Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The two major issues in this case are as follows: Was the failure of Datamaxx to submit resumes of training and maintenance personnel as required by Performance Mandatory No. 10 of the Invitation to Bid a material deviation from the Invitation to Bid such as to render Datamaxx a nonresponsive bidder? If Datamaxx was a nonresponsive bidder, must the contract be awarded to Burroughs, or must DHRS, pursuant to Section 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, have the contract rebid, or seek single source procurement or negotiation approval from the Division of Purchasing?
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: For at least the past 10 years, the DHRS Data Communications Network has been maintained by Burroughs on a sole source basis. At the end of the previous Burroughs Terminal Maintenance contract with Burroughs, the Department of General Services (DOS) asked DHRS to bid the contract in lieu of sole source procurement, it being the belief of DOS that there was competition in this area. On or about September 19, 1986, DHRS published an Invitation to Bid which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on October 20, 1986, for a contract, known as "Burroughs Terminal Maintenance" [Bid No. 86 ATM] regarding maintenance of the terminals of the DHRS Data Communications Network. The Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid contained, among others, the following provisions: The State has established certain require- ments with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this Invitation to Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. Material deviations cannot be waived. (at p. 1) No negotiations, decision, or actions shall be initiated or executed by the bidder as a result of any discussions with any State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Department's Purchasing office may be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the State. Also, only communications from bidders which are signed and in writing will be recognized by the State as duly authorized expressions on behalf of the bidder. (at p. 2) All personnel performing maintenance must be trained to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be completed before the individual is assigned to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be provided to whatever level is necessary to ensure the individual has the required qualifications to perform satisfactory maintenance service on Burroughs equipment listed in Attachment A of this Invitation to Bid. Bidder shall submit with their bid a summary of their Burroughs training program and resumes of personnel who will be performing this training and the resumes of personnel who will be per- forming the maintenance. (at p. 8) Bidder shall certify to the State, at the time the bid is submitted, that bidder has existing established service centers staffed with personnel trained to service the equipment covered by this contract . . . In lieu of this requirement, if bidder does not have existing established service centers, liaison office, and trained personnel, and bidder submits a plan for compliance, the required certification must be given the State no later than two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated starting date of the contract as indicated in the paragraph of this document entitled Calendar of Events. Failure to comply with this requirement shall result in rejection of the bid and award of the bid to the next lowest responsive bidder. The Invitation to Bid was drafted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The only bidders on the contract (other than no- bids) were Burroughs and Datamaxx. DHRS found Burroughs and Datamaxx both to be responsive bidders and posted their bids making them public in the recognized manner of publicizing the bidder to be awarded a bid. Both bids were found to be responsive by DHRS at the time they were made public. The Datamaxx bid was the lowest bid and the Burroughs bid was the next to lowest bid. DHRS staff recommended the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. The Datamaxx bid was approximately $784,000 less than the Burroughs bid. In its bid Datamaxx indicated that it understood and agreed to all provisions of the Invitation to Bid, specifically including those dealing with Mandatory Requirements, Verbal Instruction Procedure, Rejection of Bids, Bid Evaluation, Performance Mandatories, and Certification. Datamaxx submitted the Certification required under the terms of the Invitation to Bid and did not submit a plan for compliance with its bid. Datamaxx never requested in writing that the requirement for resumes be waived, and DHRS never advised Datamaxx in writing that it did not have to submit the resumes. Datamaxx did not submit with its bid the resumes of training and maintenance personnel required under Performance Mandatory 10 of the Invitation to Bid. Performance Mandatory No. 10 required the submission of resumes with the bid, and did not concern an event that would take place after the bid had been let. DHRS considered the requirement for resumes to be a mandatory requirement. The qualifications of the persons who would be performing the maintenance under the contract would have a potentially significant effect on the quality of the maintenance provided. Nothing could be more material to the contract than the ability of the personnel to perform that contract. The difference in the dollar amount of the bids of Burroughs and Datamaxx influenced the decision of DHRS in finding Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder. This was a major reason Datamaxx was found to be a responsive bidder. In evaluating the Datamaxx bid, DHRS went outside the material provided in the Datamaxx bid. Subsequent to the posting of bids, DHRS met with Datamaxx and advised Datamaxx that its initial submission was deficient for not including resumes with the bid, that DHRS had waived the resumes, but that in order for DHRS to continue its recommendation that the bid be awarded to Datamaxx, DHRS had to have the resumes prior to the awarding of the bid. DHRS considered it an error and a deficiency in the bid that the resumes were not furnished. Datamaxx, on November 6, 1986, advised DHRS in a letter to Charles Ray that it would submit a plan which would address, among other things, service personnel resumes by November 17, 1986. DHRS could not have considered Datamaxx's letter of November 6, 1986, in evaluating whether Datamaxx was a responsive bidder, because that letter was not received until after DHRS had already found Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder and recommended that the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. Had Datamaxx not submitted the resumes prior to November 17, 1986, DHRS staff would have recommended that the award of the contract be withdrawn. The performance the State would receive under the contract would directly depend on the qualifications of the persons performing the service and the maintenance, and the resumes would be the only source of information regarding the qualifications of the personnel.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a final order be entered to the following effect: Concluding that the bid submitted by Datamaxx USA Corporation on Bid No. 86 ATM should be rejected on the grounds that it is not responsive, Concluding that the bid submitted by Burroughs Corporation should be rejected on the basis of Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, and, Providing for the agency to issue a second invitation to bid/request for proposals or take other action provided by Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4460B1D The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted with a few minor editorial modifications. The first two lines of paragraph 20 are rejected as redundant. The remainder of paragraph 20 is accepted. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted in substance. Paragraph 3 is rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected in part as irrelevant and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as constituting irrelevant and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's or Department's) proposed action to award a contract to Couch Construction, L.P., is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (Department) issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for road resurfacing on State Road 10/US 90 in Columbia County, Florida; Financial Project No. 208406-1-52-01 (The Project). Four companies submitted responses to the ITB. Couch was low bidder at $2,271,354.81, and Petitioner was second low at $2,278,263.07. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway resurfacing. The price proposal specifications stated in pertinent part: Item Number 2102-10. . .Approximate Quantity. . . 4,320.00 hours Item Number 2102-74-1 . Approximate Quantity . . .75,780.00 each day Item Number 2102-99 . . Approximate Quantity . . . 720.00 each day None of the bidders filed a timely objection to the price proposal specifications. Article 2-6, of the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction states: A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alternations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by the Department to determine whether the bid was mathematically and/or materially unbalanced. The Department's Preliminary Estimates Engineer conducts an unbalanced review of the bids to determine if the bids are mathematically unbalanced. A bid is considered to be mathematically unbalanced if the prices quoted are significantly different from the approximate cost of the item to the contractor. It is very common for bids on construction projects to contain some item prices that are mathematically unbalanced. Bid prices that are mathematically unbalanced are considered by the Department to be non-material irregularities if they do not affect the order of the bidders. In determining whether a mathematically unbalanced price is material, the Department follows a policy set out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Department has been following the same policy since at least 1992. The FHWA does not allow for materially unbalanced bids to be accepted by the Department on projects that are federally funded. A materially unbalanced bid is one in which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the ultimately lowest cost to the Department. The Department has developed an Unbalanced Program Logic for its computer analysis of the bids. The program flags the items that are mathematically unbalanced. It flags the item with an "A" for those items that are above the tolerance window, "U" for under the tolerance window, and "F" as front-loaded items. The flagged items which are short-listed by the computer program are sent to the designer of record to verify the quantities and to verify whether the correct pay item was used. The designer of record verified that the quantities were correct for this Project. As part of the bid review, the Department does a statistical average or mean average for each of the bid items. A standard and a-half deviation either side of the mean is established. The bid items outside that standard and a-half deviation, positive or minus, are discarded. The remaining bid items are re-averaged and this second average is referred to as the "serious average." A front-end loaded item is an item for which work is performed early in the contract. Mobilization is considered a front-end loaded item. Couch's Mobilization item 2101-1B was flagged by the computer analysis. The Department did an analysis of the Mobilization item. The Department started with the difference between Couch's bid and the Petitioner's bid on this item, $18,0000.00. That amount was multiplied by the current interest rate, 10 per cent, and then multiplied by a factor of .5, which spread it over half the contract, times 180-day contract period divided by 365, one calendar year. The result was $434.84, which represents the potential advantage that could result from paying the $18,000.00 amount early in the contract. That amount, $434.84, did not materially unbalance Couch's bid. The three items identified by Petitioner as unbalanced (paragraph 3, above) were low and did not present any detriment to the Department. If those three items overran at the rate established, it would be an advantage to the Department. In evaluating unbalanced bids, the Department follows the guidance in a May 1988 memorandum from the FHWA, which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price, the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is materially unbalanced such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, the Department compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, the Department's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by the Department to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. The Department also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in the Department's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the Department for the project. In this case, Couch and Anderson submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. Couch's unit price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $0.25/hour. The Department's average price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $25.22/hour. The Petitioner's quotation for off-duty law enforcement was $26.00/hour. The Department's computer analysis of Couch's bid flagged the off-duty law enforcement item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Petitioner for the off-duty law enforcement item was not unbalanced, and therefore was not flagged for further review by the Department. The same analysis was applied to the barricades and variable message sign items, with similar results. The Department also did an in-depth review of item 2101-B, Mobilization, for front-end loading. The result of that analysis was that, as a result of front-end loading, there was the probability of increased cost to the Department of $443.84. This small increase in the cost to the Department was not large enough to change the order of the bidders. Therefore, it was not a materially unbalanced item. The Department then made a more in-depth review of the three mathematically unbalanced items in Couch's bid and determined that none of those items were materially unbalanced, because none of them had the potential to increase the cost to the Department and none of them had the potential to change the order of the bids. In sum, the Couch bid was not materially unbalanced. The evidence in this case is insufficient to support a basis for rejecting the Couch bid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation issue a final order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's Formal Protest and Request for Hearing; denying all relief requested by the Petitioner; and awarding the subject contract to the Intervenor, Couch Construction, L.P. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 7th day of May, 1999.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
The Issue This case considers whether Petitioner's response to Invitation to Bid, No. 94-014, as revised, issued by the Respondent, is responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. If Petitioner is found responsive, then the question is raised whether Petitioner has offered the lowest and best response to the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact On May 26, 1994, Respondent provided a memorandum to prospective vendors concerning Bid No. 94-014, as revised. This memorandum informed the prospective vendors that the new bid due date was June 6, 1994. The memorandum attached the bid instructions. Under general conditions to the invitation to bid the prospective vendors were reminded in Paragraph 7 that the Respondent could ". . . reject any or all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." Under the heading "Special Provisions" prospective vendors were informed that "The charge per 1,000 for individual items under Exhibit A shall be the rates for the contract with the successful bidder." The prospective bidders were instructed as follows: REQUIRED ITEMS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BID: The bidder must complete all required items below and submit as part of the bid package. Any bid in which these items are not used or in which these items are improperly executed, may be considered non-responsive and the bid may be subject to rejection. Among the items to be submitted with the bid was Exhibit A. The bidders were informed about the process of EVALUATION/AWARD. There it was stated: Bids will be evaluated and awarded on an all or none basis to one bidder. Award will be based on the total costs of four (4) theoretical jobs (See Exhibit B-Bid Total) requiring varying services and on the bidder's qualifications to best serve the Department's needs. The prospective bidders were then reminded a second time that: "THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL BIDS AND TO WAIVE ANY MINOR IRREGULARITIES IN BIDS RECEIVED." Within Exhibit A to the bid document was a category referred to as "Tabbing", calling for the charge per 1,000 for that service. Within Exhibit B under the fourth theoretical job was a requirement to quote the subtotal cost for 200,000 newsletter preparations to include "Tabbing." Three vendors submitted responses to the invitation to bid. Those responses were opened on June 6, 1994. The vendors who responded were Petitioner, Educational Clearinghouse, Inc. and Mail Masters of Tallahassee, Inc. In the subtotal for costs for 200,000 newsletter preparations, in activity four, concerning theoretical jobs, found within Petitioner's Exhibit B to the response to the invitation to bid, Petitioner made a mistake. It misplaced the decimal point and described the subtotal cost for 200,000 newsletter preparations as $73.80 instead of $7,380.00. Respondent characterized this as a typographical error or nominal mistake. In fact, this error constituted a minor irregularity which did not preclude the ability to understand Petitioner's response so that it might be compared to the responses by the competition. Petitioner made a second error. This error occurred when Petitioner failed to indicate the amount that it would charge per 1,000 for "Tabbing" within Exhibit A. Respondent did not consider this to be a minor irregularity and rejected Petitioner's bid as non-responsive for the failure to include a quotation for the charge per 1,000 for "Tabbing." This resulted in the intent to award the contract to Educational Clearinghouse, Inc. whose bid total for the four theoretical jobs under Exhibit B was $9,137.25 compared to Petitioner's bid total of $8,374.62. In preparing Exhibit B, activity four, Petitioner included a theoretical charge for "Tabbing" in the amount of $8.00 per 1,000. Petitioner contends that the $8.00 per 1,000 found within that entry may be correlated with the missing information concerning "Tabbing" in Exhibit A to its response to the invitation to bid. In the instructions to the vendors, Respondent has informed the vendors that the charge per thousand for individual items identified in Exhibit A constitutes the rate that the Respondent would expect to pay under a contract with the successful bidder. By contrast, the function of the information provided in Exhibit B is for purposes of awarding the contract based upon total costs of the four theoretical jobs and on the basis of the vendor's qualifications to best serve the Respondent's needs. Although not stated in the invitation to bid it can be inferred that similar references within Exhibits A and B, such as the reference to "Tabbing", calls for a comparable price to be set forth for the item in both Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Otherwise vendors would have the opportunity to quote low prices in completing Exhibit B as a means to win the cost comparison with their competitors for purposes of the award and then have the opportunity to charge higher costs per 1,000 as reflected in Exhibit A when establishing the charges for the contract with the Respondent following the competition contemplated in the comparison of the theoretical bid total under Exhibit B. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to expect that the Petitioner would charge $8.00 per 1,000 for "Tabbing" under a contract between the Petitioner and Respondent based upon information that was set forth in the response to Exhibit B, activity four, "Tabbing." In summary, Petitioner's oversight in leaving out reference to the tabbing charge in Exhibit A does not affect the comparison of bid responses as contemplated by the instructions to the vendors, a function performed by comparing the respective Exhibits B. Otherwise, Respondent may gain the necessary understanding of Petitioner's charge per 1,000 for "Tabbing" as contemplated in instructions concerning Exhibit A as a means for entering into the contract. This understanding is achieved by transposing the $8.00 per 1,000 "Tabbing" quotation in Exhibit B to the "Tabbing" charge within Exhibit A as $8.00 per 1,000. With this adjustment, Modern Mailers, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder and best able to serve Respondent's needs pertaining to Invitation to Bid No. 94-014, as revised.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Petitioner is a "qualified" and "responsible" bidder who is the lowest and best responsive bidder to Invitation to Bid, No. 94-014, as revised and is entitled to the award of the contract contemplated by that invitation to bid. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the Parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are rejected to the extent that they are intended to establish an excuse for the Petitioner not providing information related to the cost for tabbing called for in Exhibit A in the invitation to bid. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 14 is rejected to the extent that it suggests that Petitioner may amend its response to the invitation to bid to specifically set forth the amount attributable to the tabbing charges per 1,000 in Exhibit A. Nonetheless one may infer that the cost per 1,000 for tabbing is the same as is set forth in Exhibit B. Paragraphs 15 through 17 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 18 constitutes legal argument. Respondent's Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found Paragraph 3 is rejected in fact and law. Paragraph 4 is rejected in the suggestion that the Petitioner does not have the ability to perform the contract. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel W. Dobbins, Esquire Callahan & Dobbins 433 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Informational Copies: Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire Brooks and LeBoeuf, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Joan Reeves, Vice President Educational Clearinghouse Post Office Box 3951 Tallahassee, FL 32315
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In January of 1994, FDOT issued an Invitation to Bid ("ITB") for contracts FE2494Z1 and FE2494Z2 to provide storm shutters for the FDOT facilities in Zones 1 and 2 of the Florida Turnpike. The ITB was entitled "Storm Shutters, Removable, Manufacture, Furnish and Install." Prospective bidders for the contracts were provided with a packet which included General Conditions, Special Conditions, Specifications and General Special Provisions. The General Conditions set forth the procedures for submitting and opening the bids. The Specifications called for custom-sized removable storm shutters and detailed the materials and installation procedures that were required. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in the Special Conditions, Section 1.0, entitled "Description", and in the Specifications, Section 1.0, entitled "Scope of Work": Work under this contract consists of providing all labor, materials, equipment, tools and incidentals necessary to manufacture, furnish and install galvanized steel storm panels and accessories for all of Zone 1 & Zone 2 buildings and locations as identified in the building listing listings document, see Exhibit "A" Zone 1 & Exhibit "A" Zone 2. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in Special Conditions Section 8.1, entitled "Required Documents": Bidders are required to complete and return the State of Florida "Invitation to Bid" form as well as the bid sheet(s). These forms must be signed by a representative who is authorized to contractually bind the bidder. All bid sheets and the "Invitation to Bid" form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope. At a mandatory pre-bid conference on February 17, 1994, the Department's representatives were available to answer questions regarding the bid package. During the pre-bid conference, John Vecchio of the Department orally advised the prospective bidders that they should return the whole bid package, including the specifications, when they submitted their bid. No written amendment to this effect was issued. The bids were opened on March 3, 1994 in Fort Lauderdale. Bids were received for each contract from at least three bidders, including Accurate and Hurst. The apparent low bidder for both contracts was Broward Hurricane Panel Co. ("Broward"). Prior to the bids being posted on March 28, 1994, Broward's bid was determined to be nonresponsive and Broward was therefore disqualified. After Broward was disqualified, Accurate was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 2 and Hurst was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 1. Hurst's bid for the contract for Zone 2 was $85,000. Its bid for the Contract for Zone 1 was $36,000. Accurate's bids for the contracts were $84,854.82 and $36,287.16, respectively. Hurst was awarded the contract for Zone 1 and that decision has not been challenged. At the same time the Department announced the award of the Contract for Zone 1 to Hurst, the Department announced its intent to award the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Hurst timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest of the proposed award of the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Initially, FDOT raised as a defense that Hurst had not posted a protest bond as required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes. At the hearing in this matter, FDOT conceded that Hurst had subsequently posted a protest bond which had been accepted by FDOT. Hurst contends that Accurate's bid should have been deemed nonresponsive because Accurate does not have the ability to "manufacture" the specified product in its own facility. The 2 inch corrugated shutter required by the ITB has to be shaped on a special type of machine that rolls, presses and forms the metal. Hurst owns and maintains at its Opa-Locka facility a rolling mill capable of forming the panels to the bid specifications. Accurate is in the business of supplying the types of products sought by the ITB in this case. However, Accurate does not own the kind of machine necessary to shape the metal. The evidence established that for many years, Accurate has had a continuing business relationship with a local subcontractor, Shutter Express, that rolls, presses and forms raw material supplied by Accurate in accordance with Accurate's specifications. Shutter Express has the capability of fabricating shutters with a 2 inch corrugation in accordance with the ITB. Accurate is equipped to attach the headers and sills, drill the necessary holes, complete the assembly and install the final product. The ITB in this case did not preclude subcontracting any or all of the work specified. While the description of the work in the ITB includes the term "manufacture", this reference should not be read to mean that only those companies that were able to fabricate the entire product at their own facility could properly respond to the ITB. There is no logical justification for such a narrow interpretation. Only a few companies have the ability to completely fabricate the shutters on their own property. At the prebid conference, there was discussion amongst the prospective bidders about subcontracting the fabrication work and the FDOT representatives did not raise any objections to such an arrangement. It was widely understood by the parties present at the pre-bid conference that the Department was not interpreting the ITB in the restrictive manner now urged by Hurst. Such a reading of the ITB would have precluded from the bidding process a number of companies such as Accurate that routinely supply and install shutters. Hurst also contends that the bid proposal submitted by Accurate should be deemed nonresponsive because Accurate failed to include the entire ITB with its proposal in accordance with the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference. Hurst's proposals included the entire ITB. As discussed below, Accurate's proposal did not include the entire ITB. FDOT determined that all essential pages were included in Accurate's response and the evidence did not establish that this conclusion was arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent. Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions of the ITB provided: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and affect and are inapplicable to the bid. As noted above, at the prebid conference held on February 17, 1994, an FDOT employee told all prospective bidders to return the entire bid package when making their submittals. This request that the entire bid package be returned was simply meant as a protection for the bidder to ensure that all the necessary documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications were submitted. Other than those documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications, FDOT had no interest in having the remaining portion of the ITB submitted with a proposal. Accurate's submittal contained every document required by Section 8.1 of the Specifications. Accurate's proposal did not contain pages 3 through 12, 14, 15 and 17 through 20 of the ITB, but did include pages 1 and 2, 13, 16, 21 and 22 along with a signed Form PUR 7068 and a signed acknowledgment of Addendum In other words, the submittal contained a signed and completed Bidder Acknowledgment, completed Bid Price Forms for Zones 1 and 2, a signed copy of Addendum #1, a completed copy of the Ordering Instructions, and a signed, but not notarized, statement regarding public entity crimes. 1/ In addition to the "REQUIRED DOCUMENTS," set forth in Section 8.1 of the Specifications and quoted in Findings of Fact 6 above, the ITB included Section 8.2, "PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES STATEMENT" which provides: Any person submitting a bid or proposal in response to this invitation should execute the enclosed form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(A), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES, including proper check(s) provided, and submit it with the bid/proposal or within 72 hours of the bid opening. Page 7 of the ITB provided in pertinent part: 10.0 BID PREFERENCE IDENTICAL TIE BIDS - Preference shall be given to businesses with drug-free workplace programs. Whenever two or more bids which are equal with respect to price, quality and service are received by the State or by any political subdivision for the procurement of commodities or contractual services, a bid received from a business that certifies that it had implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. . . . Accurate's proposal did not include a certification that it was a drug-free workplace in accordance with this provision. However, such a certification is only used by the Department as a tie-breaker. In other words, in the event of identical bids, any firm with a drug-free workplace would get preference. Since there were no tied bids in this case, certification was totally irrelevant. When the bids were opened, Mary Bailey, the contracts administrator for the Department, noticed that Accurate's submittal was thinner than the others and asked Accurate's representative, Richard Johnson, about the remaining pages. Mr. Johnson replied that the other pages were in his truck and offered to retrieve them. Ms. Bailey told him there was no need to do so. Section 10 of the General Conditions in the bid package provides as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved...to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received... It does not appear that Accurate has obtained any competitive advantage as a result of its failure to include the entire ITB with its bid proposals. Even if the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference are deemed to have modified the ITB so that the entire bid package should have been submitted, Accurate's failure to include the entire ITB with its response should be considered a minor technicality, pursuant to Section 10 of the General Conditions cited above, that can and should be waived in evaluating the responsiveness of the bid. Similarly, the failure to have the Form PUR 7068 notarized may have rendered Accurate's bid proposals incomplete, but not necessarily nonresponsive. This oversight can be easily corrected without giving Accurate a competitive advantage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid submitted by Accurate to be responsive and dismissing the challenge filed by Hurst. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June 1994.
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 5th day of October, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Department’s action to reject all bids submitted in response to DOT-RFP-20-5003-DAA, relating to asbestos abatement, demolition, and removal services, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the services for Districtwide Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for Right of Way property under the Department’s supervision by law. The Department published a bid solicitation for DOT-RFP-20-5003- DAA, seeking bids to provide District Five Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for FDOT. The RFP included specifications, qualification requirements, instructions on what would be required of responders, a bid price proposal sheet, and the award criteria. Cross Construction and Cross Environmental submitted bids in response to the RFP. Cross Construction’s and Cross Environmental’s bids were evaluated by the Department. There is no debate, challenge, or disagreement raised in the Petitions with regard to the Technical Scores submitted by the responding firms to the RFP, only disagreement on three pay items. On June 15, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee reviewed and discussed the information presented as to the Technical and Pricing scores of the Responding firms, asked for an additional bid item analysis, and indicated that it would reconvene at a future date for a decision. On June 22, 2020, the Selection Committee reviewed, discussed, and confirmed the recommendation presented by the results of the Technical Review Committee scorings and the Project Manager’s Bid Price analysis and selected Cross Construction and Cross Environmental as Intended Awardees. The Selection committee also found that Johnson’s Excavation and Services Inc., [Johnson] and Simpson Environmental LLC [Simpson] were deemed non-responsive due to irregular, and unbalanced pay items prices. On August 24, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee decided to cancel the Procurement with the intent to readvertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing Structure and decided to reject all proposals. Additional Findings of Fact The “three pay items” referenced in paragraph six of the stipulated facts are the items that ultimately caused the Department to reject all bids in the instant dispute. The three pay items are collectively referred to as mobilization pay items. The RFP directs that bids are to contain two parts. Part I is the technical proposal, and Part II is the price proposal. Section 30.3 of the RFP provides that proposers “shall complete the Bid Price Proposal Form No. 2 and submit [the form] as part of the Price Proposal Package … [and that] [t]he Procurement Office and/or the Project Manager/TRC will review and evaluate the price proposals and prepare a summary of its price evaluation.” Five bidders submitted proposals in response to the RFP. One bidder did not advance beyond the initial review phase because its technical proposal did not meet minimum bid standards. The remaining bidders were CCS, CES, Simpson, and Johnson. Price proposals submitted by each of the remaining bidders were evaluated by the Department. Section 3 of the RFP provides a general outline of the process associated with awarding the contract. The steps are: “Pre-Proposal Conference; Public Opening (Technical Proposals); Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting; and, Selection Committee Meeting Summarizing Evaluations and Determining Anticipated Award.” The agenda for the “Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting,” as established by the RFP, provides as follows: Opening remarks of approx. 2 minutes by Department Procurement Office personnel. Public input period – To allow a reasonable amount of time for public input related to the RFP solicitation. At conclusion of public period, the Technical evaluation scores will be summarized. Announce the firms that did not achieve the minimum technical score. Announce the firms that achieved the minimum technical score and their price(s) as price proposals are opened. Calculate price scores and add to technical scores to arrive at total scores. Announce Proposer with highest Total Score as Intended Award. Announce time and date the decision will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS). Adjourn. Section 30.4 b. of the RFP provides that a proposer can be awarded a maximum of 30 points for its price proposal. This section also provides that “[p]rice evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider.” On June 15, 2020, the selection review committee met publicly for the purpose of opening price proposals and announcing an intended award. Price proposals were opened, and the eligible bidders received the following price scores: CCS - 11.09; CES - 13.22; Johnson - 19.76; and Simpson - 30. In terms of total score, which combined both the technical and price scores, Simpson received a score of 113.00, which was the highest score, followed by CES (107.55), CCS (103.76), and Johnson (101.76). After opening and considering the price proposals of the respective bidders, the selection committee did not announce an intended award at the meeting on June 15, 2020, but instead requested that the project manager “do further analysis on the pay items for any potential imbalance.” The project manager, through a staff member, performed the additional analysis and determined that Johnson and Simpson submitted “irregular, unbalanced pay items” which resulted in their respective bids being deemed non- responsive and thus not eligible for award. The “irregular, unbalanced pay items” are the three mobilization pay items at issue in the instant matter, and are identified on the bid price proposal sheet as items AB200, AB201, and AB202. Simpson bid $400 for item AB200, $100 for item AB201, and $50 for item AB202. Johnson bid $250 for item AB200, $250 for item AB201, and $100 for item AB202. CCS bid $1 for item AB200, $1 for item AB201, and $1 for item AB202. CES bid $1 for item AB200, 75 cents for item AB201, and 50 cents for item AB202. The Department, in evaluating the bidders’ mobilization pay items, considered costs associated with abatement two structures, a 1,500 and 2,250 square feet structure respectively. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $2,250. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CES’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CES’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $1,687.50. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $375,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $562,500. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $600,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $225,000. On June 22, 2020, the selection committee reconvened and announced CCS and CES as intended awardees of the contract. The Department also announced at this meeting that Johnson and Simpson were “deemed non- responsive due to irregular, unbalanced pay item prices.” On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed a Notice of Protest wherein the company informed the Department of its intent to formally protest the intended award of contracts to CCS and CES. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed with the Department its “formal written petition of protest.” Although Simpson’s formal protest is dated July 6, 2020, CCS and CES contend that Simpson’s protest was actually filed on July 7, 2020, thereby making the protest untimely by a day. The Department did not refer Simpson’s formal protest to DOAH for final hearing, but instead considered the issues presented by Simpson in its protest and then attempted to negotiate a resolution with Simpson, CCS, and CES. Those efforts were unsuccessful. The question of the timeliness of the formal bid protest filed by Simpson is not before the undersigned. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts as to Simpson’s protest, as demonstrated by the record herein, are as follows. On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed notice of its intent to protest the RFP. On June 29, 2020, CCS received notice that a bid protest was filed with respect to the RFP. On July 1, 2020, CES filed a public records request “for public records related to the bid protest made to the” RFP. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed its formal written protest with respect to the RFP, and although the evidence is not clear as to the date, it is undisputed that the Department received affidavits from Simpson explaining the factual circumstances surrounding the filing of the company’s formal written protest. On July 15, 2020, the Department notified CCS and CES that “in response to the Formal Written Protest filed by Simpson Environmental Services, the Department will hold a settlement conference” on Friday, July 17, 2020. On July 21, 2020, Simpson, CES, and CCS notified the Department that they “reached an agreed upon settlement proposal.” On August 11, 2020, the Department, after considering the settlement proposal for several weeks, notified Simpson, CES, and CCS that the Department would discuss the RFP at a public meeting to be held on August 24, 2020. As previously noted, it was during the meeting on August 24, 2020, when the Department announced that all proposals received in response to RFP were rejected. CES, on or about July 1, 2020, submitted to the Department a public records request wherein the company sought a copy of documents related to Simpson’s protest. In response to the request, the Department provided CES a copy of the formal written protest filed by Simpson. It is undisputed that the initial copy provided to CES by the Department did not show either the date or time of receipt of the document filed by Simpson. At some point after the settlement conference, the Department provided to CES a date and time stamped copy of Simpson’s formal written protest. There was no evidence presented explaining the circumstances or the process which resulted in the Department providing different copies of Simpson’s formal written protest to CES, and the remaining evidence does not provide a sufficient foundation to reasonably infer that the Department acted with nefarious motives when providing different versions of the documents to CES. Simpson’s formal protest contains the following statement with respect to the price proposal that the company submitted in response to the RFP: Petitioner’s individual bid price items were based in fact, were reasonable and were in conformity with standard industry rates for similar asbestos abatement and demolition and removal projects. Petitioner’s bid price items were also patently similar to bid price items that Petitioner has previously submitted in response to past FDOT proposal requests that ultimately resulted in the corresponding contracts having been awarded to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner has a longstanding relationship with the FDOT as Petitioner has previously contracted with FDOT as a vendor performing asbestos abatement services on numerous projects over the course of the past eight years. Petitioner’s price items for bid proposals have remained consistent for each of its past projects with FDOT. Petitioner’s price items for the instant bid proposal did not differ or vary in any material aspect from those proposed by Petitioner for previous projects that FDOT has deemed reasonable. Michelle Sloan works for the Department as a district procurement manager, and was assigned to manage the instant RFP. Ms. Sloan testified that because Simpson protested the Department’s intended decision to award the contracts to CCS and CES, and specifically referenced in its protest “that their bid for mobilization was in conformance with industry standards, as well as previous bids submitted to the agency that were deemed responsive,” she conducted additional review of the Simpson and Johnson bids. Ms. Sloan testified that after reviewing the RFP, the price sheets related thereto, Simpson’s protest, and the additional analysis of the pay items conducted following the June 15, 2020, selection committee meeting, she concluded that material ambiguities existed in the RFP’s mobilization pay items and recommended to the district secretary that the Department “reject all [bids] and re-advertise with a revised pricing sheet and instructions.” On August 24, 2020, the selection committee, following public notice, accepted Ms. Sloan’s recommendation, rejected all proposals, and canceled the procurement with the “intent to re-advertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing structure.” A review of the credible evidence demonstrates a rational basis for the conclusions reached by Ms. Sloan and members of the selection committee. Exhibit C of the RFP is titled “Price Proposal/Detailed and Contractual Price Sheet.” The first page of this document provides a general description of the asbestos removal and abatement pay items. The general pay items are as follows: AB100 Fees [as] determined from the Department of Environmental Protection based upon regulated material. AB200 One-time fee necessary to mobilize for full isolation, per parcel, when abatement with isolation is required. AB300 Fees to be charged by square feet for preparation [of] structure before abatement can commence. AB400 Fees to be charged by square feet, to abate asbestos from various surfacing material such as ceiling, walls, beams, plaster, sheetrock and fireproofing using conventional containment methods. AB500 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks ducts, fittings, pipes, flutes and flanges. AB600 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks, ducts, pipe, fittings and jackets which involve the use of a Glove bag. AB700 Fees to be charged by square foot, to abate asbestos from various roofing materials such as cement roof shingles, flashing, rolled roof, felts, wood shingles and mobile home coating. AB800 Fees to be charged by square foot or piece to abate asbestos from various materials such as floor tile, mastic adhesive, sheet vinyl, carpet, wood sub- floor, concrete sub-floor, vibrator dampers, wallboard, metal ductwork and sinks with insulation and heat shields (light fixture). AB900 Fees to be charge[d] by landfill for asbestos disposal. The bid price proposal sheet, which is form number 2 of the RFP, provides a listing of specific pay items related to the general “AB ---” items listed in Exhibit C to the RFP. Below is an example of some of the specific pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet: [See table on next page] Item Number Description (A) Estimat ed Quantit y Unit (B) Unit Pric e Total Bid Amount (A x B) ASBESTOS REMOVAL ABATEMENT AB200 Mobilization for structures less than 2,000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB201 Mobilization for structures [from] 2001 – 5000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB202 Mobilization for structures over 5001 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB300 Mask and Seal 1 SQ. FT. AB401 Remove ACM plaster/lathe including all surface materials 1 SQ. FT. AB501 Remove insulation from fittings 1 LF. AB603 Remove insulation from boilers, stacks or ducts piping 1 LF. AB703 Remove roofing cement 1 SQ. FT. AB810 Remove carpet and mastic adhesive 1 SQ. FT. AB820 Remove sinks with insulation 1 SQ. FT. AB901 Non-Friable 1 SQ. FT. General pay item category AB200, as described on Exhibit C, does not reference a “unit of measurement,” but instead notes that items within this category are to be determined on a “one-time – per parcel” basis. When the AB200 general pay item category is compared to the specific pay items for this category enumerated on the bid price proposal sheet (i.e., AB200, AB201, and AB202), it is evident that the unit of measurement “square feet” is listed as the basis for calculating the bid amount for this item when no such unit of measurement is stated for this item on Exhibit C. Comparatively, general pay item categories AB300 through AB800 each expressly references a specific unit of measurement (i.e., square foot, linear foot, or by the “piece”), and these units of measurement carry over to and are consistently reflected on the bid price proposal sheet for the specific pay items enumerated therein. By inserting a unit of measurement (i.e., square feet) in the mobilization pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet, when the general description on Exhibit C instructs that they are “one-time, per parcel” pay items, the Department created a material ambiguity in the bidding process.
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 Nos. 20-4214 and 20-4216 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-20-5003-DAA was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing the two petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2020, 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 14th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brian A. Leung, Esquire Holcomb & Leung, P.A. 3203 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Diane E. H. Watson, Esquire Cross Environmental Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1299 Crystal Springs, Florida 33524-1299 (eServed) Kevin J. Tibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an invitation to bid (ITB) and solicited bids for district-wide miscellaneous property management maintenance services pursuant to ITB-DOT-94-95-4004. Kemp Services, Inc. (Kemp), submitted the lowest bid for the subject ITB. Petitioner, Urban Group, Inc., submitted the second lowest bid for the subject ITB. Section 1.1 of the ITB provided: Invitation The State of Florida Department of Transport- ation requests written bids from qualified firms to MAINTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS BY PROVIDING CLEAN-UP SERVICES, LAWN SERVICES, LANDSCAPE SERVICES, SECURING OF BUILDINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS HANDYMAN AND SKILLED LABOR SERVICES. ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR SIGN REMOVAL FOR STRUCTURES ILLEGALLY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ILLEGALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE COUNTY AREA: BROWARD, MARTIN, PALM BEACH, ST. LUCIE AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES. For the purpose of this document, the term "bidder" means the prime Consultant acting for itself and those individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations comprising the bidder's team by joint venture or subcontract. The term "bid package" means the complete response of the bidder to the Invitation To Bid, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation. [Emphasis in text.] The services were to be provided on an as-needed basis for the term of the agreement, two years. Section 1.7.1 of the ITB provided: Qualifications 1.7.1 Bidders must meet the following minimum qualifications: BIDDERS MUST HAVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE PROVIDING AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE SIX SERVICES OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IN EXHIBIT "A". BIDDERS MUST HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS BUSINESS FOR THE PAST TWO (2) YEARS AND COMPLETE FORM "F" WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED REGARDING WORK EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES. ALL REFERENCES WILL BE CHECKED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE FORM "F" AND THE WORK EXPERIENCE REQUESTED WILL CONSTITUTE A NON- RESPONSIVE BID. [Emphasis in text.] Section 1.7.4 of the ITB provided: Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise accepted by the Department's Contract Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the bid package. Section 1.7.5 of the ITB provided: Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the bid due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Other than the provisions above, no other licensure or authorization to do business was required by the ITB. Section 1.8.2 of the ITB provided: Responsiveness of Bids All bids must be in writing. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Bids may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A bid may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional bids, incomplete bids, indefinite or ambiguous bids, improper undated or unsealed signatures (where applicable). Section 1.8.4 of the ITB provided: Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of bids include evidence of collusion among bidders, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Bids will be rejected if not delivered or received on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. Section 1.8.5 of the ITB provided: Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other bidders. Minor irregular- ities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Bids by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Section 1.18.1 of the ITB provided: Award of the Contract The Department intends to award a contract to the responsible and responsive bidder who bids the lowest cost as identified in Form "C", Bid Blank, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The ITB did not specify a minimum number of employees, vehicles or hours of service for a bidder to be deemed responsible or responsive. At all times material to this case, Kemp has been in continuous business for the past two (2) years, and completed form "F" with the information requested regarding work experience and references. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. At all times material to this case, Kemp had at least two years experience providing at least two (2) of the six services outlined in the scope of services. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. While Mr. Gentile was authorized to check with all references listed by Kemp, the failure to do so does not discount the information obtained from the sources that were checked. Kemp had an appropriate occupational license to perform work in the tricounty area, but did not have occupational licenses with the City of Hollywood or Broward County. At all times material to this case, Kemp maintained a warehouse to secure the equipment to be used such as lawnmowers, trimmers, and cleaning supplies/equipment. After the bid protest was filed, the Department verified that Kemp had used the warehouse as it claimed. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The mailing address Kemp listed on the first page of its bid response was 8637 S. Sutton Drive, Miramar, Florida. Mr. Faluade resides at that address. He listed that address for mail purposes. The business address for Kemp listed on the bid response was 6200 Johnson Street, Miramar, Florida. This address is a store-front facility with limited office equipment and furniture. Kemp maintains an office at this location but stores its equipment elsewhere as noted above. Kemp was the lowest responsive, responsible bid for ITB-DOT-94-95- 4004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the award of ITB-DOT-94-95-4004 to Kemp Services, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5967 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 4, 6, and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 5, 7, and 16 noting that the additional emphasis is not in the text and that the citations are incomplete (and perhaps misleading), they are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. Corporate documents may have been filed on that date, however, the weight of the credible evidence established that Kemp had been in business the requisite amount of time. Paragraph 12 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The business conducted by the Kemp personnel continued regardless of the business entity structure that was used. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence was presented to establish that Kemp did not provide services as described in the ITB or that it was not in business the requisite time. Paragraph 17 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The mailing address listed by Kemp was a residential address. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Kemp probably does not have a Leon County occupational license either. It did have an appropriate occupational license at all times material to this case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Duffy Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mitchell B. Polay Mark H. Klein 750 S.E. Third Avenue Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
