The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Bid No. 88-8-1, and therefore entitled to the contract award. Whether the special conditions set forth in the bid documents were timely objected to by the Petitioner, and so ambiguous as to warrant a rejection of all bids in Bid No. 88-8-1.
Findings Of Fact The Department sent invitations to bid in Bid No. 88-4-2 to various providers of telephone answering services within the Brevard County area. The purpose of the invitations was to obtain the lowest responsive bid for an after- hours telephone answering service for a one year period at the Department's Monroe Center in Cocoa Beach, Florida. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, Answerphone's bid was recommended for the award as the low bidder. On June 16, 1988, the bidders were notified by mail that the bid would not be awarded as recommended at the public bid opening. The bidders were told that the bids were being reevaluated, and they would be notified later as to when the award would occur. On June 24,1988, the bidders in Bid No. 88-4-2 were notified that the Department rejected all bids because of the belated discovery of inherent ambiguities in the solicitation which made it impossible for the Department to determine the lowest and best bid. The Department did not receive any notices of protest based upon its decision to reject all bids, and the decision became final seventy-two hours after the bidders were notified of the rejection. New bid specifications were created, and the Department sent invitations to bid to Bid No. 88-8-1 to the same list of providers who had received invitations in Bid No. 88-4-2. In paragraph 2 of the new invitation to bid, prospective bidders were notified that questions concerning specifications should be directed in writing to 705 Avocado Avenue, Cocoa, Florida. The invitation cautioned that no interpretation of the specifications should be binding on the Department unless provided in writing. Paragraph 4 of the special bid conditions attached to the invitation allowed the bidders to orally present questions about the bid requirements at the pre-bid conference held on August 30, 1988. Paragraph 6 of the special bid conditions required prospective bidders to file a notice of protest within seventy-two hours after receipt of the bid solicitations if there were concerns about the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid. The Petitioner was represented at the conference and the Department was asked to explain what was meant by the specification which required that the system have the capability of receiving and patching or paging multiple calls at one time if necessary. The Petitioner's representative was told that the system must be able to handle multiple calls at one time without losing a call. The provider should have an adequate system of holding, handling, and routing these calls as specified in items one through four of the list of services required in the bid documents. The Answerphone representative indicated to the Department that all of his questions had been satisfactorily answered before the pre-bid conference was brought to a close. No requests were made to the Department to place its explanation in writing and no written interpretation was provided. A notice of protest by Answerphone about the specifications in the bid solicitation was not filed with the Department prior to the Department's acceptance of bids in Bid No. 88-8-1. When the bids were opened on September 6, 1988, Elite Answer Service, Ltd., was the apparent responsive low bidder in Bid No. 88-8-1. Answerphone filed a protest to contest the award because Elite does not have the technological capacity to complete the contract under the specifications, as interpreted by Answerphone. During the administrative hearing, it was learned that the Department meant the following interpretation to be given to its specification which requires the service to handle multiple calls: During after hours, the Department has one telephone line and one telephone number linked to an answering service. When an incoming call to that number is received by the service, no other callers can dial that number and gain access to the service. The second caller will receive a busy signal. The service must have the capacity to take the call which has been received and call the necessary people at other telephone numbers who might need to speak with each other or the caller, together or separately. Therefore, the service must be able to place various people on hold at different times in the sequence, and patch the appropriate people together at the proper times when the service has been directed to do so. Answerphone interpreted the specifications to mean that the service should be able to handle more than one incoming call to the one local HRS telephone number and telephone line which is available to the public at night. For example, if three different calls were dialed to the local number, all three would be received by the service instead of two receiving a busy signal. The service would then proceed to dispatch the different callers to all of the different people as described above in paragraph 14 of the Findings of Fact. Answerphone has the technological capacity to accomplish this feat. Elite does not.. Answerphone's interpretation of the bid specifications was an untenable one in that it restricted competition instead of promoting it. This is contrary to the clear intent of the Department as set forth in the invitation to bid. The bid specifications were clear and unambiguous in that the Department's requirements from the after-hours answering service were to begin after the dialer's telephone call rang into the answering service. The Department's opportunity to handle more than one incoming call dialed during the time the one line at Monroe Center was already in use was never addressed in the specifications. The mistake in the interpretation of the bid specifications belonged to the petitioner. Paragraph 4(c) of the general conditions place the risk of mistake on the Petitioner. Opportunities to correct possible mistakes in interpretation by the prospective bidders were provided during the bid process. The Petitioner did not avail itself of these opportunities.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended action by the Palm Beach County School Board to award the bid on Project No. 93-238V to LaPlant-Adair, as the lowest responsive bidder, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On March 15, 1993, Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued an Invention to Bid (ITB), soliciting bids for the relocation of portable classroom structures for Project No. 93-238V. All sealed bids were required to be received by 2:00 p.m. on April 7, 1993. The ITB contained a provision that Respondent had the right to reject any and all bids. The "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" section of the ITB notified bidders of Respondent's "minority/women business enterprise participation goal" and its "special conditions" which provided as follows: 24. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE D-6.202: Pursuant to School Board Policy 6.146, Minority/Women Business Enterprise Program, a minimum goal of 15 percent has been established for certified minority/women business enterprise participation. The School Board strongly encourages active minority/women business enterprise participation on all contracts, proposals, bids professional services and other goods. The School Board of Palm Beach County is an Equal Opportunity Employer. * * * 26. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. The "Special Conditions" section of ITB provides, pertinent to this case: AWARD: Items in groups as marked, will be awarded by group. Therefore, it is necessary for a bidder to bid on every item in the particular group in which the bidder submits a bid in order to have a bid considered. It is also required that the bidder carefully consider each item, and make sure that each one meets the specifications as indicated. In the event that one item does not meet such specifications the entire group bid will be disqualified. It is anticipated that this bid will be awarded at the May 5, 1993, board meeting. TERM OF CONTRACT: The term of this contract shall be during the period June 20, 1993, through June 19, 1994, with the option to renew annually for a period of one (1) additional year. Annual renewal acceptance will be based on the successful bidder agreeing to terms, conditions and maintaining firm prices for the forthcoming year no later than April 15 in each contract year and acceptance of same by the School Board. All prices shall remain firm for the duration of this contract. SCOPE OF WORK: The successful bidder (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) shall furnish, at their expense, all supervision, equipment, machines, tools, materials, labor, transportation, and other facilities and services necessary to accomplish relocation of portable structures as specified herein . . . The contractor shall be responsible for correction/replacement, according to local codes and School Board's satisfaction, of all water lines, sanitary lines, electrical lines, curbs, sidewalks, streets, parking lots, grassed areas, structures, etc., broken or damaged as the result of contractor's operations . . . Contractor shall be responsible for complete and total relocation of portables to include tie down straps and any and all accessories attached to portable structures . . . Contractor shall provide transport and placement of all precast concrete foundation blocks . . . * * * U. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE D-6.202: Pursuant to School Board Policy 6.146, Minority/Women Business Enterprise Program, a minimum goal of 15 percent has been established for certified minority/women business enterprise participation. The School Board strongly encourages active minority/women business enterprise participation on all contracts, proposals, bids, professional services and other goods. School Board Policy 6.146--Minority/Women Business Enterprise Policy-- provides in pertinent part: (2) DISTRICT GOAL To increase the participation of minority and women's business enterprises in the school district's contracts related to procurement, goods and non-professional services, construction, maintenance and renovation, and professional services. (5) PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES * * * The MBE programs will implement a voluntary 15 percent participation goal of the total amount of funds allocated for school board purchases, professional services and contracts to be awarded to certified M/WBES upon School Board approval. The goals are reviewed annually by the M/WBE council Appropriate language including but not limited to minority participation and goals will be included in all bid documents. * * * All contract and bid documents will include procedural documentation of good faith efforts to include M/WBES to participate as associates, joint-ventures, and subcontractors. * * * Establish a program where staff may provide bonus points for companies employing M/WBES on joint ventures, and as subcontractors to enhance minority participation. (m) Establish a mechanism to delete and/or amend "option to renew" clauses in contracts to vendors once the bid time is completed. Respondent solicited nine bids and received six responses. Of the responses, three returned the ITB with bids and three returned the ITB with a no bid. The three that bid were Gainsborough Construction, Inc., LaPlant-Adair Company and Petitioner. The bids were opened on April 7, 1993. No evidence of irregularities at the bid opening was presented, and neither of the parties contend that there were any irregularities. The bids were reviewed by Respondent's Contracting & Procurement (CP) and its Maintenance and Plant Operations (MPO). CP's buyer/purchasing agent who determines the responsiveness of bids and prepares the tabulation sheet determined that all bids were responsive and that LaPlant-Adair Company was the apparent lowest bidder at a bid of $14,245; whereas, Gainsborough Construction, Inc., submitted a bid of $24,412, and Petitioner a bid of $24,432. However, because of the differences among the bidders in the cost per mile for moving the different structures, Respondent's CP and MPO staff, specifically, CP's buyer/purchasing agent and MPO's major project team leader, determined that an analysis also needed to be developed to provide a fair assessment of the bids to make certain that Respondent was not being over charged, i.e., to make certain that LaPlant-Adair was the lowest and best bid. The ITB provides that eight different types of portable structures were to be moved. Realizing that relocation of the portable classrooms depended upon the student population at each school in the district and the shift of the population, Respondent's staff determined that there was no way to know which portable classrooms would be relocated, the number of each to be relocated and the distance of the relocation. Hence, they formulated an analysis to fairly assess the situation, which consisted of (1) using the percentage of portables in each size in Palm Beach County's school system and the average number of miles portables had been moved over the past year, which was approximately 10 miles, and (2) applying these figures to the ITB's quoted figures by each bidder for "set-up, mobilization, unloading, and tie-down charge." The results showed that LaPlant-Adair's bid was the lowest bid and satisfied Respondent's staff that there was no overcharge. LaPlant-Adair remained the apparent lowest and best bidder. The bid specifications were silent on the use of any mathematical analysis to be used by Respondent. Of the three bids submitted, only Petitioner met and exceeded the minority/women business enterprise (M/WBE) participation goal of 15 percent. Petitioner's minority participation was 16 percent, and it provided supporting documentation with its bid. Because Petitioner included M/WBE participation in its bid, Petitioner's bid quote increased. Petitioner interpreted Respondent's M/WBE participation goal as being mandatory for bids. For several years, Petitioner has been involved in bidding for state and county projects, and both have minority participation requirements. Petitioner's experience was that if the minority participation percentage was not met, the bidder was not awarded a contract even if the bidder was the lowest bidder. Respondent's M/WBE participation is a "goal," not a requirement, and not mandatory. It has not been used in Respondent's prior ITBs. This was the first bid in which it had been included by Respondent. In 1991, Respondent awarded to Petitioner, over LaPlant-Adair, the contract for relocating portable classrooms. The contract had an option to renew. For the 1992-93 contract year, Petitioner renewed its option and continued as the contractor until 1993 at which time Respondent stopped renewing options and placed contracts on a one year term. During the term of Petitioner's contract, Respondent was satisfied with Petitioner's performance. At the time of the protest, Petitioner was using LaPlant-Adair as a subcontractor relocating portable classrooms for Respondent under the 1992-93 contract. As subcontractor, LaPlant-Adair performed 75 percent to 80 percent of the work involved in the relocating. Prior to Petitioner being awarded the 1991 contract and prior to being the subcontractor to Petitioner, LaPlant-Adair had been awarded the contract by Respondent for relocating portable classroom structures. Respondent was satisfied with LaPlant-Adair's performance under the contract. Based upon the bid quotes, the analysis performed, and responsibleness, LaPlant-Adair was recommended to be awarded the contract, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The second lowest responsive and responsible bidder was Gainsborough Construction, and Petitioner was third. On April 16, 1993, Petitioner filed a protest of the intended action to award the contract to LaPlant-Adair and requested a hearing. Subsequently, on April 26, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal protest in letter form providing the basis for its protest: (1) LaPlant-Adair skewed the numbers in its bid; and neither LaPlant-Adair nor Gainsborough Construction, the second lowest responsive and responsible bidder, met the minority participation goal and, in fact, showed no attempt to do so. On May 13, 1993, an informal hearing was held by Respondent in an attempt to resolve the protest. At the informal hearing, Petitioner included an additional challenge which was that the recommendation process for awarding the contract varied from the bid specifications. Respondent determined that Petitioner's claims were without merit and that LaPlant-Adair would be recommended for award of the contract at Respondent's meeting on June 2, 1993. Both Petitioner and LaPlant-Adair are ready, willing and able to perform the work in accordance with their bid documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting Petitioner's protest and awarding the bid on the portable classrooms relocation Project No. 93-238V to LaPlant-Adair. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of Sepember 1993. ERROLL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's protest challenging the Department of Transportation's Notice of Intent to Award Contract No. E-6A14, FIN Project No. 251999-1-32-01/251999-1-52-01, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., should be sustained in whole or in part.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: 3/ The District VI Warehouse. The District VI (District) warehouse is used to store archived records, paper supplies, and surplus equipment. In addition, it houses the District's divers and their gear. The District Warehouse Roof Since at least the time of the first solicitation, the District warehouse roof has had a ponding problem and been in disrepair. The condition of the roof has deteriorated to such an extent that there is now an urgent need to replace it. The current roof has five overflow drains or scuppers. The Department has determined that additional scuppers are necessary to provide adequate drainage. The List of Interested and Prequalified Contractors When the District warehouse roof replacement project was originally advertised in 1997, 25 contractors, including Petitioner, A-1, Zurqui, Grace, ART, and Southern Coast Enterprises, requested that the Department send them information about the project. The Department compiled a list containing these 25 contractors' names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. The Department subsequently prequalified each of these 25 contractors. Petitioner Pedro Glaria is Petitioner's president. He is now, and has been since 1981, licensed in the State of Florida as both a general contractor and a professional engineer. Petitioner currently has two contracts with the Department, the dollar values of which are $140,000.00 and $110.00.00. Both contracts were awarded during the summer of 2000. They each require Petitioner to provide "roadside mowing" and "roadside litter pickup" services. Since its incorporation in 1989, Petitioner has had a total of 10 to 12 contracts with the Department, at least one of which involved roofing work. At no time has the Department indicated to Mr. Glaria that it has been dissatisfied with Petitioner's work. The Third Solicitation In the third solicitation, as in the first two solicitations, the District warehouse roof replacement project was advertised as a design-build project (involving both design and construction services). The Notice of Informal Bid (No. 6012DS) that the Department used to solicit bids contained the following "work description," "evaluation criteria," and "project information": Work Description Sealed written bids are requested from licensed roofing contractors, general building contractors, professional architectural engineers or professional consultant services for the purpose of a design-build project consisting of roof replacement for the District warehouse building located at the District office complex, 1000 Northwest 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The bidder shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, travel, consultant inspection services, shop drawing reviews to design, and furnish plans and specifications necessary to perform all work required for this project. Evaluation Criteria The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will evaluate the technical bid along with the price bid at the same time. The Department may award this contract to the firm whose proposal meets the needs of the Department as outlined in the technical bid criteria, and to the responsible, responsive bidder submitting the lowest total bid. Technical Bid Will Consist of the Following Experience and qualifications of personnel Plans and specifications. 3). Design Warranty Contract time Price Bid 3). Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE) Participation . . . Project Information ESTIMATED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A With respect to a protest of the specifications contained in an Invitation to Bid or in a Request for Proposals, the Notice of Protest shall be filed in writing within seventy two (72) hours after the receipt of notice of the project plans and specifications or intended project plans and specifications in an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals." A formal written protest stating with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based and in substantially the same form as a petition in accordance with Rule 60-4.012, F.A.C., shall be filed within ten (10) days after filing of the notice of protest. The ten (10) day period includes Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays; provided, however, if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday. Any person who files an action protesting an award shall post with the Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond payable to the Department in the amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Department's estimate of the contract amount for the purchase requested or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), whichever is less, which bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against him in the Administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent Appellate Court Proceedings. In lieu of a bond, the Department may accept a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. The protest must be filed with The Department of Transportation, Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 THE DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Exhibit "A" (Attachment V) to the Notice of Informal Bid was the "Scope of Services for Design Build of Replacement Roof at the District Warehouse Building," Section 2.5(a) of which provided as follows: Bidder shall furnish plans and specifications that comply with the South Florida Building Code, Permits Office of the Department of Management Services, and the State Fire Marshall's Office, including but not limited to the following: The design of the roof shall provide for the installation of overflow drains or scuppers in addition to the existing scuppers to prevent an accumulation of water. Petitioner's technical bid, which was prepared by Mr. Glaria, contained a roof design that did not provide for the installation of the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." In Mr. Glaria's professional opinion, these additional scuppers were unnecessary for the design of the roof to comply with the South Florida Building Code. (Petitioner, however, did not file a protest challenging the bid specifications.) By not incorporating the additional scuppers in its design of the roof, Petitioner was able to submit a price bid lower than it could have offered had its design been in compliance with the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." All three members of the Department's Technical Review and Awards Committee found Petitioner's technical bid to be non- responsive because it deviated from the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A.". Had the Department not rejected the Department's technical bid on the grounds that it was non-responsive, Petitioner would have had an unfair competitive advantage over those bidders whose design of the roof included the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." Petitioner's Formal Protest of the Department's announced intention to contract with A-1 contained the following argument concerning the Department's determination that Petitioner's technical bid did not "comply with design criteria for overflow scuppers": FDOT's Technical Panel determined that SPEC failed to comply with the design criteria for overflow scuppers because SPEC did not provide for additional scuppers. . . . The roof already contains five scuppers. As engineer of this design- build project, SPEC determined that additional scuppers were not necessary for proper drainage of the roof. Rather, the roof only necessitated the installation of crickets between the existing scuppers to facilitate drainage of water between the scuppers. The drawing submitted with SPEC's bid reflects the location of the existing scuppers and the use of the crickets to drain any water on the roof. A-1's drawing reflects the use of additional scuppers, but the location of these additional scuppers cannot assist water drainage as the scuppers are located above the crickets, and therefore above roof level, thereby losing any effectiveness. . . . The additional scuppers provided by A-1 will not prevent the accumulation of water as required by section 2.5 and will only create unnecessary expenditure for FDOT. SPEC's design for the drainage of water from the roof is superior to that of A-1, complies with the requirements of the bidding documents and does not require unnecessary expenditure of funds. Accordingly, SPEC should be awarded the project. The Department's December 17, 1998, Notice of Intent Not to Award (Re: Informal Bid No. 6012DS) stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of the Department of Transportation to not award the above Contract. This contract will be re- advertised at a later date. . . . ALL BIDS HAVE BEEN REJECTED On January 4, 1999, Petitioner's attorney, Alejandro Espino, Esquire, sent a letter to Department Assistant General Counsel Brian McGrail, which read as follows: This letter confirms our telephone conversation today wherein you stated that the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") rejected all bids on the above referenced project because FDOT intends to rewrite the specification for the mansard roof wood replacement and because FDOT has no available funding for the project. However, you stated that FDOT will not provide a written explanation to SPEC Incorporated or any other bidder for the rejection of the bids for the project. If you believe that the above is not an accurate summary of our conversation, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best regards. Mr. McGrail responded to Mr. Espino by letter dated January 4, 1999, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter this morning regarding our telephone conversation concerning the captioned matter. In response to your rendition of our conversation, I must clarify that I expressed my understanding that the specifications for the project will be reviewed, which may include the issues raised in the protest about the bid specifications, before any further action will be taken by the Department. However, the Department's decision to reject all bids is due to the unavailability of funding for this contract at the present time. I cannot speak to the future of the project with any degree of certainty, nor represent any to you or your client. This is a matter strictly for District VI to decide, and I am not involved in that decision making process. The Department will defend the decision to reject all bids based on the lack of available funding. I refer your attention to Attachment II of Informal Bid #6012DS, Contractual Obligation, Section 1.10 through 1.13. In particular, Cancellation Privileges, regarding the Department's obligations under the Notice of Informal Bid and subsequent agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon the availability of monies appropriated for this contract. Additionally, I am sure that you are aware that the bid documents clearly and repeatedly state the Department's reservation of rights to reject any and all bids for this bid letting. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Department's action in rejecting all bids is appropriate under Florida law, if not required, due to the lack of available funds at the present time. If Spec Inc. intends to p[rotest] the Department's decision to reject all bids, I feel it is my responsibility to advise you that the Department will seek any and all costs and attorney fees to which it may be entitled against the protest bond filed in this case. If however, Spec Inc. decides to withdraw the current protests against the intent to award filed on September 28, 1998, and the rejection of all bids filed on December 22, 1998, the Department will agree to return the protest bond in full. After you have had an opportunity to review this matter with your client, please advise at your earliest convenience how Spec Inc., wishes to proceed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to a prompt response, as the hearing date is approaching rapidly. Mr. Glaria "realized that [Petitioner was] going to have a hard time [in its bid protest] to overcome the issue of lack of funding." In addition, he had the "hope that [Petitioner] would [have the opportunity to] bid the project again for the fourth time." Accordingly, he authorized Mr. Espino to file, on behalf of Petitioner, the following Notice of Voluntary of Dismissal of Formal Protest, dated January 11, 1999: Petitioner, SPEC Incorporated, hereby withdraws its formal protest, dated October 18, 1998, of the Florida Department of Transportation's notice of intent to award Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. Upon agreement of counsel for the parties, SPEC Incorporated's bid protest bond will be returned to it. Mr. Espino, in addition, sent the following letter, dated January 11, 1999, to Mr. McGrail: Based on the Florida Department of Transportation's ("FDOT") representation that it rejected all bids for Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, because of the unavailability of funds and because of necessary amendments to the project specifications, SPEC Incorporated hereby withdraws its formal protest of FDOT's notice of intent to reject all bids. As we discussed earlier, FDOT will return SPEC Incorporated's protest bond thirty days after FDOT files . . . the final order in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Fourth Solicitation The Project is funded through appropriations made by the Legislature in the fixed capital outlay category. 4/ Fixed capital outlay funds are subject to reversion if not obligated (through the execution of a contact or the issuance of a notice of intent to award a contract) within 19 months of their appropriation by the Legislature. In mid-January of 2001, Brenda Garner, the manager of the Department's Fixed Capital Outlay Program, advised Ms. Lyons that, if not obligated by February 1, 2001, a portion of the funds ($45,000.00) appropriated for the Project would revert. Ms. Lyons (who had not been involved, as the District's contract administrator, in the first three solicitations) quickly proceeded (in a day's time) to assemble the documents needed to solicit bids for the Project. These documents included detailed plans and specifications that the District's senior structural engineer and senior project manager had prepared, at Ms. Lyons' request, following the third solicitation, as well as "boilerplate" that the Department uses for non-design-build fixed capital outlay projects like the Project. Ms. Lyons determined that it was unnecessary to advertise for bids and that the Department only needed to solicit bids from three contractors. She selected these three contractors from the list of interested and prequalified contractors that the Department had compiled in the first solicitation. As Ms. Lyons was aware, each of the three contractors she selected (A-1, Zurqui, and Grace) was a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). She intentionally selected MBE contractors because the District was "trying to meet an MBE goal." Ms. Lyons had some professional familiarity with the three MBE contractors she selected. A-1 had just completed another roofing project for the District, and Zurqui and Grace were performing construction work at the District office complex. Ms. Lyons' decision to not include Petitioner among the three contractors asked to submit bids was not made in bad faith. Inasmuch as the Department was "in a big hurry to get that project done" she did not ask more than three contractors to submit bids. Ms. Lyons required each of the three contractors to first provide proof that it was a licensed general contractor qualified to work on the Project. After receiving such proof, Ms. Lyons then asked the three contractors to bid on the Project. A-1, Zurqui, and Grace submitted their bids on January 25, 2001. The Technical Review and Awards Committee met on January 26, 2001, to review the bids. All three bids were deemed to be responsive. A-1's bid of $58,300.00 was the lowest of the three bids. Neither Zurqui nor Grace protested the Department's proposed decision, announced in its January 26, 2001, Notice of Intent to Award, to award the contract for the Project to A-1. Only Petitioner, which had not been invited to submit a bid and had first learned of the fourth solicitation when Mr. Glaria saw the Notice of Intent to Award while at the District office complex on January 26, 2001, filed a protest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order rejecting in its entirety Petitioner's protest of the Department's announced intention to award Contract E-6A14 to A-1. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department should award the contract for State Project numbered DOH 95209100 to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact State Project numbered DOH 95209100 commenced with an invitation to bid on a construction project which involved the restoration and adaptive use of the Gato Cigar Factory in Key West, Florida. The construction would rehabilitate that existing historic structure and construct internal office and clinic spaces for both Monroe County and the Department of Health. Since both agencies would use the building, the project was divided between them. Monroe County and the Department issued separate invitations to bid for their portions of the structure, and each will enter into its own contract with the winning bidder or bidders. It was not required that a bidder submit a bid for both the Monroe County and the Department portions of the work. Any bidder could bid on one or the other or both. Although the invitations to bid and the contracts to result therefrom were not interrelated, some of the construction work was interrelated as some of the systems being installed under one contract would directly affect the other contract. For example, both the air conditioning system and the roofing system, although being performed under one entity's contract, would be applicable to both projects. The Department's invitation to bid required bidders to submit a base price, plus specific prices on particular items. Alternate numbered 1 added to the base price the cost of a second air conditioning chiller. The base price plus alternate numbered 1, taken together, included all work to be performed under the Department's scope of work. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were deductions from the work included in the base price. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were included in the Department's invitation to bid to cover the possibility that all bids might come in over budget. In that event the Department could select Alternates numbered 2 through 5, sequentially, until sufficient items had been deducted from the Department's scope of work to result in bids under the amount budgeted by the Department for the project. Section 01030 of the bid specifications is entitled "Alternates." Section 1.2E of Part 1 provides, in part, as follows: Include as part of each Alternate, miscellaneous devices, accessory objects and similar items incidental to or required for a complete installation whether or not mentioned as part of the Alternate. Each Alternate Bid must interface with the work being constructed under a separate contract with Monroe County. Each Alternate Bid item is also applicable to the Monroe County work. An alternate which is deducted from one project will be added to the other. If bidding both projects, the Deductive Alternate price for one project must match the Add Alternate price for the other project. The prospective bidders were also given this information in the pre-bid meetings. The Department received a number of bids for less than the amount budgeted for its portion of the work. Accordingly, the Department was able to select Alternate numbered l, which taken together with the base bid, covered the entire scope of work allocated to the Department. The lowest bids through Petitioner's bid were as follows: Bidder Total Bid D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $1,418,744. McTeague Construction Co., Inc. $1,454,500. Lodge Construction, Inc. $1,501,500. Rovel Construction, Inc. $1,559,000. Neither McTeague Construction Co., Inc., nor Lodge Construction, Inc., participated in this proceeding to challenge the Department's intended bid award. For the lowest bidder, Intervenor Porter, discrepancies occurred in its first, third, and fifth alternative prices of $3,500, $375, and $l,497, respectively. For the second lowest bidder, McTeague, a discrepancy of $9,000 occurred in its first alternate price. For the third lowest bidder, Lodge, a discrepancy of $3,165 occurred in its fifth alternate price. For the fourth lowest bidder, Petitioner Rovel, there were no discrepancies in any of its alternate prices. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for the Department was $38,500. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for Monroe County was $35,000. Porter's estimating staff overlooked the instruction that the two numbers should match. The reason for the difference between the two Alternate numbered 1 amounts is that the bidders were instructed to prepare the two bids as two separate contracts. Alternate numbered 1 required moving one of two chillers from the Monroe County project to the Department's project. Porter could not assume that it could use the crane from the contractor on Monroe County's portion of the project to install this chiller in the Department's portion of the project. Therefore, the cost of a crane had to be added to the Department's project, but the cost of the crane could not be deducted on the Monroe County bid. Porter was the fourth highest bidder on the Monroe County project. Monroe County has not yet awarded its contract. If the Monroe County project is awarded based upon the bids submitted, Porter will not be awarded the Monroe County project. The Department's bid tabulation and notice of intended award were prepared without any reference to the bid opening for the Monroe County project and before the contents of the Monroe County bids were known by the Department. The deviation in price between Porter's Alternate numbered 1 bids did not give Porter an advantage over the other bidders, several of whom made the same error. It was a minor deviation, not a material one. The price submitted on the Department's bid reflected the actual cost of performing that portion of the work. Petitioner's bid listed Florida Keys Electric, Inc., as its electrical subcontractor, its fire alarm subcontractor, and its lightening protection subcontractor. That company is not certified by the State of Florida, but it is registered. The bid specifications provide in section B-14, in part, as follows: Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section 16010, Part 1, section 1.9, subsection A., of the technical specifications which form a part of the bid specifications involves supervision of the construction and provides, in part, that "At least one member of the Electrical Contracting Firm shall hold a State Master Certificate of Competency." Florida Keys Electric, Inc., would use Delor J. Ellis as its qualifying agent. Although Ellis is certified by the State, at the time of the bid submittal and through the date of the final hearing in this cause, Ellis' license was in an inactive status, and no application to activate his license was pending with the State of Florida. Fire alarm work and lightening protection work require a specialty license in the State of Florida. Florida Keys Electric, Inc., is not licensed to perform either type of work. When Florida Keys Electric, Inc., contracts to perform such work, it does so through its own subcontractor. Although the requirement for certification and/or registration contained in the bid specifications is not consistent with the requirement for State certification contained in the technical specifications portion of the bid specifications, Petitioner did not comply with either provision. Accordingly, Petitioner's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications. Porter, which submitted the lowest bid, is responsive to the bid specifications and is, therefore, the lowest responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive, dismissing Petitioner's bid protest, and awarding to D. L. Porter Construction, Inc., the contract for the restoration of the Gato Cigar Factory. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Robert A. Hingston, Esquire Welbaum, Guernsey, Hingston, Greenleaf & Gregory, L.L.P. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michael E. Cover, Esquire Morton R. Laitner, Esquire Department of Health Miami-Dade County Health Department 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 William G. Christopher, Esquire Brown Clark, A Professional Association 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue On March 16, 1992, Petitioner filed motions for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. At hearing, Petitioner conceded that Section 57.105 is inapplicable to administrative hearings and the case proceeded on the issue of entitlement under Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. The issue of an appropriate amount of fees and costs is moot, for the reasons set forth below, although that issue was reserved for ruling, if necessary, after an evidentiary hearing.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are gleaned from the record in case number 92- 0247BID. On June 21, 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Developmental Services Program Office, published its need for six (6) bed or less intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled (ICF/DD) throughout the state, in each of eleven HRS planning districts. The notice solicited competitive proposal applications for varying numbers of beds in each district. The notice stated that applications would be received in each district no later than 5:00 p.m., September 19, 1991, and that final awards would be made on November 22, 1991. Sunrise Community, Inc. (Sunrise), filed petitions for formal hearing in response to denial of its proposal applications in several HRS districts. On January 2, 1992, the petitions were dismissed by HRS with leave to amend. An amended notice of bid protest and petition for formal hearing was filed by Sunrise on January 9, 1992, as to HRS District VII, and was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for conduct of the hearing. DOAH number 92-0247BID was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer and was set for hearing on January 31, 1992, within the deadline required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. HRS filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition on January 22, 1992, alleging that Petitioner, with its third-ranked proposal, lacked standing to protest, and further alleging that the amended petition lacked specificity. On January 23, 1992, Salem Village MRDD, Inc. (Salem), filed a Petition to Intervene, as the apparent successful bidder in HRS District VII. The second-ranked bidder, Community Services of Orange and Seminole, Inc. (CSOS) also petitioned to intervene in DOAH Case number 92-0247BID and had filed a separate Amended Notice of Bid Protest on January 17, 1992. HRS' motion to dismiss was heard on January 27, 1992. An order was entered on January 29, 1992, consolidating the Sunrise and CSOS petitions, granting Salem's petition to intervene, and denying HRS' motion to dismiss, but requiring Petitioner, Sunrise, to provide specifics of its factual allegations either through responses to discovery or in an amended petition to be served on opposing counsel prior to commencement of the hearing on January 31st. In the meantime, the parties were engaging in discovery, filing motions related to discovery and were proceeding towards hearing in this and the other cases arising from Sunrise's bid protests in other HRS districts. On the afternoon of January 30, the day before the scheduled hearing, after learning that CSOS was dismissing its petition, Sunrise withdrew its challenge in this District VII case and notified the parties by telephone. The Hearing Officer was notified directly by telephone by counsel for CSOS and the hearing scheduled to commence in Tallahassee on January 31 was cancelled. Without the participation of the second-ranked bidder, CSOS considered its chances of prevailing, as third-ranked bidder, were substantially reduced. A "Modified Amended Notice of Bid Protest," clearly mailed prior to Sunrise's voluntary dismissal, was filed at the DOAH on January 31, 1992. The identical pleading was apparently filed in this party's other bid protest cases in the other HRS districts, as the certificate of service reflects service on various other HRS district counsel. The pleading provides in paragraph 6.(a)- (z), pages 6-8, some specifics of Sunrise's allegations of defects in Salem's proposal and the bid committee's evaluation. The bid protest of Sunrise filed, not simultaneously, but at least contemporaneously with the protest of CSOS, the second-ranked bidder, did not itself cause delay in the process, and it was orally dismissed within hours or minutes of the attorney's discovery of dismissal by CSOS. The substantial weight of evidence in the record supports a finding that Sunrise's initiation and pursuant of a bid protest in Case number 92-0247BID was not for an improper purpose. There was a delay of several weeks between the oral dismissal and the order entered on March 20, 1992, remanding the file to HRS and closing DOAH's file. This delay was occasioned by the Hearing Officer's reluctance to close a file without written confirmation of dismissal, particularly since pleadings were still being docketed, erroneously, under the DOAH file number 92-0247BID. Those pleadings were identical to pleadings filed in several other HRS district bid cases that were still active. Salem, a party in those other cases, one of which proceeded to formal hearing and is waiting a recommended order, has not demonstrated any prejudice by that delay.
The Issue Whether the decision by the State of Florida, Department of Corrections (DOC) to reject all bids received in response to Request For Proposal 93-RIVHSD- 075 (RFP) was arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, illegal or dishonest. Additionally, Intervenor challenges Petitioner's standing to bring this proceeding since Bio-Medical Applications, Petitioner's wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, submitted the bid at issue and because Petitioner would not be a party to any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP.
Findings Of Fact Standing In its response to the Request For Proposal at issue in this proceeding, Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. (BMA) provides the following regarding vendor name and address: Vendor Name: Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. Vendor Mailing Address: c/o National Medical Care, Inc. 1601 Trapelo Road Walthem, Massachusetts 02154 In the bidder acknowledgment and ownership interest portion of its response to the RFP, BMA disclosed the following: ... This bid is presented in good faith without collusion or fraud and Ernestine M. Lowrie, as signer of the bid from Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. has full authority to bind as the principal bidder. All stock of Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. is held by Bio-Medical Applications Management Company, Inc. and all the stock of the latter corporation is held by National Medical Care, Inc., 1601 Trapelo Road, Walthem, Massachusetts 02154. All of the stock of National Medical Care, Inc. is held by W. R. Grace and Company. The Dialysis Services Division of National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC) is the largest division of NMC. In each state in which NMC has an interest in dialysis services operations, Bio-Medical Applications is organized as a corporate entity and is part of the Dialysis Services Division of the parent corporation, NMC. Petitioner in this proceeding, NMC, is not currently organized and registered as a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. At the final hearing in this case, NMC's representative testified that he was not aware that NMC was registered to do business in the State of Florida but thought NMC had been operating in Florida for about 20 years. BMA is wholly owned by NMC. The Respondent agency originally expressed its intent to award the contract at issue to BMA. NMC has a substantial interest in the RFP and the contract at issue, therefore, its substantial interests will be affected by the agency's proposed action to reject all bids. NMC has alleged that the agency's decision to reject all bids was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, and fraudulent. Further, Petitioner also contends that the agency decision to reject all bids, after BMA's bid proposal has been disclosed to competitors, undermines the competitive purpose of the bid process. The Request for Proposal On August 27, 1993, the DOC issued RFP No. 93-RIVHSD-075. The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for a contract to perform peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at the Department's Broward Correctional Institution and its South Florida Reception Center. The RFP required that bid proposals be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. The RFP provided that a bidder would receive up to 50 points for its price proposal and up to 50 points for its qualitative proposal for a total of 100 possible points. The RFP also provided that the DOC reserved the right to reject all bids when the DOC determined it was in its best interest to do so. The Bid Evaluation Upon initial review of the proposals submitted in response to the RFP, the DOC originally calculated that Petitioner's subsidiary, BMA, had received 49 out of 50 possible points from its price, as well as qualitative proposal for a total of 98 points. On October 22, 1993, the DOC sent written notice to all proposers of its intent to award the contract to National Medical Care, Inc. (Petitioner). At the time it mailed its notice of intent, the DOC believed that the difference between the Bio-Medical and the lowest price proposal (received by HealthInfusion) was $156,780 over the five year term of the proposed contract. HealthInfusion and an additional disappointed bidder filed protests contesting the DOC's notice of intent. Based upon input from the protestors, the DOC learned that it had miscalculated the cost of Bio-Medical's proposal. When the DOC corrected its initial error in calculation, BMA's proposal was $340,000 higher over the first three years of the proposed contract and $972,000 higher than the lowest bidder for the entire five year contract term. The Decision to Reject All Bids On November 24, 1993, the DOC notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. In addition to the initial miscalculation of price in the bid, the DOC discovered what it considers to be other irregularities in the evaluation in this case. BMA was the existing provider at the time the RFP issued. The bid evaluators worked closely on a day to day basis with Petitioner's employees. The DOC believes the evaluators preferred that Petitioner be awarded the contract and that the evaluators were not objective. During the process of evaluation, the evaluators were provided a letter from a party representing one of the bidders which contained allegations regarding negative background information on other bidders. The DOC believes that the letter should not have been given to the evaluators and that access to the letter further affected the evaluator's ability to be objective. Admitted Facts NMC and the Respondent DOC filed a Prehearing Stipulation in which the following facts are admitted by those parties: The DOC issued Request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075 ("RFP"). The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at Broward Correctional Institution and South Florida Reception Center. Bid proposals had to be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. On November 24, 1993, the Department notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. The Department rejected all bids due to significant irregularities in the bid evaluation process and the price difference between the winning bid and the low bid was too great. (Emphasis supplied.) On December 3, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its notice of intent to protest the DOC's decision to reject all bids. On December 13, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its formal written bid protest. Burden of Proof Petitioner has failed to prove, by the preponderance of evidence, that the DOC acted arbitrarily, illegally, fraudulently or dishonestly in making its decision to reject all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order dismissing NMC's protest of its decision to reject all bids in response to request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 16th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7111BID The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner's PFOF 1 is adopted in paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order (RO). Petitioner's PFOF 2 is adopted in paragraph 9 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 3 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 4 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 5, to the extent not conclusory, is adopted in paragraph 1 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 6 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 7 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. 8-9. Petitioner's PFOFs 8 and 9 are hereby adopted. Sentence 1 of Petitioner's PFOF 10 is hereby adopted. Sentence 2 of this proposed finding is rejected as conclusory. Petitioner's PFOF 11 is adopted in paragraph 14 of the RO. 12-14. Petitioner's PFOFs 12, 13 and 14 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 15 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 16 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 17 is adopted in paragraph 26 of the RO and is a fact, in effect, stipulated to by Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner's PFOF 18 is adopted in substance in paragraph 21. To the extent not adopted in the RO, the remainder of Petitioner's PFOF 18 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 19 is adopted in paragraph 13 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 20 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 16 of the RO. 21-24. Petitioner's PFOFs 21-24 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 25 is rejected as a conclusion. Petitioner's PFOF 26 is rejected as conclusory and argumentative. This proposed finding is also irrelevant based upon facts admitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's PFOF 27 is rejected as irrelevant based upon facts admitted to by Petitioner. 28-34. Petitioner's PFOFs 28-34 are hereby adopted to the extent relevant. Based upon Petitioner's admission that the Respondent rejected all bids based on "significant irregularities," these proposals are for the most part irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 35. Petitioner's PFOF 35 is hereby adopted. 36-39. Petitioner's PFOFs 36-39 are adopted. 40-44. Petitioner's PFOFs 40-44 are cumulative and not necessary to the conclusions reached. Respondent's PFOF: 1-19. Respondent's PFOFs 1-19 are adopted in the RO. 20. Respondent's PFOF 20 is rejected as conclusory. 21-22. Respondent's PFOFs 21 and 22 are adopted in the RO. 23. Respondent's PFOF 23 is rejected as argument. 24-26. Respondent's PFOFs 24-26 are adopted in the RO. 27. Respondent's PFOF 27 is rejected as conclusory. 28-29. Respondent's PFOFs 28 and 29 are adopted in the RO. 30-32. Respondent's PFOFs 30-32 are rejected as conclusions and argument. Respondent's PFOF 33 is hereby adopted. Respondent's PFOF 34 is rejected as argument. Intervenor's PFOF: 1-21. Intervenor's PFOFs 1-21 are adopted in substance in the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 22 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 4 of the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 23 is hereby adopted. Intervenor's PFOF 24 is adopted in substance. Intervenor's PFOF 25 is hereby adopted. However, Intervenor has failed to prove that the activity of NMC is not within one of the several exceptions to the requirements of Section 607.1501, Florida Statutes. COPIES FURNISHED: Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Jennifer Kujawa-Graner, Esquire PANZA, MAURER, MAYNARD & NEEL, P.A. 3081 East Commercial Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board), may reject all bids as proposed for Bid No. 2002-02-FC, Group A1, or whether such action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the entity charged with the responsibility of governing the public schools within the Broward County School District. As such, the acquisition of school properties and attendant improvements fall within the Board's legal authority. These cases involve the procurement of relocatable buildings suitable for classroom purposes. Pursuant to its authority, on or about December 27, 2002, the Respondent issued a bid that is the subject matter of the instant challenge. The bid, identified in this record as Bid 2002-02-FC, sought proposals for the procurement of district-wide relocatable buildings. In a prior time these buildings were known as "portable classrooms" or "portables." In the post-Hurricane Andrew world, these structures are now pre-engineered and constructed of concrete or steel (or a hybrid of both) and must be, by design, capable of being relocated to various sites. The Petitioners, Royal and Padula jointly, and the Intervenor, James B. Pirtle Construction Company, Inc. (Pirtle or Intervenor), design, construct, and install such structures. In these cases the bid sought several distinct proposals. First, the project sought vendors who would provide and deliver concrete relocatable buildings (Group A1). Group A2 (not at issue in this proceeding) sought steel relocatable buildings. Group B (also not at issue in the instant case) sought site adaptation prices for landscaping, lighted covered walkways, steps, ramps, and other engineering incidental to the installation of the buildings. The advertisement for the bid carried the same generic information as to all groups. The bid documents also contained many terms that were applicable to all groups. Pertinent to the issues of these cases are the following excerpts from the bid document (Joint Exhibit 2). The order of the excerpts should not suggest any significance. The excerpts are listed in this manner solely for convenience sake: BASIS OF AWARD In order to meet the needs of the school system . . . each Award will be . . . up to three responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Individual projects will be issued . . . based upon lowest cost among one or more bidders per project as determined by the project manager. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, and all items in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on Document 00410 Bid Form. SBBC [the Respondent] reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) work may be issued to multiple contractors if in the opinion of The School Board of Broward County, Florida or its staff the work cannot be completed by a single contractor in the specified time such as a Summer, Winter or Spring Break or if it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. ARTICLE 4 BIDDING PROCEDURES 4.01 FORM AND STYLE OF BIDS A. Bids shall be submitted on forms identical to Document 00410, Bid Form, and other standard forms included with the Bidding Documents. The following documents are required to be submitted with the Bid: * * * SIGNED SEALED ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS OF THE STRUCTURES TO BE PROVIDED (FOR RELOCATABLE BUILDINGS BID ONLY) 5.03 REJECTION OF BIDS AND IRREGULAR PROPOSALS * * * The Owner shall have the right to reject any or all Bids, reject a Bid not accompanied by a required bid security, good faith deposit, or by other data required by the Bid Documents, or reject a Bid which is in any way incomplete, irregular or otherwise not Responsive. The Owner may waive any formality in the bid requirements and award or not award the contract in the best interests of The School Board of Broward County, Florida. (Emphasis in original not shown) In addition to the foregoing, the bid documents contained detailed and specific design criteria that set forth information such as the slope of roofs, the roof spans, the mechanical systems, ventilation, plumbing, windows, and stoops. These design criteria covered hundreds of topics and encompassed virtually every facet of the structures. To review each bid proposal as to whether each design specification was met would require countless man-hours. The issue of how to review the bid proposals was not adequately anticipated by the Respondent. From the outset the bid document evolved from unusual circumstances. Whether the bid document was intended to be a request for proposals (RFP) or an invitation to bid (ITB) was a primary confusion among the Board's staff. If the proposals were to be deemed responsive or not and then ranked solely on price (thus making the bid process more like an ITB) how could staff effectively determine the threshold question of responsiveness? If the proposals were to be ranked based upon a point or qualitative approach (more like an RFP) where were the criteria by which to score the proposals? In fact, there were no objective criteria disclosed in the bid document by which a proposal could be evaluated. More curious is that no bidder brought this lack of evaluation criteria to the Board's attention during the mandatory bidder's conference. Moreover, no one challenged the bid specifications. Presumably, the bidders believed it was an "all or nothing" award. That is, if they were the lowest responsive bidder, they would receive the award. The question of who would be responsive and how that decision would be resolved did not come to light until after the bids had been opened. At the mandatory bidders' conference conducted on January 14, 2003, the bidders posed questions in the form of requests for information. In response, the Respondent issued six addenda intended to cover the questions posed. None of the responses addressed how the bid proposals would be evaluated. If anything, Addendum No. 3 added to confusion related to what documents must be submitted with the bid proposal. More specifically, Addendum No. 3 provided, in pertinent part: [Addendum 3, question and response to inquiry] 9. Can schematics be submitted with the bid instead of the signed and sealed architectural and engineering design drawings of the structures that are requested in Document Article 4.01.A.6? Response: Signed and Sealed Architectural/Structural Drawings are required to be submitted with the Bid. The Requirement for Mechanical and Electrical signed and sealed drawing is waived, however all engineering associated with the Relocatable Buildings will require engineer of record signed and sealed drawings and calculations prior to issuance of building permit DRC review. Nevertheless, when the bid proposals were opened on March 4, 2003, the Petitioners and the Intervenor were found to be the three lowest bidders. If responsive, the Intervenor would be considered the lowest bidder with the Petitioners being considered alternate vendors for the procurement. Unsatisfied with the preliminary determination that the Intervenor was the lowest bidder, the Petitioners timely challenged the bid award. The Petitioners maintained that the Intervenor had not timely provided sealed design drawings as required by the bid document. Petitioners argued that the Intervenor had attempted to impermissibly amend their proposal by late-filing a set of structural drawings for the bid. Thus the initial bid protest sought to determine what design drawings were required by the bid and whether the Intervenor had timely supplied such drawings. The Petitioners contended that the Intervenor's submittal should be rejected as non-responsive to the bid. Whether they had complied with the full dictates of the bid requirements was potentially at issue as well. While the initial bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for formal hearing, the parties continued to attempt to resolve the issues. It was apparent that the bidders had not submitted identical proposals. How the proposed products had been compared and evaluated was difficult to determine. From the Respondent's committee members came the disclosure that the decision of determining whether the bidders had complied with the bid ultimately came from three fashioned questions. If the structure proposed was pre- engineered, relocatable to various sites, and suitable for educational purposes, the entry was deemed responsive. Based upon this assessment the Petitioners and the Intervenor were deemed responsive and their bids ranked based upon price. This approach did nothing to discern if the designs were comparable in quality, if they met the bid design criteria, or if the drawings were even sufficient to comply with the dictates of the bid. The first posting of the bid award for Group A1 was entered March 18, 2003. On March 21, 2003, the Petitioners timely filed their notices of intent to protest the award of Group A1 to the Intervenor. Thereafter they timely filed the petitions to protest the award and the initial protest was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The protests did not encompass Group A2 or Group B. No bidder protested the proposed awards for Group A2 or Group B. In fact, the Respondent went forward on those procurements and awarded contracts for those groups on April 1, 2003. The Respondent did not award the contract award for the Group at issue in this proceeding. It must be noted that the instant procurement is not the Board's first experience with the procurement of concrete relocatable classrooms. In fact, the Board has purchased similar structures through a procurement contract that the Palm Beach County School Board holds with its vendors. One of the Respondent's concerns when the instant bids were reviewed was why the cost per unit for the bids in this case was higher than the Palm Beach County amount. As it turned out, the installation economy of multiple units at one site directly impacts the cost of the relocatable structures. Royal confirmed this information after the bids had been opened. When the Respondent's staff met with its counsel in preparation for the initial bid dispute (before the Board elected to reject all bids) the cost of the bid, the lack of full evaluation of the bidders' proposals, and the issues of the first protest were openly discussed. By that time any irregularities with the bid documents could not be repaired as to the contracts already awarded, but as to the instant matter the Respondent could revisit the circumstances and determine its best course. As a result of that reassessment, the Respondent elected to reject all bids regarding this group and attempt to re-bid the procurement with more certain terms. To that end on May 9, 2003, the Respondent issued a revised bid decision that provided in pertinent part: The Facilities and Construction Management Division intends to recommend that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, at the School Board meeting on June 3, 2003, reject all bids received for Group A1 and authorize revising the bidding documents and re-bidding. The rejection of all bids received for Group A1 is made due to serious flaws and ambiguities contained in Document 00200 4.01.A-6 as modified by Addendum No. 3. The Division intends to revise the bidding documents to delete the requirements that bidders submit plans with the bids; include ranges of unit quantities within the bid form; include one or more additional types of construction of the classroom buildings including a composite concrete/steel structure; and incorporate within the new Invitation to Bid all revised terms and conditions that were released through addenda in this procurement. The Petitioners timely filed protests regarding this new decision by the Board and the instant action ensued. By issuing the revised decision to reject all bids the Respondent intended to resolve all issues and to cure the perceived problem with the lack of consistent evaluation of the bidders' proposals. More specifically, the Respondent would be able to assure that the project design could comport with the specifications sought; specify whether architectural or engineering drawings were required and when (it was hoped that the confusion over "architect" vs. "engineer" could be eliminated); and obtain a substantial discount based upon economies from multi-unit purchases for a single site. None of the objectives sought were pre-textual or contrived. Additionally, by avoiding any process that would require a detailed reviewed of the bidders' proposals, countless man- hours could be saved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a Final Order affirming the decision to reject all bids in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November 2003 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Usher Larry Brown, Esquire Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A. 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Orlando, Florida 32801 Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esquire Schwarzberg & Associates Esperante, Suite 210 222 Lakeview Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas R. Shahady, Esquire Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
