Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an invitation to bid on March 13, 1992. Bid number SB 92-244I involved the disassembly and removal of an existing walk-in freezer and the furnishing and installation of a new walk-in freezer at Coral Sunset Elementary School. The invitations to bid provided in paragraph Y of the Special Conditions: Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in Florida Statutes 120.53 3.(b) shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (sic) Bid specifications were included in the invitations to bid issued on March 13, 1992. Twenty-three bids were solicited. There were five responses. One of the responses was submitted by Choice Restaurant Equipment, Inc. ("Choice"). Choice is a vendor for equipment manufactured by Petitioner, Nor-Lake, Inc. ("Nor-Lake"). Nor-Lake is an out-of-state corporation with manufacturer's representatives in numerous states including Florida. 4, Petitioner, CHD Marketing Group ("CHD"), is the manufacturer's representative for Nor-Lake in Florida. CHD represents no other manufacturer of the product included in the bid response. Choice is a sales agent for CHD and other manufacturer's representatives in Florida. Choice sells the products of a variety of manufacturers but is the exclusive sales agent for CHD pursuant to a verbal agency agreement. Choice timely submitted a bid for bid number SB 92-244I on April 8, 1992, prior to the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. on the same day. The successful bidder submitted its bid by Federal Express at 4:51 p.m on April 8, 1992. Respondent's Department of Purchasing and Stores (the "Department") had stated on March 13, 1992, when the invitations to bid were issued, that bid responses must be received by the Department no later than 2:00 p.m. on April 8, 1992, at the Department's address at 3980 RCA Boulevard/Suite 8044, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410-4276. Prior to April 8, 1992, the Department relocated to a new facility at 3326 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. The new address was posted at the old location and Department representatives were present at the old address to accept walk-in bids. Federal Express first attempted to deliver the successful bid at the Department's old address at 10:30 a.m. on April 8, 1992. Federal Express delivered the successful bid to the Department's new address at 4:51 p.m. At 2:00 p.m. on the same day, The Department announced that all bids were in and opened the bids that had been delivered. The successful bid and one other bid were delivered on April 8, 1992, after the public opening conducted at 2:00 p.m. on the same day. Bids were tabulated on April 9, 1992. Bid tabulations were posted on April 13, 1992, and the successful bid was announced. The successful bid was for $8,174.00. Three bids were lower than the successful bid. Choice's bid was for $7,742.56. The other two lower bids were for $8,020.00 and $6,620.00. All three lower bids were rejected as non- responsive. Choice's bid was rejected because it did not meet bid specifications for 22 gauge steel, thermostatically controlled door heaters, and reinforced steel door panels. CHD filed a Notice of Protest on April 14, 1992, and a Formal Written Protest on April 24, 1992. CHD's protest alleges that: Choice's bid was lower than that of the successful bidder; the successful bid was not timely made; the bids were not opened publicly in violation of bidding procedure requirements; and the bid specifications were arbitrary and capricious, favored one bidder, and that Choice's bid was responsive. Neither a notice of protest nor a formal written protest was submitted by Choice or Nor-Lake. Neither Choice nor Nor-Lake attended the informal protest conference conducted on April 30, 1992. On May 7, 1992, Respondent's Office of General Counsel issued its written notice of proposed agency action. The written notice recommended that the bid be awarded to the successful bidder and that CHD's protest be dismissed for lack of standing. CHD requested a formal hearing on May 14, 1992, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer on May 15, 1992. The bid submitted by Choice was prepared by CHD but signed by the president of Choice. Neither Nor-Lake nor CHD signed a bid or were otherwise bidders of record for bid number SB 92-244I. Neither Choice, CHD, nor Nor-Lake, filed a notice of protest concerning the bid specifications within 72 hours after Choice received the notice of the project plans and specifications on March 13, 1992. The sole basis upon which CHD claims it is substantially affected is the adverse economic impact caused to it by the proposed agency action. The proposed agency action will result in lost sales from this and future transactions. CHD will lose commissions from this and future transactions. The dealer relationship between CHD and Choice will be damaged because Choice will not want to sell a freezer that is not acceptable to Respondent. The marketing strategy developed between CHD and Nor-Lake will be damaged because it is conditioned upon the award of public contracts.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Ellis I. DeGroff. He is president of DeGroff Business Machines, Inc. The Respondent is the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida. On September 17, 1987, the Respondent issued Invitation for Bid number SB-88C-120B for the potential acquisition of electronic cash registers. Bids were opened by the Respondent on October 14, 1987. Five bids were received. The monetary amounts of the bids were listed and Petitioner's bid was the lowest. Respondent then reviewed the bids to determine compliance with bid specifications contained in the Invitation for Bid. The Respondent determined the bid of the Petitioner was not in compliance with bid specifications as follows: The system bid by the Petitioner did not have cassette tape recorder interface for programming as required by bid specifications. The system bid by the Petitioner did not have the capacity of keeping an inventory of 700 bulk items as required by bid specifications. The system bid by the Petitioner did not have a communication board for interface with a personal computer as required by bid specifications. The Petitioner did not provide literature to document that the system bid by the Petitioner met or exceeded the brand name system designated in the bid specifications. The system bid by the Petitioner did not have a cassette tape recorder interface for programming as required by bid specification number 18, set forth on page 6 of the Respondent's invitation to bid. The equivalent, as argued by the Petitioner, is a portable "transpack" which can be plugged into machines to accomplish virtually the same purpose. Petitioner did not include the "transpack" in the price quoted in his bid. It would have to be purchased separately. The Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive as to this specification. The Petitioner initially testified that the machine bid by him could not manage more than 512 bulk inventory items. On further examination, he alleged his machine would handle over the 700 inventory items required by bid specification number 24, on page 7 of Petitioner's invitation to bid. The additional inventory would result from an upgrade to the machine. The Petitioner's bid is not responsive to this bid specification. Petitioner's machine as bid does have the ability for communication with a personal computer through a communications wire or telephone modem. Petitioner's bid included a software (floppy disk) program for computer assimilation of data from the electronic cash register. Petitioner's bid was responsive to this specification set forth in item 1b on page 11 of the invitation to bid. The Respondent's bid specified an electronic cash register known as National Semiconductor Model 2170 or acceptable equivalent. Paragraph number 6 on the first page of the bid specification package emphasizes that use of such a brand name is simply for the purpose of establishing a grade or quality. Under requirements of special condition K on page 4 of the bid package, a bidder submitting a different brand name must also submit information, including the manufacturer's latest literature on the machine being offered, as may be necessary to verify that the bid item meets or exceeds the requirements of the brand name machine set forth in the bid package. The submission of such additional information must be made within three days of notification by the Respondent. Since the Petitioner had bid a machine of a different brand than that set forth in the bid package and was also the low bidder, Respondent requested and timely received additional information from the Petitioner which was to have verified the specifications of the Petitioner's machine. Notably, the electronic cash register bid by the Petitioner and demonstrated for the Respondent during the process of bid evaluation was a machine produced by Sharp Electronics Corporation and designated on page 11 of Petitioner's bid as model number 4230M-ES. The Petitioner provided Respondent with additional information in the form of a glossy brochure detailing the advantages of a machine made by the same corporation and designated in the brochure as model ER-4230F. Petitioner also included literature on a circuit module with a model designation of 4050. A cover letter with these two publications from the Petitioner pointed out that the model number in the bid package was a typographical error and should be corrected to read 4230F-ES. The assertion of Petitioner in this letter and reaffirmed in testimony at hearing is not supported by the evidence which establishes Petitioner did indeed bid the model 4230M-ES and did subsequently demonstrate that machine to Respondent. It is further established that the 4230M-ES does not possess a flat liquid resistant keyboard as required in specification number 1 on page 6 of the bid package. Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive in its failure to comply with the requirement of special condition K.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order finding the bid of the Petitioner to be unresponsive. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Respondent Included in finding number 3. Included in finding number 4. Included in finding number 4. Included in finding number 4. Included in findings numbered 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. Included in findings numbered 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Petitioner The Petitioner submitted a post hearing document which is divided into three sections. The second section entitled "Statement of Petitioner's Position" is presumed to be proposed findings. The proposed findings, designated by letters A through D, have been renumbered as paragraphs 1 through 4 and are treated as follows: Not supported by the evidence. Not supported by the evidence. Adopted in part in finding number 7. Not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4690 Ellis I. DeGroff DeGroff Business Machines, Inc. 2745 U.S. #1 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Vladimir R. Martinez, Esq. 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503, Room 232 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4690
Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited contractors to replace a chiller in Building #45 at its Sunland facility located in Marianna, Florida. The project number for the replacement was HRS-95203000. The vendors were allowed until 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, August 24, 1995, to submit responses to the request for bids. On August 24, 1995, Respondent received four responses. The responses were from Petitioner, Neel, JLS International and Smiths, Inc. On August 24, 1995, when the bids were opened JLS International and Smiths, Inc. were disqualified as nonresponsive bidders. On August 24, 1995, Respondent determined that Petitioner had submitted a base bid in the amount of $141,185.00 and as described on the tabulation form, an alternate bid in the amount of $14,750.00 for confined space compliance. The Neel bid as reflected on the tabulation was a base bid for $142,000.00. The forms upon which Petitioner and Neel had submitted their bid prices were forms identical in their format. The format was required by the Respondent. The Petitioner's bid stated: Base Bid: $141,185.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ N/A Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. *If Required (not included in base bid) ITEM UNIT PRICE Compliance for confined space for refrigerants & equipment *Note: Base bid price is compiled costs for construction duration & equipment delivery of 18 weeks. When Petitioner submitted its response to the request for bids, it offered no further explanation concerning the $14,750.00 price for "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" than has already been described. The Neel bid stated: Base Bid: $142,000.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. ITEM UNIT PRICE Respondent had provided written instructions to the bidders concerning execution of the bid proposal form to the effect: Omit mention of alternates entirely, if there are none. Unit prices are to be used only if unit prices are applicable and approved by the Project Director. This project did not call for alternate bids or unit prices. The request for bids did not contemplate a quotation other than the base bid for all items, to include any costs associated with implementation of a design that complies with all applicable codes associated with the installation and with any laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Posting of the bid evaluation/tabulation and notice of contract award recommendation was given on September 8, 1995, indicating Respondent's intent to award to Petitioner in the amount of $141,185.00 as the base bid for the project. Prior to the posting of the bids on September 8, 1995, as was customary, Thomas McAuley, an account representative for Petitioner, who had submitted Petitioner's bid response had met with Respondent's project manager Glen Jenkins, a Professional Engineer III. The meeting was held to discuss Petitioner's bid response as the apparent responsive lowest and best bidder. In the conversation held between Messrs. McAuley and Jenkins, they did not discuss the $14,750.00 separate price quotation in the Petitioner's bid. They did discuss compliance with the codes that were going to be applicable to the project and whether the base price quotation took into account the code requirements. McAuley indicated his opinion that the base price quotation did account for compliance with code requirements contemplated by the terms in the request for bids. McAuley was specifically asked whether Petitioner was complete and thorough in its compliance with the bid specifications and in its prices, inclusive of all the items that were going to be mandated by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services. McAuley answered that question in the affirmative. In the specifications, under Article 7, Miscellaneous Provisions, within the request for bids is set forth Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 related to permit and code compliance issues, which state as follows: State Building Permit. Current DMS requirements for state building permit applications and for permit inspections are attached. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to apply for and pay all costs associated with the state building permit (including the cost of preparing any permit documents on which the state building official may require the seal of a registered engineer). It shall further be the Contractor's responsi- bility to comply fully with all permit inspection requirements. Code Compliance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement a design complying with all codes applicable to this installation, and with all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall be held responsible for stating or setting forth (in this or any other document, or verbally) any code requirement which may be applicable to this project. By disseminating this "Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions", the Owner merely sets forth minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, and neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall thereby be held liable, in full or in part, for the Contractor's adherence or non-adherence to any governing code and/or legal requirement. Special Terms and Conditions for Cont- racts Under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Due to partial project funding under a federal NECPA grant, Contractor compliance with federal laws and regulations are a special requirement of this project. Special terms and conditions pertaining to wages and payrolls, records retention and access, apprenticeship and training, equal opportunity access, are set forth in the attached "Special Terms and Conditions for Contracts Under the National Energy Conserva- tion Policy Act". The contractor shall responsible for full compliance with the attached special terms and conditions. In the meeting between McAuley and Jenkins discussion was made concerning compliance with pertinent electrical codes. One question was asked about pipes in the system being installed in a manner to allow variable speed drives to be placed above the pipes. Jenkins considered that speed drive placement underneath the pipes would be contrary to code requirements. Related to the mechanical features in the project there was discussion about the provision of refrigerants in compliance with the mechanical code that pertained. In the meeting there was little discussion about code compliance within confined spaces, because the two individuals did not perceive that there would likely be a code requirement concerning confined spaces. Mention was made that some code inspector or code official who came to the job site might require attention to the confined spaces, even though that requirement was not found in the code. According to Jenkins, in his recount of the meeting with McAuley, if a code official required compliance for an item in the confined spaces that was not set forth in the code, that would constitute an item about which the Respondent had not requested information to be included in the base price quotation offered by the Petitioner. Further, Jenkins stated there would not be a problem for failing to offer a quotation for the features required by the inspector, because it was not sought by the Respondent in designing the bid requirements. As Jenkins describes, Petitioner's unit price for that work had been made known. This is taken to refer to the $14,750.00 quote for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. In that circumstance, Mr. Jenkins told Mr. McAuley that if a code official required something that was not contemplated by the code and the Respondent did not consider it worth fighting over, then Respondent would have to process a change order to install that equipment. This is taken to mean that Petitioner would be paid additional money under a change order for installing the equipment in the event that the Respondent did not choose to contest the decision of the code official. At the time that McAuley and Jenkins had the meeting, counsel for Neel had contacted Jenkins about protesting the decision to award the contract to Petitioner. That individual had stated the opinion to Respondent that Petitioner's discussion of confined space for refrigerants and the equipment at the additional cost of $14,750.00 might be perceived as potentially a code exclusion in violation of the requirements of Section 7.3 to the request for bids. Neel's counsel stated his belief that the vendors were expected to be in compliance with all codes and laws, even if it was not known to be a code requirement at the time the bid was submitted. He was concerned that someone might try and make it a requirement in the future. The Neel attorney explained that the reference to compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment set forth in Petitioner's bid response might be construed as a comment on code requirements through the contingency of someone's interpretation of the code. He believed that the responses to the request for bids needed to address that contingency as part of the basic quotation, not as a separate quotation. At the time McAuley and Jenkins had their meeting, Jenkins did not know of any requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment based upon his experience, but he had not researched the issue. Through information which Neel imparted to Mr. Jenkins before the meeting was held between Jenkins and McAuley, the Neel attorney expressed the opinion that there was not a present code requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, a view held by McAuley and Jenkins. At the time the meeting was held between McAuley and Jenkins, Jenkins was of the opinion that the requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment was not foreseen to be a likely code requirement. As contrasted with Neel's view, as explained to Jenkins, that its base bid was intended to cover the eventuality that there might become a requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, Neel's representative stated that Petitioner's bid had segregated that contingency for consideration by quoting the price of $14,750.00 separately. Neel did not appear at the hearing and there was no direct proof that the $142,000.00 base bid by Neel addressed the contingency that a future requirement might be imposed for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. However, it may properly be assumed the Neel bid met the requirement for a base bid quotation to cover all costs to Respondent absent proof to the contrary. Later, when Respondent decided to award the contract to Neel, Respondent implied that the $142,000.00 base bid would meet code requirements contemplated by Section 7.3. Concerning the responsibility to determine which code requirements pertained and when, Respondent expected the vendors to derive that answer. This case was unlike most projects by the Respondent in which design professionals, engineers or architects create design documents that are completed in view of code requirements and the vendors assume that the bid documents prepared would be in conformance with code requirements. At hearing Mr. Jenkins, as project manager, opined that Section 7.3 obligated the contractor to meet existing requirements of the permitting authorities, and if during the pendency of the contract there was some change to the codes or code requirements set forth by code inspectors, then the contractor must assume the risk. Moreover, when the bids were opened and tabulated initially and the preliminary decision was made to award the contract to Petitioner, Mr. Jenkins perceived the quotation of $14,750.00 set forth in the Petitioner's bid to be a unit price for a scope of work that was not expected to be required at any point and was not been asked for by Respondent. Jenkins considered this quote as an alternate that was being proffered, something that Respondent might opt for in the future. Although not set forth in exact terms, Mr. Jenkins perceived this information in the Petitioner's bid response to be related to an alarm system and breathing apparatuses. He held this belief based upon his experience in association with compliance for confined spaces. Mr. Jenkins surmised that what was being described by the Petitioner was the type of installation that you would put into a closed mechanical room where a refrigeration machine was located that contained toxic refrigerant, which if released might kill a serviceman. In that connection when discussing refrigerant compliance with Mr. McAuley in their meeting, Mr. Jenkins indicated that the discussion had been limited because the type of machine proposed by the Petitioner was a 134A machine which is "ozone friendly" and not restricted by clean air amendment regulations. Following the posting on September 8, 1995, which recommended that the contract be awarded to Petitioner, Neel had 72 hours to file a protest. That protest was filed. Having considered the remarks by Neel's attorney in support of that protest, Mr. Jenkins became persuaded that Petitioner might not have intended to describe an alternate (unsolicited) purchase when discussing the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment for a price of $14,750.00; instead, Petitioner may have been describing how to comply with future code requirements. Consequently, Mr. Jenkins attempted to settle the issue by presenting the opportunity for the Petitioner to obtain a letter from the Department of Management Services permitting office establishing that the equipment described in the bid by Petitioner for compliance for confined space refrigerants and equipment was not then a code requirement. Mr. Jenkins wanted that information to be in writing. This opportunity to submit information was imparted to Stuart Zaritsky, Branch Manager for Petitioner in its Tallahassee office. Petitioner did not take the opportunity to send written information concerning the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as not being required by applicable codes. Instead, Mr. Zaritsky called Mr. Jenkins and told him that Petitioner had placed calls to the Department of Management Services permitting office and was unable to get a definitive response at that time. On September 26, 1995, Mr. Zaritsky wrote to Mr. Jenkins and stated: The confined space for refrigerants and equipment compliance is based on ASHRAE recommendations only. If any of these items are required by code, then we will install it at no cost. Our base bid of $141,185 is based on the specifications, including paragraph 7.3 on page 13 and all other portions of the contract documents without any qualifications. If it is determined by the owner, that they wish to upgrade the machine room to ASHRAE 15 standards, and it is not required by code, the $14,750 would be the price to add refrigerant monitors, refrigerant purge fans and self-contained breathing apparatus. Should the jurisdictional authority of code compliance determine that these items are required by code, they will be installed as part of our base bid of $141,185. On September 29, 1995, Respondent gave notice of an amended bid tabulation finding Neel to be the responsive lowest and best bidder for the project in its quotation of $142,000.00. The September 29, 1995 correspondence notified the Petitioner that: After further review of issues raised by responsive bidders on the above project, the Department has determined that the bid sub- mitted by Natkin Service Co. on the above referenced project either: is nonresponsive, because the bid was not in compliance with Section 7.3 of the Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions, since it exempted its bid from certain refrigerant handling requirements; or if responsive, is in the amount of $155,935.00. In either case, the bid submitted by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $142,000.00 is the lowest responsive bid. The September 29, 1995 determination that Petitioner was not responsive led to Petitioner's present protest. Sometime shortly before the amended posting of the bid tabulation on September 29, 1995, Mr. Jenkins spoke to Mr. McAuley concerning the opportunity to present information to address the question concerning whether compliance for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment was a code requirement. To assist the Petitioner Mr. Jenkins provided information which had been received from the Department of Community Affairs related to code provisions under enforcement by the Department of Management Services. This information was not provided by Mr. Jenkins as a determination of code requirements; it was provided to inform Petitioner concerning what Mr. Jenkins understood to be the latest code requirements. The expectation was still held that Petitioner would submit separate information from the Department of Management Services that would settle the issue concerning the possible need to comply with code requirements for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment. As Mr. Jenkins described at hearing, the basis for finding the Petitioner's bid unresponsive was alternatively stated. First, the Respondent believes that Petitioner tried to avoid the responsibility for complying with code requirements, whatever they may be during the contract pendency; or second, Petitioner split its bid into two parts. One in the amount of $141,185.00 for matters unrelated to code compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment and the second in an amount of $14,750.00 for such compliance. If the former view is taken, Petitioner's bid is unresponsive. If the latter view is taken Petitioner's bid is responsive but exceeds the quotation by the responsive bidder Neel. At hearing it was not proven by competent evidence whether there was any necessity to meet code requirements for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as described in Petitioner's bid response at any point in time. Other provisions within the request for bids that pertain to the manner in which the vender would address its price quotation are as follows: 1.5 The Contract Sum shall initially be that lump-sum amount which the Contractor shall have enclosed in his sealed bid proposal. Subject to additions and deduc- tions by Change Order, the Contract Sum shall be the amount which the Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work, subject to the terms and conditions as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6 The Contractor shall apply for, and pay all costs associated with, any permit which may be required by the Department of Management Services. Such permitting costs for which the Contractor shall be responsible shall include the preparation of any permit documents on which the building official may require the seal of a registered engineer. B-9 Instruction for bidders; They (the bidders) are also required to examine carefully any drawings, specifications and other bidding documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner effect the work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest based upon the unresponsive of its bid and awards the contract for Project No. HRS- 95203000 to Neel. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph B1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B2 is rejected in the suggestion that Respondent should be bound by resort to extrinsic evidence to determine Petitioner responsive to the bid invitation. Paragraph B3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B4 is rejected in the suggestion that it was inappropriate to defer to the Neel protest as a means for Respondent to reconsider its position. Paragraph B5 is rejected in the suggestion that Neel has controlled the outcome in this case. Paragraph B6 is rejected in the suggestion that Petitioner has complied with the bid invitation requirements. Paragraph B7 is rejected in the suggestion that the contrary position stated by the Respondent in the informal review wherein Petitioner had been preliminarily determined to be the responsive bidder and the point of view at hearing would preclude a decision favoring the Respondent. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy McAuley, Account Manager Natkin Service Company 3428 A. Garber Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Chavers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Informational Copies: JLS International, Inc. P. O. Box 490 Foley, AL 36536 Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. P. O. Box 1916 Thomasville, GA 31799 Smith's, Inc. of Dothan P. O. Box 1207 Dothan, AL 36302
The Issue Whether the bid submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc., under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. for the construction on State Project 16070-3511 (the Project), with the Florida Department of Transportation (Department), was the lowest responsive bid. Whether the Department acted arbitrarily, illegally, dishonestly or fraudulently in rejecting the bid submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. for the construction of the Project based on the Department's determination that VSM of Florida, Inc. was not a prequalified contractor. Whether VSM, Inc., has standing to bring this bid protest by and on behalf of its operating subsidiary, VSM of Florida, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of all of the evidence, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Bids submitted on the Project were opened on May 27, 1992 and posted on June 18, 1992. The bid submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. under cover of the bid blank issued by the Department to VSM, Inc., a prequalified contractor, was the apparent low bid on the Project in the amount of $1,565,565.00. The bid submitted by Leware under cover of the bid blank issued by the Department to Leware, a prequalified contractor, was the apparent second low bid on the Project in the amount of $1,600,000.00. All contractors who seek to bid on Department projects in excess of $250,000.00 must be prequalified by the Department in order to bid on such projects. The Project was in excess of $250,000.00 thereby requiring all bidders to be prequalified contractors. The Department's Contract Administration Office (CAO) is responsible for prequalifying contractors to bid on Department projects in excess of $250,000.00, for issuing bid packages for such projects, and for processing bids for award of a contract. The Department will not issue a bid blank for a project in excess of $250,000.00 unless a request for a bid blank is received from a prequalified contractor. Upon a request being made, the Department first determines that the contractor making the request is prequalified and has the capacity to bid on the project, then the Department prints or stamps the name of the prequalified contractor on the front page (cover sheet) of the bid blank and mails the bid package to the prequalified contractor. Contractors do not have to be prequalified to bid on projects of less than $250,000.00 but the Department's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements would be applicable to projects of less than $250,000.00 as well as those in excess of $250,000.00. Contractors do not have to be prequalified to work as subcontractors on a Department project. The Department does not approve subcontractors on Department projects but does review and approve the use of subcontractors on Department projects to ensure that subcontractors do not perform in excess of 49% of the work on the project in violation of Standard Specification No. 8 in the Department's contract. Review of the subcontractors being used on a project is conducted by the Department's District offices and the CAO is not made aware of which contractors are being used as subcontractors an a project. There is no specific language in the application for prequalification that requires a separate application be submitted for each contracting firm seeking prequalification. However, a copy of the Department's rule included in the application package does require that a separate application must be submitted for each contracting firm seeking prequalification. The purpose of the information sought in Question 8 (Question 6 in 1989) of the application concerning the affiliates of the parent company is to: (a) determine if any of the affiliates have been disbarred by other agencies or convicted of contract crimes which would disqualify them or; (b) alert the Department that an affiliate is applying for prequalification independent of the parent company so that the Department can properly audit the financial statements of each applicant. It is not intended to allow or provide for a joint application. The application must be accompanied by an audited financial statement and an equipment list. First-time applicants must also provide resumes and letter of recommendation supporting the applicant's representation that it is qualified and capable of performing the type of work for which it is seeking qualification. The CAO reviews the application for completeness and checks various data bases to determine if the applicant and its affiliates have adverse reports from other contracting agencies. The Department's Internal Audit Section reviews the financial information provided with the application for purposes of developing the Current Ratio and Net Worth Factors for use in calculating the applicant's Maximum Capacity Factor. The Internal Audit Section also reviews the information on corporate subsidiaries provided in response to "Question 8" (Question 6 in 1989) on the application. The Department's Construction Office reviews the equipment and experience information provided with the application to develop an applicant's Ability Factor for use in calculating the applicant's Maximum Capacity Factor. The Internal Audit Section and the Construction Office report their conclusions to the CAO, which issues the Certificate of Prequalification (Certification) to the applicant. Where the Opinion Letter of the applicant's Certified Public Accountant, which must be included with the application, states that the financial statement was audited in accordance with General Accepted Accounting Principles, the Department can rely on the Opinion Letter and the financial statements submitted with the application, unless there is a reasonable basis for the Department to question the financial statements. Where the Opinion Letter identifies the entity and subsidiaries, if any, whose financial condition is reflected in the financial statement, it is the Department's practice and policy to issue the Certification in name of the entity whose financial condition is reflected in the financial statement as indicated by the Opinion Letter. Where the Opinion Letter indicates that the financial condition of both the parent company and subsidiaries are reflected in the financial statement, then the Department will issue the Certification in the name of the parent company and the generic term "subsidiaries" or "subsidiary". Neither the parent company nor the subsidiary would be qualified separately. Under the above circumstances, the Department would accept a bid submitted by the parent company without the subsidiary even though the bid blank had been issued in the name of the parent company and "subsidiary" or "subsidiaries". For example, a Certification was issued by the Department to "Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. and subsidiary", the bid blank was issued in the same name but the bid was submitted by and awarded to Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. There was at least one other instance where the Department followed a similar procedure. The Department's justification for this practice is that the parent company has control over its subsidiaries and could submit a bid on their behalf and enter into a contract with the Department that would bind the subsidiaries. Whereas, with the converse, the subsidiary or subsidiaries are normally without authority to submit a bid on behalf of the parent company or enter into a contract with the Department on behalf of the parent company. However, where a prequalified parent company gives proper written authorization to a subsidiary to submit a bid on its behalf and such authorization is attached to bid, then the Department would not consider such bid submitted by the subsidiary as irregular. Where a parent company relies on the assets and experience of its majority-owned subsidiaries in its application for prequalification to which it has access to, and control over, and the Opinion Letter indicates the parent company to be the entity whose financial condition is reflected in the financial statement, then the Department would certify the parent company in its name alone and allow the parent company to bid on Department projects in excess of $250,000.00. Furthermore, the Department would allow the parent company's subsidiaries to perform all of the work on the project for the parent company notwithstanding Standard Specification No. 8 limiting the percentage of work which the subcontractors are allowed to perform on a Department project to 49%. The Department does not consider subsidiaries performing work for a parent corporation on a Department project as subcontractors within the meaning of Standard Specification No. 8 and thus, a parent company could bid on a Department project in its own name and rely solely on its subsidiaries to perform 100% of the work on the project without violating Standard Specification No. 8. For example, VSM, Inc. could bid on a Department project and, if awarded the bid, could rely solely on VSM of Florida, Inc. to perform 100% of the work on the project. It was conceded by the Department that VSM of Florida, Inc. has the expertise, experience and equipment to perform all of the work bid for on the Project. Where the applicant's name on the face of the application does not exactly correspond with the name of the entity whose financial condition is reflected in the financial statement, then the Department will issue the Certification in the name of the entity whose financial condition is reflected in the financial statement as indicated in the Opinion Letter. VSM, Inc. is a Florida corporation that was incorporated in 1988. In 1988 VSM, Inc. formed two subsidiary corporations, VSM of Florida, Inc. and VSM of Virginia, Inc. The parent corporation, VSM, Inc., owns 80% of the stock in both VSM of Florida, Inc. and VSM of Virginia, Inc. Van Monroe is the sole stockholder, sole director and president of VSM, Inc. Van Monroe is also the sole director and president of VSM of Florida, Inc. The remaining 20% stock of VSM of Florida, Inc. is owned by Gregory Monroe, brother of Van Monroe. Gregory Monroe is also vice president of VSM of Florida, Inc. These corporations (VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida, Inc.) are separate entities with each having a separate Federal Identification Number. Beginning in 1989, VSM, Inc. applied for Certification with the Department to qualify to bid on projects in excess of $250,000.00. In the application form (Question 6), the applicant is requested to: "List the following for all affiliated companies: (a) Name and Address; (b) States Qualified ; and (c) Explain in detail your connection with this company and whether or not this company is qualifying with FDOT. In response to that question, VSM, Inc. answered in pertinent part as follows: (a) VSM of Florida, Inc., P. O. Box 5761, Jacksonville, FL 32247 (58-2916127); (b) Florida and; (c) VSM, Inc. - 80% Stockholder, Gregory B. Monroe - 20% Stockholder (We would qualify VSM of Florida, Inc. as a subsidiary of VSM, Inc.). The Department issued the Certification on April 21, 1989 in the name of VSM, Inc. Each of the applications for renewal of the Certification issued on April 21, 1989 submitted on March 26, 1990, March 26, 1991 and March 30, 1992 requested basically the same information in Question 8, as had Question 6 in the original application, and the answers were basically the same as in the original application. The renewal applications submitted on March 26, 1990 and March 30, 1992 have both VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida listed as applicants. The Department subsequently lined out VSM of Florida, Inc. on each of these renewal applications and issued the Certification to VSM, Inc. The reason being, that each contracting firm seeking Certification must file a separate application, and the Opinion Letter indicated that the entity whose financial condition was reflected in the financial statement was VSM, Inc. A Certification was issued to VSM, Inc. on April 30, 1990, April 10, 1991 and April 16, 1992, respectively in response to the above renewal applications for Certification. The Certification dated April 16, 1992 expanded the classes of work to be performed under the certificate to include Bascule bridge repair (rehabilitation) work. In each of the above years, Van Monroe, the president of both VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida, Inc., consciously chose not to seek Certification for VSM of Florida, Inc. independently of VSM, Inc. because VSM, Inc. and its subsidiaries operate as an integrated operation and could not be separated. Beginning in 1990 and each year thereafter, when VSM, Inc. applied for renewal of its Certification with the Department, it included a consolidated financial statement which contained the financial condition of its two subsidiaries, VSM of Florida, Inc. and VSM of Virginia, Inc. The Department chose not to issue the Certification in the name of "VSM, Inc. and subsidiaries" for these years because the Department concluded that the Opinion Letter indicated that the only entity whose financial condition was reflected in the financial statement was VSM, Inc. Although the Department conceded that the Certification could possibly have been issued to "VSM, Inc. and subsidiaries", the Department contended that this would not have changed the result of the bid since under either situation, VSM of Florida, Inc. had not submitted written authorization from VSM, Inc. authorizing VSM of Florida, Inc. to submit a bid on behalf of VSM, Inc. Since 1989, both VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida, Inc., after requesting and receiving permission from the Department, have used the same vendor (prequalification) identification number. Additionally, the names VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida, Inc. have been used interchangeably on documents submitted to and received from the Department. The current Certificate of Capacity, required by the Department of all prequalified contractors, was issued in the name of VSM of Florida, Inc. On February 26, 1992 under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. by the Department, VSM of Florida, submitted a bid on a Department project in Polk County, Job No. 16630-3601. Because this bid was third lowest bid, no objection or declaration of irregularity to this bid format was made by the Department. On May 27, 1992 under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. by the Department, VSM of Florida, Inc. submitted a bid on a Department project in Gadsden County. The Department notified VSM, Inc. by form letter dated June 17, 1992 that the bid proposal had been taken apart and not been stapled back in the same order as when issued and that such errors or omissions could result in a future bid proposal being declared irregular. One of the items (Item 5) on this form letter states "the bidder's name is not as issued per their prequalification application on the front sheet (Bid Blank)". Item 5 was not checked or noted as a deficiency in the bid on the Gadsden County project along with the other noted problem because the name (VSM, Inc.) on the cover sheet had not been altered - it was the same as issued on the Certification. The Gadsden County project bids were posted on June 18, 1992 under the name "VSM,Inc." as irregular but with no reason stated for the irregularity and there is nothing in the minutes of the Department's Bid Review Committees indicating the reason for the irregularity. Again, the bid submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. was not the low bid on the Gadsden County project. On May 27, 1992 VSM of Florida, Inc., under cover of a bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. by the Department submitted a bid on another Department project in Polk County, Job No. 16070-3501, the apparent low bid on the project and the bid in dispute here. The name of VSM, Inc. under which the bid blank was issued by the Department was not altered on the bid submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. The bid as submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. was signed by V. S. Monroe and G. B. Monroe as president and secretary, respectively of VSM of Florida, Inc. Although the bid did not contained written authorization from VSM, Inc. authorizing VSM of Florida, Inc. to submit the bid on behalf of VSM, Inc., there is sufficient evidence in the record to show that at the time of the bid submittal VSM, Inc. had knowledge of, consented to and authorized the bid submittal by VSM of Florida, Inc. Also, at the time of the bid submittal, VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida, Inc. were under the impression (rightfully or wrongfully) that VSM, Inc. and VSM of Florida, Inc. had been previously prequalified jointly by the Department. By letter dated May 29, 1992, the Department advised VSM, Inc. that it needed to file a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) affirmative action plan with the Department in order for its bid of May 27, 1992 to be considered responsive. The DBE plan was furnished by VSM of Florida, Inc. and approved by the Department. The Department also requested that VSM, Inc. submit a current capacity rating status so that the Department could determine if the current capacity of VSM, Inc. was such that it was still qualified to perform the work required by the Project. The current capacity rating status was filed by VSM of Florida, Inc. on June 3, 1992. On June 11, 1992, the Department's Technical Review Committee (TRC) recommended that the bid executed and submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. be declared irregular based on the TRC's determination that VSM of Florida, Inc. was not a prequalified contractor. On June 16, 1992, the Department's Contract Awards Committee (CAC) unanimously adopted the recommendation of the TRC and declared the bid submitted under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. to be irregular. The CAC voted to post an intent to award the bid on the Project to Leware. The Department rejected the bid submitted by VSM of Florida, Inc. under cover of the bid blank issued to VSM, Inc. on the basis that VSM of Florida, Inc. was not a prequalified contractor. The bid was rejected by the Department without any review of the Department's prequalification file of VSM, Inc., or without any review as to whether the irregularity could be cured by VSM, Inc. ratifying the action of VSM of Florida, Inc. by supplying the Department with written authorization for VSM of Florida, Inc. to submit the bid on behalf of VSM, Inc. There was no evidence that curing this irregularity would provide the Petitioner with such a competitive advantage that it would restrict or stifle competition or that curing this irregularity would violate any rule or statute. The intent to award the Project to Leware was posted on June 18, 1992. VSM, Inc., by and on behalf of its operating subsidiary, VSM of Florida, Inc., filed a timely initial protest to the intent fo award on June 23, 1992 and a timely formal protest on July 1, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order awarding the contract for the construction of the Project to the Petitioner upon VSM, Inc. curing the technical deficiency in the bid by submitting to the Department authorization for VSM of Florida, Inc. to have submitted the bid on the Project on behalf of VSM, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 92-4859BID The following constitutes my 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 Proposed findings of fact 1 - 4, 6 and 8 - 11 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 5 and 7 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, but see Findings of Fact 41 relating to reliance. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Proposed findings of fact 1 - 42 and 44 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 43 is rejected as not being a finding of fact but more of an argument as to the weight to be given certain evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Intervenor, Leware 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 - 35 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Allen P. Clark, Esquire CAVEN, CLARK, RAY and TUCKER 3306 Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32202 George M. Meros, Jr., Esquire 106 College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Carolyn Holifield, Esquire Paul Sexton, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Mary M. Piccard, Esquire CUMMINGS LAWRENCE & VESIMA 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intended decision to award contract T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements (Project) and other incidental construction on State Road 9A, in Duval County, to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. (ALS), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:1/ The contract being protested is T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements and other incidental construction for State Road 9A, in Duval County. The Department advertised the bid solicitation notice for the Project on July 27, 2012. The bid solicitation notice included a list of all of the pay items and estimated quantities for the project. DOT also posted all of the pay items online in two formats. One format was a downloadable file that could be used in software, and the other was similar to an Excel spreadsheet file. These formats could be used to formulate a bid. Changes to pay items are issued in an Addendum, and while two addendums were issued for this project, neither affected the pay items for the project. For several years, DOT has mandated that prospective bidders use an automated, online bidding process, by which prospective bidders request bid documents and submit their bids using the DOT's website. The letting date established as the deadline for submission of bids via electronic submission was September 26, 2012, and was set forth in the bid solicitation notice. In order to be considered, all bids were due by 10:30 a.m. on that day. Letting is the term used to indicate the date that the bids are due. The bid solicitation notice included a requirement that bidders for the Project attend a mandatory pre-bid meeting to be held on August 20, 2012. Hinson Electrical is a licensed electrical contracting company based in Jacksonville, Florida. The company has completed "hundreds" of projects for the State of Florida, including DOT, and is pre-qualified to bid on jobs with DOT. The mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 20, 2012, as scheduled. G. Christopher Ginn, Project Manager for Hinson Electrical, attended the pre-bid meeting, signed his name, and identified the company he represented (Hinson Electrical) on the sign-in sheet. Section 337.168(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) A document revealing the identity of persons who have requested or obtained bid packages, plans, or specifications pertaining to any project to be let by the department is confidential and exempt from the provisions of section 119.07(1) for the period which begins two working days prior to the deadline for obtaining bid packages, plans, or specifications and ends with the letting of the bid. As a business strategy, Hinson Electrical routinely orders bid documents within the two-day blackout period mandated by section 337.168(2), during which time DOT is required to take down its list of contractors who have requested bid documents concerning a particular project. Ordering bid documents within the blackout period prevents competitors from discovering whether Hinson Electrical is bidding for a particular project. The blackout period for the Project began at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2012. The deadline to order the bid documents for the Project was 10:30 a.m. on September 25, 2012. There is no requirement that contractors request bid documents prior to the pre-bid meeting (if one is required for a particular project), or at any time prior to the order deadline, which is 24 hours before the bid deadline. DOT acknowledged at hearing that it is Hinson Electrical's prerogative to order the bid documents within the blackout period during which the identities of bidders are kept confidential. Hinson Electrical ordered the bid documents for the Project at approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2012. The computerized system immediately provided access for Hinson Electrical to download the plans and specifications for the project at issue. However, four minutes later, at approximately 1:04 p.m., Hinson Electrical simultaneously received an email with a "Prequalification Failure Notice," and a second email stating that the bid document request for the Project was "pending." The Prequalification Failure Notice indicated that the bid document was not provided because Hinson Electrical had not attended the required pre-bid meeting for the Project.2/ Failure to attend the pre-bid meeting was the only basis stated in the Prequalification Failure Notice for DOT refusing to provide the bid document. As noted, Hinson Electrical's representative did in fact attend the pre-bid meeting for the Project, and he signed the sign-in sheet, attesting to his presence at the meeting. The sign-in sheet had been transmitted to DOT on August 21, 2012, the day after the pre-bid meeting was held. Thus, DOT's basis for sending Hinson Electrical a Prequalification Failure Notice was in error. The Prequalification Failure Notice also stated, "[Y]ou will be contacted by email or phone as soon as possible during business hours regarding requirements for obtaining the bid documents." However, DOT did not send an email or call Hinson Electrical after 1:04 p.m. on September 24, 2012, or at any time on September 25, 2012. Phillip Davis, a DOT employee in the Contracts Administration Office, was "blind copied" on the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice email, with a "high importance" tag. Mr. Davis' job responsibilities include following up on these types of notices, though he is not supervised to ensure this occurs. Mr. Davis' responsibilities also include checking sign-in sheets from pre-bid meetings to authorize release of bid documents to contractors. DOT admits that Mr. Davis did not read the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice; did not check the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid meeting; and made no attempt to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the notice. From September 20 through 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson and Chris Ginn obtained quotes from suppliers and subcontractors to prepare a bid for the Project. Hinson Electrical also secured a bid bond for the Project, and had everything necessary to submit a bid, except for the actual bid document. In the afternoon or early evening of September 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson sat down at his computer with the price lists and quotes he had obtained to prepare a bid for the Project. It was then that Mr. Hinson discovered DOT had not granted him access to the bid document for this Project, and that the failure notice he had received pertained to this Project, and was in error. Hinson Electrical was bidding on a total of eight contracts at that time, some of which did not have a mandatory pre-bid meeting. As of the close of business on September 25, 2012, DOT had still not made any effort to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the failure notice. At 7:55 p.m. on September 25, 2012, Hinson Electrical sent an email to the Contracts Administration general email address, stating that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting and asking why Hinson Electrical was being excluded from the bidding. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. the following morning (September 26, 2012, the bid deadline), Chris Ginn called the project inspector, Thomas Woods of HNTB Corporation, on Hinson Electrical's behalf, and requested that HNTB confirm that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting. At 7:32 a.m. that same morning, Mr. Woods sent an email to Juanita Moore notifying her of the error and confirming that Hinson Electrical's representative had indeed attended the pre-bid meeting. The Contracts Administration Office opened at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the bidding deadline. Within 36 minutes (by 8:36 a.m.), Ms. Moore reviewed Mr. Woods' email; checked the sign-in sheet; and instructed a subordinate, Colette Jackson, to send the bid document to Hinson Electrical. Ms. Jackson immediately sent the bid document to Hinson Electrical under a cover email. Ms. Moore testified that Phillip Davis could have easily gone through these same steps on September 24, 2012 (two days before the bid deadline), and timely transmitted the bid document to Hinson Electrical, if he had only read the Prequalification Failure Notice on which he was copied. Ms. Moore agreed that 24 hours would have been sufficient time for Mr. Davis to check the sign-in sheet and release the bid document. When DOT finally provided the bid document to Hinson Electrical, it was 1 hour, 54 minutes before the bid submission deadline. At 8:40 a.m. on September 26, 2012, (four minutes after receiving the bid document) Daniel Hinson spoke by telephone with Colette Jackson about needing additional time to complete Hinson Electrical's electronic bid submission. Colette Jackson testified that one of her responsibilities at DOT is to move bid deadlines, and that she can do so quickly upon receiving instructions from Ms. Moore to do so. However, Ms. Jackson did not have authority to provide the requested relief, so she transferred the call to Ms. Moore. Upon being transferred to Ms. Moore, Mr. Hinson asked for additional time to complete the Hinson Electrical bid for the Project. That request was refused by Ms. Moore. In her view, the fact that the pay items and estimated quantities for the project had previously been provided should have enabled Hinson Electrical to submit a bid within the two hours remaining prior to the deadline. In addition, Ms. Moore felt Hinson Electrical should have taken it upon itself to contact DOT immediately upon receiving the disqualification notification if it believed it had complied with all prerequisites. Contrary to Ms. Moore's opinion, Mr. Hinson testified that it would have taken him about four hours to go through the various steps to submit Hinson Electrical's online bid for the Project. DOT's position that Hinson Electrical could have completed and submitted its bid with less than two hours remaining is rejected as not credible. However, even if that were possible, it would have put Hinson Electrical at a disadvantage because every other bidder was able to download the bid document immediately upon request after the pre-bid meeting. Daniel Hinson has submitted bids for hundreds of DOT projects (including "dozens" using the current online system) and he reasonably believed there was insufficient time remaining before the deadline to prepare a competent bid and ensure its accuracy. Mr. Hinson's testimony regarding the amount of time necessary to prepare a complete and competent bid for the Project is more credible than the testimony of Ms. Moore. Considering the potential cost to Hinson Electrical of a mistake made in haste, it was entirely reasonable for Hinson Electrical to decline to submit a bid, and instead request a bid extension. Likewise, it was unreasonable for DOT to decline the extension request, given that it was DOT's mistake that necessitated the extension. DOT extends bid deadlines dozens of times each year, for various reasons, including computer issues, mistakes in the bid documents, or bad weather. Ms. Moore testified about bid deadlines that had been moved, three or four times in some cases, for reasons including computer glitches, website issues, and "technical problems." In one such instance, contractors could not obtain their bid documents on the Monday before a Wednesday letting (which is what happened to Hinson Electrical in this case), and DOT postponed the bid deadline. In another instance, a bid deadline was postponed for a third time "because the vendors couldn't download what they needed to bid." And in another example, the bid deadline was postponed with notice provided just 92 minutes before the deadline due to "server issues at the Department." In this final example, once the malfunction was identified, DOT promptly sent the notice of postponement to the bidders and later completed the other necessary steps to move the bid deadline. A postponement notice can be sent to bidders in less than ten minutes after the decision to postpone a bid is made. All other steps required to move a bid deadline are typically accomplished by DOT personnel in about an hour. DOT knows of no harm that would have come to the other bidders had DOT agreed to move the bid deadline to allow Hinson sufficient time to submit its online bid. At 9:22 a.m. on September 26, 2012, Daniel Hinson sent an email to Colette Jackson in response to her email, stating there was insufficient time for Hinson Electrical to prepare its bid for the Project and that a protest would be filed if DOT posted its intent to award the contract to one of the other bidders. The letting of the project occurred as scheduled at 10:30 a.m. on September 26, 2012. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 24, 2012, DOT posted notice of its intent to award the contract to ALS. This was the second posting date for the September 26, 2012 letting date. Thereafter, Hinson Electrical timely served its notice of protest, formal protest pleading, and the required bond. The advertisement for the Project reads, in part, "Bidders are hereby notified that all bids on any of the following projects are likely to be rejected if the lowest responsive bid received exceeds the engineer's estimate by more than ten percent (10%)." DOT does reject all bids for being too high in some cases. The bid submitted by ALS for the Project exceeded the proposal budget estimate of $4,183,958 by 19.9 percent (ALS' winning bid was $5,016,501.73). The Contract Award Committee (Committee) is the DOT body with discretion to reject all bids for a project. However, Ms. Moore never informed the Committee of Hinson Electrical's situation so that it could determine whether the Project should be rebid. Even after posting notice of intent to award the Project to ALS, DOT retained discretion to reject all bids, but Ms. Moore was unaware of that discretion and never discussed the matter with the Committee. Hinson Electrical credibly established that it would have submitted a bid of $4,973,361.99 for the Project had DOT provided the online bid document when Hinson Electrical first requested it. Thus, Hinson Electrical would have been the low bidder, and presumably awarded the contract. DOT had at least three opportunities to correct its mistake and allow Hinson Electrical an opportunity to bid. DOT could have (l) extended the bid deadline, as it has in many other cases; (2) rejected all bids and rebid the Project, before posting notice of intent to award the contract; or (3) rejected all bids even after posting notice of intent. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following: DOT has no policy statements, handbook provisions, internal memoranda, guidelines, or other documents regarding the following subjects: How a failure to timely transmit bid documents in response to a prospective bidder's request, whether due to a transmission error or otherwise, should be handled or what relief may be provided to the bidder; Acceptable grounds for extending a bid submission deadline; How an erroneous determination that a prospective bidder for a project was not qualified to bid should be handled, either before or after the bid deadline has expired; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some irregularity in the bidding process; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some error made by FDOT (including its computer system); and How to handle a situation in which all received bids exceed the budget for the project by more than 10%. (Prehearing Stipulation, pgs. 11-12)
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation that rescinds the Notice of Intent to award Contract T2442 to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 21st day of June, 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 Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 22nd day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact On March 15, 1988, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) number DOF-ADM-48. The Invitation to Bid's purpose was to secure a contractor to service and install water filters on private drinking water wells located in eight counties within the State of Florida. The filters were required to be installed by the Department for the removal of ethylene dibromide (EDB) from contaminated drinking water obtained from private wells. EDB is a constituent of pesticides and is a suspected carcinogen. The filter systems operate by running the water through a tank containing a pleated paper filter similar to a coffee filter. The pleated paper filter contains granular activated carbon (GAC). The GAC absorbs impurities such as EDB. The water is also passed through a sterilizer unit. The sterilizer unit disinfects the water by bombarding it with ultraviolet light. For instances of heavy pollution the water may be filtered through a double tank system or require pretreatment with another media filter in order to remove more concentrated impurities from the water. The Department sent its ITB to a number of vendors. The ITB invited the submittal of bids and set a bid ending date of April 27, 1989. The bid included the standard State of Florida Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgment form, number PUR 7028, also referred to as a "yellow sheet." The acknowledgment form provides spaces for the vendor to list identify information and to sign the bid. It also sets forth, general conditions applicable to the bidding process. Among the General Conditions contained on the yellow sheet is General Condition 4(d) which states:,, It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be a new, current standard production model available at she time of the bid. ... Further, General Condition 7 provides: Any Manufacturers' names, trade names brand names, information and or catalog numbers listed in a specification are for information and not intended to limit competition. The bidder may offer any brand for which he is an authorized representative which meets or exceeds the specifications for any items(s). If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer's name and number. ... The ITB also contained a number of terms, specifications and special conditions geared towards the specific purpose of the contract. These included the following Additional Bid Conditions: PROOF OF EQUIVALENCY: Vendor shall provide written, documented proof of equivalency for their equipment where it differs from the named brands and equipment specified in the bid specifications. EQUIPMENT, COMPONENTS, SPECIFICA- TIONS AND DOCUMENTATION: Vendor shall provide full documentation and specifications on all equipment and components to be used in providing the GAC filter systems and maintenance as specified in the bid. In this case, proof of equivalency of equipment is important to maintain the integrity of the water filter systems, and to insure cost-effectiveness in servicing the system. The bid specification also contained civic requirements for the GAC. The GAC specifications governed such items as moisture content, particle size and distribution absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity was measured by an iodine number. An "iodine number" reflects the milligrams of iodine absorbed per gram of carbon. The higher thin iodine number, the more absorptive the carbon. In this case, the GAC requirements ware as follows: Granular activated carbon, with thee exception of the standards below, shall comply with the "American Water Works Association Standard for Granular Activated Carbon" (AWWAC B604-54). The GAC standards are as follows: Impurities - No soluble compounds should be present that are capable of causing adverse effects on the health of the consumer. Moisture - Shall not exceed two (2) percent by weight of listed container contents. Apparent Density - Shall be 28.5 - 31.0 pounds/cubic foot. Particle size distribution - should range between U.S. standard sieve size NO. 8 and NO. 30. A maximum of 15% of the particles can exceed 8 in size and a maximum of 4% can, be less than NO. 30 in size. Abrasion Resistance - Retention of average particle size shall not be less than 75 percent as determined by either the stirring abrasion or the RO-Tap abrasion test. Adsorptive Capacity - The "iodine number shall not be less than 950 or equivalent adsorptive capacity. The GAC must be packed and rinsed at the successful vendor's facilities not at the well site. Virgin GAC must be stored in facilities that will protect it from weather and vandalism. The Department had used a GAC manufactured by Ceca Division of Atochem, Inc. The carbon was known as Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. GAC 30WE had consistently met the Department's requirements. Atochem labelled or named the carbon, "GAC 30WE," because it met certain product quality standards and in order to differentiate the carbon from other types of GACs it manufactures, such as GAC 830WE. GAC 830WE is the same size carbon particle as GAC 30WE, but it has a lower adsorptive capacity, i.e., iodine, than 30WE. About two years prior to this bid, Atochem quit intentionally manufacturing she carbon it labelled Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. At that time the current contractor, Continental, unilaterally, and without informing the Department, substituted another GAC for Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. The Department therefore has been using a GAC of unknown manufacture for the past two years without complaint. Section II of the ITB indicated that the UVL disinfectant light source "must be an Aquafine Model NO. DW-400 or its equivalent." It further stated that the water flow meter required as apart of the filter system must be "a badger Model 15 The ITB required that specifications for the individual equipment components "MUST BE PROVIDED WITH YOUR BID OR THE BID WILL BE DECLARED INCOMPLETE AND INELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION." Section III of the ITB, concerning the "Type II" systems (those consisting of two filter tanks), contained the same provisions as to UVL sterilizer units, water meters and component specifications as Section II. The Aquafine DW-400 was the UVL system currently being used by the Department's contractor. The ITB also contained a pricing sheen for vendors to list unit prices on 20 different components of the filter system. By multiplying the unit price by the Department's estimate of the respective numbers needed of each limited component, a total bid price was arrived at by the bidder. On April 17, 1989, the Department issued the first addendum to the ITB. Addendum number 1 changed the estimated number of pleated paper filters on the pricing sheet from 6500 to 10,200. A new bid opening date of May 23, 1989 was bet. On May 23 1989, the Department issued the second addendum to the ITB. In addition to establishing a new bid opening date of June 21, 1989, the second addendum made several substantive changes. It required bidders to submit with their bid an EDB isotherm for the GAC medium being bid by each bidder. An isotherm is a graph showing the adsorptive capability of the GAC. Since the Department would have no knowledge of the performance capabilities of a previously unused carbon, the EDB isotherm was "critical" where the carbon proposed for use had not been used on a Department contract before. For a known GAC, i.e. one the Department had used before, the isotherm was not material. The second addendum also changed the "designated model number for the water meter from the Badger Model 15 or equivalent to the Badger Model 25L or equivalent. The water meter model number was changed because the Badger model 15 was no longer being produced. Additionally, the model number of the freeze housing was changed from the "AMTEK big blue filter" to the "AMTEK NO. 20 or equivalent." The freeze housing was made an optional component of the bid. The third addendum, dated June 13, 1989, reinstated the freeze housing as a required component of the budget but provided that the housing could be of either fiberglass or aluminum construction. It also clarified the testing required to justify installation of a media filter on a system, and clarified that upgrades of systems from Type I to Type II. A new bid opening date of June 28, 1989 was set. Due to the entry of a temporary restraining order by a circuit court judge, the June 28, 1989, bid opening did not transpire. When the restraining order was later lifted, the Department issued Addendum IV, which set a bid opening date of September 28, 1989, and which gave bidders who had submitted bid prior to the June entry of the restraining order the opportunity to submit a new bid. Petitioner, Continental Water Systems, Inc., (Continental) a Florida corporation, timely submitted a bid of $895,877.50 to the Department in response to the Department's Invitation to Bid. Intervenor, Global Marketing, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, timely submitted a bid of $784,431.50 to the Department in response to the Department's Invitation to Bid Number DOF-ADN- 48. Petitioner and Intervenor were the only two bids submitted. The Department made a preliminary determination that both bids were responsive, and posted its bid tabulation on October 30, 1989. Global was the apparent low bidder and was awarded the contract by the Department. In its bid, Global indicated that it would use the Aquafine DW-400 UVL sterilizer unit and the Badger Model 15 water meter. It also indicated that it would use Cecarbon GAC 30WE. Global did not include an EDB isotherm with its bid. Continental's bid included specifications for both the Aquafine DW-400 and a UVL system manufactured by "Ultra Dynamics Corporation known as Model Number DW-15. For the GAC, Continental bid Alamo ABG-CWF a GAC medium manufactured by Calgon as Filtrasorb 300 GAC. The bid contained an EDB isotherm for the GAC product. It also included specification sheets showing its intent to use a Badger Model 25L water meter. Unknown to the Department, the Aquafine Corporation no longer produces the DW-400 UVL sterilizer unit as a standard production model. It ceased production of this model in June or July of 1989. It has enough materials on hand to produce another 45 to 50 units. Aquafine is under contract to sell those units to Continental. If requested to produce more DW-400's, Aquafine might again manufacture the DW-400. However, Aquafine would not begin such production unless ban order for at least 1000 units was made. At present, Aquafine manufactures only one model for drinking water systems. The model is the DW-8. No specifications were included in Global's bid for the DW-8 or any other potentially equivalent sterilizer unit from another manufacturer. In this case, the bid specifications clearly list the DW-400 as an acceptable submission. The evidence did not show that the DW-400 was no longer available, even though the model was no longer being produced. There is no newer prototype of the DW-400. A contract, which an ITB constitutes the offer portion of, must be interpreted to give effect to all of its language and clauses. Therefore, the specific reference to the DW-400 as an acceptable submission must be given effect as an exception to the general requirement that "any item offered or shipped . . . be a new, current, standard production model . . . Since Continental did not challenge the bid specifications in regard to the UVL system, the complaint of non-responsiveness. . . cannot be heard now. Global therefore was responsive to the Department's ITB on the UVL component of its bid. When the Department learned that the Badger Model 15 water meter was no longer being manufactured it decided to change its specifications due to the change in production. The specifications were changed from the "Badger Model 15 or equivalent" to the "Badger Model 25 or equivalent." Global's bid did not list the Badger Model 25, but listed she Badger Model 15. However, Continental did not preserve the issue regarding the responsiveness of Global's bid on the water meter in its Formal Written Protest. Therefore, no findings are made regarding the responsiveness of Global's bid on the water meter component. The heart of the whole filter system is the GAC. The carbon proposed to be used by Global, Cecarbon GAC 30 WE, is no longer produced by the manufacturer. It has not been in production since 1987. Global and the Department did Introduce into evidence a faxed copy of a letter from an Atochem sales representative indicating that an amount of GAC 830 carbon would be available "until the end of 1989" to meet the Department's bid specifications. However, GAC 830 is not the same product as that bid by Global and does not have the same manufacturing standards as the GAC 30WE bid by Global. Neither does Atochem now intentionally produce a carbon that meets the specifications for DOF-ADM-48. Specifically, Atochem does not produce a carbon with an 8 x 30 mesh size that has a minimum iodine number of 950. The 8 x 30 mesh size carbon that Atochem produces, GAC 30, has an iodine number of 900 to 920. Due to variation in the capabilities of different lots of GAC 830, some lots may have a 950 iodine number. The evidence did not show whether the company tests its GAC 830 beyond its manufacturing standards. Nor did the evidence show whether a higher adsorpting GAC 830 lot is available. A letter from a sales representative that such a lot is available does not rise to the level of competent evidence which would support the conclusion that Global had materially meet the Department's ITB on the GAC element. At a minimum the Department or Intervenor would have had to bring the Company's documentation, including an isotherm, for that particular GAC lot to demonstrate responsiveness for a product labelled with a name which carries a lower adsorptive standard. The only carbon manufactured by Atochem which has a minimum iodine number exceeding 950 is a different size carbon. This carbon has a mesh size of 12 x 40, and thus does not meet the DOF-ADN-48 specifications. Both the Aquafine sterilizer unit and the Ultra Dynamics units, bid by Continental, meet the specifications for this ITB. The GAC bid by Continental meets the specifications for this ITB. This particular carbon has also been accepted by the Department for use by continental on a previous Department contract in January 1988, where the specifications for the carbon were identical to those applicable here. Continental did submit an EDB isotherm. Global's bid was not responsive to the ITB. It offered a carbon element which is no longer in production. It will have to substitute another GAC not identified in its bid in order to perform under the contract. Global provided no technical literature with its bid to establish the equivalency of any other GAC. Additionally Global did not provide an EDB isotherm for the carbon it planned on using from Atochem. These omissions were material. Global's bid therefore cannot be said to be responsive to the Department's ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding the bid to Petitioner as the lowest and best bid. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NUMBER 89-6372BID The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraph 27 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the parts pertaining to the UVL systems unresponsiveness. The facts contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 to Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 8 and 9 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, and Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Clinton Coulter, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James C. Barth, Esquire Callahan, Barth & Dobbins 5374 Highway 98 East, Suite C-1 Destin, Florida 32541 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
The Issue Whether S & A's bid on Job No. 18130-3426 should be disqualified? If so, whether Fairchild is entitled to the contract for Job No. 18130-3426?
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1986, DOT issued a notice to contractors, "Advertisement No. 2," which announced that Sealed bids will be received in the Auditorium of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation Building, Tallahassee, Florida at 10:30 a.m. (Tallahassee Local Time) on Wednesday, the 26th day of March, . . . Joint Exhibit 2, No. 5 for, among other projects, Job No. 18130-3426, involving work on various bridges south of Wildwood in Sumter County. Joint Exhibit No. 5. DOT's standard specifications, those which apply to this and all other DOT bid lettings, include: 2-8 Delivery of Proposals. All bids shall be submitted in sealed envelopes bearing on the outside the name of the bidder, his address and the number of the project for which the bid is submitted. If submitted by mail the sealed envelope containing the proposal, marked as directed above, shall be enclosed in an outer envelope addressed to the Department, at the place designated in the Notice to Contractors. Mailed proposals should be sent by certified mail. If a proposal is not sent by mail, it shall be delivered to the Contracts Office of the Department, or to the place of the bid opening as designated in the Notice to Contractors. Proposals received after the time set for opening bids will be returned to the bidder unopened. . . . 2-10 Opening of Proposals. Proposals will be opened and read publicly, at the time and place indicated in the Notice to Contractors. Bidders, the authorized agents and other interested parties are invited to be present. Joint Exhibit No. 6 Opened and read publicly on March 26, 1986, were three bids for Job No. 18130- 3426, including Fairchild's, which was the apparent low bid, at $179,530. Joint Exhibit No. 2. At half past ten on March 26, 1986, as usually happened on bid-letting days, John Ted Barefield, chief of DOT's contracts bureau, had called time and stopped accepting bids. Bids already delivered to the auditorium that morning were all put on a table. Before opening and reading the bids on the table, Mr. Barefield waited a few minutes for the assistant contracts officer to arrive from the contracts office to learn if any other bids had been received in time. He finished reading the last bid for the last job just before noon. Another Bid When he returned to his office, Mr. Barefield found six packages delivered by Federal Express, including an unopened envelope containing a bid from S & A for Job No. 18130-3426, stamped in at 10:45. Joint Exhibit No. 3. The unopened envelope had arrived in the contracts office inside a Federal Express envelope addressed to DOT's contracts office, which Ms. Waller did open. After Ms. Waller told him the packages had reached his office at about 11:00 o'clock, he asked her to return them to the senders without opening the bids. Ms. Waller placed S & A's unopened bid in a larger envelope, Joint Exhibit No. 4, and sent it back to S & A by United Parcel Service (UPS). Later the same day, after conversations with Mr. Wilson, somebody in Mr. Barefield's office telephoned a DOT office in Deland, asking that the bid returned to S & A be intercepted. DOT's Edwin L. Fleming, Jr. arranged to accept delivery of (and sign for) the parcel from UPS in Orange City. Inside the envelope, which looked to be unopened, was S & A's bid for $117,230. Joint Exhibit No. 2. Eventually, DOT proposed to award Job No. 18130-3426 to S & A rather than to Fairchild. Filling In Robert Lee Wilson has worked for DOT in the motor pool since 1971, washing cars mostly. DOT's motor pool service facility is on Springhill Road in Tallahassee, but the motor pool also does some record keeping in a corner of the mail room, on the ground floor of the Burns Building. By mid-morning on March 26, 1986, the only people on duty in the mailroom were an unnamed woman who is deaf and dumb, and Mr. Wilson, who had been asked to help out. While the volume of mail at DOT has increased two or threefold, the mail room has lost a full-time position. During the same period, DOT personnel have scattered into leased space around Tallahassee so that mail room employees spend more time delivering the mail. When the courier from Federal Express reached the mailroom on March 26, 1986, he set 22 packages on a counter and began going through them checking the last four digits of the airbill on each against a list he had, and removing certain forms. After counting the packages and determining that none was C.O.D., Mr. Wilson signed for them and returned to sorting envelopes. Mike Schafenacker, one of 17 employees of DOT's contracts bureau, went to DOT's mail room about ten o'clock on the morning of March 26, 1986. Somebody there told him the Federal Express deliveryman had not arrived. At 10:25 a.m., according to the wall clock he glanced at, Mr. Schafenacker telephoned the mailroom from elsewhere in the building. Robert Wilson told him the Federal Express deliveryman had still not arrived. Three times that morning Mary Sue Waller spoke to Mr. Wilson in the mailroom: 9:30, 10:00 and 10:26, according to her clock. Each time she asked if any special delivery packages had arrived. By special delivery she meant not only mail, but also deliveries by Federal Express, Airborne and Emery, but she always asked about "special delivery." Each time she asked, Mr. Wilson said no special delivery packages had arrived. In Mr. Wilson's view, there is a difference between special delivery and Federal Express. The courier arrived that morning at 10:22, according to his watch, which was three minutes slower than the clock on the wall of the mailroom. He wrote 10:22 in his log. Joint Exhibit No. 1. The receipts Mr. Wilson signed indicated a 10:22 delivery. All 22 packages were "Priority 1," meaning the senders would be entitled to refunds if the packages were not delivered before 10:30, which would reflect adversely on the courier, Kenneth D. Brown, who was taking that route for the week because the regular courier was sick. In response to Mr. Barefield's questions on the afternoon of March 26, Mr. Wilson first said the packages had arrived after 10:30 at the time he stamped them in; then said 10:22; then said 10:27 or 10:28; then said between 10:25 and 10:30. At hearing, Mr. Wilson testified that the packages, including S & A's bid, arrived at 10:22 on the morning of March 26, 1986, the time indicated on the log sheet. Past Practice At every letting since 1980, those in charge have waited until after 10:30 to open the bids, to be sure of including all bids that reach DOT's contracts office before 10:30. A DOT employee leaves the contracts office for the auditorium shortly after 10:30, after checking with the mailroom. The contracts office is a suite of offices on a different floor of the Burns Building than the mailroom. During this period, DOT has consistently treated Federal Express deliveries in the same fasliion in which it has dealt with mail. For DOT's convenience, Federal Express made deliveries to the mailroom and not elsewhere in the building. It is DOT "policy for the mailroom to be the receiving and shipping point for the central office, because we can't have people. . . delivering to . . . individual offices within buildings . . . for several reasons." (T.77) DOT has never accepted a bid not read aloud at the bid letting. The evidence did not show to what extent S & A was aware of DOT's past practice; and did not establish specific reliance by S & A on DOT's past practice.
