The Issue Whether Respondent's action to reject all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205, relating to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, as alleged in the Amended Petition.
Findings Of Fact On March 4, 2013, the ITB was issued by Respondent for work related to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School in Clearwater, Florida. According to the Special Conditions portions of the ITB, the "scope" of the project is to "[p]rovide labor and materials to remove and replace the auditorium sound system as per plans and specifications by Keane Acoustics, Inc." The ITB was assigned bid number 13-803-205 by Respondent. Bids for the contract were to be submitted to Respondent by 3:00 p.m., April 11, 2013. Bids for the project were timely received from two companies. The first company, Becker Communications, Inc., d/b/a BCI Integrated Solutions (BCI), submitted a bid in the amount of $118,143.27. Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of $108,000.00. There is a section of the ITB titled "special conditions." The special conditions provide in part that "[t]his is an ALL or NONE bid [and] [t]he entire contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications." On April 22, 2013, Respondent posted a notice advising of its intent to award the contract to BCI. Although Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive because the bid failed to include "proof of 5 years [of] experience with this type of work" as required by the special conditions of the ITB. Petitioner interpreted this provision as requiring five years of experience as a certain type of general contractor, which Petitioner had, whereas Respondent intended for the ITB to convey that five years of experience related to the removal and installation of audio equipment was the desired type of experience. Petitioner's failure to respond to the ITB in the manner contemplated by Respondent was a technical, nonmaterial irregularity.1/ Numbered paragraph six of the General Terms & Conditions of the ITB provides in part that Respondent "expressly reserves the right to reject any bid proposal if it determines that the . . . experience of the bidder, compared to work proposed, justifies such rejection." On April 24, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent a notice advising of its intent to protest the award of the contract to BCI. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner filed its formal protest challenging Respondent's intended action of awarding the contract to BCI. Petitioner's formal protest enumerated several grounds. Of particular concern to Respondent were Petitioner's assertions that the ITB was "inconsistent with Florida law since bidders [were] not required to submit a List of Subcontractors by the time of opening bid"2/ and that provisions of the ITB were ambiguous with respect to the type of experience required to qualify for bidding.3/ Prior to receiving Petitioner's protest, Respondent was unaware of the fact that its bid specifications governing the disclosure of subcontractors did not comply with Florida law. Upon consideration of Petitioner's grounds for protest, Respondent determined that the ITB, as alleged by Petitioner, failed to comply with section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (2012),4/ and that there was ambiguity in the language regarding the experience requirements for bidders.5/ Respondent refers to the problems with the ITB as "procedural errors." These procedural errors will be referred to herein as "irregularities" as this term is more in keeping with the nomenclature of this area of jurisprudence. Given the ITB's irregularities, Respondent decided to reject all bids. In explaining Respondent's rationale for rejecting all bids, Michael Hewett, Respondent's Director of Maintenance,6/ testified that "the [irregularities] were such that [they] potentially could give an unfair advantage to one bidder over another." As for the issue related to the requirements of section 255.0515, Mr. Hewett explained that neither of the two bidders submitted a listing of subcontractors. It would have been competitively disadvantageous to BCI if Petitioner were able to successfully argue that BCI should be disqualified for failing to provide a listing of subcontractors when Petitioner also failed to provide such listing. During the same approximate time that the ITB in the present case was issued, Respondent issued an ITB for nearly identical work to be performed at one of its other facilities (Palm Harbor). In all material respects, the Palm Harbor ITB was identical to the one at issue herein. Unlike the present case, BCI was the sole bidder for the Palm Harbor project and this distinguishing fact reasonably explains why Respondent did not reject BCI's bid for the Palm Harbor Project even though the ITB therein was plagued with the same irregularities found in the present case.7/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that the rejection of all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing Tamco Electric, Inc.'s instant protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Corrections (Corrections) initially published an Invitation to Bid (ITB) 90-Region-001 for the provision of a recyclable baling machine which had an opening date and time of 1:00 p.m., August 22, 1989. Upon opening and evaluation of the bids filed in response to ITB 90- Region-001, Corrections' purchasing and technical staff determined that the specifications for this initial ITB had been drafted too narrowly for them to validly and reasonably compare the bids submitted. This was Corrections' first attempt to meet certain recycling mandates and the agency personnel were initially unfamiliar with all of the machinery available in the marketplace. Lack of technical literature from some bidders was also a problem. In comparing the five bid responses received, it became apparent to Barbara Stephens, Corrections' Purchasing Director, that the specifications she had initially drafted worked against agency interests in that they were so narrow that different models could not be compared. In Ms. Stephens' words, one could not even compare "apples and apples," let alone "apples and oranges." The line item on Page 6 defied comparison and other line items presented significant comparison problems. After a review by Corrections' General Services Specialist Bob Sandall, it was determined that it was to the agency's advantage, as well as advantageous to the competitive bidding process, to rebid on more general specifications instead of specifications solely geared to one single model of one type of baler already owned by the agency, a McDonald single phase baler. For the foregoing reasons, Corrections elected to reject all bids received in response to ITB 90-Region-001 and rebid the item so as to broaden the eligibility base through new specifications, thereby ensuring that more than a single manufacturer could compete while making line item comparisons by the agency possible. Line item comparisons were considered advantageous to all potential bidders and to the agency and essential to a fair competitive bidding process. Considering purely bottom-line cost, Petitioner Solid Waste was the low bidder on initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 if its mathematical error were ignored and its bid were recorded as $23,960.00 instead of as $35,970.00. There were apparently some other problems with Solid Waste's bid response. These were not clearly addressed by any witness' testimony, but it is apparent that the requested manufacturer's specification sheet was included with Solid Waste's response to ITB 90-Region-001. Corrections did not reach any of the potential bid defects of Solid Waste because the agency elected to discard all the bids almost immediately. Rule 13A-1.002(9) F.A.C. provides that an agency shall reserve the right to reject any and all bids and shall so indicate in its invitation to bid. Corrections followed this requirement in General Condition 10 of ITB No. 90- Region-001, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids . . Bob Sandall and Barbara Stephens redrafted the bid specifications for the recyclable baling machine more broadly, primarily to encourage greater competition of bidders. Corrections properly published these new specifications in ITB No. 90-Region-001 on or about September 18, 1989. Bids were to be opened on October 3, 1989. On October 3, 1989, the bids submitted in response to ITB No. 90- Region-001 were opened and checked for completeness. Upon opening the bid packet submitted by Petitioner Solid Waste, Corrections personnel discovered that the manufacturer's specification sheet which had been required in both initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 and in rebid ITB No. 90- Region-001R was missing. Based on the missing specification sheet, Petitioner's bid on ITB No. 90-Region- 001R was rejected as unresponsive. General Condition 7 in ITB 90-Region-001R provided in pertinent part: Bidder shall submit with his bid, cuts, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications. Reference to literature submitted with a pervious bid will not satisfy this provision. The State of Florida reserves the right to determine acceptance of item(s) as an approved equivalent. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subiect to reiection. (Emphasis supplied) Special Condition VI of ITB 90-Region-001R, "Submission of Mandatory Forms/Literature," further provided that: 5. Complete Technical Data on items other than as specified shall be provided with bid by the vendor, for evaluation purposes, otherwise bid will not be considered. Nowhere in ITB 90-Region-001R is there any suggestion that responses thereto are supplemental to those filed for ITB 90-Region-001 or that "carryovers" or "reactivations" of earlier ITB 90-Region-001 responses would be considered. Corrections rejected other bidders' responses for other acts of non- responsiveness, and it was not necessary to waive any condition in order to award the bid to any of the bidders who were in full compliance with ITB 90- Region-001R. Petitioner timely filed a formal written protest to Corrections' bid tabulation of ITB 90-Region-001R on October 23, 1989. In this protest, Petitioner also included its only and untimely challenge to the agency's rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region-001.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest and ratifying its rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region- O01R and its tabulation of bids for ITB 90-Region-001R. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5854BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1. is accepted except for the ultimate conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. 2-3, 5-7 are rejected as mere legal argument or proposed conclusions of law. See Conclusions of Law. 4 is rejected as characterization of testimony. Respondent' s PFOF: 1-7 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. K. Lally, P.A. 6160 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Perri M. King Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Courtesy copy to: Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Thomas W. Riggs, President Department of Corrections Municipal Sales and Leasing 1311 Winewood Boulevard Inc. Post Office Box 90306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lakeland, Florida, 33804 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
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.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an invitation to bid (ITB) and solicited bids for district-wide miscellaneous property management maintenance services pursuant to ITB-DOT-94-95-4004. Kemp Services, Inc. (Kemp), submitted the lowest bid for the subject ITB. Petitioner, Urban Group, Inc., submitted the second lowest bid for the subject ITB. Section 1.1 of the ITB provided: Invitation The State of Florida Department of Transport- ation requests written bids from qualified firms to MAINTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS BY PROVIDING CLEAN-UP SERVICES, LAWN SERVICES, LANDSCAPE SERVICES, SECURING OF BUILDINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS HANDYMAN AND SKILLED LABOR SERVICES. ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR SIGN REMOVAL FOR STRUCTURES ILLEGALLY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ILLEGALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE COUNTY AREA: BROWARD, MARTIN, PALM BEACH, ST. LUCIE AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES. For the purpose of this document, the term "bidder" means the prime Consultant acting for itself and those individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations comprising the bidder's team by joint venture or subcontract. The term "bid package" means the complete response of the bidder to the Invitation To Bid, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation. [Emphasis in text.] The services were to be provided on an as-needed basis for the term of the agreement, two years. Section 1.7.1 of the ITB provided: Qualifications 1.7.1 Bidders must meet the following minimum qualifications: BIDDERS MUST HAVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE PROVIDING AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE SIX SERVICES OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IN EXHIBIT "A". BIDDERS MUST HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS BUSINESS FOR THE PAST TWO (2) YEARS AND COMPLETE FORM "F" WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED REGARDING WORK EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES. ALL REFERENCES WILL BE CHECKED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE FORM "F" AND THE WORK EXPERIENCE REQUESTED WILL CONSTITUTE A NON- RESPONSIVE BID. [Emphasis in text.] Section 1.7.4 of the ITB provided: Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise accepted by the Department's Contract Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the bid package. Section 1.7.5 of the ITB provided: Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the bid due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Other than the provisions above, no other licensure or authorization to do business was required by the ITB. Section 1.8.2 of the ITB provided: Responsiveness of Bids All bids must be in writing. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Bids may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A bid may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional bids, incomplete bids, indefinite or ambiguous bids, improper undated or unsealed signatures (where applicable). Section 1.8.4 of the ITB provided: Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of bids include evidence of collusion among bidders, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Bids will be rejected if not delivered or received on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. Section 1.8.5 of the ITB provided: Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other bidders. Minor irregular- ities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Bids by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Section 1.18.1 of the ITB provided: Award of the Contract The Department intends to award a contract to the responsible and responsive bidder who bids the lowest cost as identified in Form "C", Bid Blank, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The ITB did not specify a minimum number of employees, vehicles or hours of service for a bidder to be deemed responsible or responsive. At all times material to this case, Kemp has been in continuous business for the past two (2) years, and completed form "F" with the information requested regarding work experience and references. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. At all times material to this case, Kemp had at least two years experience providing at least two (2) of the six services outlined in the scope of services. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. While Mr. Gentile was authorized to check with all references listed by Kemp, the failure to do so does not discount the information obtained from the sources that were checked. Kemp had an appropriate occupational license to perform work in the tricounty area, but did not have occupational licenses with the City of Hollywood or Broward County. At all times material to this case, Kemp maintained a warehouse to secure the equipment to be used such as lawnmowers, trimmers, and cleaning supplies/equipment. After the bid protest was filed, the Department verified that Kemp had used the warehouse as it claimed. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The mailing address Kemp listed on the first page of its bid response was 8637 S. Sutton Drive, Miramar, Florida. Mr. Faluade resides at that address. He listed that address for mail purposes. The business address for Kemp listed on the bid response was 6200 Johnson Street, Miramar, Florida. This address is a store-front facility with limited office equipment and furniture. Kemp maintains an office at this location but stores its equipment elsewhere as noted above. Kemp was the lowest responsive, responsible bid for ITB-DOT-94-95- 4004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the award of ITB-DOT-94-95-4004 to Kemp Services, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5967 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 4, 6, and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 5, 7, and 16 noting that the additional emphasis is not in the text and that the citations are incomplete (and perhaps misleading), they are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. Corporate documents may have been filed on that date, however, the weight of the credible evidence established that Kemp had been in business the requisite amount of time. Paragraph 12 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The business conducted by the Kemp personnel continued regardless of the business entity structure that was used. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence was presented to establish that Kemp did not provide services as described in the ITB or that it was not in business the requisite time. Paragraph 17 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The mailing address listed by Kemp was a residential address. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Kemp probably does not have a Leon County occupational license either. It did have an appropriate occupational license at all times material to this case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Duffy Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mitchell B. Polay Mark H. Klein 750 S.E. Third Avenue Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1982 the Chancellor of the State University System approved Amendment 567, as revised, to the Capital Outlay Implementation Plan. This Amendment budgeted $6,350,000 for the construction and equipment of a teaching gymnasium at Florida International University on the Tamiami Campus. Included within that figure were $350,000 of planning expenses appropriated by the 1981 Florida Legislature and $6,000,000 appropriated by the Legislature in 1982 for the expenses of construction, art work and contingencies. In the early part of 1983 the State University System advertised for bids from contractors to construct the gymnasium. The bids were open on May 17, 1983 at 2:00 PM. on the Florida International University Tamiami Campus. Petitioner's base bid of $5,998,000 was the lowest of the 17 received, nevertheless it was $350,000 above the estimate in Amendment 567. The next lowest bid was for $6,045,000. The bid specifications required that six alternatives in addition to the base cost be bid on, but through an oversight Sanmar's bids on these alternatives did not conform to the bid specifications. Sanmar's alternative bids failed to indicate that the amount reflected was in addition to the base cost bid. However, because the issues in this case concern the base bid amount, Sanmar's error with respect to the alternatives is not material. At the May 17, 1983 bid opening Respondent's agent, the architectural firm of Greenleaf-Telesca, announced that it would recommend to the Board of Regents that all bids be rejected as being in excess of the funds available through legislative appropriations. Respondent intends to make design changes in the project to make it less expensive and to then rebid it. On May 18, 1983 Sanmar timely filed a protest to the rejection of its bid. Subsequent to May 17, 1983 and Respondent's decision to reject all bids, the Florida Legislature through Section 2(2)(y), Chapter 83-333, Laws of Florida (1983), appropriated an additional $500,000 for the construction of the gymnasium. This appropriation became effective on July 1, 1983. After its receipt of Sanmar's bid protest Respondent provided in a letter dated June 3, 1983 the figures on which the Respondent based its decision to reject all bids including Sanmar's. These figures follow: Architects fee including additional services $ 379,240.00 **Architects construction observation (included in architects estimate as part of the fee and contingencies) $ 90,000.00 Sanmar Base Bid $5,998,000.00 Equipment $ 200,000.00 Contingency (3 percent of construction cost) $ 179,940.00 Based on Sanmar's bid $6,847,420.00 Artwork $ 28,240.00 $6,875,420.00 **Estimated based on 18-month construction time. Petitioner has taken issue with the 3 percent contingency amount included in the above figures, however, the evidence shows that 3 percent is a reasonable amount based upon the State University System's experience with previous construction and is a fair estimate to insure that projects once begun can be adequately funded by the amount appropriated for their construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Regents enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for the construction of a teaching gymnasium at the Tamiami Campus of the Florida International University. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Facts based on stipulation These proceedings concern Petitioner's Bid Protest in connection with that certain project known as Chiller Installation, Glades Campus, Project NO. 9237, PBCC No. 6812. Petitioner has taken all steps necessary to perfect its bid protest in a timely manner and has standing to bring this bid protest. Petitioner and Respondent met and were unsuccessful in an attempt to resolve the bid protest as required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. M. K. Mechanical, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a State of Florida Certified Mechanical Contractor and as such was a "Qualified Bidder." The original specifications for the subject project contained few electrical specifications and were silent as to how an electrical contractor was to be licensed. The bid was due on Tuesday, January 12, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. On Friday, January 8, 1993, at 3:42 p.m., via facsimile transmission, M. K. Mechanical, Inc., received supplementary electrical specifications, thirty (30) pages in length. Contained in these supplementary specifications, for the first time, was a requirement that the electrical subcontractor had to be "locally" licensed. M. K. Mechanical, Inc.'s, primary place of business is in Edgewater, Volusia County, Florida. M. K. Mechanical, Inc.'s, submitted bid was proper in all respects other than an electrical subcontractor's name was not given, instead "to be determined" was inserted. M. K. Mechanical, Inc., submitted the lowest bid. Electrical subcontractor is a "major" subcontractor on this project. The sole basis for the decision by Respondent that Petitioner's bid was "non-responsive" was the failure to list an electrical subcontractor. Additional facts regarding bid specifications The bid specifications include the requirement that bidders list all "major subcontractors" and that the category of "major subcontractors" includes electrical subcontractors. Section 5.2.1 of the Contract Documents within the Bid Specifications provides as follows: Unless otherwise required by the Contract Documents or the Bidding Documents the Contractor at the bid opening shall furnish to the Owner and Architect Form 00420, a written list of the major Subcontractors; Site Utilities, Structural Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel & Steel Joists, Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical and Roofing, who he proposes to use on this work.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach Community College enter a Final Order in this case denying the protest of the Petitioner, M. K. Mechanical, Inc., and awarding the contract in Project No. 9237, PBCC No. 6812 to the Intervenor, Hill York Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sid C. Peterson, Jr., Esquire DeLoach & Peterson, P.A. Post Office Box 428 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 33170 James M. Adams, Esquire Gibson & Adams, P.A. Post Office Box 1629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Herbert L. Dell, President Hill York Corporation Post Office Box 350155 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33335 The District Board of Trustees Palm Beach Community College 4200 Congress Avenue Administration Building Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Attention: Mr. Dick Jones
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the agency's proposed award of a lease for commercial office space to Respondents, Robert C. and Sara E. Cook (the "Cooks"), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid proposal specifications pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1998, the Department issued its request for proposals ("RFP") for the lease of commercial office space for the City of Cocoa, Florida. Four proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. On February 18, 1999, the Department posted its decision and notice of intended award. The Department determined that two of the proposals were non-responsive and that two proposals were responsive. The Department determined that the proposals submitted by the Cooks (the "Cook proposal") and Petitioner were responsive to the RFP and that the Cook proposal scored higher. Petitioner timely filed its Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Hearing and challenged the notice of intent to award to the Cooks. Petitioner named the Cooks as party- respondents. Section A of the RFP is entitled, "Requirements for Proposers to Submit Proposals." Paragraph 2 of Section A, entitled "Control of Property," provides: . . . To submit a responsive proposal, a prospective lessor must provide evidence of one of the following qualifications with the proposal. (emphasis not supplied) * * * The person(s) executing the proposal should be the one responsible for ensuring fulfillment of the requirements of the RFP execute the RFP submittal form and any resulting lease agreement. However: If an agent executes the proposal, a written Power of Attorney from the owner of record or other party with control over property must (emphasis supplied) accompany the proposal granting this authority and certifying that such proposal is binding onthe owner of record. A letter from the owner is not acceptable. (emphasis not supplied) RFP, Section A, paragraph 2(e)1, at 3. The owner of the building to be rented in the Cook proposal is more than one person. Only one person signed the power of attorney. The owner of the building did not sign the power of attorney. The purpose of the "Control of Property" requirement is to ensure that owners are bound by the proposals they submit to state agencies and that state agencies can enforce proposals against the owners of property. Paragraph P in the RFP is entitled, "Required Documentation Submitted With Proposal." Paragraph P provides: In order for a proposal to be responsive, all items below must be included in the proposal, if applicable. RFP, Paragraph P, at 11. Paragraph P enumerates 17 specific documents. Document 13 is the, "Power of Attorney authorizing an agent to submit a proposal binding the owner, if applicable." The requirement for a power of attorney is reiterated on the Department's check list used for reviewing proposals. The top of page one of the check list provides: In order for a proposal to be accepted, all items (1-20) must be included in the proposal. Documentation Check List, at 2. The power of attorney is indicated as the third required document on page 2. The "Control of Property" requirement is a long-standing requirement in the competitive bidding process for state agencies. The requirement was developed several years ago by the Department of General Services ("DGS"). DGS later became the Department of Management Services ("DMS"). The "Control of Property" requirement was developed in response to problems caused by agents submitting proposals to state agencies when the agents did not have authority to bind the property owners. In concert with the Florida Attorney General, DGS and DMS developed the power of attorney form used in the RFP at issue in this proceeding to ensure the enforceability of submitted proposals. The power of attorney enables state agencies to achieve their objective of binding property owners to their proposals. The power of attorney requirement is included in the DMS Leasing Manual and has been included in numerous versions of the Manual over the span of several years. The RFP at issue in this proceeding reiterates, verbatim, the Control of Property requirement in the DMS Leasing Manual. The Cook proposal is non-responsive to the RFP. Not all property owners executed the power of attorney included in the Cook proposal. The Cook proposal was not submitted directly by the Cooks. Rather, the Cook proposal was submitted by Mr. Alan Taylor as agent for the Cooks. The building proposed for lease in the Cook proposal is owned by Robert Cook and Sara Cook as tenants in common. The warranty deed included in the Cook proposal shows that the Cooks own the property as husband and wife. However, the Cooks were divorced in February 1994. The Marital Settlement Agreement shows that the Cooks continue to own the building as tenants in common. There are two owners of record for the building submitted for lease in the Cook proposal. Each tenant owns a 50 percent interest in the property. The Cooks collect the rental income from the building, pay the expenses, and divide the net income from the building in proportion with their respective 50 percent interest in the building. Ms. Cook maintains the books and accounts for the business venture. The power of attorney submitted in the Cook proposal was signed only by Mr. Robert Cook. Ms. Cook, the other owner of the building, did not sign the power of attorney and did not submit a separate power of attorney. The power of attorney failed to satisfy the "Control of Property" requirement. The owner of record for the building proposed for lease in the Cook proposal is Mr. Robert Cook and Ms. Sara Cook. The owner of record did not sign the power of attorney. The power of attorney did not bind the owner of record. The Cook proposal was not responsive. It failed to comply with a material requirement. It failed to satisfy the "Control of Property" requirement by which state agencies bind the owner of property to their proposals. Even if the "Control of Property" requirement did not require the signature of Ms. Cook, the evidence failed to show that Ms. Cook authorized Mr. Taylor to bind her to the submitted proposal. There is no evidence of such authority in either written or verbal form. A non-responsive response for lack of a sufficient power of attorney is not unique or unusual. Many proposals to lease space over the years have been deemed non-responsive for failure to show "control of property." Often, the specific failure is an insufficient power of attorney. More often than not, multiple owners hold title to property submitted for lease to the state. If the "Control of Property" requirement were satisfied by binding only one owner, the requirement would be inadequate and expose state agencies to the risk that owners would be free to avoid the obligations included in their proposals. The objective of the requirement for a sufficient power of attorney is to provide enforceability to the competitive bid process by binding owners to their proposals. An agent without a power of attorney signed by all owners does not have the authority to bind all of the owners. The Department rejected two of the four proposals submitted to the Department as non-responsive. The Department rejected one of those proposals, in part, because the proposal failed to comply with the power of attorney requirement. Mr. Cook mistakenly believed that a signature by one owner is sufficient. A misunderstanding of the law is no defense against non-responsiveness and does not cure a material defect. Paragraph B on page 4 of the RFP is entitled, "Familiarity With Laws." Paragraph B states: The proposer is required to be familiar with all Federal, State, and Local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, that in any manner affect this project. Lack of knowledge by the proposer will in no way afford relief from this responsibility. All costs associated with compliance shall be borne by the proposer. RFP, paragraph B, page 4. If there were any uncertainty, the obligation was on the Cooks or Mr. Taylor to seek clarification. The RFP specifically provided a window of opportunity for interested persons to ask questions through the procedures prescribed in paragraph E entitled, "Interpretation of Proposal Documents."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that the Cook proposal was non-responsive and awarding the lease to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire Warren H. Husband, Esquire Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Eastman, Hauser & Jolly, P.A. 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Scott Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert C. Cook, pro se 1950 Murrell Road Tallahassee, Florida 32955 William G. "Bill" Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Jennifer Parker, Acting General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 1976, the School Board of Orange County and ITEL Data Product Corporation (ITEL) entered into a lease agreement providing for the lease of data processing equipment to the Board from ITEL by which ITEL supplied a computer central processing unit (CPU) and related equipment. Concomitantly, by agreement, ITEL provided for servicing and maintenance of the equipment. In October, 1977, IBM announced its new 303X series of computers with delivery schedules to customers for the newly introduced equipment to take up to two years. IBM has had a long-standing policy, well-known in the data processing industry, of filling customer orders for equipment in the sequence in which they are received, called "sequential delivery." With public agency customers, such sequential orders are not envisioned by the agency nor IBM to be a firm order because of the often protracted procurement process, involving competitive bidding, that public bodies typically have to engage in before making such a major purchase. IBM therefore permits public agencies, such as the School Board in this case, to place non-binding orders in anticipation of a future procurement so that a sequential delivery position will be available to the public agency and thus cause no delay in acquisition of the equipment should IBM become the successful bidder upon a particular procurement. On October 6, 1977, the School Board placed a "reservation" for an IBM 3031 CPU and related data processing equipment. In a letter of October 11, 1978, the School Board informed IBM that this equipment would be needed in approximately November, 1979, subject to availability of funds and subject to IBM being selected as a winning vendor in a competitive bidding process. There was no executed contract or other commitment between IBM and School Board at this point in time. Sometime in the summer of 1979, the School Board, which had become dissatisfied with the service and maintenance it had received from ITEL pursuant to the ITEL lease, engaged certain members of its staff in a study regarding its future data processing equipment needs. The School Board staff study resulted in a determination by the staff, and ultimately by the Board, to acquire additional data processing equipment capacity in excess of the capacity supplied under the ITEL lease. On August 28, 1979, the School Board terminated the ITEL lease effective December 31, 1979, and on or about September 5th, notified ITEL of that termination. On or about October 2, 1979, after determining that it wished to lease new and greater capacity equipment, the School Board Issued an "Invitation to bid" to eleven vendors, providing for the leasing, with option to purchase, of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal." In response to this invitation to bid, ITEL, Menrex Corporation, as well as IBM, submitted bids and on November 13, 1979, the School Board rejected all the bids as being not responsive, as it had reserved the right to do in the invitation to bid document. The rejection of these bids on November 13, 1979, provided only slightly over a month during which the School Board would have to acquire equipment by rental or purchase and have it installed, since the ITEL lease would be terminated on December 31, 1979. Accordingly, acting on the advice of counsel, the School Board determined that it could legitimately develop an interim emergency leasing plan for meeting its data processing needs upon the expiration of the ITEL lease starting December 31, 1979. This leased equipment was expected to be in place for approximately three to six months or until such time as a new bidding effort and procedure could be developed. The School Board, upon advice of counsel, determined that under its procurement regulations, it could rent equipment on a month to month basis without engaging in a competitive bidding process if it solicited quotations from at least three vendors. Thus, on November 13, 1979, the School Board solicited quotations from three potential vendors, Comdisco, ITEL and IBM, for purposes of securing an interim rental of an IBM 3031 CPU, "or equal", and related equipment. IBM and the Petitioner herein, NAS, which is the successor in interest to ITEL, responded to the solicitation of quotations and NAS informed the Board that it could not supply the particular equipment specified, but offered a NAS CPU at a monthly charge and suggested other related equipment to the Board that NAS considered to be suitable. The School Board staff informed NAS that the CPU unit itself would be a suitable alternative to the IBM 3031 CPU mentioned in the solicitation of quotations. On November 20, 1979, the School Board elected to select IBM's quotation and entered into the lease arrangement with IBM on a month-to-month rental basis. NAS did not challenge that action by the School Board. This rental agreement was entered into on or about December 7, 1979. It was a standard IBM lease and contained a provision whereby IBM offered the customer an option to purchase the equipment, although there was no obligation imposed therein on the customer to purchase the equipment, which was the subject of the lease. The agreement provided that the customer would be contractually entitled to certain "purchase-option credits" or accruals if it was leasing the equipment on a long-term basis and subsequently elected to exercise the option to purchase that same equipment. IBM grants such purchase-option credits as a general rule in month-to-month rental situations such as this, although they are not always a matter of contractual right on behalf of the customer. In any event, no consideration was shown to have been given at the time of entering this rental agreement to the existence or non-existence of any purchase-option credit provision since the only authorized contract at that time was a month-to- month rental agreement. No purchase or option to purchase which would be binding on either party was contemplated since both IBM and the School Board were aware that before a purchase of this magnitude could be made, that a competitive bidding procedure must be utilized. Equipment was installed pursuant to the rental agreement in December, 1979. Neither at the time of the contracting, nor at the time of the installation of the IBM 3031 CPU, did NAS or Comdisco challenge the award of the month-to-month rental contract to IBM. In early 1980, the rental agreement being only temporary, the School Board began studying various alternatives for making a permanent acquisition of needed data processing equipment. In early May of 1980, upon advice of its attorney and various staff members assigned to study the matter, the School Board determined that it would be more economical for the School Board to purchase a CPU and related equipment and service either by cash or installment payment, than to continue renting a CPU and related equipment or to lease those items with an option to purchase as had originally been contemplated in the October, 1979, aborted procurement effort. Thus, it was that on about April 20, 1980, the School Board appointed a committee of five persons to help draft technical specifications to ultimately be promulgated in bidding invitation documents with a view toward acquiring the required data processing equipment through competitive bidding and ultimate purchase. The committee included School Board employees and outside consultants with knowledge of the field of data processing. The members were: Louis Nall, Education Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; Kim Anderson, Information Systems Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations for the School Board; and Craig Rinehart, Director of the Systems Development/Systems Support staff of the School Board. Upon this committee agreeing upon required specifications for the equipment to be acquired, the bidding documents or "invitation to bid" and related supporting documents were developed by the committee in conjunction with assistance of certain other members of the staff of the Board as well as the School Board's attorney. The bid documents were approved by the School Board on May 27, 1980, and they were issued on May 23, 1980, to eight potential vendors, including NAS, IBM, and Amdahl Corporation. The bid documents invited bids for the sale of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal" (plus service and maintenance) for delivery no later than July 15, 1980. In addition to specifying an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal.," the pertinent specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents provided as follows: The manufacturer of the equipment described in the bid was required to currently manufacture it and offer for sale or lease along with it, an upgradable attached word processor subsystem the same as, or equal to, the IBM 3031 "attached pro- cessor." The Central Processing Unit, or CPU, being bid had to be capable of hosting or accommodating an attached processor. (The purpose of requiring this was so that the School Board could later ob- tain more processing capability if and when it needed it, rather than having to pay for more capacity than it needed at the time of the initial purchase. The vendors were not required by the bidding documents, however, to bid at the time of this procurement for the actual sale of such an attached processor, to be added later.) The School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informal- ity in any bid. The bid documents initially stated that the School Board would not pay any separately stated interest or finance charges in arriving at its total purchase price for all equipment to be bid. Each bidder was required to offer a certain number of support or maintenance personnel in the Orlando area at the time the bid was submitted and the Board would enter into a separate service and maintenance agreement with the successful vendor. NAS did not protest the bid specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents. NAS did request and receive several interpretations and clarifications of the bid documents from the Board in a manner favorable to NAS. These favorable clarifications or interpretations were as follows: The unavailability of serial numbers for data processing equipment at the time the bid was prepared would not adversely affect the bid's validity. NAS could temporarily rent equipment from other manufacturers which it could not itself deliver by the July 15, 1980, date required in the bid documents. (emphasis supplied) NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the requirement that support personnel be present in the Orlando area, provided it had the required support personnel in the area at the time the equipment was actually delivered, rather than at the originally stated time of submission of the bid. The NAS 7000N CPU, which was a computer of greater capacity than the IBM 3031, even after the IBM had the attached processor added, was specifically determined by the Board to be con- sidered as equivalent to the IBM 3031 and thus ap- propiately responsive to that specification and the invitation to bid documents. NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the term "manufacturer" even though NAS did not in itself manufacture the equipment, but only marketed it for the maker, Hitachi Corporation. IBM also had a role in determining and securing clarifications or interpretations of the specifications in the invitation to bid from the School Board. Thus, it was that IBM suggested that the Board could save money if it allowed each vendor (not just IBM) to separately state an interest or finance charge in its bid, since IBM was of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service would not tax as ordinary income to the vendor any separately stated interest charges or financing charges received by such vendor from a public governmental body such as the School Board. Thus, to the extent that vendors could save on income taxes from the total payment, if successful, then the School Board could reasonably expect all vendors to submit correspondingly lower bids in response to the invitation to bid. In response to IBM's request, the School Board amended the bid documents to allow a "separately stated time-price differential" for any item of equipment, not to exceed seven and one-half percent of that item of equipment. At NAS' request, the School Board also amended the bid documents to state that a single central processor (the NAS 7000N), with equivalent power to the IBM 3031 CPU, which was upgradable in the field, would be an acceptable alternative to the requirement that a separate processor must be capable of being attached to the CPU in order to increase data processing capacity. In fact, the NAS 7000N actually has somewhat greater data processing capacity than the IBM 3031. A further amendment to the bid documents provided that in determining the lowest and best bid, the Board would consider each vendor's total charges for service, maintenance and support of the equipment for a one- year period following the award of bids. Additionally, at the request of IBM, an amendment was approved to the bid documents stating that instead of seeking equipment "new and not refurbished," that that requirement would be changed to "new and not refurbished or not more than one-year old." These amendments were sent to all potential bidders. Prior to disseminating the May, 1980, invitation to bid documents, the School Board established an Evaluation Committee to review and analyze bids to be received in response to those documents. The Committee was composed of the following individuals: David Brittain, the Director of the Educational Technology Section, Florida Department of Education; William Branch, Director of Computer Service, University of Central Florida; Louis Nall, Education Consultant, Florida Department of Education; Ronald Schoenau, Director of Northeast Regional Data Center, Florida University System; Craig Rinehart, Director of Systems Development/Systems Support of the Orange County School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations of the School Board; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Dale Brushwood, Director of Production Control, School Board; and David Brown, Attorney for the School Board. The Evaluation Committee was charged with conducting a review and analysis in accord with certain instructions given by the Board and to recommend to the Board the bid the Committee believed was the lowest and best bid. The Committee was instructed that objectivity is of prime importance. Five vendors submitted bids in response to the Invitation documents, as amended. They were NAS, IBM, Amdahl, CMI and Memorex. On June 17, 1980, the bids were opened by the Board. On a recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, the School Board found the bids submitted by CMI and Memorex to be not responsive to the bid documents. The bids submitted by NAS, IBM and Amdahl Corporation were found responsive to the bid document. The Evaluation Committee met for approximately 5 hours evaluating the bids by a number of different criteria, including the consideration of both a one-year and a three-year maintenance cost, as well as an assumption arguendo that the bid documents did not merely call for the IBM 3031 CPU upgradable by the addition of an attached processor, as the specifications actually requested, but instead that the $330,000 (estimated) attached processor was to be bought at the outset from IBM. The result was that the Evaluation Committee reported that the IBM bid was the lowest and best response, even if the cost of a $330,000 attached processor was added to their bid, which was not actually to be the case because the attached processor was not included in this procurement process. Even had that been added to the IBM bid, making it the second lowest dollar bidder, the Evaluation Committee still felt it to be the lowest, best bid. The IBM bid for the 3031 CPU and related equipment was $1,412,643 plus a time-price differential of $58,738 for a total of $1,471,381. The related bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $74,201.34, making a grand total for IBM's bid of $1,545,582.34. The NAS bid for the sale of an NAS 7000N CPU and related equipment was the next lowest bid at $1,575,751 plus a time-price differential of $74,722 for a total of $1,650,473. The accompanying bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $64,603. The total of the NAS bid was thus $1,715,076. The Amdahl Corporation's bid was higher than either IBM or NAS. In evaluating and in arriving at the decision that the IBM bid was the lowest and best, the Evaluation Committee was concerned with the previous poor record of maintenance and support provided by NAS's predecessor in interest, ITEL Corporation, as well as by the fact that there were then no NAS 7000N computer systems installed in the United States, so that some knowledge of its performance record could thus be gained. Further, the residual value for NAS' equipment had not yet been proven to the extent that IBM's had. Thus, the Committee determined that the IBM bid would still be the lowest and best even had the attached processor, at an estimated cost at time of $330,000, been added to the bid, making it the second lowest in dollar terms because the IBM bid combined the least risk, with the maximum equipment capacity growth flexibility at maximum benefit to the School Board in terms of financial flexibility. The NAS machine would provide more capacity than the Board needed for several years at higher cost, without the Board having an option regarding when that extra capacity should be obtained. The financial flexibility benefit of the IBM bid in terms of allowing for future capacity growth was borne out because the attached processor, by the time it was actually acquired from IBM in 1982, only cost $172,000, due to price decreases made possible by technological advances. The Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the IBM bid as the lowest and best received, and in official session on June 24, 1980, after hearing presentations by an NAS representative, the School Board unanimously voted to award IBM the contract for the subject equipment. On July 1, 1980, the contract submitted by IBM was executed by IBM and the School Board. It provided for a purchase by the Board of the equipment and services described above, payable in two installments, $600,000 on or before August 15, 1980, and the balance on or before July 5, 1981. On July 16, 1980, NAS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the Board, also filing an emergency motion for stay with the School Board, seeking a stay of all further agency action on the contracts with IBM, including any payment, pending disposition of the case. On July 29, 1980, the School Board, after hearing argument of NAS counsel, denied that petition for Administrative Hearing and motion for stay on the basis that the contract between the Board and IBM had already been executed and that the NAS request for a 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was not timely. On August 4, 1980, NAS appealed the Board's decision to deny a hearing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal and also filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The emergency motion requested the court to prohibit any further action pursuant to the contract, including payment of any sums pending determination of the issues raised in the appeal. On August 15, 1980, the court granted the emergency motion for stay on the condition NAS post a supersedes bond on or before August 18, 1980. On August 26, 1980, the court vacated that order because of failure to timely post the supersedes bond. The School Board then paid IBM the first installment payment of $600,000, when due, shortly thereafter. On May 6, 1981 the Fifth District Court of Appeal ultimately rendered a decision that NAS ". . . should have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1980), that its bid was the lowest and best response to the bid document." Thus, the case was remanded to the Board to conduct an administrative hearing, and the Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 4, 1981, NAS filed with the Board a motion for stay to prevent the Board from making the final payment to IBM on the purchase price. After hearing arguments of NAS' attorney, the Board, on June 23, 1981, denied the motion for stay and NAS appealed. On July 3, 1981, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the School Board's denial of the stay. Final payment was thereafter made by the Board to IBM, thus completing the purchase and all performance of the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Orange County denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire 630 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter J. Winders, Esquire Nathaniel L. Doliner, Esquire Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel E. O'Donnell, Esquire 400 Colony Square, Suite 1111 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 James L. Scott, Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Corporate Interiors, Inc. (Petitioner) is the lowest responsive bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Petitioner) for stacking polypropylene and upholstered chairs for the New District Administration Building.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for stacking polypropylene and upholstered chairs for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received four bids, two of which were determined to be responsive. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and Petitioner was determined to have submitted the lowest bid. However, the Petitioner's bid did not include an amount for sales tax, and on that basis alone, the Respondent indicated its intent to award this contract to another responsible bidders. There is no dispute that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System. Nevertheless, Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The Respondent admitted at hearing that under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, it should hake waived the Petitioner's failure to include sales tax in the bib amount since this is inapplicable to this acquisition. The Respondent, in effect, concedes error in its previous notice of intent to award this contract to another bidder, and does not contest the Petitioner's claim that it submitted the lowest responsive bid for stacking chairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order awarding the contract for stacking chairs for the New District Administration Building to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 90-2982 BID Petitioner filed a letter, but no proposed findings of fact upon which a ruling could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4-6. Adopted in part in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in part in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence addressed at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The request for sealed bids for the construction of the Project was advertised on October 9, 16 and 23, 1991. There were six addenda to the original bid documents which added, deleted or modified provisions of the original bidding requirements, contract requirements, administrative requirements and technical specifications. The original bid documents plus the six addenda will be referred to herein as the "bid documents". The bid documents required that all bids be in full accord with the contract documents. Sealed bids for the Project were opened on October 30, 1991. Wright submitted the lowest lump sum bid for the Project, with Sovran submitting the second lowest lump sum bid and Kellogg submitting the third lowest lump sum bid. At the time of the bid opening, the bid documents listed only four casework manufacturers that were approved to furnish casework for the Project. Empire Custom Cabinets, Inc. (Empire) was not listed as one of the four approved casework manufacturers in the bid documents. The bid documents did not require the bidder to list the casework manufacturer it intended to obtain the casework from, but only that the bidder name the casework subcontractor. The only work item in the bid documents which requires identifying the name of the manufacturer on the subcontractor's list is the metal roof system. Because Empire's bid on the casework was extremely low compared to other bids received by Wright on the casework, Wright called Empire prior to submitting its bid to confirm that Empire's bid was submitted per plans and specifications. Although Wright did not specifically inquire of Empire at this time as to which manufacturer Empire was obtaining the casework from for the Project, Empire did advise Wright that Empire's bid on the casework was according to plans and specifications. Additionally, Empire did not divulge or advise Wright at this time that the bid was based on Empire manufacturing the casework for the Project. Based on this representation from Empire, Wright listed Empire as its casework subcontractor, and calculated its lump sum bid for the Project using Empire's bid. Although Wright listed Empire as its casework subcontractor in its bid, this did not create an irregularity in Wright's bid since Wright's bid was per plans and specification without exception or exclusion. This would require Wright to furnish casework for the Project manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers listed in the bid documents regardless of which subcontractor Wright listed as the subcontractor for casework. By letter dated November 1, 1991, the Board's architect for the Project requested Wright to have Empire submit written certification by one of the four approved casework manufacturers that its casework was being furnished to Empire for the project. By letter dated November 4, 1991, Empire advised Wright that Empire's bid on the casework for the Project was based on casework to be manufactured by Empire. On the same day, Wright furnished the architect for the Project a copy of Empire's letter of November 4, 1991. In response to a request by the Board, Wright, by letter dated November 7, 1991, advised the Board that Wright would furnish casework manufactured by one of the four approved manufacturers listed in the bid documents for the Project. By letter dated December 3, 1991, Empire advised Wright that Empire would need to withdraw its bid if Empire was required to use casework manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers listed in the bid documents. On that same day, Wright furnished the Board a copy of Empire's letter and requested that the Board allow Wright to remove and replace Empire with Steven Ward and Associates, Inc. (Ward), as the casework subcontractor since Ward would be able to furnish and install casework manufactured by LSI Corporation of America, Inc., one of the four approved casework manufacturers. No Action has been taken on that request. The bid documents provide for a subcontractor to be removed and replaced from the list of subcontractors after the bid is opened if there is a showing of good cause and written approval by the Board and the Project architect is obtained. Although Empire's bid on the casework for the Project submitted to Wright was based on Empire manufacturing the casework, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that at the time Wright submitted its bid on the Project it had reasonable grounds to believe that Empire's bid on the casework was based on Empire furnishing and installing casework manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers. After determining that Empire could not perform under its bid, Wright obtained a bid from Ward for furnishing and installing the casework for the Project which was less than Ward's original bid submitted to Wright before the bid opening. However, this bid was substantially more than Empire's bid, and if Wright is allowed to substitute Ward for Empire, Wright will have to absorb the additional costs since the bids were lump sum bids. Wright is neither attempting to furnish casework from a manufacturer that is not approved, nor is Wright requesting an increase in the lump sum bid price. The advertisement for Sealed Bids for the Project required that all bidders be prequalified by the Board prior to the bid date. Sovran and one other bidder were not prequalified by the Board prior to the bid date in accordance with Advertisement for Sealed Bids for the Project. Sovran received the bid documents for the Project approximately one month before the bid date but did not file a Notice of Protest of the prequalification requirement contained in the Advertisement for Sealed Bids for the Project. Sovran holds a certificate as a general contractor licensed in the State of Florida in accordance with Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. As a certified general contractor Sovran, pursuant to Section 489.125, Florida Statutes, was authorized to bid on the Project notwithstanding the Board's prequalification requirement. This was explained by the Board's representative at the bid opening. The bid documents required that a subcontractor list be submitted by all bidders, and when submitted with the bid becomes an integral part of the bid. The purpose of the subcontractor list was to prevent bid shopping, and to allow the Board an opportunity to review the subcontractors to determine if any subcontractor on the list had performed unsatisfactorily on previous Board projects. Neither the statutes relating to competitive bidding nor the bid documents prohibit the listing of the general contractor together with a subcontractor on a subcontractor list. The subcontractor list submitted by Sovran indicated "Sovran Constr/Naples" as the name of the subcontractor for the masonry work and "Sovran/Naples" as the name of the subcontractor for the poured-in-place concrete work. "Naples" is Naples Concrete and Masonry Work, Inc. The bid received by Sovran from Naples was for both labor and materials for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. Sovran neither requested nor did Naples furnish Sovran a bid to provide labor only for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. There was no agreement between Sovran and Naples whereby Sovran would supply the materials and Naples would furnish the labor for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. Sovran did request and receive bids from other companies for furnishing materials only for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. Sovran listed itself, the general contractor, along with Naples on the subcontractor list for the purpose of supplying the materials for the poured-in- place concrete and masonry work. Sovran's main reason for supplying the materials was that Naples was not bondable. Without a payment bond from Naples, Sovran would be without protection and could be forced into paying double for the materials in the event Naples failed to pay the material suppliers. Although the Superintendent of the Lee County Schools has recommended to the Board that the Board accept Wright's bid for the Project, the Board has not voted on that recommendation. The fact that Wright used Empire's bid to calculate its lump sum bid in no way excuses Wright for the requirement set out in the bid documents that casework used for the Project (when the time comes) be manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers. Wright gains no economic advantage in this regard since the lump sum bid price remains the same. The advertisement for Sealed Bids on the Project provides that the Board reserves the right to waive any and all irregularities of any bid received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the instant bid protest and awarding to Wright the contract for the construction of Elementary School "C", Job No. 91063. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 13 day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 91-7597B1D The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1 - 3(1,2 and 3 , respectively); 4 - 5(6); 6(4); 7 - 9(5); 12(10); 13(11); 15 - 16(12); 17(13); 18 - 19(16); 20(29); 21(18); 23(19); 24 - 25(20); 26(22); 27(23); 28(22); 29 - 30(29); 32 - 33(25); and 34(26). Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record in that Wright's bid was as per plans and specifications without exceptions or exclusions which included the use of casework manufactured by one of the approved casework manufacturers. Proposed finding of fact 11 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record in that the Board knew of Empire's bid being based on nonconforming materials prior to issuing its Notice of Intent. However, the only information the Board had in reference to Wright's bid before issuing its Notice of Intent was that Wright had bid as per plans and specifications and would be installing casework manufactured by one of the approved manufacturers. The only question was whether Empire could furnish casework manufactured by one of the approved manufacturers. Proposed finding of fact 14 is neither material nor relevant. How the Board's architect interpreted Wright's bid is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed finding of fact 22 is unnecessary to the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 31 is more in the way of an argument than a finding of fact. Proposed findings of fact 35 and 36 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. The timeliness of Kellogg's protest is not an issue and therefore, a finding that it was timely is unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent While not specifically adopting proposed finding of fact 1, where material or relevant or necessary to this proceeding, and supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record the stipulated facts have been adopted. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 2(4,5); 3(9); 4 - 5(7); 7 - 8(8); 10(16); 11(14); 12(31); 13(21); and 15(23). Proposed finding of fact 6 is more in the way of an argument than a finding of fact. Proposed finding of fact 9 and 14 are neither material nor relevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Intervenor See ruling on Respondent's proposed finding of fact Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 2 - 3(21); 4(24); 5 - 6(21); 13(23); 14(24,28); 15(22); 16 - 17(23,24); and 18(28). Proposed findings of fact 7 through 12 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Gurley, Esquire Norton, Gurley & Darnell, P.A. 1819 Main Street, Suite 610 Sarasota, FL 34236 Marianne Kantor, Esquire The School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33901 James M. Talley, Esquire Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A. Post Office Box 712 Orlando, FL 32802 Karl Engel Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
