The continuances ordered by the Board delayed construction of the tower proposed by Petitioner. If Petitioner had received approval of the application in July 1999, Petitioner could have had its proposed tower in service by January 2000. The delay has placed GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo at a competitive disadvantage. As of the date of the administrative hearing, AT&T had not begun construction of the replacement tower. The school board has the right to approve any co-location agreements for the replacement tower proposed by AT&T. AT&T has not submitted any co-location agreements for school board approval. Board policy considers the timeliness of a replacement tower as one factor in determining whether the replacement tower is "feasible" or a "reasonable alternative" within the meaning of Section 3-2.001D.1. A replacement tower that would require more than one year to construct is neither feasible nor a reasonable alternative. Neither the Board nor its staff enunciates any intelligible standards for adopting a one-year time limit or for applying a one-year time limit, including any standard for identifying the starting point of the one-year limit. For example, Petitioner first applied for approval on May 17, 1999. The Board began the one-year period for determining feasibility of the AT&T replacement tower on September 10, 1999. Respondent failed to explicate why it started the one-year period on September 10, 1999, rather than the date of application. The limitations imposed by AT&T for co-location on the replacement tower and the continuances imposed by the Board, individually and severally, comprise a "legitimate limiting factor" within the meaning of Section 3-2001D.1.g. The limitations and continuances have the effect of placing GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo at a competitive disadvantage and also have the effect of discriminating against the three companies in violation of Section 3-2001A.
