Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, PFO, is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner's principal office is located in West Palm Beach, Florida. At all times material to the claims of this case, Petitioner had fewer than 25 full-time employees. At all times material to the claims of this case, Petitioner had a net worth of less than $2 million. On May 22, 1995, the Department provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry to a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. At that time the Department issued an intent to award the Palm Beach County (Intrastate) CSE contract to a third party. This dispute evolved into DOAH case no. 95-3138BID or "the bid case." The Department was not a "nominal party" in the bid case. A recommended order was entered in the bid case on September 5, 1995. Except for a minor point not relevant to the issues of this matter, the Department adopted the findings and conclusions of the recommended order and entered its final order on December 1, 1995. The final order in DOAH case no. 95-3138BID awarded the Palm Beach County (Intrastate) contract for CSE legal services to Petitioner. Such award was based upon the conclusions that the third party's proposal was nonresponsive and that aspects of the evaluation process were arbitrary. No appeal was timely filed against the final order. Petitioner is, therefore, a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner timely filed its request for attorneys' fees and costs in the instant case pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The total amount of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in the bid case was $63,495.25. Of that amount, at least $15,000 was reasonable and necessary for Petitioner to incur in the preparations for, and attendance at, the hearing in the bid case. The solicitation package for the bid case contained mandatory requirements with which all applicants were to comply. The final order in the bid case concluded that the successful applicant had failed to satisfy all mandatory requirements. Its bid was, therefore, nonresponsive to the solicitation. Additionally, the final order determined that the instructions regarding how the proposals were to be evaluated were unclear and that points were inappropriately assigned to the successful applicant. The overall conclusion of the final order found that the Department had acted arbitrarily in the intended award to this third party applicant. All of the material deficiencies relied on in the recommended order and the final order to reach the conclusion that the Department had acted arbitrarily were known to the Department at the time of its initial review and evaluation of the proposals. For example, the Department knew that the applicant had not identified two attorneys who would be expected to perform services under the contract, and had not included certificates of good standing from the Florida Bar for them. Additionally, the applicant had not provided references from three persons as specified in the solicitation package. This was evident upon the opening of the proposal. Nevertheless, the Department scored the nonresponsive proposal and awarded it sufficient points to be the apparent winner among the applicants. An award of attorneys fees' and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, is capped at $15,000. The agency has not disputed the reasonableness nor the amount of fees claimed in connection with the bid case. The agency has not offered evidence to specify each item of cost or fee in dispute. Discovery requested by the Department sought information for the period September 1995 through January 1996 which included runner logs of Petitioner's counsel, itemized bills regarding another party (not a party to the bid case nor this case), and the deposition of Don Pickett. None of the requested discovery addressed the issue of whether the Department's actions in the bid case were substantially justified. None of the requested discovery addressed facts which the Department had placed in issue by its response to the petition. None of the discovery addressed the issue of whether there are special circumstances which would make an award of reasonable fees and costs unjust. Moreover, the parties have stipulated that there are no special circumstances which would make an award of reasonable fees and costs unjust. No new information pertinent to the claim for fees and costs herein which was unknown to the Department as a result of the bid case proceeding was discovered from the deposition of Don Pickett. No new information pertinent to the reasonableness or amount of the fees claimed was discovered from the deposition of Don Pickett or the other discovery requested. The factual circumstances argued in Respondent's Proposed (sic) Recommended Order, ie. that the agency had relied on findings and conclusions from an unrelated DOAH case in connection with the review of the underlying bid case, were not set forth in the response filed by the agency in the instant case and have not been deemed credible in determining the issues of this case. The proposal submitted by the third party in the bid case was nonresponsive. The Department has stipulated that the award of a contract to a nonresponsive bidder is arbitrary.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's proposed award of a contract pursuant to an Invitation to Bid for the management of the citrus groves at Lake Louisa State Park to Intervenor is fraudulent, dishonest, arbitrary or illegal. Whether Respondent improperly notified Petitioner of the intent to award the contract. Whether the Respondent violated the terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) by doing any of the following: Determining that the bids were within five (5) percent of each other. Requesting additional information. Using 80 points to be awarded for percentage of return. Considering grove equipment in the evaluation. Assigning ten (10) points to the category "equipment." Not considering financial stability of the bidders. Not assigning points to either bidder for financial stability. Computing the points assigned to each bidder incorrectly. Computing years of experience for both bidders incorrectly. Failing to use a committee of three, one of whom was an accountant. Whether the Respondent was obligated to accept the bidder who would provide the most revenue, considering all the other factors. Whether a partnership existed between the Petitioners, and if so, how many years of experience to award to it. Whether Petitioners, as a partnership, have standing to bring this protest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which operates and manages state parks under its jurisdiction, pursuant to chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks (“Division”). Kenneth Walker and R. E. Oswalt (Petitioner, Walker/Oswalt) are general partners for various ad hoc business ventures. Earl Drawdy (Intervenor) is an individual. The Invitation to Bid (ITB) Lake Louisa State Park contains approximately 300 acres of citrus groves, of which, 167 acres are active trees (“Lake Louisa Groves” f/k/a “Dixie Lake Groves”). The groves had been abandoned for about a year prior to the state’s purchase of the land. In 1994, Earl Drawdy bid and was awarded a one-year contract to care for and harvest the groves. The contract was extended for one year and Drawdy maintained the groves until this bid protest. In preparing the Invitation to Bid (“ITB”), the goal of the Department was to obtain a 10-year contract with a third party who would care for and rehabilitate Lake Louisa Groves. The bid specification language was assembled mainly from the prior contract. A new scope of work was added and the draft agreement for the ITB was prepared. On January 3, 1996, Draft Specifications for a 10-year extension option for the Dixie Lake Groves in Lake Louisa State Park (Draft Specifications) were sent to interested bidders including, but not limited to, Kenneth Walker. The Respondent’s legal department subsequently prepared and approved the final specifications. The final specifications are entitled “Specifications for the Management of the Lake Louisa Orange Groves at Lake Louisa State Park” (“the ITB”). The ITB was posted at the Division’s District 3 office, located in Apopka at the Wekiva Springs State Park from April 24 through May 1, 1996, and sent to prospective bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor. The original deadline stated in the ITB to file sealed bids was May 5, 1996. On May 3, 1996, the Department notified all interested bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor, by letters sent by Federal Express, that the deadline to bid had been extended to May 10, 1996. By May 10, two bids had been received, one from petitioner and one from Intervenor. Both bids were timely. The bids were opened on May 13 and evaluated on May 15, 1996. On May 15, 1996, the Respondent notified Petitioner and Intervenor by facsimile that it required additional information from them, giving them a deadline to respond of May 31, 1996. The Respondent requested a resume and an equipment list from Intervenor, and it requested an equipment list and a letter of intent that a partnership would be formed from Petitioner. Both Intervenor and Petitioner responded timely to the request. The ITB provided in pertinent part: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids shall be evaluated by a committee composed of at least three representatives of the Department. At least one of the three members will be an accountant who will evaluate the financial statements for compliance with this bid request. Evaluation will be based on the percent of return, past performance, experience, and financial stability. Up to ninety (90) percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten (10) percent will be based on experience and financial stability. In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within 5 percent of each other), the evaluation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid or give oral presentations in a final evaluation process. The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for operation of the grove. * * * The Department also reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in bids, providing such action is in the best interest of the State. Minor irregularities are defined as those that have no adverse effect on the State’s interest and will not affect the outcome of the selection process by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other Proposers. The Florida Park Service also reserves the right to reject all bids. The bid specifications allow a committee of more than three persons so long as one of them is an accountant. Pursuant to the provisions of the ITB, a committee was formed to evaluate the bids, consisting of Rosi Mulholland, district biologist; Cheryl Sweeney, district accountant; Norman Edwards, operations consultant manager; and Carla Ridge, administrative assistant. The committee consisted of four persons, one of whom was an accountant. Cheryl Sweeney was qualified to serve as the committee accountant by virtue of her position and experience. Bids were opened on May 13, 1996, by Ms. Ridge and Ms. Mulholland. Intervenor’s bid called for sharing 36 percent of gross proceeds of fruit sales with Respondent. Petitioner’s bid called for sharing 38 percent of the gross with Respondent. Between May 13 and May 15, Ms. Mulholland, Ms. Ridge and Mr. Edwards met and discussed the bids. Those members of the committee agreed that, based on the fact that the bids were nearly equal, the committee should request additional information from the bidders. Ms. Sweeney concurred with that decision after the fact. On June 3, Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge met and prepared a proposed point score for the two bidders. Later that afternoon, the full committee met for at least an hour to evaluate the bid information and proposed point score. The committee reviewed, discussed, and concurred on the point evaluation which had been prepared by Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge. The committee evaluated the following criteria: percentage of return, past performance, experience, financial stability, and equipment. Requesting Additional Information The ITB states: In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within 5 percent of each other), the valuation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid. Ms. Ridge subtracted 36 percent from 38 percent and got 2 percent, which she interpreted to be “within 5 percent of each other.” The rest of the committee concurred, and determined that the bids were equal or very nearly equal, and that additional information should be requested. This determination was proper under the bid specifications. Dividing 2 by 38, with a result of 5.26 percent, as Petitioner calculated, rounds to 5 percent. A 5.26 percent difference on a scale of 100 percent is very nearly equal and within 5 percent of each other. More information was needed about the intended formation of a limited partnership. Petitioner would have had to submit more information on that issue in any case. Equipment The bid specifications provide: Up to 90 percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten percent will be based on experience and financial stability. The committee concluded, after having all the information before it, that the percentage of return should receive 80 points, so that points could be given for equipment. The committee determined that since the language said “up to 90 percent” the committee could reduce the points allotted for that category. The language “up to 90 percent” necessarily implies that some figure less than 90 percent could be used. The committee had not firmly fixed the 90 percent figure, and the bid specifications language put the bidders on notice that a figure less than 90 percent may be used. The committee’s use of 80 percent of the points for this category was proper and reasonable under this clause. The committee considered equipment in its evaluation of the bids. This category was added to the bid specifications by letter of May 15, 1996 to all bidders. Although the letter was not specifically labeled an addendum, the Respondent’s intent was to add “equipment” to the categories to be evaluated. Addenda are allowed under the bid specifications. Petitioner received notice that equipment would be considered, and submitted a list of equipment owned by or available to them. The committee members determined that certain types of equipment were necessary to perform the contract. For such a contract, it was appropriate for the committee to consider the equipment each bidder has to perform the necessary tasks. Without the proper equipment, a bidder could not perform the contract, no matter what the bid amount. The committee determined that 10 percent of the points should be assigned to the category “equipment” because equipment was necessary to perform the contract. Additionally, the grove was old stock and not irrigated and would require specialized care. The committee very strongly felt that equipment was an important and meaningful category. Assignment of ten percent of the points for equipment was not unreasonable or excessive. The committee considered and evaluated, through different members, the financial stability of the bidders. After receiving all the information, the committee determined that the ten percent of the points to be allotted to “experience and financial stability” should be allotted to experience alone. The committee determined that financial stability included the partnership issue, which was never resolved by them. The committee determined that the unresolved partnership issues would have a negative impact on the financial stability, points awarded on the basis of financial stability would have favored Intervenor. The committee considered past performance of Intervenor as a part of his experience. The committee did not give extra points to Intervenor for his past experience. The consideration of past performance was proper. Intervenor Drawdy was awarded 33 years of experience. This was based on Intervenor’s letter in his bid package in which he stated that he began in the citrus industry in 1963. 1963 was subtracted from 1996, which resulted in 33 years. Based on this, Intervenor was awarded a full 10 points. Notwithstanding the questions the committee had about the partnership’s experience, the committee decided to give Petitioners points for experience in the citrus business of each individual partner. Walker was awarded 0 points. Oswalt was awarded 29 years of experience. This determination was based on Oswalt’s biographical profile submitted with the bid, in which he stated that he began citrus management in 1967. 1967 was subtracted from 1996, with a result of 29 years. A ratio of 29 to 33 was applied, with a result of 9 points given to Petitioners. The committee’s calculation of the experience of Petitioners and Intervenor was flawed, but was not fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. The tabulation of points computed by the committee was posted at the District 3 office on June 3, 1996, in the same location the original bid was posted. This was in accordance with the bid specifications. Petitioners were notified by telephone, and a copy of the tabulation was sent to them via facsimile. Petitioner had actual notice on the date the bids were posted that the Respondent intended to award the contract to Intervenor. No written notice was required by the bid specifications. Notice was properly given to Petitioner by the Respondent. The point system was qualified by the Respondent, which stated: The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for the operation of the grove. The committee also determined that Intervenor was best suited to care for the grove, based on all the information available to it on June 3. The committee believed that it could make such a determination in the ultimate decision. Petitioner filed a timely notice of intent to protest the award on June 5, 1996, by facsimile. Petitioner filed a timely written petition for formal hearing on June 13, 1996 by certified mail. The Respondent notified Intervenor by letter on or about June 13, 1996, that a bid protest had been filed. Intervenor has not been awarded the contract. Attempts to resolve the bid protest informally were made at a meeting on July 19, 1996, and by letters and phone calls made between July 1 and August 20. There was no resolution. Standing/Formation of Partnership Petitioners intended to form a limited partnership to care for the Lake Louisa Groves, if they were awarded the bid. An unwritten general partnership was formed for this purpose at the time the bid was submitted. The Petitioners had previously formed partnerships in the past and have shared profits and losses. For each different venture, a new oral partnership was made. Most of the committee members did not know whether the bid was responsive or not on the issue of the limited partnership, and so made the request for additional information. Petitioner Walker signed the bid proposal on behalf of the partners. The bid was not a responsive bid since the entity which submitted the bid did not intend to perform the contract if it was the successful bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the protest of the Petitioners be dismissed and the contract for the Lake Louisa Groves be awarded to the Intervenor, Earl Drawdy. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan B. Brantley, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Edward P. Jordan, II, P.A. 13543 East highway 50 Clermont, Florida 34711 Kim Booker, Esquire 2752-A Enterprise Road Orange City, Florida 32763 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. 06-DC-7727 to Communications Engineering Service Company is contrary to the Department of Correction’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. 06-DC-7727 on October 27, 2006. The purpose of the ITB was to solicit bids for maintenance and repair of radio equipment owned by the Department in each of its four regions. The original deadline for submitting bids in response to the ITB was November 30, 2006, but the deadline was extended to December 15, 2006, through an addendum to the ITB. First Communications, CES, and Motorola, Inc., submitted bids for Region I. Another company, Econo Communications, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Communications, also responded to the ITB, but it did not bid on Region I. It was stipulated that First Communications’ bid was responsive to the ITB. The Department determined that the bid submitted by Motorola was not responsive to the ITB. That determination was not challenged. The Department determined that the bid submitted by CES was responsive, despite the issues discussed below. CES was determined by the Department to be the lowest responsible bidder. The bid submitted by CES was $2,571 per month.1 First Communications was the next lowest bidder. Its bid was $3,408.85 per month,2 which is 32.6 percent higher than CES’s bid. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB states that “it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5 with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements).” Section 5.1 of the ITB lists the “mandatory responsiveness requirements” for bids, and states that: The following terms, conditions or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to the ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory.Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. (Emphasis in original). Nearly identical language is contained in Sections 1.7 and 4.3.6.1 of the ITB, and in the ITB Review Manual used by Department staff in reviewing the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Indeed, the ITB Review Manual refers to the mandatory responsiveness requirements as “fatal criteria.” The mandatory responsiveness requirement in the ITB that is most pertinent to this case is in Section 5.1.2,3 which states: It is mandatory that the bidder supply one original signed Bid and three (3) copies of the signed bid. . . . . (Emphasis in original). The bid package submitted by CES did not include the original signed bid. It only included the three copies of the signed bid. This omission was noted by Christina Espinosa, the procurement manager for the ITB who opened the bids on the afternoon of December 15, 2006. However, after Ms. Espinosa consulted with her supervisor and the Department’s legal staff, it was determined that the omission was not material and that CES should be given an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit the original signed bid. As a result, Ms. Espinosa contacted CES and gave it 24 business hours to “cure” the deficiency. CES delivered the original signed bid to the Department on the morning of December 18, 2006, which is three days after the bid submittal deadline in the ITB, but within the 24-business hour deadline given by Ms. Espinosa.4 CES did not have a representative at the bid opening, and there is no evidence that CES knew it was the lowest bidder, either when Ms. Espinosa gave CES an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit an original bid on December 15, 2006, or when it submitted the original bid on December 18, 2006. It is undisputed that the original signed bid submitted by CES on December 18, 2006, is identical in all respects to the three copies of the bid that were timely submitted by CES on December 15, 2006. Ms. Espinosa reviewed the bid submitted by CES despite its failure to include the original signed bid. According to ITB provisions referenced above, that omission should have resulted in the bid being rejected and not further reviewed. The CES bid included at least one other deviation from the specifications in the ITB. The bid stated in the “service delivery synopsis” that the turnaround time for the repair of fixed equipment would be 15 working days. A 15-day time period was referenced in the original ITB, but it was changed to eight days in an addendum. Ms. Espinosa contacted CES about this discrepancy, and on January 3, 2007, CES advised Ms. Espinosa by e-mail that it “acknowledges the change in repair times from 15 days to 8 days.” CES was not the only bidder that Ms. Espinosa contacted after the bids were opened to obtain clarification or information omitted from the bid. For example, she contacted First Communications to obtain copies of its articles of incorporation and business licenses that were not included in its bid; to get clarification regarding First Communications’ use of subcontractors; and to confirm that First Communications acknowledged the eight-day turnaround time for repair of fixed equipment since its bid did not contain a service delivery synopsis. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB authorizes the Department to “seek clarifications or request any information deemed necessary for proper review of submissions from any bidder deemed eligible for Contract award.” However, Section 4.3.1 also states that “no modifications by the bidder of submitted bids will be allowed.” The ITB authorizes the Department to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids, and on this issue, the ITB states: Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this solicitation. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by the bidder. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation there from is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of terms or services bid, or the prices submitted to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities: A variation from the solicitation terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. A minor irregularity will not result in a rejection of a bid. (All emphasis in original). The Department relies on these sections of the ITB as its authority to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids with respect to any provision of the ITB, including the mandatory responsiveness requirements. On January 4, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract for Region I to CES. In the same posting, the Department rejected all bids for the other three regions. The rejection of all bids for the other regions is not at issue in this case. First Communications timely filed a notice of protest and, then, a formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract to CES. The Department provided notice of this proceeding to CES, as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. CES did not file a petition to intervene or otherwise seek to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing First Communications’ protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the District School Board of Collier County (the "School Board"), acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications, in accepting the bid of Charron Sports Services, Inc. ("Charron") as the lowest responsive bid to School Board Invitation to Bid No. 197-3/02 (the "ITB").
Findings Of Fact Based on 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 or about April 3, 2002, the School Board published its first advertisement of ITB No. 197-3/02, Stadium Bleacher Renovations. The ITB sought bids for the rehabilitation and renovation of permanent grandstand structures at five Collier County high schools: Barron Collier High School, Naples High School, Lely High School, Gulf Coast High School, and Immokalee High School. The ITB had its origins in a biennial inspection of the grandstands conducted by Dr. Robert Mitchell, a consulting engineer, in January 2002. Pursuant to contract with the School Board, Dr. Mitchell has conducted these inspections since at least 1996. His inspection sought to identify hazardous conditions to users of the grandstands and to recommend repairs and renovations necessary to bring the structures into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association's National Fire Code, Chapter 102, "Standard for Grandstands, Folding and Telescopic Seating, Tents, and Membrane Structures," most recently updated in 1995. From his field notes, Dr. Mitchell compiled a recommended scope of work for the grandstand renovation project. His scope of work was the basis for the specifications of the ITB. The ITB generally sought to bring the grandstands into compliance with Chapter 102 of the National Fire Code as regards railing heights and the floor and wall openings of the stadiums. Under the heading "General Comments," the ITB stated: The floor and wall openings will be closed completely unless otherwise specified. Special attention will be given to closing openings around press boxes and steps. The chain link fencing must have no sharp ends exposed to the spectators. The wires at both the top and the bottom of the chain link fencing must be manufactured with their ends bent back if they are both inside the frame and thus in contact with the spectators. The chain link fencing must be 9 gauge, galvanized steel. This fencing must be tied to the stadium framing and rails every 12 inches along each rail and at the top and bottom of the fencing with 9 gauge aluminum wire ties. No chain link that is removed may be reused in this project unless it is explicitly allowed by the Engineer. The chain link that is removed is the property of the Contractor. The hardware used to replace corroded fasteners of seats, flooring and walls must be made of composition 316 stainless steel and be the same diameter as the fasteners existing now. The ends of the bolts that protrude through the nuts must be positioned so that they are under the stands and thus the screw threads cannot be encountered by the spectators. Attach new framing to existing framing with 5/8 inch diameter bolts. Lock washers are required on all bolts. All fasteners that are 3/8 inch diameter and smaller that are used on this project must be stainless steel. Fasteners larger than 3/8 inch diameter may be either galvanized steel or stainless steel. All sharp edges or corners on framing that spectators might encounter must be removed. Pressure wash all concrete piles. Remove cracked, loose concrete from the tops of damaged concrete piles. Mechanically remove the corrosion products that are found on the reinforcing steel that was found to be exposed. Do not crack, break or pry concrete that is not loose. It will not be possible to access all the steel that is corroded. Clean the corroded steel with Ph- Ospho-Ric or an Engineer approved equivalent. Prime the exposed steel with Rustoleum 769 Damp-Proof Primer or Engineer approved equivalent. Paint the steel with an industrial enamel. Allow the Engineer to inspect the coated steel before replacing the concrete. Replace the concrete leaving the center of the top of the pile higher than the edges so that water cannot collect around the steel. Seal the tops of all the piles with Silicone Acrylic Concrete Sealer to prevent water intrusion. There are about 300 piles to be pressure washed and sealed. Prime and paint all wood that you add to match the adjacent wood. The Contractor must verify all measurements and quantities given in these specifications prior to submission of his bid. The ITB also set forth five pages of specific work to be accomplished at each of the five high school stadiums. The ITB included the School Board's standard form of instructions to bidders. Standard provisions relevant to this proceeding include: BIDDING PROCEDURES: All bids must be prepared in the format of the PROPOSAL FORM supplied herewith and submitted in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS. * * * c. Unless otherwise provided in any supplement to these INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS, no bidder shall modify, withdraw or cancel his bid or any part thereof for forty-five (45) days after the time designated for the receipt of bids in the advertisement or INVITATION TO BID. * * * PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF BIDS: Each bidder shall copy the PROPOSAL FORM on bidder's letterhead, indicating bid prices and bid days thereon in proper spaces. The bid prices and bid days shall be for the entire work and for any alternates specified. Any erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained or noted over the signature of bidders. Proposals containing any conditions, mission, unexplained erasures, alterations, items not called for, or irregularities of any kind, may be rejected by the Owner at its sole, complete and unrestricted discretion. * * * Bid documents shall be placed in one envelope and addressed to the Owner at the place the bids are to be opened, with full identification of the bidder's name, project being bid upon, and time and date set for opening of bids, and shall include: Bid Proposal (2 copies), Bid Bond, List of Subcontractors, (See Florida Statute Section 255.0505 and attached form 00430)(2 copies), Unit Price Schedule, (2 copies) if applicable, Contractor's Qualification Statement Florida Trench Safety Act Certificate of Compliance. Copy of Contractor's Professional License (FSS 489) * * * BID GUARANTEE: Each bid must be accompanied by a BID BOND in an amount not less than five percent (5%) of the total amount of the bid as a guarantee that bidder will not withdraw his bid for a period of forty-five (45) days after the scheduled time for the receipt of bids and if awarded the contract, enter into a written contract with the Owner satisfactory in form to the Owner.... * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: The bidder acknowledges the complete and unrestricted right of the Owner to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received. In addition, the bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a bid if the bidder failed to furnish any required bid security, or to submit the data required by the bidding documents, or if the bid is in any way incomplete or irregular. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Owner will consider base bid and additive or deductive alternates as may produce a net amount which is acceptable to the Owner. Award of the contract, if it be awarded, will be within forty-five (45) calendar days after the opening of the bids. All bidders are advised that they are subject to the provisions of Collier County School Board Policy FEFF entitled "Protest Arising from the Contract Bidding Process." (copy attached) Collier County School Board Policy FEFF, entitled "Protest Arising from the Contract Bidding Process" and dated November 4, 1982, was attached to the standard instructions and provides: This rule shall apply to protests relating to any contract entered into by the School board with a contractor or subcontractor pursuant to the provision of Part 11 of Chapter 23, Chapter 255, Chapter 287, or Chapters 334-340 of the Florida Statutes. Whenever the School Board makes a decision or intends to make a decision concerning a bid solicitation or contract award, the superintendent or his designee shall give notice of the decision or intended decision by United States Mail or by hand-delivery to all bidders. Within the notice, the following statement shall appear "Failure to file a protest notice within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." For any other School Board decision falling within the ambit of this policy, notice of the decision or intended decision shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by sending the notice by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested, to the bidders. Florida Statute Section 120.53(5) requires that "Any person who is affected adversely by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision and shall file a formal protest within 10 days after the date he filed the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120." (emphasis added) The quoted policy does not reflect that Chapter 96-159, Laws of Florida, repealed Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and transferred its substance to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. The "Standard Form for Bid Proposal" or "proposal form" referenced in the general instructions required a base bid of the total price to perform all the work at all five high schools. The form then required the bidder to bid a price for each of the following alternates: Delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School. Delete all work except that at Naples High School. Delete all work except that contained in Addendum One [regarding handicap facilities at Lely High School, discussed below]. The alternates were included because the School Board was concerned that its budget might not cover all of the work set forth in the ITB. Richard Malick, director of maintenance and operations for the School Board, was in direct charge of the project and was the employee who directed Dr. Mitchell to prepare the bid specifications. Before releasing the ITB for public bidding, the School Board sought a bid on the work from Gulfpoint Construction Company, Inc., a company already under contract to perform small projects for the School Board. On March 19, 2002, Gulfpoint proposed to complete the work for $493,000. David Lesansky, the School Board's executive director of facilities management and Mr. Malick's immediate superior, determined that this bid was too expensive and directed Mr. Malick to release the ITB for public bids. The alternatives were included so that some work could proceed even if the base bids exceeded the School Board's budget. Extensive and conflicting testimony was elicited at the hearing regarding the budget for this project. This issue is more pertinent to DOAH Case No. 02-2948BID, because one of the School Board's stated justifications for ultimately withdrawing its award recommendation to Charron and rejecting all bids was that the project could not be completed within budget. The proposal form required bidders to provide the number of calendar days required to achieve substantial completion of the work, and the number of calendar days required to achieve final completion of the work. However, also included in the ITB was a "Standard Form of Contract" that stated firm completion dates: substantial completion by August 5, 2002, and final completion by August 12, 2002. The project could not commence before July 1, 2002. On April 24, 2002, the School Board's project manager, Michael Johnson, conducted a pre-bid conference to discuss the project specifications. Thomas Lombroia, the president of Intercoastal, attended this conference, as did a representative of Charron. Mr. Lombroia testified that the prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference generally agreed that the project could not be completed by August 12, 2002. Mr. Lombroia testified that Mr. Johnson addressed the bidders' concern by pointing out that the standard form allowed them to enter their own estimates of the time the project would take, implying that the firm dates in the standard contract would be negotiable. At the hearing, Mr. Johnson denied discussing that the standard form allowed the bidders to enter their own estimates of the time for the project, or even telling the bidders to fill in that blank on the standard form. Mr. Johnson testified that he told Dr. Mitchell to put the firm dates into the ITB because it was essential that the work be finished by the first day of school on August 12, 2002, and that he told the bidders those dates were "benchmarks" from which no deviation would be accepted. The issue regarding the time of completion is more pertinent to DOAH Case No. 02-2948BID, because one of the School Board's stated justifications for ultimately withdrawing its award recommendation to Charron and rejecting all bids was that the project could not be completed by August 12, 2002, the final completion date in the ITB. On April 24, 2002, after Mr. Johnson conducted the pre-bid conference, Dr. Mitchell took the prospective bidders on a walk-through tour of four of the five work sites. Also on April 24, 2002, the School Board issued Addendum One to the ITB. This addendum called for the construction of a handicap ramp, platform, and six wheelchair parking spots across the front aisle of the home side grandstand at Lely High School. On April 25, 2002, the School Board issued Addendum Two to the ITB. This addendum modified several of the original ITB specifications, in response to questions and concerns raised by the prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference and walk- through on the previous day. At 2 p.m. on May 7, 2002, the bid opening was conducted in Naples by staff of the purchasing department, supervised by Mr. Johnson. Charron and Intercoastal were the only bidders. Mr. Lombroia drove from Miami to attend the bid opening on behalf of Intercoastal. Charron did not send a representative to the bid opening. Intercoastal filled out the proposal form as follows: Base bid: $428,000 Delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School: $154,700 Delete all work except that at Naples High School: $102,800 Delete all work except that contained in Addendum One: $34,848 Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Substantial Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 120 Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Final Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 180 Charron filled out the proposal form as follows: Base bid: $216,714.13 Delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School: [blank] Delete all work except that at Naples High School: [blank] Delete all work except that contained in Addendum One: [blank] Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Substantial Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 100 days Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Final Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 120 days Mr. Lombroia immediately questioned the responsiveness of Charron's bid because it left blank all three alternates. Mr. Johnson allowed Mr. Lombroia to review the Charron bid. Mr. Lombroia noted that Charron had included auxiliary pages that appeared to set forth prices for specific items of material and labor at each school, but he "couldn't make heads or tails of them." Mr. Johnson was noncommittal as to how the School Board would proceed. He told Mr. Lombroia that Nancy Sirko, the director of purchasing, would have to review the bid before any decision could be made. Mr. Johnson advised Mr. Lombroia to put his concerns in writing, and told Mr. Lombroia that he would telephone him later that afternoon. Mr. Lombroia left and began the drive back to Miami, with his cellular phone turned on to receive Mr. Johnson's call. After Mr. Lombroia left, Mr. Johnson called Ms. Sirko into the room to review the bids. Ms. Sirko reviewed the numbers set out in the auxiliary pages of the Charron bid. She added the prices for material and labor for Barron Collier High School, and arrived at a total of $75,324. She took this to be Charron's bid for the first alternate on the proposal form, i.e., "delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School." Ms. Sirko performed the same operation on the prices of material and labor for Naples High School, and arrived at a total of $45,215.40. She took this to be Charron's bid for the second alternate, i.e., "delete all work except that at Naples High School." Ms. Sirko totaled the labor and materials prices in the Charron bid for all five schools, and arrived at a figure of $211,428.42. Five percent of this amount is $10,571.42, which was the amount of the bid bond submitted by Charron. A summary sheet in the auxiliary materials stated that Charron's base bid was $211,428.42, jibing with Ms. Sirko's calculation. The summary sheet also stated that Charron added the cost of its bid bond ($5,285.71) to the base bid to arrive at a total of $216,714.13, the price set forth on the base bid line of Charron's proposal form. Ms. Sirko was unable to determine Charron's price for the third alternate, "delete all work except that contained in Addendum One." She stated that Mr. Johnson examined Charron's auxiliary pages for Lely High School and found three items of material and labor, totaling $16,760, that corresponded to the work required by Addendum One. Ms. Sirko took this to be Charron's bid for the third alternative. Ms. Sirko made no effort to match the items of labor and materials listed in Charron's auxiliary pages with the items set forth in the ITB's scope of work to determine whether Charron had bid on all the work, despite the fact that Charron's base bid was less than half the price bid by Intercoastal. Having determined a complete bid for Charron, Ms. Sirko concluded that Charron's was the lowest responsive bid. She prepared a notice of proposed bid award to Charron and posted it on the bid summary board outside the purchasing office on the afternoon of May 7, 2002. The notice included the prices bid by Intercoastal and Charron for the base bid and each of the three alternatives. The notice did not contain the statutory notice of protest rights and time limits required by Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. As noted above, Mr. Lombroia was on his way back to Miami and had no way of seeing this posted notice. Ms. Sirko made no effort to notify Intercoastal by mail or hand-delivery. Mr. Johnson never made the promised telephone call to Mr. Lombroia on the afternoon of May 7, 2002. At some point on the afternoon of May 7, 2002, Mr. Johnson contacted a representative of Charron. He asked this person to fill in the blanks for the three alternates in the Charron bid and send him the completed form. On May 8, 2002, Charron returned a completed form with prices that matched the prices derived by Ms. Sirko. Mr. Johnson did not explain why this contact with Charron was necessary, if he and Ms. Sirko had already constructed Charron's alternate bids through their own efforts. Mr. Johnson simply stated that he wanted Charron to fill in the blanks to ensure that any mistakes were those of the bidder, not the School Board. On May 8, 2002, Mr. Lombroia faxed and mailed a letter to Ms. Sirko requesting a complete bid abstract listing the bidders, bid amounts, alternates, and bid bond. On May 9, 2002, Mr. Lombroia faxed and mailed a letter to Ms. Sirko stating, "We respectfully object to the proposal tendered by Charron Sports Services, Inc., as non-responsive." The letter stated that Charron had not completed the standard form, and that Charron's bid bond of $10,571.42 was less than five percent of the amount shown on the face of Charron's bid. As of May 9, Mr. Lombroia still had no idea that Ms. Sirko had posted a proposed award of the contract to Charron. Mr. Lombroia still believed that the responsiveness of Charron's bid was under discussion and that no award decision had been made. On or about May 9, 2002, having had no response from any employee of the purchasing department, Mr. Lombroia telephoned Dr. Mitchell to learn whether he knew anything about the status of the bid award. Dr. Mitchell knew nothing about the bid opening. On the afternoon of May 14, 2002, Mr. Lombroia received a letter from Ms. Sirko, dated the previous day. Ms. Sirko enclosed a breakdown of pricing by school as she had compiled it from the auxiliary pages of the Charron bid, including the price for the work at each school and amounts for "freight" and "bid bond." The breakdown included a total price for the work at Lely High School, but did not break out the items Mr. Johnson had determined responded to Addendum One, the handicap ramp, platform, and six wheelchair parking spots. Ms. Sirko's letter stated, in relevant part: The spaces provided for "Delete" pricing were not filled out, which is considered a minor technicality that will be waived, as the submitted pricing breakdown by schools provides exact detail and exceeds the information required in the bid documents. The combined pricing for the schools adds back to the Base Bid of $216,714.13, which also makes the bid bond correct. All other required paperwork is present and in order and staff considers this a responsive and low bid. A recommendation for award will be presented at the June 6, 2002 meeting. Ms. Sirko's letter did not contain the statutory notice of protest rights and time limits required by Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Ms. Sirko testified that it had never been the School Board's practice to include the statutory notice in its correspondence with bidders. She stated that the statutory notice was contained in School Board Policy FEFF, and that the policy's inclusion in the ITB was sufficient notice to bidders of their protest rights. On May 14, 2002, Mr. Lombroia responded by letter to Ms. Sirko. He reiterated his contention that the Charron bid was non-responsive, noting that "Even your extrapolation of the submitted 'price breakdown by schools and freight and bond costs' fails to provide a bid for Alternate 3, the handicapped ramp, platform and wheelchair parking spots at Lely H.S." Mr. Lombroia contended that the submission of a price breakdown by school was itself contrary to the specifications and grounds for rejection of the Charron bid. Mr. Lombroia requested complete copies of all bid documents and correspondence submitted by Charron. On May 16, 2002, Ms. Sirko telephoned Mr. Lombroia to discuss the bidding of the alternates. She told Mr. Lombroia that Charron did not understand the instructions for bidding the alternates and so submitted its auxiliary documents with its price breakdown for each school. Ms. Sirko did not explain how she knew that Charron had misunderstood the instructions in the ITB. On May 23, 2002, Mr. Lombroia received a letter from Ms. Sirko, dated May 16, 2002. The letter stated, in pertinent part: Per our phone conversation this afternoon, please find enclosed the entire bid packet of Charron Sports Services. I checked with our Facilities Department and the budget for this project is $200,000, well within the range of Charron's bid. Your bid was more than twice that amount. As you will see on page 2 of the bid, the initial grand total is $211,428.42, of which 5% is $10,571.42 or the amount of the bid bond. Page 3 adds to this total a charge of $5,285.71 for the cost of the bid bond, to come up with the total of $216,714.13, which is listed on the Bid Proposal Form as the base bid. As far as the Delete lines not being filled out, again as I said, this is a minor technicality which is being waived as the breakdown by schools is attached. The cost for Barron Collier is $75,324.00; the cost for Naples High is $45,215.40, and the first 3 items listed on Lely's breakdown, which equal the cost of the requirements in Addendum No.1, total $16,760.00. In response to the "items not called for" on page 00100-3, item No.6, paragraph a., if you continue to read, it states "may be rejected by the Owner as its sole, complete and unrestricted discretion." Why would I reject a bid that tells me exactly what I'm paying for? There is no question as to any of the costs submitted for this project and therefore, no reason to reject this bid. I also told you that neither of the letters you submitted on May 8 and 9 constitute filing a notice of protest. You stated that staff present at the bid opening told you to put your concerns in writing, which you did. Voicing your objections and stating your intent to file a protest are two different things. Page 00100.1-1 in the "Bidding and Contract Requirements" section of the bid packet provides direction on filing a bid protest and it is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with this. Ms. Sirko's letter did not contain the statutory notice of protest rights and time limits required by Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Ms. Sirko's letter correctly and adequately explained the apparent discrepancy in the amount of Charron's bid bond. The documents in Charron's bid support the finding that Charron's bid bond was adequate to support its actual base bid of $211,428.42. Also on May 23, 2002, Mr. Johnson faxed to Dr. Mitchell a copy of Mr. Lombroia's letter of May 13, 2002. In a note attached to the fax, Mr. Johnson asked Dr. Mitchell to compose a letter recommending award of the contract to Charron for all of the work except the handicap work at Lely High School, at a price of $199,954.13. On May 24, 2002, Mr. Johnson faxed to Dr. Mitchell copies of the Intercoastal and Charron proposal forms. Mr. Johnson faxed the completed form that Charron submitted on May 8, not the original proposal form with blanks for the alternate bids. On May 24, 2002, Dr. Mitchell sent Mr. Johnson a letter on the stationery of Environmental Engineering & Training, Inc., recommending that the bid of Charron be accepted, less the work described in Addendum One, at a price of $199,954.13. At the hearing, Ms. Sirko testified that the School Board's rules do not require that a design professional such as Dr. Mitchell recommend award, but that it is the usual practice to obtain that recommendation. Ms. Sirko maintained that Dr. Mitchell's recommendation was merely confirmation of her own decision, made on May 7, 2002. Also on May 24, 2002, Intercoastal faxed to the School Board a detailed notice of bid protest, followed by a formal written protest on May 31, 2002. Intercoastal's protest alleged that Charron was not a certified, registered or licensed contracting company pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and thus was prohibited from performing the work specified in the contract. The protest alleged that Charron failed to include federal excise and Florida sales taxes in its bid, in contravention of the ITB's specifications. The protest further alleged that the pricing breakdown by school that Charron submitted in lieu of filling in the blanks on the proposal form omitted and/or altered significant work specified in the ITB. The specifications called for replacement of all galvanized steel fasteners that secured seats, steps, flooring and vertical panels on the Barron Collier High School grandstands with stainless steel fasteners. Charron's bid specified replacement only of corroded nuts and bolts. Charron's bid omitted the drilling of a 1.5-inch diameter hole through the concrete at the northwest gate of Barron Collier High School stadium to create a recess for the sliding vertical gate pipe. Charron's bid omitted the pressure washing, inspection, and sealing of the concrete piles at Naples, Lely, and Immokalee High Schools. Charron's bid omitted the requirement to remove the chain-link center gate at Lely High School, and omitted welding work specified on a galvanized angle gate at Lely. For Immokalee High School, Charron's bid omitted the requirement to replace missing seat board end caps, add a seat board to the top seats, replace missing seat, floor and vertical plate fasteners, and replace missing rail end caps at the north end of the press box. On May 28, 2002, Mr. Johnson faxed to Dr. Mitchell a copy of Intercoastal's notice of protest, requesting that Dr. Mitchell "review the complaint and let me know if it's valid." Mr. Johnson's fax also included the auxiliary pages from the Charron bid and the original proposal form with blanks for the three alternate bids. By letter dated May 30, 2002, Dr. Mitchell responded to Mr. Johnson as follows: Re: You requested me to examine Charron Sports Services bid documents and determine whether or not they indicated in them that they would preform [sic] all the work required in the specifications and addenda for Bid No. 197-3/02, Stadium Bleacher Renovations. Dear Mr. Johnson, Charron Sports Services in their bid documents indicate that they will preform [sic] the work described in the original specifications and the first addendum by quoting a base bid of $216,714.13. Charron further indicated that the work described in the first addendum is $16,760.00 of the base bid. My understanding is that [the School Board] intends to award just the work described in the original specifications. Thus Charron has indicated that they will do the work described in the original specifications for $199,954.13. The above is made clear on the STANDARD FORM FOR BID PROPOSAL. Charron's additional information as to the details of how they arrived at their bid was not required. This contributed information should have no effect on the scope of work defined by the Engineer in his specifications. Intercoastal Contracting is correct in saying that Charron's listing of the work in their bid documents is incomplete when compared with the specifications. Charron does not mention all the work listed in the specifications. (emphasis added) Dr. Mitchell's letter inaccurately stated that Charron's proposal form "made clear" that it would perform the work described in the original ITB for $199,954.13. In fact, the figure of $199,954.13 was part of Ms. Sirko's extrapolation, later confirmed by Charron. When questioned on this point at the hearing, Dr. Mitchell stated that he considered the proposal form plus the auxiliary pages to compose Charron's "standard form for bid proposal." Dr. Mitchell's testimony on this point is rendered incoherent by the next paragraph of his letter, which states that the auxiliary pages in the Charron bid are surplusage that should have no effect on the scope of the work. At the hearing, Ms. Sirko made a similar point: that Charron's auxiliary pages were essential for determining Charron's price bid on the three alternates, but they were irrelevant as to the scope of work to be performed. Again, this point is incoherent. The same pages cannot be both essential and irrelevant. The ITB specified the work to be performed, and required the bidders to submit a firm price for that work. Charron deviated from the ITB's instructions, and submitted a detailed list of work to be performed-- omitting several items specified in the ITB-- along with a list of prices for that listed work. Nothing in Charron's bid as submitted on May 7 allowed for the assumption that the price bid by Charron was for anything other than the work listed by Charron, which was less than all of the work specified in the ITB. The actions taken by Ms. Sirko and Dr. Mitchell contradict their testimony on this point. After receiving Dr. Mitchell's letter of May 30, Ms. Sirko telephoned him and asked him to "please touch base with Charron" to confirm that its price bid included all the work specified in the ITB, not just the work listed in Charron's bid. Dr. Mitchell made the call, and a representative of Charron told him that Charron did intend to perform all the work specified in the ITB. The evidence presented at the hearing established that the Charron bid was ambiguous. The actions of Ms. Sirko, Mr. Johnson, and Dr. Mitchell demonstrated that they understood the bid was ambiguous, despite their testimony at the hearing. At the bid opening, Mr. Johnson could not tell whether Charron had bid on the alternates because Charron left its proposal form blank. Ms. Sirko later pieced together from the auxiliary pages what she surmised was Charron's bid on the alternates, but she needed Mr. Johnson to call Charron to confirm her conclusion. Neither Ms. Sirko nor Mr. Johnson ever reviewed the itemized auxiliary pages of Charron's bid to make sure Charron was bidding on all the work. After Intercoastal pointed out that Charron's bid did not include all the items of work specified in the RFP, the School Board sought Dr. Mitchell's guidance. Dr. Mitchell confirmed that the auxiliary pages in Charron's bid did not include all the items of work, but maintained that was irrelevant because Charron's base bid committed it to perform all the work specified in the ITB. However, once again, Charron had to be contacted to confirm this interpretation of its bid. Intercoastal bid a clear price to perform all the work specified in the ITB. Charron's prices had to be pieced together from the auxiliary pages in its bid. Because Charron's auxiliary pages did not include all the work items specified in the ITB, it was unclear whether Charron intended to perform all the work or whether Charron was making a counter-offer to perform certain parts of the work at a reduced price. This ambiguity necessitated post-bid contacts and provided Charron with an opportunity to amend or even withdraw its bid, an opportunity not afforded Intercoastal, which submitted its bid in the prescribed format. The evidence did not establish that the actions of Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sirko, and Dr. Mitchell were motivated by any desire other than to secure the best price for the School Board. The ITB required the bidders to submit a "contractor's qualification statement" and a list of subcontractors. The School Board conceded that only a licensed contractor would be qualified to perform the work and that Charron was not licensed as a contractor in the State of Florida. Charron was a licensed contractor in South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. At the time it submitted its bid, Charron had applied and been approved to sit for the examination for the "Specialty Structure Contractor" examination. A specialty structure contractor is permitted to install screen enclosures and aluminum framing, and to perform masonry and concrete work incidental to such installation, but is not permitted to engage in any work that alters the structural integrity of a building, such as altering roof trusses, lintels, load bearing walls or foundations. See Rule 61G4-15.015, Florida Administrative Code. A specialty structure contractor could not lawfully perform all of the work identified in the ITB. Charron's list of subcontractors included a Florida company, Golden Eagle Engineering Contractors, Inc. ("Golden Eagle"), which was listed under the heading, "Builders Hardware." This was the bid's sole express mention of Golden Eagle's proposed role in the work to be performed. Charron's "contractor's qualification statement" included a copy of the Florida general contractor's license of Heather Calligan of Golden Eagle. Ms. Sirko testified that she interpreted the inclusion of Ms. Calligan's license as an indication that Charron intended to perform the contract under the supervision of Golden Eagle, and that Charron was therefore able to perform the work identified in the ITB. At the hearing, Intercoastal contended that an unlicensed contractor may not enter a contract for a construction project and engage a licensed subcontractor to supervise the project, because it is inherent in the common meaning of the terms that a "subcontractor" may not supervise a "contractor." The salient fact is that Charron's bid does not support Ms. Sirko's supposition that Charron intended to work under the supervision of Golden Eagle. Whether or not Intercoastal's contention is correct, it highlights the oddity of an unlicensed general contractor performing under the supervision of its own licensed subcontractor. Even if lawful, such an unusual arrangement would have to be explained in the bid. The only express mention of Golden Eagle in the Charron bid is as a hardware subcontractor. The inclusion of Ms. Calligan's license in the bid package, without explanation or express commitment, does not reasonably lead to the conclusion reached by Ms. Sirko. The bid contained no express statement that Golden Eagle would act as a supervising contractor. Viewed in the light most favorable to Charron, the bid was ambiguous on this point. The ITB stated that the project was subject to federal excise and Florida sales taxes, and those taxes must be included in the bidder's bid. Charron's bid stated that its prices did not include taxes because "we are not currently set up to collect Florida tax." The School Board contended that the failure to include taxes was a minor deviation, because the School board itself could purchase the materials for the project pursuant to its own tax-exempt status. The undersigned agrees that the failure to include taxes was a minor deviation, though for different reasons. First, inclusion of sales taxes in Charron's bid would not have altered the fact that Charron's bid was significantly lower than Intercoastal's. Thus, Charron secured no competitive advantage from failing to include federal excise and Florida sales taxes in its bid. Second, Charron bid a fixed price, and was expressly instructed that its price must include taxes. Had Charron not expressly stated that its price did not include taxes, the School Board would have been unaware. Inclusion of the statement imposed no additional cost on the School Board. Charron's failure to include taxes in its price would not permit it to pass the taxes through to the School Board. Charron's price was fixed by its bid, and the School Board could require Charron to absorb any costs above the accepted price, including the cost of taxes. On June 25, 2002, the School Board filed a demand that Intercoastal immediately post a $25,000 bond "that complies with all requirements of F.S. 255.0516." Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, authorizes school boards to require protest bonds in the amount of five percent of the lowest accepted bid for projects valued at less than $500,000. The $25,000 bond requirement applies only to projects valued at greater than $500,000. The School Board's demand, even if properly made, was excessive. The June 25, 2002, demand was the first notice provided by the School Board of an intent to require the posting of a protest bond. Intercoastal did not file a statutory bond.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the District School Board of Collier County enter a final order upholding the protest filed by Intercoastal Contracting, Inc. and withdrawing the proposed award of the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 197-3/02 to Charron Sports Services, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 4th day of November, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Broward County, hereinafter Respondent, issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for materials and labor for $6.5 million general renovations and additions to South Broward High School, Project #0171-88-03, hereinafter South Broward Project. The RFP and bid documents for the South Broward Project were contained in a 2-inch thick book entitled "Project Manual South Broward High School General Renovations and Additions Project #071-88-03." The RFP required all bids by 2:00 p.m., December 8, 1992, and required each bidder to include a certified check or bid bond for 5 percent of the base bid "as evidence of good faith and guaranteeing that the successful bidder will execute and furnish . . . a bond . . . for 100 percent of the Contract, said bond being conditioned for both performance and payment. . . ." Further, the RFP notified bidders that Respondent would have a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) subcontracting goal of 15 percent for the contract: 5 percent Black, 5 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent women. In addition, the RFP stated that Respondent had the right to reject bids and waive any informalities. As part of the bid documents provided to bidders, Respondent included its policy statement on bidding procedures and award of construction contracts. Among other things, the policy statement indicated that a Statement of Bidder's Qualifications form was required to be completed by bidders and received by Respondent prior to the date set for the bid award, that failure to do so "may" be an irregularity in bidding procedures, and that Respondent may require a bidder to furnish data to determine "beyond a reasonable doubt that the bidder is qualified to perform the contract." The Statement of Bidder's Qualifications form included questions requesting information from bidders on projects they had completed of similar size or larger; a list of present contracts, with amounts; whether fully bonded; and information on any failure to complete a bonded obligation. Additionally, the bid documents included a section entitled "Instruction To Bidders And The General Conditions," hereinafter Instructions and Conditions. The said document contained several Articles, of which Articles 4, 5, 7 and 8 are relevant to this bid protest. Article 4 of the document, Posting of Bids, states in pertinent part: Notice of intent to award or reject bids shall be posted . . . with recommendations reflecting the lowest responsive bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Recommendation and tabulation will be posted seven (7) days after the bid date by 4:30 p.m. in the reception area of the Facilities Department. (Emphasis added) Article 4 also presented the time frames in which a bidder must file a protest of the recommendation, including the notice of protest and the formal written protest. Article 5, Basis For Award, states that Respondent's intent is to award the contract [T]o the lowest responsive bidder in accordance with the requirements of the Bidding Documents, within the funds available. (Emphasis added) The Article further states: Additional funds may be added to this project in order to award a contract if the lowest responsive bid exceeds the available funds. The lowest responsive bidder . . . will be established through an evaluation of the combined prices for the Base Bid and Alternates. (Emphasis added) Article 7, Withdrawal of Proposals, states in pertinent part: The Proposal may be withdrawn if The School Board of Broward County, Florida, fails to accept it within (60) calendar days after the date filed for opening bids. (Emphasis added) Article 8, Disqualification of Bidders, states in pertinent part: (d) No Proposal or Bid will be considered unless accompanied by a Proposal guarantee or good faith deposit in the amount and on the form specified in the Invitation for Bids, and/or Advertisement for Bids. Further, included in the bid documents was a section entitled Special Conditions. Article 10 of the Special Conditions dealt with MBE subcontractor requirements. Section 3 of Article 10 states in pertinent part: [F]ailure on the part of the Bidder to comply with the requirements of this Article shall be cause for finding the bidder non-responsive, unless every reasonable effort to utilize MBE subcontractors is demonstrated to The School Board of Broward County, Florida. In the event a bid is deemed non-responsive, award may then be made to the next lowest bidder, or all remaining bids may be rejected and the project readvertised. (Emphasis added) On December 8, 1992, as advertised, the bid opening on the South Broward Project was conducted. There were no irregularities at the bid opening. Roma Construction, Inc., hereinafter Petitioner, was a bidder on the South Broward Project along with other bidders. Petitioner was the lowest bidder. It is undisputed that Petitioner timely filed all of the requested bid documents, and complied with all the bid specifications. At the time of the South Broward Project bid, Petitioner was the contractor on another project with Respondent, referred to as the Deerfield Beach Elementary School Project, hereinafter Deerfield Project. Petitioner and Respondent were experiencing problems with the Deerfield Project, for which each blamed the other. Finally, on January 19, 1993, Respondent declared Petitioner in default of the Deerfield Project. Petitioner and Respondent are in pending litigation involving their dispute of the Deerfield Project. Respondent's Facilities Department had the responsibility of making a recommendation to Respondent as to which bidder should be awarded the contract. The lowest bidder is requested by the Facilities Department, subsequent to the bid opening, to submit the Statement of Bidder's Qualifications form, hereinafter Qualifications Statement. The Facilities Department uses the Qualifications Statement to obtain a general background of a bidder. Failure to provide the Qualifications Statement was waivable by the Facilities Department and was, therefore, not a disqualifying event. Even though Petitioner was the lowest bidder at bid opening, it was not requested by the Facilities Department, per the instructions of the Facilities Director, to submit the Qualifications Statement. 1/ The Facilities Director had decided to obtain Petitioner's Qualifications Statement from the most recent and on-going project that Respondent had awarded to Petitioner, i.e., the Deerfield Project, and make inquires from that Qualifications Statement. He was going through this process although he had made a predetermination that Petitioner probably would not be a responsible bidder. Using Petitioner's Qualifications Statement from the Deerfield Project, the Facilities Director contacted architects on Petitioner's prior projects. The architects made numerous "negative" comments regarding Petitioner's construction delays. Further, the Facilities Director made inquiries regarding lawsuits against Petitioner on projects. He was notified by Respondent's lawyers of what he considered to be an inordinate number of pending lawsuits against Petitioner. Based upon the information received from the inquiries and upon Petitioner's January 19, 1993, default declared by Respondent, the Facilities Director concluded that he could not recommend awarding the contract to Petitioner as the lowest responsible bidder. Consequently, he directed his staff to recommend awarding the contract to Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corporation, as the lowest responsible bidder. On January 25, 1993, approximately six weeks after the bid opening and six days after Respondent declared Petitioner in default of the Deerfield Project, the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. The BTF showed Petitioner as the lowest bidder, and Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corp. as the next lowest bidder. However, Respondent's Facilities Department, stated on the BTF that its recommendation would be to award the contract to Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corporation as the lowest responsible bidder meeting the bid specifications. Additionally, the BTF included the notice that bidders could object to the intended action and the statutory procedure to follow. No evidence was presented that, between the time of the bid opening and the posting of the BTF, either Petitioner or any other bidder made an attempt to withdraw their bid. Petitioner filed its notice of protest on January 26, 1993, which was timely. Petitioner filed its formal written protest on February 1, 1993, which was timely. On February 23, 1993, Respondent considered Petitioner's protest at its scheduled meeting. Respondent "rejected" Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Broward County enter its final order rejecting Roma Construction, Inc.'s, bid and awarding the bid in South Broward High School Project #0171-88-03 to Dayco-Astaldi Construction Corp. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of May 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 25th day of May 1993.
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received on a contract to deliver food and supplies to the public school cafeterias in Broward County.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Invitation to Bid On September 28, 2000, the Board issued ITB 21-076B for procurement of “Mainline Foods and Supplies for Cafeterias.” Through this solicitation the Board sought to let a four-year contract, renewable for two additional one- year periods, pursuant to which the successful bidder would deliver food and supplies to the approximately 192 public school cafeterias in Broward County, Florida. Sysco is the incumbent supplier of foods and supplies for the Board’s cafeterias. The ITB listed and described the desired foods and supplies in two separate sections, Section 5.09 and Section 6.02. Bidders were required to bid on each of the 186 individual items listed in the Product Bid Sheets that comprise Section 5.09. In contrast, bidders were instructed not to quote prices for the 130 items listed in Section 6.02; rather, the ITB provided that “[t]he awardee, once selected, shall submit to the [Board] product costs and selling prices for items in Section 6.02.” This protest focuses on particular specifications of the Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 and is not concerned with Section 6.02. The Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 were composed of tables consisting of eight columns and, in total, 189 rows — one row for each item and three empty or "open" rows requiring no response. The first three columns, from left to right, set forth information that identified each item sought. At each row, Column 1 contained the “Sequence Number” that the Board had assigned to each product “for tracking purposes.” Column 2 in each row contained a description of the product to be purchased. So-called “approved brands” for each item were listed in Column 3. The ITB identified “approved brands” in several ways. The most specific identification was by brand name and product code or number, for example “Tony’s 78642.” This form of identification designated a particular manufacturer’s particular product. The term “approved branded product” will be used herein to refer to this type of specific product identification in Column 3. For many items, an approved brand was identified by manufacturer’s name only, without an accompanying product code, e.g. “Lykes ________.” The ITB instructed bidders that “[i]f a code number, name, or color is not listed by [the Board] along with an approved brand[,] the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided.” (ITB, Section 5.03.) In this Recommended Order, the term “brand-only approval” will denote a brand approval that lacked a specific product code. Finally, the ITB identified a large number of approved brands in Column 3 of Section 5.09 by the term “Distributor’s Choice,” meaning the distributor’s brand of choice. Bidders were instructed to “enter, in the space provided, the brand and code” when quoting a Distributor’s Choice. (ITB, Section 5.03.) For 84 of the 186 items listed in the Product Bid Sheets, the approved brands in Column 3 were identified exclusively as Distributor’s Choice.1 Thus, for nearly half of the Section 5.09 items, the bidder needed to select a brand and product that fit the specifications set forth in Column 2. For another 15 items, Column 3 contained brand-only approvals, meaning that the bidder was required to select an appropriate product from the approved manufacturer’s line. Brand-only approvals were combined with a Distributor’s Choice option in Column 3 for ten additional items. Consequently, there were 109 items — 59% of the total — on which the bidders were not given the option of bidding an approved branded product. Conversely, for 23 items Column 3 listed just one approved branded product, leaving the bidders no alternative but to bid on a particular manufacturer's particular product. Similarly, for 26 additional items, at least two approved branded products were listed, giving bidders a choice but not requiring them to compare the specifically designated brand- name products with the product descriptions in Column 2. In sum, bidders were obligated (and entitled) to bid an approved branded product on at least 49 items. There were 28 items for which Column 3 combined an approved branded product (or products) with either a brand- only approval (or approvals) or a Distributor’s Choice option.2 Accordingly, a bidder could, in theory, have quoted prices on as many as 77 approved branded products. At the other extreme, a bidder could have bid 137 items for which it had selected brand, product code, or both. Of the 186 items listed in Section 5.09, four are at the heart of the instant dispute. Ignoring for present purposes the sequences above and below the at-issue items, these four were described as follows in the first three columns of the Product Bid Sheets:3 1 SEQ NO. 2 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 3 APPROVED BRANDS 1009 Breakfast Pizza (F). Crust topped with cheese, gravy, scrambled eggs and bacon. Minimum size 3 oz. to meet 1 meat/meat alternate plus 1 bread serving. CN Label. Tony’s 63564 Nardone’s 80MSA-100 Size of portion oz. 1036 Pizza, French Bread, Southland Bagel Pepperoni (F): 50-50 8953S Mozzarella blend. Minimum Prestige 30215 5.45 oz. to meet 2 oz. Nordone’s _________ meat/meat alternative and 2 KT Kitchen ________ bread servings. CN label. Size portion oz. 1037 Pizza, Mexican Style (F). Tony’s 63669 Minimum 5 ounces to meet 2 Nordone’s 100MA oz. meat/meat alternate and 1 KT Kitchens 01476 ½ bread serving. With or w/o VPP. CN label. Size portion oz. 2010 Pancake and Sausage (F) Pancake batter around a link sausage on a stick. 2.5 oz. State Fair 70601 Leon’s 28002 Foster Farms 96113 Minimum weight to meet 1 oz. meat/meat alternative and 1 bread serving. CN Label. Size of portion: oz. Other provisions of the ITB are relevant to this protest as well. Section 7 of the General Conditions of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any items or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets shall be noted “BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY.” All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Section 1.03 of the ITB’s Special Conditions stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARD: A contract shall be awarded IN ITS ENTIRETY to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder (See Section 4.01) with the lowest initial product cost plus fixed fee and meeting all specifications terms and conditions of the bid. It is necessary to bid on every item on the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09) in order to have your bid considered for award. Product costs shall be stated in the spaces provided in the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09). All items shall have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item shall result in disqualification of bid submitted. Bidder shall carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. Any item that does not meet the specifications shall be disqualified. Section 1.10 of the ITB stated as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning any condition or requirement of this bid shall be received in the Purchasing Department in writing on or before October 11, 2000. Submit all questions to the attention of the individual stated in Section 1.37 [sic] of this Bid. If necessary, an Addendum shall be issued. Any verbal or written information which is obtained other than by information in this bid document or by Addenda shall not be binding on the School Board. Section 1.12 of the ITB stated as follows: BRAND STANDARDIZATION: The specified brands and product numbers listed on the Product Bid Sheets have been approved by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department and bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where “Distributor’s Choice” is indicated. If a bidder wishes to have an item placed on this approved list for future bidding, the bidder shall furnish Food and Nutrition Services Department samples of the item for testing purposes. If approved, the Food and Nutrition Services Department shall include the new item on the future list of approved items. In the event that any approved item supplied under this bid does not prove satisfactory, that item shall be removed from the approved list until such time as correction is made to the satisfaction of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. Section 1.13 of the ITB stated as follows: PRODUCT NUMBER CORRECTIONS: If the product number for the brand specified on the Product Bid Sheets is: a) no longer available and has been replaced with a new updated number with new specifications, the bidder should submit complete descriptive literature on the new product number; or b) incorrect, the corrected product number should be noted on the Product Bid Sheets, in the space provided. Section 1.35 of the ITB stated as follows: INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mr. Charles High, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (954) 765-6107 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mr. High nor any employee of [the Board] is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with Special Condition 1.10. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. Section 2.03 of the ITB stated as follows: ADDING AND DELETING ITEMS: Food and non- food items utilized by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department may be subsequently added, deleted or transferred from or to the lists in Sections 5.09 and 6.0, individually or in groups, at the discretion of SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department Section 5.02 of the ITB provided in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 2: (Product Description) This column provides bidder with descriptions of the products to be purchased, including portion or serving sizes or grades and standards, as may be applicable. Bidders should fill in the information wherever indicated on portion, serving size, etc., and provide manufacturers’ certificates of grades or compliance whenever “CR” is shown. If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. [W]hen evaluating bids, [staff] may request that a bidder furnish, within three days of request, further confirmations of grades and standards, copies of specification sheets, and other product data, as may be required. (Underlining supplied). For ease of reference, the underlined sentence above — which will prove pivotal — will be called the "Reconciliation Clause" in this Recommended Order. Section 5.03 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 3: (Approved Brands*) Prior to acceptance of a bid, all bid brands are subject to review by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department for compliance with the bid product requirements. If a code number, name, or color is not listed by SBBC along with an approved brand; the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided. Whenever quoting a “Distributor’s Choice”, a bidder shall enter, in the space provided, the brand and code. Whenever an approved brand, other than “Distributor’s Choice”, is listed, the bidder should indicate in Column 3 the brand bidding, (circle the brand). IMPORTANT: Some of the codes listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the bidder is to enter the correct code. After award, SBBC may request the awardee to obtain prices and samples for brands and codes not listed. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the requirements of Column 2 is at the discretion of SBBC. A bidder may be requested, prior to bid award, to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Section 5.11 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: CN Label: When a product is CN (Child Nutrition) labeled, it is “certified” by the packer to conform to the nutritional requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The label shows the contribution made by a given amount of product toward meal requirements. When CN label is noted in Column 2 of the Product Bid Sheets, it is understood that the CN label must be in place for the product to be bid. Particular Responses to the Invitation to Bid A. Sequence No. 1009 – Breakfast Pizza At Sequence No. 1009, Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheet contained two approved branded products: Tony’s 63904 and Nardone’s 80MSA-100. School Food quoted a price of $28,500 on the specifically approved Nardone’s product. In preparing its bid, Sysco obtained a product description from Nardone Bros. Baking Co. Inc. ("Nardone") for its 80MSA-100 product. Sysco believed that Nardone’s 80MSA- 100 failed to meet the product description set forth in Column 2 and therefore offered the other approved branded product, Tony’s 63564, at a price of $33,000. A third bidder, Mutual Wholesale Co. ("Mutual Wholesale"), offered to provide the approved Tony’s product at a price of $33,012.00. Sequence No. 1036 – French Bread Pepperoni Pizza The product description in Column 2 of the item listed at Sequence No. 1036 required that a CN label be in place for a product to be bid. A CN label signifies compliance with certain U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. The Board must obey these guidelines to obtain reimbursement for its food services program from federal funding sources. School Food offered the Prestige 30215 approved branded product in its response to Sequence No. 1036 at a price of $30,750. In preparing its response to the ITB, Sysco learned that the Prestige 30215 approved branded product had been submitted for CN label approval but lacked that approval at the time of bidding. Perceiving a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved branded product in Column 3, Sysco concluded that it could not quote a price for Prestige 30215. Instead, Sysco offered to provide another approved brand, KT Kitchen’s 01093, at a cost to the Board of $36,397.50. Like School Food, Mutual Wholesale bid on the Prestige 30215 brand name product, quoting a price of $30,000. As of November 29, 2000, the approved branded product, Prestige 30215, had obtained CN approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sequence No. 1037 – Mexican-Style Pizza In its response to Sequence No. 1037, School Food offered an approved branded product, Nardone's 100MA, quoting a price of $206,620. During its bid preparation, Sysco learned that Nardone used another code for this product — namely, "96MCSA." Sysco believed that it could not bid on "Nardone’s 100MA," even though it was an approved branded product. Thus, in its bid Sysco offered to provide another approved branded product, Tony's 63669, at a price to the Board of $229,800. In its response to Sequence No. 1037, Mutual Wholesale quoted a price of $214,020 for yet another approved branded product, KT Kitchen’s 01476. "Nardone's 100MA" is an actual product code used internally by Nardone to denote an actual, available product that is referred to externally (or "on the street") as "Nardone's 96MCSA." In other words, "Nardone's 100MA" and "Nardone's 96MCSA" refer to the same product. Sequence No. 2010 – Pancake and Sausage In response to Sequence No. 2010, School Food offered to provide an approved branded product, Leon’s 28002, at a cost to the Board of $14,858. Sysco discovered through its bid preparation research that there might be a conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product, which was unambiguously designated in Column 3, because Leon’s 28002 consisted of a "frankfurter" wrapped in a pancake, and Sysco did not consider a "frankfurter" to be a "link sausage."4 As the Board has conceded, unless a bidder knew the products well or made a comparison of the approved branded products to the product description in Column 2, it would not have perceived the possible conflict between that description and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product listed in Column 3. Around October 20, 2000, Sysco notified the Board of its concern regarding Sequence No. 2010. In so doing, however, Sysco failed to comply with Section 1.10 of the ITB, which required that questions about the bid specifications be submitted in writing on or before October 11, 2000. In violation of Section 1.10, a Sysco employee named Elaine Blaine, who was responsible for preparing Sysco's bid, left a telephone message with the Board's Purchasing Agent, Charles High, inquiring about Leon's 28002 and letting him know that, in Sysco's opinion, this approved branded product did not match the description in Column 2 of Sequence No. 2010. Mr. High returned Ms. Blaine's phone call on or around October 24, 2000, leaving a message on her voice mail to the effect that Leon's 28002 was not the correct item and advising that another brand name product, Leon's 28012, should be bid in its place. As Section 1.35 of the ITB made plain, however, Mr. High had no authority whatsoever to render an opinion such as this. Although Mr. High's communication with Ms. Blaine was improper, it had no effect on the competitive process. Clearly, Sysco could not reasonably have relied on Mr. High's unauthorized opinion, and anyway it did not do so. Thus, in short, while Mr. High's irregular contact with Ms. Blaine cannot be condoned, his ex parte advice to Sysco fortunately conferred no competitive advantage on any bidder and hence was immaterial. In the end, Sysco offered another approved branded product, State Fair 70601, in lieu of Leon's 28002, quoting a price of $20,111. Mutual Wholesale also bid on State Fair 70601, quoting a price of $20,119.50. Issuance of Addenda and Submission of Bids The Board issued two addenda to the ITB. Addendum No. 1, among other things, inserted the code number for the approved KT Kitchen’s brand name product listed in Column 3 for Sequence No. 1036, and it also changed the approved Foster Farms branded product listed in Sequence No. 2010. The addenda made no other changes to either Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, or 2010. On October 31, 2000, the Board opened the four bids that it had received in response to the ITB. Bids were submitted by Big Bamboo, Inc., Mutual Wholesale, Sysco, and School Food. Big Bamboo, Inc. failed to submit a complete proposal and thus its bid was disqualified as non-responsive. The remaining bids, which were determined to be responsive, offered, respectively, the following total annual contract prices: Mutual Wholesale $9,757,284.86 Sysco $9,656,770.21 School Food $9,263,170.42 Accordingly, School Food was the lowest bidder, its bottom line beating the closest competitor by nearly $400,000 per year. On November 9, 2000, the Board's Purchasing Department posted its recommendation that the contract be awarded to School Food. The Sysco Protest of the Recommended Award On November 13, 2000, Sysco timely filed a notice of intent to protest the recommended award to School Food. Sysco timely filed its formal written protest with the Board on November 22, 2000. Pursuant to rule, a Bid Protest Committee comprised of three administrators is required to meet with a bid protester in accordance with Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to attempt a resolution of the protest by mutual agreement. By rule, the Bid Protest Committee has been delegated the agency’s authority to perform this function. Consequently, pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, a Bid Protest Committee convened on December 1, 2000, in an attempt to mutually resolve any disputed issues arising out of Sysco's protest. Despite the fact that the thrust of Sysco's protest was an attack on the responsiveness of School Food's bid, School Food was not invited to attend the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, which apparently was not conducted as a public meeting. A court reporter was present, however, and the transcript of the committee's December 1, 2000, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee restricted its review of the procurement to consideration of whether the ITB suffered from defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, even though Sysco’s protest had raised broader issues concerning the responsiveness of School Food's bid. At the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, a Board employee named Raymond Papa, whose title is Supervisor of Field Services for Food and Nutrition Service, made the following representations concerning the sequence numbers in question: 1009 (Breakfast Pizza). Mr. Papa claimed to have erred by listing Nardone's 80MSA-100 in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1009. This approved branded product, Mr. Papa told the committee, should have been identified in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1008, which is also a breakfast pizza but has a different product description. 1036 (French Bread Pepperoni Pizza). Mr. Papa informed the committee that Prestige 30215 was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but did not have a CN label "at this time." 1037 (Mexican Style Pizza). Mr. Papa advised the committee that there seemed to be some confusion arising from the ITB's use, in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1037, of the Nardone's product code 100MA, which was the manufacturer's internal code for the approved branded product, instead of the more common "street number" (96MCSA) used in the company's literature. Mr. Papa further explained: "Apparently that code [referring to 100MA] would have given me the right product" — in fact, it would have, see Paragraph 33 above — "but it needs more clarification on my part." 2010 (Pancake and Sausage). Mr. Papa pointed out the purported conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon's 28002 brand name product identified in Column 3. He claimed to have been seeking a pancake with a sausage inside, not a frankfurter, asserting that the two meat products were substantially different. The Board’s counsel informed the committee that the specifications for Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 had created sufficient confusion to adversely affect the competition. He urged the committee to remedy this purported confusion by voting to reject all bids so that the contract could be re-advertised with revised specifications. The committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. The three members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee paid no attention to the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation to reject all bids. With little discussion, the three-member Bid Protest Committee voted unanimously to rescind the recommendation to award School Food the contract and to reject all bids on the ground that the specifications were defective and hence that revisions were needed to "level the playing field." A revised recommendation to reject all bids was posted on December 12, 2000. School Food's Protest of the Rejection of All Bids On December 15, 2000, School Food timely filed its notice of intent to protest the Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids. This was timely followed by a formal written protest, which was filed with the Board on December 22, 2000. The revised recommendation posted on December 12, 2000, accurately announced the Board's intention to reject all bids. As noted in School Food's formal bid protest, however, the revised recommendation erroneously stated that the action was taken because “no acceptable bids were received.” To remedy this problem, a corrected revised recommendation was posted by the Board on January 12, 2001. It stated that the rejection of all bids was “due to inaccuracies within the bid specifications.” On January 16, 2001, School Food timely notified the Board of its intent to protest the corrected revised recommendation. Thereafter, on January 24, 2001, School Food timely filed its formal protest of the corrected revised recommendation to reject all bids. School Food posted a bid protest bond in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with School Board Policy 3320. This bond is conditioned upon School Food's payment of the Board's litigation costs should the Board prevail. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the Board's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with School Food on February 9, 2001, in an attempt to mutually resolve any matters in dispute. The Bid Protest Committee was composed of two persons who had participated in the December 1, 2000, meeting and a third member who had not attended that earlier meeting. Sysco received advance notice of the February 9, 2001, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, and its lawyer was permitted to attend as a witness. These courtesies, tellingly, had not been extended to School Food in connection with the committee meeting that had been held on December 1, 2000, to discuss the original Sysco bid protest. As before, a court reporter was present, and the transcript of the February 9, 2001, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee was again informed of staff's opinion that the ITB contained defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037 and 2010. At the February 9, 2001 meeting, the Board's counsel argued vigorously in support of the decision to reject all bids. For the most part, his argument was an expanded version of that which had been advanced in favor of rejection at the December 1, 2000, meeting. More emphasis was placed, the second time around, on the concern that the supposedly defective specifications would or might, in some cases, result in the Board not receiving the food items that it had desired. Once again, the committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. And once more, the committee members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee failed to take account of the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation that the previous decision to reject all bids be adhered to. By a vote of two to one, the Bid Protest Committee upheld the recommendation to reject all bids. The contemporaneous comments from the members in the majority, together with other evidence introduced at hearing, reveal that the committee was persuaded that the field of play had been tilted by the purportedly defective bid specifications; its decision clearly was based on a desire to “level the playing field.” Ultimate Factual Determinations All of the purported deficiencies in the bid specifications fall squarely within the operation of the ITB’s plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause which, to repeat for emphasis, provided as follows: If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. (ITB, Section 5.02.)5 There is no evidence that the Reconciliation Clause misrepresented the Board's true intent or was the product of a mistake. The administrative law judge has determined as a matter of law that the Reconciliation Clause is clear and unambiguous; therefore, as a matter of fact, it manifests the Board's intent that a Column 2 description must yield to the identification of an approved branded product in Column 3 in the event of conflict between them. By providing in clear terms a straightforward, easily applied, bright-line rule for resolving the very type of conflict that the Board now urges justifies a rejection of all bids, the ITB reasonably ensured that no such ambiguity or uncertainty would imperil the competitive process. No reasonable bidder could possibly have been confused by the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause. All bidders, of course, were entitled to protest the Reconciliation Clause, and any other bid specifications, within 72 hours after receiving the ITB. See Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; see also ITB, Section 1.21. None did. If Sysco believed, as Ms. Blaine testified, that it could not bid on certain approved branded products listed in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, then its belief was unreasonable. Confusion that is objectively unreasonable in fact, as Sysco's was, is not evidence of deficiencies in the bid specifications or of a breach in the integrity of the competitive process. In sum, the purported "deficiencies" upon which the Board based its intended decision to reject all bids are not deficiencies in fact. Thus, the Board's professed reason for starting over — that flaws in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 put bidders to the Hobson's choice of either risking disqualification by bidding on an approved branded product that did not strictly conform to the description in Column 2 or offering a higher-priced product meeting the Column 2 description — is factually unfounded and illogical.6 It should be observed, also, that, in view of the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause, the approved branded products upon which School Food bid in response to Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 are conforming goods in every respect. That is, School Food did not "mis-bid" these items. Indeed, the Board having identified specific approved branded products; having instructed bidders that "bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where ‘Distributor's Choice’ is indicated," see ITB, Section 1.12; and having made clear, in the Reconciliation Clause, that any conflict between an approved branded product and a product description shall be resolved in favor of the approved branded product, it would be arbitrary and capricious to disqualify School Food's bid for non-responsiveness in connection with these items. See Footnote 6, supra. The evidence regarding which particular products the Board truly wanted to purchase in connection with the sequences at issue is in conflict. On the one hand, there is the ITB itself, which is strong evidence of the Board's desires. As a written expression of the Board's intent, the ITB gives voice not merely to the opinions of one person, but rather speaks for the whole Board as an organization. (The latter point is underscored by Section 1.35, which plainly stated that no single employee of the Board was authorized unilaterally to interpret the ITB.) The ITB's reliability is further enhanced by the fact that it was prepared before the bids were opened, before it was known that the incumbent vendor was not the apparent low bidder, before the first protest was filed, and before this administrative litigation commenced. On the other hand, there is Mr. Papa's testimony that he made mistakes in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, listing approved branded products that, in hindsight, he claimed should not have been listed. Casting doubt on Mr. Papa's credibility, however, is the fact that he did not discover these so-called mistakes until after the Sysco protest helpfully brought the matters to his attention. Also, in deciding how much weight to give Mr. Papa’s testimony, the trier paid particular attention to the picayune nature of the purported conflicts in the specifications. Indeed, it is seriously debatable whether there really were any conflicts in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010.7 Additionally, having observed Mr. Papa’s demeanor and having given thoughtful consideration to the substance of his testimony, the trier of fact formed the distinct impression that this witness was a bit too anxious to grasp at a plausible excuse — even these hyper-technical “conflicts” — to scuttle the process and do it over. In weighing Mr. Papa's testimony, the trier has factored in a discount for reasonably inferred bias. Further, Mr. Papa's testimony was premised on the view that Column 2 expressed the Board's true intent, taking priority over Column 3 in cases of conflict. To fully credit Mr. Papa's testimony would require that the Reconciliation Clause be turned on its head — which, incidentally, would constitute an impermissible material change in the bid specifications.8 There is absolutely no basis in this record for doing that. In resolving the conflict in the evidence regarding which goods the Board really wanted, the trier of fact has considered the totality of circumstances and has chosen to give the greatest weight to the plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause in the ITB which, when read in conjunction with the clear designations of approved branded products in Column 3 at the sequences in question, makes manifest the Board's intent. This clear provision speaks for itself and proves that the Board, as an entity, made a reasoned and conscious decision to deem approved branded products in Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheets to be the goods intended for purchase in those instances where a Column 2 product description might suggest a different desire. Neither Mr. Papa's testimony nor any other evidence persuasively calls into question the reliability and credibility of the Reconciliation Clause as an accurate expression of the Board's intent. Thus, under the evidence presented, the following items are approved branded products that, as a matter of fact, the Board wanted to purchase: Nardone's 80MSA-100, Prestige 30215, Nardone's 100MA, and Leon's 28002. Moreover, if the Board decides that one or more of these approved branded products are not what it wants after all, it has the right, pursuant to Section 2.03 of the ITB (see Paragraph 17, supra), to arrange for the purchase and delivery of different products. The argument of the Board and Sysco that the Board's exercise of its right to add and delete items would constitute an impermissible material alteration of the bid specifications is, in the context of the present circumstances, plainly wrong in fact and illogical. To explain why this is so, let us stipulate that it would be arbitrary for the Board, say, to delete several items from each bidder's proposal because, for example, one or more bidders had mis-bid those items, and then to re-tabulate the bids to determine which bidder would now be the low bidder.9 Similarly, it would be arbitrary for the Board, under the guise of adding items, to designate as approved branded products certain non-conforming goods offered by a bidder as Distributor's Choices, thereby allowing a bid that otherwise would be disqualified to be considered responsive. As a final example, it would be arbitrary for the Board to delete an approved branded product from the product list and use such deletion as the basis for disqualifying a bidder that had quoted the now-deleted item. Each of these hypothetical situations involves a material change to the specifications on which the bidders based their proposals, which is not allowed, for good reason. It is a different kettle of fish, however, for the Board to add or delete items after making an award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. When the bids are judged pursuant to the rules clearly spelled out in advance in the ITB — which would not be the case in the examples set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph — there is simply no change in the specifications, material or otherwise. In the instant case, therefore, if the Board awards the contract to School Food and decides that it does not want a hot dog pancake for Sequence No. 2010, then all it need do is delete Leon's 28002 from the product list and add the desired Leon's product or require the distributor to deliver one of the remaining approved branded products.10 Nothing about that course of action requires or effects a change in the bid specifications. To the contrary, all of the bidders were notified, upon entering this competition, that such post- award additions and deletions of product were possible. All of the bidders, moreover, could have quoted a price for the hot dog pancake, which was unambiguously designated as a conforming product. If the hot dog pancake were a less expensive item, then Sysco could have and should have bid on it. Put another way, if School Food secured a competitive advantage by bidding on the lower-priced approved branded product, it was a legitimate advantage under the plain rules of the contest — rules that applied equally to all. In a nutshell, the Board is in no reasonable danger of receiving a food product that it does not desire to purchase. The Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids is not supported by facts or logic. Indeed, the Board's analysis of the situation failed to account for the Reconciliation Clause — a clearly relevant factor. When the Reconciliation Clause is considered, together with the rest of the evidence in the record, the following become clear: The ITB's specifications were clear and unambiguous. The competitive playing field was level. The Board will obtain the goods that it intended to purchase. At bottom, the Board's decision here cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is arbitrary.11
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board award the contract advertised in the subject ITB to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. It is further recommended that the Board, pursuant to its own rules, return School Food’s protest bond and, in the Final Order, award School Food the costs Petitioner has incurred in prosecuting this matter. If a dispute arises concerning the amount of such costs, the matter may be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2001.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it decided to award the contract under Bid Number 94-CO-6355, for Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service (the Contract), to the number two-ranked bidder, North American Intelecom, Inc. (NAI).
Findings Of Fact Background On or about August 12, 1994, the DOC issued Invitation to Bid Number 94-CO-5355, Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service. Michael H. Johnson, a General Services Specialist, prepared the ITB at the direction of Jim Morris, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of General Services. Johnson developed the evaluation criteria and point allocations in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The document was reviewed and approved by Morris, Jim Biddy, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of Finance and Accounting, and Max Denson of the DOC's Operations Office. Inmate pay telephone and long distance service requires more than just the installation of pay phones in correctional facilities. The service vendor must also provide a means of blocking inmate telephone calls and, when calls are authorized, preventing inmates from making harassing calls to members of the public. Additionally, the ITB includes a provision requiring some means for monitoring and automatically recording inmate telephone calls, and for deactivating the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney. A requirement is also included in the ITB that the system limit the length of inmate calls and generate monthly call detail reports. Other mandatory, no cost features to be provided under the Contract include a Personal Identification Number ("PIN") system capability, a three-way call detection and cutoff feature, a pilot site to test the call monitoring/recording system, on-site administrators to free facility staff from all tasks associated with the inmate phone system, and a semi-annual audit to ensure that the provider is meeting all technical and service requirements. The specifications in the ITB for provision of inmate pay telephone and long distance service are some of the most comprehensive in the country, requiring state-of-the-art hardware, software, and service in order to implement specified mandatory system features. Security concerns are prominent among reasons for having adequate service and support for the inmate pay telephone and long distance service. PIN-Driven System One of the primary features specified in the ITB is a PIN-driven system for blocking inmate calls. The PIN system requires each inmate to be assigned his or her own personal identification number for use with the telephone system. An inmate must key in his or her personal identification number before dialing an outgoing call. The system must automatically screen the telephone number dialed to ensure it is one which has received prior authorization for accessibility by the PIN. A PIN-driven system is labor-intensive and requires on-site administration to facilitate assignment of inmate PIN numbers and constant input and modification of each inmate's list of numbers for authorized outgoing calls. Project Staffing The DOC specifically requested the inmate phone system vendor to provide sufficient on-site administrators for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, support for proper administration of the PIN system. Noting that on-site administrators are to relieve DOC staff of all responsibilities relating to the inmate phone system, the DOC stated in the ITB that it did not want its staff to be involved with time-consuming service and maintenance problems. The DOC expressed a preference in the ITB for one on-site administrator being assigned to each major facility, except in those circumstances in which a single individual may cover several facilities in close geographic proximity to one another. Support services are important to maintain the proper functioning of the type of inmate phone system requested by the DOC. The ITB, taken as a whole, is a solicitation for an integrated telecommunications system, encompassing not only hardware, but systems software, service and project support. The ITB did not simply solicit manufacturers and models for various pieces of hardware; it contained a comprehensive description of functional requirements that had to be met. As a consequence, any determination that one bidder's "equipment" is identical to that offered by any other bidder must take into consideration proposed support and service, as well as proposed hardware and software applications. Bid Evaluation Procedure Specified in the ITB As established at final hearing by the unrebutted testimony of MCI's expert in telecommunications service bid response preparation, DOC's ITB differed from those in many other states. Unlike the instant ITB, many ITBs from other jurisdictions provide for a determination that bids meet specified minimum requirements and then dictate the award of a contract to the responsive bid with the lowest price. Conversely, DOC's ITB specified a detailed procedure to be followed in evaluating the bids, including evaluation criteria, points to be assigned to each criterion, and an evaluation committee to conduct the evaluation of bids. Johnson, the DOC employee responsible for the preparation of the ITB, understood that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder with the highest number of points allocated in accordance with the evaluation scheme described in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The DOC includes in its ITB both general and special conditions and specifications. The ITB, by its own terms, provides that special conditions and specifications shall have precedence over general conditions. The ITB contains numerous special conditions and specifications, including the bid evaluation procedures under Section 8.0. The bid evaluation criteria which are described by these special conditions and specifications identify the areas of the state's interest which must be addressed by the bids, as well as the weight to be assigned to each. Section 8.3 of the ITB emphasizes that any information gleaned from post bid demonstrations will not be used to change bid responses. The bid evaluation scheme specified in the ITB provided for points to be awarded to each bid using the following weighted criteria: CRITERIA POINTS CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS 15 REFERENCES 10 PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF 5 COMMISSION RATE 70 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 The points awarded for "commission rate" were to be determined by using a formula specified in the ITB which initially gave 70 points to the bidder proposing the highest commission rate, with all other bidders receiving a lesser number of points, depending on how close they came to the highest proposed commission rate. The points awarded for all of the other criteria were to be determined by a seven-member Evaluation Committee, members of which were selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger for their experience with management and actual operation of inmate phone systems, both from the institutional perspective and the regional office perspective. Each bid was required to be independently evaluated. The DOC issued two addenda to the ITB. The first addendum was issued August 23, 1994, and advised potential bidders of a change in location for the pre-bid conference scheduled for September 7, 1994. At the pre-bid conference, the DOC explained the award process to potential bidders. Johnson, the DOC representative, advised potential bidders at the pre- bid conference that the contract award would not be determined solely on the strength of the commission rate quote. On September 22, 1994, the DOC issued Addendum Number Two to the ITB which, among other things, changed the evaluation procedure by adding a new criterion and re-allocating the weight among the expanded criteria as follows: CRITERIA POINTS CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS 10 REFERENCES 10 PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF 5 TECHNOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS 10 COMMISSION RATE 65 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 The addition of "technological enhancements" was made at the request of Deputy Secretary Thurber, who wanted to be sure that the DOC had an opportunity to see what features above and beyond the minimum features specified in the original ITB were available for an inmate pay telephone system. When technological enhancements were added as an evaluation criterion, the weight to be given the commission rate in the evaluation scheme was lowered from 70 to 65 points. The DOC officials who reviewed and approved Addendum Number Two determined that the reduced weight for proposed commission rates was appropriate. At 65 percent of the available points, the reduced weight for the proposed commission is still higher than the 45 percent to 50 percent weight typically given by the DOC to the revenue side of a bid. Bidder Preparation MCI relied on the representation in the ITB and assurances of DOC's representative, Michael H. Johnson, at the bid conference that DOC's decision would not be made solely on the basis of cost. As a consequence of DOC representations, MCI prepared its bid to address the specifications in the ITB and thereby maximize its overall points under the ITB's evaluation scheme, as opposed to submission of a bid package concerned solely with scoring the highest possible points for "commission rates." Bid Opening and Initial Review On October 21, 1994, bids were submitted to DOC by MCI, NAI, AT&T, TEI, Robert Cefail & Associates (RC&A), 21st Century, RC&A/21st Century, and LDDS Metromedia. At the Bid Opening, Johnson again explained the award process to bidders on behalf of the DOC, and advised bidders that the bid tabulation was strictly for the purpose of documenting responses and that nothing was to be inferred from the proposed commission rates. Bidders were again advised that commissions would be only one aspect of the award. Johnson's understanding at the time of the Bid Opening was that the Contract would be awarded based on points awarded pursuant to the bid evaluation scheme specified in the Section 8.0 of the ITB. Johnson participated in an initial review of the bids, reading each of the proposals to determine whether the mandatory requirements were satisfied. Of eight bids received, five, including the bids submitted by MCI and NAI were determined by the DOC to satisfy the mandatory requirements. The Evaluation Committee As required in the ITB, the DOC formed an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the bids. Selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger, members of the Evaluation Committee were: Jim Biddy, Chief of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting; Jerry Pilcher, Chief of Regional Administrative Services for Region II; Kermit Kerley, Superintendent of the Hardee Correctional Institution; Stan Czerniak, Superintendent of the North Florida Reception Center; Charles Mask, Superintendent of the Corrections Mental Health Institution; Charles Dennard, Business Manager for the Polk Correctional Institution; and Robert Sandal, General Services Manager for Region I. Members of the Evaluation Committee were selected from the DOC's business managers and superintendents on the basis that their participation would provide an overall perspective with respect to management and actual operation of the inmate phone system. Evaluation Committee's Recommendation All five of the bids determined by the DOC to be responsive were thoroughly reviewed by Evaluation Committee in accordance with the bid evaluation procedures specified in the ITB, including Addendum Number Two, in an almost day-long session in the DOC's Central Office on January 5, 1995. The total points awarded by each Committee member for all of the four evaluation criteria were averaged to establish each bidder's total Evaluation Points. Every member of the Evaluation Committee scored MCI's bid as their number one or number two choice. NAI was ranked no higher than third by anyone on the Committee and was ranked fourth by five of the Committee's members. No member of the Committee gave NAI a higher score than MCI on any of the evaluation criteria. Comments on a majority of the evaluation forms of the seven members of the Evaluation Committee reflect a general concern for the adequacy of NAI's proposed project support. Specifically, Mr. Biddy noted that "[p]roposed project staff consisted of only 17 people [and that it was] questionable whether this would be sufficient for site administration as well as contract management." Similarly, Mr. Kerley noted on the NAI bid evaluation form that "17 staff may not be enough to support [the] system." Mr. Pilcher's comments indicated that "[p]roject support was not as I expected or not explained very well." Mr. Dennard indicated that NAI's bid provided "no breakdown of [the] 17 staff to support [the] contract [and] no mention of site administrators." The NAI bid indicates that a total of 17 personnel will be made available to support the Contract with more to be "added if the schedule so indicates." NAI's bid does not specifically identify the number of persons to be involved in on-site administration. However, NAI has committed only 17 people in support the Contract as a whole, ten of whom are expressly identified as performing tasks other than on-site administration. While NAI's bid indicates provision of additional personnel if required by the schedule, ambiguity about whether NAI would expand the number of on-site administrators for the entire term of the contract is evident. The "installation requirements" described in the ITB refer to time-limited activities necessary to initiate operation of the inmate telephone system, as opposed to the ongoing nature of the commitment necessary for on-site administration. In its bid response, NAI also agreed to cooperate with the DOC "to insure the proper distribution of on-site administrators." This offer does not suggest, however, that the number of on-site administrators committed in support of the Contract will be augmented by NAI. Such assurance relates to location and not number of on-site administrators. Testimony of NAI presented at final hearing that additional on-site administrators will be provided is not credited, inasmuch as such testimony constitutes an impermissible attempt by NAI to modify its bid after the bid opening. Based upon the substantial disparity in the proposed levels of customer service, the MCI and NAI bids cannot be considered to be identical. NAI's assertion at hearing that its bid included other system features which do not appear on the face of its written proposal constitutes a prohibited post-bid-opening modification. Such modifications included PCs, keyboards, printers and color monitors at each facility. These items are included on the face of the MCI bid. MCI offered 28 personnel in support of the Contract, including an express commitment for 20 on-site administrators. MCI's proposal to provide 20 on-site administrators is one of the highest number of on-site administrators offered by any bidder and a very costly aspect of MCI's bid since all employee salary and benefits must be covered for each on-site administrator dedicated to the project. The assignment of points for each bidder's proposed commission rate (Commission Points) was based on a scale which assigned 65 points to the bid with the highest commission rate quote. A lesser number of points was assigned to all other bids pursuant to a formula specified in Section 8.2 of the ITB, as amended by Addendum Number Two. The highest commission rate quoted by any bidder was proposed by NAI at 56 percent. NAI was accordingly assigned 65 Commission Points. NAI was also awarded 22.143 Evaluation Points, which, when combined with NAI's 65 Commission Points, produced a total of 87.143 points. MCI proposed a 53 percent commission rate and, in accordance with the formula set forth in the ITB, earned 61.51 Commission Points. MCI was also awarded 30 Evaluation Points which, when combined with MCI's 61.51 Commission Points, produced a total of 91.51 points. When the Evaluation Committee's other scores were combined with the scores for commission rates obtained by applying the formula in the ITB, MCI's point total was higher than that received by any of the other bidders. The DOC officials later involved in the decision to award the Contract to NAI indicated that they had no reason to question the work of the Evaluation Committee. After reviewing the bid evaluation forms produced by the Evaluation Committee, and based on his continuing understanding that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder receiving the highest number of points under the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, Michael H. Johnson prepared a memorandum for signature of his supervisor, Mr. Morris, to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. Dated January 31, 1995, the memorandum recommended award of the Contract to MCI. Morris signed the January 31, 1995 memorandum and forwarded the same to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. At prehearing deposition in this case on April 13, 1995, Kronenberger denied having received any recommendation from anyone regarding which company should be awarded the contract. Later at the final hearing following Johnson's testimony that he, Johnson, had been instructed to destroy the signed document by Morris (his supervisor), Kronenberger finally admitted that he had told Morris "we ought to pull that memo." These instructions were followed by Morris, who directed Mr. Johnson to destroy the January 31, 1995 memorandum recommending award of the Contract to MCI. Significantly, neither Morris, Kronenberger, nor Thurber--all DOC officials involved in the contract award decision--mentioned the existence of this document prior to Mr. Johnson's revelation on the witness stand that it had been destroyed. After-The-Fact Evaluation In a February 22, 1995 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Thurber, Kronenberger, after acknowledging that MCI received the highest number of points, formally recommended that the Contract be awarded to NAI. This memorandum was drafted by Morris at the direction of Kronenberger. Before making the recommendation to award the contract to NAI, Kronenberger had not read the ITB, the addenda to the ITB, or any portion of the bids. Morris was the only member of his staff with whom Kronenberger consulted. Kronenberger's decision was approved by Deputy Secretary William Thurber. Neither Kronenberger, Morris, nor Thurber read the bids at any time prior to the DOC's issuance of the notice of intended award to NAI. Kronenberger based his decision to recommend award of the Contract to NAI on his belief that NAI and MCI proposed to install "identical equipment," and that at least $1.1 million in additional revenue would be generated by the 3 percent higher commission rate offered by NAI over the three-year base term of the Contract. Although the February 22, 1995 Kronenberger memorandum states that the DOC could find no correlation between the proposed commission rates and equipment capabilities, the DOC officials who made the decision to award the Contract to NAI (Morris, Kronenberger and Thurber) performed no analysis of the proposals, did not complete a score sheet, did not talk with any of the members of the Evaluation Committee, and were unaware of the specific content of the bids and the proposed differences in staffing offered by the two bidders. In contrast to the assertion of the Kronenberger memorandum, the proof establishes a direct inverse correlation between the total average scores awarded by the Evaluation Committee to the top three bids and the commission rates offered in those bids. This inverse correlation proves that the bidders had to balance the cost of the hardware, software and support personnel aspects of their bids against the commission rate they could offer and that the cost of each hardware, software and support personnel aspect of a bid has a direct impact on the commission rate which could be offered. This balancing is precisely what is required by the ITB since all of these aspects of the bid were assigned specific weights in the specified evaluation scheme. Kronenberger's assumption, as set forth in his memorandum recommending award of the contract to NAI, that both NAI and MCI proposed to install identical "equipment" ignores the fundamental premise of the solicitation--that hardware, software and support were needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate phone system, as well as the fact that the vendors offered different approaches in responding to this requirement. System hardware proposed by MCI and NAI includes the Telequip System Automatic Call Processor ("ACP") 4000, a Dictaphone recording and monitoring system, and Philips & Brooks/Gladwin phone instruments. However, with regard to all aspects of the hardware offered, MCI's bid was more detailed and specific as compared with the NAI bid which generally identified system capabilities by referencing attached brochures. At best, NAI's bid is ambiguous as to whether it offered the same hardware component features. NAI's general references to the brochures in its bid failed to specify which features of a piece of equipment was being affirmatively offered. NAI's after-the-fact assertion at the final hearing regarding features to be provided cannot be credited since such constitutes an impermissible attempt to modify its bid after the bid opening. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip would permit operation of the attorney exception capability utilizing the Telequip ACP-4000 with the proposed Dictaphone recorder systems. Until MCI requested development of the necessary software, the attorney exception capability, which deactivates the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney, was not available with the Telequip ACP-4000 when used in conjunction with the Dictaphone recorder. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip was also necessary to provide an international call capability because the standard Telequip ACP-4000 ordinarily utilizes a debit system to process international calls, and "the debit system is inherently incompatible with the PIN system and the allowed calling list feature that are requirements in the . . . ITB." The MCI bid offers more technological enhancements at no cost to the DOC, than does the NAI bid. Further, the items identified on MCI's list of technological enhancements do not appear anywhere on the face of the NAI bid. NAI's omission of the enhancements listed in the MCI bid adds further credence to the finding that the DOC had no reasonable basis to conclude that it would be getting those enhancements under the NAI bid at the time it was submitted. Moreover, the DOC's own synopsis of technological enhancements shows that it was aware of differences in the bids. Differences in the hardware, software and services offered in the MCI and NAI bids preclude a determination that the two bids offered "identical equipment." Monetary Considerations Revenue figures used by the DOC to project a $1.1 million difference in commissions were drawn from a period of time in late 1994 and early 1995 when the DOC's own summary reports indicate that NAI's billing exceptions range from 41 percent to 49 percent of all calls. Billing exceptions are the number of calls which exceed AT&T rates or could not otherwise be reviewed in monthly call detail reports. NAI's customer overcollections for telephone calls from inmates in the correctional facilities presently served by NAI provide an additional basis for uncertainty regarding the reliability of the projected $1.1 million difference in commissions. While the overcollections have not yet been quantified, NAI has admitted to the Florida Public Service Commission overcollections from customers receiving telephone calls from inmates under its current contract with the DOC in the amount of $394,318. Notwithstanding the ongoing PSC inquiry and reports of extensive billing exceptions under its existing contract with NAI, the DOC has no apparent incentive to closely scrutinize overcollections inasmuch as the more revenues billed by NAI, the greater the amount of commissions received by the DOC. Thus, while there is a 3 percent difference in the proposed commission rates between the two bidders, it cannot be determined from this record with any degree of certainty how that difference will translate into actual dollars to the DOC. In any event, the revenues generated by the contract for inmate pay telephones are placed in the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund, which does not support essential correctional facilities or services. Notice of Award and Protest On March 2, 1995, the DOC issued an intent to award the Contract to NAI. On March 8, 1995, within 72 hours of receipt of DOC's notice of intent, MCI timely filed a Notice of Protest. On March 20, 1995, within ten days of filing its Notice of Protest, MCI timely filed a Formal Written Protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5) and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule 33-20.005, Florida Administrative Code. With its Formal Written Protest, MCI delivered to the DOC a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. On April 10, 1995, the DOC served its Motion to Dismiss MCI's protest, alleging that MCI has no right to a formal administrative hearing on the award of the Contract. On April 12, 1995, the undersigned Hearing Officer, after consideration of the parties' pleadings and oral argument, ruled that MCI is entitled to a formal administrative hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to determine whether the DOC's decision to award the contract to NAI was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest. MCI has requested reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Florida Statutes, for costs incurred in responding to the DOC's Motion to Dismiss. The Hearing Officer has ruled on the motion by order issued concurrently with this recommended order.
Conclusions The Department adopts the Conclusions of Law contained in its Proposed Order, except for paragraph 189. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are also adopted, to the extent they do not conflict with the Department's. The following additional Conclusions of Law are now adopted into this Final Order. Service and personnel support were clearly part of the ITB, and were scored accordingly. Although Mr. Kronenberger considered service and support by recognizing the work already performed by Intervenor under its existing contract, sufficient consideration was not given for the $394,318 overcharge which Intervenor admitted to at the hearing. Since this overcharge was admitted to the Public Service Commission and not the Department, oversight is understandable. However, at this time the overcharge cannot be ignored. Certainly the significant amount of this overcharge has an impact on service provided. Although the Department still believes the equipment bid by Petitioner and Intervenor are "identical," service can no longer be considered the same due to the overcharge. Therefore, the award of the contract pursuant to the ITB should be made to Petitioner, MCI Telecommunications Corporation. RULING ON INTERVENOR'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 46-50 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraph 51 are denied. Although the equipment are "identical," the Department does not, and did not at the hearing, maintain that the bids of Petitioner and Intervenor are identical in terms of support and service. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 70 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 71 of the Recommended Order is denied. The Hearing Officer is merely reciting the terms of the ITB, that service and support are also an important part of the bid. Mr. Kronenberger never denied the importance of service and support. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 73-77 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 79 and 81 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 80 of the Recommended Order is denied to the extent it rejects the finding of fact that Intervenor admitted to an overcharge of $394,318. Intervenor did admit this fact. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 82 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S FILINGS No response is provided to the Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Exceptions. There is no provision for filing such response under Chapter 120, and the Department is not required to respond to such pleadings. The Department has reviewed Petitioner's Request for Official Recognition and Enforcement of Ex Parte Communications Prohibitions. No Department employee who has testified or been deposed in this matter has discussed the merits of this action with the agency head. However, the Department does not agree with Petitioner's contention in its Request for Recognition that section 120.66, Florida Statutes, prohibits the agency head from conversing with the Department employees listed therein. This order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the agency and the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigence, the court will require a filing fee and the agency will require payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED this 17 Day of July, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR, SECRETARY Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (904) 488-2326 COPIES FURNISHED: Carloyn Raepple (via certified mail) Hopping Green Sams & Smith 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Hume Coleman (via certified mail) Holland & Knight 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven S. Ferst Department of Corrections Assistant General Counsel 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Mike Johnson Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed in the official records of the Department of Corrections on this 17th day of July, 1995. LORETTA L. LATSON, Agency Clerk
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which declines the award to NAI and takes into account the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding the future course of awarding the contract for hardware, software and support needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate telephone system. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made with regard to purposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1.-30. Adopted. 31.-32. Adopted in substance. 33.-49. Adopted. 50.-54. Adopted in substance. 55.-58. Adopted. 59-63. Adopted in substance. 64-70. Adopted. 71. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. 72.-82. Adopted. 83. Rejected, unnecessary. 84.-85. Adopted. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 88-92. Adopted. 93. Incorporated. 94.-96. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings: Adopted. Rejected, unnecessary. 3.-5. Adopted. Adopted, not verbatim. Adopted. Rejected, redundant. Adopted. 10.-12. Rejected, subordinate. 13.-17. Adopted. 18.-22. Rejected, argumentative and subordinate. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-25. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 26. Rejected, subordinate. 27.-35. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Rejected, argumentative, weight of the evidence. 44.-52. Rejected, redundant, argumentative, subordinate. 53.-54 Rejected, argumentative, subordinate to HO findings. 55.-58. Rejected,Relevancy, weight of the evidence. 59.-63. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected,Relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, stands for proposition that an agency is not bound by terms of ITB at all, argumentative. Rejected,Relevance. Rejected, argument. 70.-71. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 72.-76. Rejected, argument. 77.-78. Rejected, argument, weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected, subordinate, authority is to award within perimeters of legality and the ITB. Rejected, comment on testimony. 82.-83. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 84. Rejected, legal conclusion. 85.-89. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 90.-91. Rejected,Recitation of documents. 92.-95. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, recitation of documents. Rejected, relevance. 99.-107. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Intervenor's Proposed Findings: 1.-10. Accepted, though not verbatim. 11. Rejected, no record citation. 12.-14. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 15. Adopted, not verbatim. 16.-21. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 22. Rejected, no record citation. 23.-24. Rejected, subordinate. 25. Rejected, no record citation. 26.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Adopted by reference. Rejected, subordinate. 32.-40. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 41. Accepted except for last sentence which is rejected on basis of relevance. 42.-43. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Linda P. Armstrong, Esquire MCI Telecommunications Corporation 1133 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Steve Ferst, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Hume F. Coleman, Esquire Holland & Knight 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Sec. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esq. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether the Petitioner's notice of bid protest filed on June 5, 1996, was timely under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Petitioner has waived its right to participate in bid protest proceedings; and (2) if Petitioner's bid protest was timely filed, whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioner's bid.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a general contractor which operates in Alachua County and surrounding areas. The Respondent is the governing body of the school district in Alachua County. In April and May, 1996, the Respondent publicly advertised an Invitation to Bid on the Project which consists of hard courts for basketball, driveway paving and new drainage provisions. Petitioner and three other bidders timely submitted sealed bids to the Respondent at its office located at the E. Manning, Jr. Annex, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's bid proposal included a Contractor's Qualification Statement setting forth Petitioner's experience and financial qualifications to act as the general contractor for the Project. There is no evidence that Petitioner is disqualified as a responsible bidder because: (a) it colluded with other bidders; (b) it based its proposal on bid prices which were obviously unbalanced; (c) it included any false entry in its bid proposal; or (d) it failed to completely fill out the required list of subcontractors. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth any other specific conditions which would disqualify an otherwise responsible bidder. However, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all bids when it determines that such rejection is in its interest. Respondent publicly opened the bids and read them aloud at 2:00 P.M. on May 9, 1996 as required by the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not attend the opening of the bids. The Invitation to Bid specified that the bids would be "tabulated and evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County or member or members of his staff or other individual or individuals designated by him." Edward Gable is Respondent's Director of Facilities. The Superintendent designated Mr. Gable to evaluate bids received for facility projects and to formulate recommendations to Respondent. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth a time certain in which Respondent will notify bidders of its decision or intended decision. However, it does state as follows: At the next regular or special meeting of the Board or at the designated meeting thereafter, the bids, as so opened, tabulated and evaluated, and the recommend- ation of the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County regarding them shall be presented to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the law and the State Board of Education Regulations. In Section 19.1 of the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent informs bidders that it will award the contract to the lowest bidder as soon as possible provided that the lowest bid is reasonable and in Respondent's best interest. The Invitation to Bid provides bidders with the following notice relative to Respondent's decision or intended decision concerning a contract award: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. Notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statues, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written "Notice of Protest" within seventy-two (72) hours after posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days after filing the 'Notice of Protest.' Section 17.1 of the Instructions to Bidders contains the following language concerning Respondent's decision or intended decision: 17.1 The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. For any other decision, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Section 18.1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the Planning and Construction Department, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, following the bid opening, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute as (sic) waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders distinguish between a protest concerning a contract award and a protest related to the specifications contained in an invitation to bid or in a request for proposals. In the latter context, a bidder must file a written protest within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of the project plans and specifications. This case does not involve a protest of a bid solicitation. By virtue of the above referenced provisions in the Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent gave all bidders sufficient and reasonable notice that a posted tabulation together with its recommendation constituted Respondent's intended decision. The bid specifications in the instant case required bidders to submit a bid on a base contract for certain school facility improvements with alternate bids relative to additional improvements in the event Respondent decided to include such features in the Project. Petitioner's base bid was $135,000; it was the lowest bid submitted. The next low bid was from Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson) at $133,345. Two additional bids were higher than Watson's bid. On the morning of May 30, 1996 one of Petitioner's employees, Roger "Dave" Williams" phoned Mr. Gable to inquire about the status of the bid award. Mr. Gable was unavailable to take the call. Mr. Williams left a message for Mr. Gable to return the call. Next, at approximately 10:00 a.m. on May 30, 1996, Mr. Williams called a member of Mr. Gable's staff who stated that, as far as he knew, Respondent had not made a decision on the contract. Mr. Gable completed his evaluation and posted the bid tabulation on May 30, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Included on the bid tabulation was the following statement: RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Board reject the low base bid as submitted by D. E. Wallace Construction Corporation, Alachua, Florida, due to past unsatisfactory contract performance. It is recommended that the Board accept the base bid of $133,345. and award a contract for construction totaling $133,345. to Watson Construction, Gainesville, Florida. Completion of this project shall be within ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the date indicated in the 'Notice to Proceed.' The bid tabulation clearly notes that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Respondent regularly posts notices of intended decisions concerning bid awards on a bulletin board in the main hallway of the E. D. Manning Annex. A title at the top of the bulletin board identifies it as the location for bid postings. Respondent posts a copy of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and a copy of the Respondent's Policy DJC--Bidding Requirements below the title of the bulletin board. Respondent has adopted Policy DJC as a rule through a formal rulemaking process. Policy DJC states as follows in pertinent part: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award. For a bid solicitation, notice of a decision or intended decision shall be given by United States mail or by hand delivery. For any other Board decisions, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall contain the following two paragraphs. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written notice of protest within 72 hours after the posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within 10 calendar days after filing the notice of protest. . . . Failure to file a timely notice of protest or failure to file a timely formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Immediately below Policy DJC is a space where Respondent always posts its bid tabulations which include the recommended action on each project and notice that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The bottom of the board, in large letters, contains the following words: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." This permanent bulletin board, read as a whole, contains more than enough information to provide bidders with notice of an intended decision and the time frames within which a disappointed bidder must file a written protest. Although he was not required to do so, Mr. Gable telephoned Petitioner's office on the afternoon of May 30, 1996 to advise its president, D. Wallace, of the recommendation. Petitioner was not available to accept that call. Mr. Gable placed another courtesy telephone call to Petitioner on the morning of May 31, 1996. During that conversation, Mr. Gable informed Mr. Wallace of the recommendation for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid and accept the next lowest bid. Petitioner's representative inspected the posting board in the afternoon on May 31, 1996. On June 3, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner by facsimile transmission a copy of the agenda for Respondent's June 4 meeting, items H.1. of which was: H.1. Bid Award for Project SBAC CB436 - Newberry High School Site Improvements. Bids for the construction of this project were received on May 9, 1996. Recommendation will be presented. The seventy-two hour window in which a bidder may file a protest does not include Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Therefore, the time in which a bidder could have filed a protest of Respondent's intended decision in this case, expired June 4, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. No bidder had filed a written protest at that time. Respondent held a regular meeting on June 4, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent considered the bid award for Project SBAC CB 436, Mr. Gable presented the recommendation that the Board reject Petitioner's bid and accept Watson's bid due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory contract performance. Petitioner's counsel spoke against the recommendation. At that time the Petitioner had not filed any written notice of protest. After discussion, Respondent voted to award the contract to Watson. Respondent and Watson executed a contract for the construction of the Project on June 4, 1996. The next day, on June 5, 1996, at 3:40 p.m., Petitioner filed with Respondent, by facsimile transmission, a Notice of Protest challenging the award of the contract for the Project to Watson. The filing of this protest was untimely. Therefore, Petitioner waived its right to protest Respondent's decision or intended decision on the Project. The basis of Respondent's intended decision and ultimate final decision to reject Petitioner's low bid was due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory performance. The following facts support a finding that Petitioner was not a responsible bidder. Respondent awarded Petitioner the contract for a previous construction project, Project SBAC CA 149, Additions and Renovations for Terwillegar Elementary School. That project included the construction of a number of school buildings. The contract amount was approximately 5.1 million dollars. The last building in the Terwillegar project became "substantially complete" in September, 1995. In January, 1996, Mr. Gable wrote a letter to Petitioner, informing him of the outstanding punch list items for the Terwillegar project. A contractor must complete punch list items and have them approved prior to "final completion." In the Terwillegar Project, the contract provided for compilation of items on the punch list within thirty (30) days from "substantial completion." As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to Mr. Gable's letter about the Terwillegar punch list, nor had it completed the punch list. Many of the items on the list were minor, but some of the items involved the safety or integrity of the building structure. The Terwillegar project contract also contained a project closeout section which listed a variety of documents and other materials that Petitioner had to provide to Respondent as part of the "final completion." Included in the Terwillegar project's closeout were items such as insurance change-over requirements, warranties, workmanship bonds, maintenance agreements, final certifications, a final payment request, consent of surety, maintenance manuals, record drawings, record specifications, record project date, and operating instructions. As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not provided any of the Terwillegar project closeout materials to the Respondent. The delay in project closeout, after substantial completion, is completely unacceptable to the Respondent. Prior to the opening of bids in this case, Petitioner filed a civil suit against Respondent seeking approximately $1,500,000 representing the unpaid contract balance, subcontractors' and material suppliers' claims for labor and material, and other delay-related damages on the Terwillegar project. Petitioner's claim that Respondent's intended decision and/or final decision was based on personal animosity and bias against Mr. Wallace is contrary to more persuasive evidence. Specifically, Petitioner's Exhibit 6 is not persuasive evidence of bias. The Petitioner's president, D.E. Wallace, has over 30 years in the construction field, including 22 years as an owner/operator of a general contractor company. He has completed more than 100 projects in north Florida in the past eighteen (18) years, including 30 school board construction projects. Mr. Wallace has worked on approximately nine (9) school board projects in Alachua County. He holds himself out as being "completely familiar and knowledgeable in government and building codes, ordinances, regulations, etc."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's protest as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601-5498 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby note the following findings of fact: Notice and Invitation to Bid on State Project Number 72001-3448 (the project) was extended to various contractors by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, on August 1, 1985. Sealed bids on the project were opened August 28, 1985. The scope of the project involved cleaning and painting the structural steel of the Buckman Bridge over the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida. (State Bridge Numbers 720249 and 720343). The bids were opened and Petitioner was the apparent low bidder on the project with a bid amount of $193,000. The Department of Transportation, on October 2, 1985, rejected all bids "due to error in quantities in plans." According to the contract plans and specifications utilized by the Department of Transportation for the project, the beams, girders, bracing and trusses were composed of 2,540 tons of structural steel. The plans were in error and the tonnage of structural steel was less than 2,540 tons. Petitioner, upon visiting the job site as required, immediately recognized that there was less steel in the bridge than shown in the plans. In submitting and formulating his bid, the Petitioner considered the amount of work and materials which would actually be required to complete the project. 6 Prior to the bids being posted on the project, the Department of Transportation discovered that the amount of structural steel noted in the plans was grossly overestimated. On October 2, 1985, the Department of Transportation notified bidders in writing that all bids submitted on the project were rejected and that the plans would be revised and the project relet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the petition of Industrial Enterprise Sandblast and Painting, Inc., protesting the rejection of all bids on State Project No. 72001- 3448, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December 1985. APPENDIX Respondent's Findings of Fact FINDING RULING Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 1. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 2. Accepted, but not included because subordinate. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 4. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE THOMAS E. DRAWDY, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 A. J. SPALLA, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 562 HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 LARRY D. SCOTT, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8064 INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE SANDBLAST & PAINTING, INC. P. O. BOX 1547 1502 FOX RUN DRIVE TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32486-1547
Findings Of Fact On December 24, 1986, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified and interested contracting firms that it was accepting bids from firms interested in providing construction and maintenance services on State Job No. 08150-3412. Such bids were due on or before January 21, 1987. The job description read as follows: At State Bridge Nos. 080025 and 000026 over the Withlacoochee River North of Tampa. Work consists of Furnish and Install Integral Pile Jackets (port. cement grout filled); Remove and Replace Sections of Bridge Deck; Floating Turbidity Barrier; and Incidental Items. Length 0.066 Mile. (B.I. 1144013) Stated in plainer language, the project called for repairs to two bridges on I-75 which span the Withlacoochee River southwest of Ocala in Hernando County. The bidders were also provided with a copy of the specifications and bid form dated November 4, 1986 regarding the contract. In response to this offer, petitioner, CSA Marine Services, Inc. (CSAMS), a contractor with offices at 759 Parkway Street, Jupiter, Florida, filed a bid proposal by the established deadline. Its bid totalled $123,347.59. Also filing a bid proposal was Seig and Ambachtsheer, Inc. (SAI), a contractor in Orange City, Florida. Its bid price was $137,209.50. The bid form itself was prepared by DOT and merely required the contractor to fill in the blanks where appropriate. The first two columns were labeled "item number" and "approximate quantities" and were already completed by DOT. For those items having a quantity of only one, the words "lump sum were written in the second column. Where quantities exceeded one, they were expressed in such terms as linear feet, cubic yards and pounds together with the approximate numerical quantities. The third column was labeled "item description and unit or lump price (written in words)." The fourth column read "unit price (in figures)" and required the bidder to indicate the unit price of each line item in figures. The fifth or final column was labeled "amounts" and required the bidder to reflect the lump sum price of each line item in figures. Columns three through five were filled in by CSAMS where necessary. The total price of the bid was to be listed on a bid blank which was attached to the bid form. On its face, the third column on the form offered petitioner the option of either using a unit or lump sum price. In addition, section 2-5.1 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1986 Edition, which governs the awarding of contracts and has been incorporated as a part of the bid documents, provides as follows: Proposals shall be submitted on the form described in 2-2. Unit or lump sum prices for all bid items shall be shown in words and figures, and all extensions shall be carried out. Notwithstanding the form and instructions, according to a DOT representative, a lump sum price may be used only when the quantity in column two is one item. If more than one item is reflected in column two, then DOT expects a contractor to use the unit price. However, there is no written rule, instruction or provision in the specifications that sets forth this requirement. CSAMS properly opted to use lump sum price under column three on at least two line items even though the quantities exceeded one. Of particular interest was line item 8400-3-4 which, according to column two, required 20.800 cubic yards of concrete for a "superstructure." Relying upon the optional language on the form, petitioner wrote the words seven thousand, one hundred, fifty five dollars and 00/100 cents" in column three (which was a lump sum price), and a unit price of $344.00 in column four. It then used the figure of $7,155 in the final column of that item, which is the approximate sum of $344 times the quantity (20.800). Because of the volume of bid lettings each month, DOT uses a computer to total the numbers in each line item for each bid. If the amount in column five does not agree with the figures in columns three and four, the computer flags the item, and a manual review of the line item is made. While reviewing line item 8400-3-4 of petitioner's bid form, the computer found the numbers did not agree. More specifically, when 20.800 in column two was multiplied times $344.00 in column four, it equalled $7,155.20 and not $7,155.00 as reflected in column five of petitioner's bid form. This twenty-cent disagreement arose because petitioner had rounded off the unit price from $343.99038 to $344.00 in column four. The disagreement prompted a manual review of petitioner's bid form and a recalculation of the line item. On January 30, 1987 DOT bureau chief J. Ted Barefield prepared a letter to CSAMS styled "Notice of Switch in Apparent Low Bidder" indicating in part: Due to mathematical error(s) on the bid of CSA Marine Services, Inc. and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., the apparent low bidder, whose bid amount was $123,347.59 is now $265,016.59. Therefore, the apparent low bidder is Seig & Ambachtsheer, Inc. The change in amount was the result of DOT increasing the unit price in column four from $344 to $7,155 (to agree with column three) and multiplying the quantity (20.800) times the sum specified in words in column three ($7,155) to arrive at a total in column five of $148,824. This caused an increase of $141,669 over the original bid price. In making the above change, DOT relied on Section 3-1 of the 1986 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Section 3-1 provides in relevant part as follows: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price for any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, in which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. (Emphasis added) Here, because of the twenty-cent discrepancy in the entries for line item 8400-3-4, DOT used the "unit price as shown in words" in column three to recalculate the item since the extension ($7,155.00) and the unit price shown in figures ($344.00)" did not agree. In doing so, DOT did not first evaluate the price written in words to see if it was a lump sum or unit price. After receiving the above letter, CSAMS and DOT representatives met in early February 1987 to discuss the CSAMS proposal. It was represented to CSAMS that it should have used a unit price in words in column three rather than a lump sum price. Petitioner was also provided with a copy of a letter previously sent to it on September 6, 1985 by DOT which noted the following irregularity on a bid: "Unit prices as written in words and figures do not agree (Item 8457- 70)." However, the letter did not contain explicit advice as to DOT's unwritten policy. On February 5, 1987 Barefield wrote a second letter to CSAMS indicating that there were several discrepancies in its bid proposal. These included: (a) the name on the cover sheet (CSAMS and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.) did not agree with the name (CSAMS) in other parts of the bid, (b) unit prices as written in words and figures did not agree, (c) an incomplete affidavit was filed, and (d) an incorrect MBE Certification and incomplete Utilization Sheets were submitted. The latter two errors were related to the discrepancy in the names. However, the letter stated that "no further action is requested by you at this time," and that the letter was to serve as a reminder that in the future the irregularities could cause petitioner's bid to be rejected. Petitioner's bid was accepted as being appropriate but with the substantially higher bid price of $265,016.59. The error made by CSAMS is a common one. Indeed, it was stated the same mistake is made by contractors on "several bids during each letting." Even so, DOT has not considered providing some special instruction or rule to clarify this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner be awarded the contract on State Job No. 08150- 3412. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1987, 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 this 22nd day of April, 1987.
