Findings Of Fact On February 25, 1994, DACS issued an Invitation to Bid ITB/DF-93/94-49 to obtain competitive bids for contractual services involving a biological assessment of approximately 44,334 acres of the Goethe State Forest in Levy County, Florida. The Invitation to Bid provided that the bids received would be opened at 2:30 p.m. on March 21, 1994. The Special Terms, Conditions and Specifications of the Invitation to Bid provided that references submitted by the bidder must be those of the bidder. The General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provided that the Department may waive any minor irregularity or technicality in the bids received. Bids must be evaluated upon the information furnished with the bid. No other information is used. At the bid opening, Conway was the apparent low bidder at $0.71 per acre for a total of $31,477.14, and Environmental Services was the apparent second low bidder at $1.0438 per acre for a total of $46,275.66. ESP's bid was approximately 47 percent higher than Conway's bid. ESP's bid was responsive to the ITB and ESP is qualified to perform the work required under the ITB. Conway submitted three references with its bid. However, Conway's three references were for work previously performed by Ms. Duever as an individual or as an employee of another company. The references were not those of the bidder, Conway. Linda Duever, the sole officer and director of Conway Conservation, Inc., read the invitation to bid and was aware of the specific requirement for references of the bidder. Ms. Duever thought the Department and the Invitation to Bid emphasized the importance of similar work to that sought by the Department. She did not seek information about the reference requirements, even though she had some doubt about the references she was submitting, thinking she could supplement the bid later if necessary. Nor did she protest the specifications within the timeframes established by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Conway is a closely January 26, 1993. However, Conway Conservation, Inc., and Linda Duever are two separate and distinct entities. The evidence demonstrated that the references of the bidders were an important part of the information to consider in the award of this bid since the references indicated that the bidder had the expertise to perform the work required in the bid but also had the financial wherewithal to complete such work and hire the necessary personnel or subcontractors to successfully complete the work required in the Invitation to Bid. In this case, Petitioner's references demonstrated expertise in the areas of knowledge required to complete a biological survey. However, what the references did not show and could not show because they did not reflect business done by Conway, was the financial ability of Conway to adequately complete a biological survey. Such information was very important to the Department and was not a minor irregularity nor technicality which could, or should, have been waived by DACS. Given these facts Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid and the Department was correct in rejecting Petitioner's bid and awarding the project to ESP. Finally, Conway is not certified by the Department of Management Services as a minority business enterprise pursuant to Section 288.703(4), Florida Statutes, although the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner could easily be so certified. However, bidder's minority status, either certified or not certified, does not change the result in this case. Status as a Minority Business Enterprise was not a consideration in this bid award. Therefore, Minority Business Enterprise status, or lack thereof, did not and could not have had any impact on the outcome. Moreover, the Department has no authority to change the terms and conditions under which a bid is to be awarded after the bids are opened in order to grant more favorable treatment to a potential minority business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order in this case dismissing Petitioner's formal protest and awarding the contract for the Project to Environmental Services and Permitting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2121BID The facts contained in paragraphs A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, Q, R and S, of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs C, J, N and P of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20 and 21 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Isadore Rommes Senior Attorney Legal Office 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Kent A. Zaiser P. O. Box 6045 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6045 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 John T. Lavia, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. Post Office 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the preliminary determination to reject Petitioner's bid as not responsive to Respondent's Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V and to award the contract to another bidder that submitted a higher bid?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: On March 12, 1991, Respondent issued Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB") through which Respondent solicited the submission of bids to supply Respondent with prestressed concrete poles for a one year period beginning May 16, 1991. The ITB was a multi-page document with various component parts. Bidders were instructed on the first page of the ITB to complete and "RETURN ONE COPY OF ALL BID SHEETS AND THIS [BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT] FORM." They were advised elsewhere on the first page of the ITB that "[o]ne copy of all bid documents that ha[d] page numbers, and this executed Invitation to Bid [Bidder Acknowledgment] [F]orm [had to] be returned for the Bid to be considered." The advisement concerning the requirement that all numbered pages had to be returned for a bid to be considered was repeated at the bottom of each numbered page of the ITB. Directly beneath the Bidder Acknowledgment Form on the first page of the ITB was the following provision: This Invitation to Bid, General Conditions, Instructions to Bidders, Special Conditions, Specifications, Addenda and/or any other pertinent document form a part of this proposal and by reference are made a part thereof. The ITB further provided, among other things, that "[i]n the best interest of [Respondent], [Respondent] reserve[d] the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received." Petitioner and South Eastern Prestressed Concrete, Inc. (South Eastern) submitted the only bids in response to the ITB. In accordance with the ITB'S instructions, Petitioner completed and returned to Respondent the Bid Summary Sheet, on which it indicated its price offer. It also completed and executed the Bidder Acknowledgment Form and returned it, along with the entire first page of the ITB, to Respondent. Petitioner, however, failed to return, as part of its bid submittal, all of the numbered pages of the ITB. Omitted from Petitioner's submittal were numbered pages 3 and 4. These missing pages contained paragraphs A. through N. of the ITB's Special Conditions, which covered the following subjects: A. Scope; B. Delivery; C. Award; D. Term of Contract; E. Brand Name; F. Catalog Cuts; G. Estimated Quantities; H. Bid Exempt; I. Bidders Responsibility; J. Corrections; K. Joint Bidding, Cooperative Purchasing Agreement; L. Withdrawal; 1/ M. Minority Certification Application; and N. Public Entity Crimes. There was nothing on numbered pages 3 and 4 of the ITB that the bidder needed to fill out or sign. While paragraphs M. and N. of the ITB's Special Conditions did make reference to certain forms that the bidder had to complete and submit to Respondent, these forms did not appear on either numbered page 3 or numbered page 4. They were separate documents. Petitioner completed these forms and submitted them to Respondent pursuant to the requirements of the Special Conditions. Petitioner did not propose in its bid submittal any contract terms or conditions that were at variance with those set forth in paragraphs A. through N. of the ITB's Special Conditions. Petitioner did not intend to signify, by failing to return numbered pages 3 and 4, any unwillingness on its part to adhere to contract terms and conditions set forth on those pages. Of the two bids submitted in response to the ITB, Petitioner's was the lowest. A preliminary determination, though, was made to reject Petitioner's bid because Petitioner had not returned numbered pages 3 and 4 of the ITB and to award the contract to South Eastern as the lowest responsive bidder. It is this preliminary determination that is the subject of the instant bid protest filed by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order sustaining the instant bid protest and awarding to Petitioner the contract advertised in Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991.
The Issue This cause has been resolved upon Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss for Petitioner's failure to timely file the formal written protest required by Section 120.53(5) F.S. [1990 Supp.] to protest award of Respondent Alachua County School Board's BID 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems" to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Request for Bid 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems" dated June 14, 1991 was issued by Respondent Alachua County School Board and received by Petitioner/protestant Universal Network, Inc. on or about that date. The bid-closing date was 1:30 p.m. July 2, 1991. No one challenged or protested the specifications prior to the bid submittal date. Universal Network, Inc. and Crime Prevention Security Systems were the only bidders who timely filed bids on or before June 2, 1991. The request for bid accompanied by bid specifications had notified all potential bidders that School Board personnel also intended to open the bids on July 2, 1991, and stated that "Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted . . . on or about the Monday following bid opening, . . ." The request for bid also provided "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5) Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." (HO Exhibit 6) The bids were opened July 2, 1991, and oral communications were made by Respondent's personnel to the effect that Crime Prevention Security Systems would probably be successful since it was low bidder. However, Respondent's personnel delayed posting a formal intent to award on Monday, July 8, 1991 because Petitioner orally announced itself aggrieved by the process. Eight days after the bid opening, on July 10, 1991, Respondent's personnel met with both bidders in an effort to resolve any issue that could result in a formal protest. This meeting was tape recorded by the Petitioner. After this meeting, Petitioner filed a letter dated July 11, 1991 stating that Petitioner "learned" through "verbal notification" as of the July 10 meeting that it would not be awarded the bid, outlining its own prior contract work for the Respondent School Board, attacking the bid specifications, and notifying the Respondent that Petitioner would cease to monitor security under the existing contract at midnight on July 31, 1991. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it did not rely on this July 11, 1991 letter (HO Exhibit 1) as its notice of protest. Nothing was formally decided until, on July 16, 1991, Respondent, through its employee, David C. Hotary, formally posted its intent to award Bid 341 to Crime Prevention Security Systems. On that date, Respondent also wrote and hand-delivered a formal letter-notice of intent to Petitioner's president. That letter provided, in pertinent part: As follow-up to our meeting of July 10, and your letter of July 11, this is to advise that posting of the recommended bid award to crime prevention security systems occurred as of this date and will remain posted for a three day period. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Emphasis supplied) (HO Exhibit 2) There is no dispute that Petitioner actually received this written notice of decision or intended decision on July 16, 1991. This procedure complied with Respondent's obligations to provide notice of the award and a window for Petitioner's bid protest under the provisions of Section 120.53(5)(a). F.S. [1990 Supp.] and Respondent's rule (HO Exhibit 5). On July 17, 1991, the Petitioner's president filed with the Respondent a letter bearing that date which provided, in pertinent part, This letter is to inform you that Universal Network, Inc. is now formally protesting BID 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems." We base our protest on unpublished bid variances. (HO Exhibit 3) There is no dispute that this letter was filed with the Respondent within 72 hours "after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of agency decision or intended decision." It clearly constituted the "notice of protest" contemplated by Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S. [1990 Supp.] and is timely under that statute. Under that statute and pursuant to Respondent's rule, the 10 days for filing the required formal written protest would have run out on July 29, 1991, a Monday, allowing for Saturday and Sunday. On July 24, 1991, five days before the formal written protest was due, Respondent's personnel telephoned the Petitioner's president and a conversation ensued. Upon the representations at formal hearing of Petitioner's president Daniel Boudreau, it is found that this conversation encouraged him to file another letter to the Respondent on July 31, 1991. (HO Exhibit 4) Petitioner's president asserted that Respondent's July 24, 1991 phone call was only to urge him to file a letter setting out his grounds for protest more fully so that the issues between Petitioner and Respondent could be resolved informally. Filing a letter which sets out the grounds for a notice of protest is a fair description of what a formal written protest is supposed to do, and it was Respondent's position that the phone call was to urge Petitioner to file its formal written protest. Whether or not the filing of this July 31, 1991 letter could constitute a means of informal resolution of the bid dispute as asserted by Petitioner is a legal issue and is discussed in the Conclusions of Law, infra, but it is undisputed that Respondent's telephone call of July 24, 1991 actually encouraged Mr. Boudreau to file a more detailed letter and did nothing to discourage filing a formal written protest, which formal written protest is mandatory under the applicable statute and rule. Nonetheless, Petitioner filed nothing whatsoever in writing with the Respondent between July 17, 1991 (the date of the notice of protest) and July 31, 1991. On July 31, 1991, Petitioner filed with the Respondent its letter which provided, in pertinent part: This letter is to inform you that Universal Network, Inc. has formally protested BID 341 "Bid Proposal for Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems." We base our protest on unpublished bid variances. Universal Network, Inc. is now asking for a formal hearing and also will be willing to submit a new bid with the SBAC corrected bid specification. Petitioner's July 31, 1991 letter goes on to compare how Petitioner's bid would be altered as of July 31, 1991 if the original bid specifications had specified or clarified certain items or terms and to show that Petitioner's July 2, 1991 bid price would have been lower if that had been the case. (HO Exhibit 4) Petitioner's July 31, 1991 letter clearly constituted Petitioner's "formal written protest" as contemplated by Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S. [1990 Supp.] and the rule and is untimely under that statute and rule.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Alachua County enter a Final Order dismissing the protest/petition of Universal Network, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale A. Boudreau, President Universal Network, Inc. 1031 NW 6 Street, Suite A-3 Gainesville, FL 32601 Thomas L. Wittmer, Staff Attorney School Board of Alachua County 620 E. University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Esquire 111 SE 1st Avenue Gainesville, FL 32602 Dr. Douglas Magann, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601
The Issue This is a bid protest proceeding to determine whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Education acted arbitrarily, dishonestly, fraudulently, or illegally in proposing to award Intervenor, Tab Products of Central Florida, the contract called for in the Department's Invitation to Bid No. 94-28 for "High Density Mechanical & Electrical Compact Shelving" for the Division of Blind Services Library, Daytona Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background On January 21, 1994, the Department of Education (DOE) released its Invitation to Bid (ITB) on Bid Number 94-28 for "High Density Mechanical & Electrical Compact Shelving for Division of Blind Services Library, Daytona Beach, Florida." The ITB solicited bids for the manufacture, delivery, and installation of several high density mobile storage systems. These systems consist of a series of wheeled carriages which move along a set of rails installed in the concrete floor. The equipment specifications address the need to have the rails leveled over an uneven floor. For the purposes of this ITB, shelving units for the storage of library materials are to be mounted on top of the mobile carriages. The ITB requires vendors to bid on a "mechanically assisted" carriage system in which selected carriages are moved by a manual crank to create an aisle within one area of the system and electrically powered carriage systems in which electric motors move the carriages necessary to create aisles in another part of the library. DOE received timely bids in response to its ITB from Spacesaver/United Business Systems, Tab and Advanced Manufacturing/Gaylord (Advanced Manufacturing). The bids submitted by each bidder were as follows: Advanced Manufacturing $411,558.72 Tab $463,439.00 Spacesaver $515,802.00 Advanced Manufacturing was the low bidder on the project. However, in accordance with the terms of the ITB, DOE rejected Advanced Manufacturing's bid as nonresponsive because Advanced Manufacturing submitted an unacceptable alternate warranty, failed to submit an Underwriters Laboratories certification, and failed to submit a proposed rail plan for each system. System Capacity The ITB calls for carriages of 1000 pounds per foot capacity. The longest electrically powered carriage called for in the ITB is approximately 75 feet 5 inches. Combining these separate specifications, the ITB can therefore be read as requiring electrically powered systems with a total weight capacity of approximately 76,000 pounds, although no 76,000 pound weight requirement is expressly set forth in the ITB. An undated brochure advertising Tab's products was introduced at the hearing by Petitioner. The brochure states that Tab offers electrically powered systems with a capacity of "1,000 pounds per carriage linear foot." The brochure also states: "Choose (five-inch) high profile carriages with maximum lengths of 80 feet for weights up to 60,000 pounds. Longer carriages are available upon request, pending load limit and application." (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The advertising brochure was not submitted to DOE as part of Tab's bid. Tab's systems include carriages rated at 1000 pounds per carriage foot, as required by the ITB. The specifications that Tab submitted with its bid regarding its electrical mobile shelving system expressly state that: "Motors shall be of sufficient horsepower so amperage rating on motor is not exceeded when motor is at operating speed driving a fully loaded carriage." (Joint Exhibit 2, p. 10 TAB-TRAC Electrical System Specification 4.0) Tab's bid did not otherwise address the capacity of the system and in no way indicated an intent to provide an electrically powered system with less than the required capacity. Tab's electrical mobile shelving system bid in response to the ITB has a capacity of at least 1000 pounds per foot and a total weight capacity of at least 150,000 pounds -- nearly twice the capacity called for in the ITB. At the time that Tab submitted its bid, Tab had submitted its electrically powered system for testing by the Underwriters Laboratories (U.L.) loaded at 60,000 pounds. U.L. does not test for weight capacity of a mobile storage system. After Spacesaver filed its petition alleging that Tab's system could not meet the capacity requirements of the ITB, Tab requested that U.L. retest its electrical mobile storage system. For the retesting, Tab loaded its system with 90,000 pounds of weight. U.L. successfully tested Tab's electrical system using carriages 90 feet long loaded with 90,000 pounds. These tests were performed using the identical system specified in Tab's bid. U.L. Listing Requirement A U.L. listing is a service of the Underwriters Laboratories to evaluate products to determine if those products are thermally and electrically safe. U.L. "listing" indicates that a system has been evaluated as a whole, as opposed to U.L. "recognition" of individual components. The ITB requires that the systems bid be listed by the Underwriters Laboratories. The ITB also required a certification that the systems were U.L. listed. Tab bid its mechanical storage system model "MEBSSAR" and its electrical storage system model "E-3A." Both are U.L. listed. Tab's bid included the required U.L. listing certification card from U.L., certifying that its mechanical storage model MEBSSAR and its electrically powered system E-3A were listed as required by the ITB. The designation of storage model "MEBSRAR" on page CB5 of Tab's bid response is a plain and obvious typographical error. Prior to submission of Tab's bid, the tests that U.L. had performed of the electrical systems on Tab's E-3A model were performed using carriages loaded at 60,000 pounds of weight. U.L. tests mobile storage systems at any length and with any weight load desired by the manufacturer, and does not test weight capacity of mobile storage systems. There was no evidence to demonstrate that Tab violated any rule or standard of the U.L. by bidding for a contract that called for more weight than Tab put on its system when U.L. had previously tested the system. The Underwriters Laboratories tests systems even after they are installed. The system which U.L. retested at Tab's request for 90,000 pounds of weight after the bid is precisely the same system that was included in Tab's bid to DOE. Discrepancy Between Rail Plan and Drawings The ITB required submission of a proposed rail plan stating the number of rails proposed and the length of rails for each area covered by the contract. The ITB also required submission of proposed rail plan drawings. Tab submitted both the plan and proposed drawings. However, the number of rails stated in Tab's rail plan conflicts with the number of rails shown on two of Tab's drawings (the drawings for areas 2A and 4) due to scrivener's errors in the preparation of the rail plan and drawings. After the protest, Tab notified DOE that it intended to use seven rails in area 4, as shown on the rail drawing for area 4 submitted with Tab's bid, and as indicated for area 2B (which has the same length carriage as area 4). For area 2A, Tab's rail plan proposes using 13 rails while Tab's drawing shows 14 rails. The DOE review panel did not count the number of rails in each bidder's plan as part of its review. DOE's purpose in requesting proposed rail plans was to give the review panel a general idea as to the proposed lay-out so that DOE could confirm that the bidder understood the basic lay-out that DOE desired -- not to require final plans or drawings. There was no requirement in the ITB for submission of final drawings and there was no evidence that any bidder submitted final drawings. The ITB does not require that final installation conform precisely to the proposed drawings. The ITB did not specify the number of rails required. The number of rails ultimately installed will affect the ultimate cost of installation to Tab. However, Tab bid a firm price to DOE for the manufacture, delivery and installation of each system according to the bid specifications. The number of rails that will ultimately be installed in any of the areas of the project cannot be determined until the time of installation, when existing shelving is removed and the uneven level of the concrete floor is evaluated. ADA Compliance The ITB required that the system installed comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires ramps with a slope not greater than one inch of rise to each twelve inches of run. The ADA also requires unobstructed perimeter aisles of 60 inches. To prevent obstruction of aisles, the ITB prohibits ramps extending beyond the face of the system. Petitioner asserts that Tab's system will not comply with the ADA. This assertion is based on the assumption that Tab will build its system so that rails are spaced according to the distance between rails (rail centerline or rail spacing measurements) indicated in two of the drawings submitted with Tab's bid. Tab will not build its system based on the rail centerline measurements indicated in its proposed drawings. Those measurements are inaccurate. Rail centerline measurements were not required by the ITB. Spacesaver included no rail centerline measurements in its bid. The rails necessary for mobile storage systems are mounted on top of the existing floor. The space between the rails is raised so that the floor inside the system (the system floor) is level with the tops of the rails. The ramps necessary for mobile storage traverse the space from the floor outside the system (the existing floor) to the raised system floor. The edge of the system floor is the outer-most rail. Thus, the end (or top) of the ramp is the outer- most rail. Because the ITB forbids ramps extending into the perimeter aisles, the end of the carriages is the beginning (or bottom) of the ramp. All rails must be level with all other rails. Low spots in the floor must be filled to raise all rails to the same level. The fill necessary to make the rails level increases the total height of the system floor and, consequently increases the total rise (or height) that must be traversed by the ramp. Because the fill increases the total height, it also increases the length of the ramp necessary to comply with the requirements of the ADA. Thus, the height of fill, rails, and system floor, the length of the ramp and the necessary distance of the outermost rail from the outside of the carriage all vary depending upon the uneven level of the existing floor. Moving rails is the only option to increase ramp length because the ITB forbids ramps extending beyond the end of the carriages to prevent obstruction of exterior aisles. Tab employees made several visits to the site where the storage systems were to be installed. They were unable to determine the ultimate system height because existing fixed shelving prevented determination of the levelness of the existing concrete floor. Consequently, just as the number of rails needed cannot be finally determined until the existing situation is assessed, neither can the rail spacing dimensions be determined. DOE's purpose in requesting proposed rail plans was to give the review panel a general overview of the proposed lay-out -- not to require final drawings or to show compliance with the ADA. The ITB did not require drawings to demonstrate compliance with the ADA and TAB did not submit its drawings for that purpose. Except for the superfluous rail centerline measurements, Tab's drawings do indicate compliance with the ADA as to those items shown on the drawings. The drawings submitted with Tab's bid show aisle widths that comply with the ADA. Tab's drawings do not portray rails extending beyond the faces of the carriages. The ITB did not require that ramps or ramp slopes be shown on any drawings and Tab's drawings do not show ramps or ramp slopes. Tab is bound by its bid to comply with the standards of the ADA and intends to install its system to meet all ADA requirements. Tab has previously installed at lease 12 systems where ADA compliance was required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Education award the contract to Tab Products Co. and Tab Products of Central Florida, as the lowest responsive joint bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1475BID The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings The following are adopted in substance: paragraphs 1-6, 10, 13, 16-19, 22- 23, 26, 28, 42. The following are rejected as unnecessary: paragraphs 7-9, 11-12, 20-21, 24-25, 27, 29-34, 36, 42-43, 46-51. The following are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence: paragraphs 15, 35, 37-41, 44-45. Respondent's Proposed Findings are Adopted in Substance. Those that are not specifically adopted are deemed surplusage or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Andrews, Esquire Assistant General Counsel State Board of Education The Capitol, Suite PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Alan Lawson, Esquire Jonathan Sjostrom, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Jamerson, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Request for Proposals Through the issuance and distribution of a Request for Proposal and/or Proposal Submittal Form (RFP), the Department's Region IV solicited the submission of proposals from prospective lessors interested in leasing to the Department office space in an area (more particularly described in the RFP) in Broward County. The RFP contained the following "General Specifications and Requirements," among others: Net square footage required: 9,196 (within plus 3 percent tolerance) measured in accordance with the Standard Method of Space Measurement (Attachment A). NOTE: restrooms and mechanical rooms are not to be included in calculating net rentable square footage. BIDDER RESPONSE: Net square feet available (Space offered must be within the +3 percent required) . . . Space to be located in the County of Broward, Florida depicted in the following boundaries: NORTH: N.W. 2nd Street, N.E. 2nd Street SOUTH: Davie Boulevard EAST: Federal Highway, U.S. 1 WEST: S.W. 4th Avenue, N.W. 7th Avenue (See attached map (Attachment B). ) Proposals (bids) shall be considered responsive if the space is within or abutting the specified boundaries. Space for purpose of this paragraph means the net square footage to be leased. BIDDER RESPONSE: (address of proposed location- mark location on Attachment B also). Include zip code. The offered space represents entire building. percent of the Space to be made available on July 1, 1997 or within 90 days after notification of award of proposal, whichever occurs last. . . . Term of lease: Five (5) years with an option to renew for an additional Five (5) Years. Services: Full Services to be provided by lessor, including utilities, interior and exterior maintenance, recycling services, garbage disposal, janitorial services and supplies as specified in Attachment C. . . . Photographs and Floor Plans: As part of the bidder's submittal, bidders are to provide: A clear photograph or prospectus showing exterior front, sides and rear of the proposed facility. A floor plan to scale . . . showing present configurations with measurements that equate to the net rentable square footage. The final floor plan will be as described in the specifications and as identified through consultation with the Department. BIDDER RESPONSE: Floor Plan and Photograph(s) are included as a part of this proposal. . . . Existing building. The proposed space must be an existing building. To be considered as existing the proposed space must be dry and measurable (capable of being physically measured). To be considered as "Dry and Measurable" the construction area of all floors of the building including bathrooms, basement, mechanical equip- ment rooms, stairways, penthouses, and the like must be enclosed with floor, finished roof and exterior walls with windows and doors installed, so that the interior of the building will remain dry during adverse weather conditions. The areas mentioned must be clearly defined within the building, but are not required to be completed, to allow the actual occupiable (rental) area of the building to be measured at the time of pro- posal submittal. Renovations to bring the facility into compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local codes and regulations and/or to meet the desired arrangements are permitted, if carried out in accordance with prescribed procedures. The facility must comply or be renovated to comply with the requirements for Accessibility by Handicapped Persons as mandated by Chapter 553, Sections 553.501-553.513, Florida Statutes, and the latest Accessibility Requirements manual published by the Department of Community Affairs, (DCA) Florida Board of Building Codes and Stan- dards, as well as the requirements of Public Law 101-336, July 26, 1990 known as the "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990" Appendix A to Part 36, "Standards for Accessible Design." The Lessor agrees that the de[v]ised premises now conform, or that, prior to Lessee's occupancy, that said premise[s] shall, at the Lessor's expense, be brought into compliance with all specified requirements. (Attachment D). Successful bidder will provide a floor plan including a site plan of the parking areas for ADA review. . . . The RFP contained the following "Space Requirement Criteria," among others: Plans review fees for State leased buildings: Floor plans are to be a joint effort of departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans per the 1991 Edition of NFPA 101. The final floor plan is subject to department determination and State Fire Marshall review and approval. . . . See floor plan, Attachment H, for suggested configuration of offices and rooms. 5 Offices not to exceed 120 sq. ft. each- 600 net sq/ft 55 Offices not to exceed 64 sq. ft each- 3,520 net sq/ft File Areas- 84 net sq/ft Reception Areas- 300 net sq/ft Conference Room- 550 net sq/ft Storage Areas with floor to ceiling shelves- 180 net sq/ft Copy and Mail Distribution Room- 100 net sq/ft Employee Lounge with sink/cabinets/counter top- 90 net sq/ft Inactive File Room w/open shelves- 2,000 net sq/ft Drug Testing Room*- 100 net sq/ft MIS & Office Automation Terminals and Printers- 255 net sq/ft Firearm Storage- 40 net sq/ft Internal Circulation- 1,377 net sq/ft *Must include: Adjoining restroom, stainless steel sink, viewing window between testing room and restroom, storage shelves and cabinets, and dead bolt lock on testing room. This bathroom is additional to restrooms referenced under "Restrooms" . . . 8. Restrooms: (must meet requirements of Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and the requirements of the Accessibility by Handicapped Persons, Section 553.504(12-13), Florida Statutes- Attachment D): Waterclosets- 1 Men's (Public); 1 Men's (Staff); 1 Women's (Public); 1 Women's (Staff) Urinals- 1 Men's (Public); 1 Men's (Staff) Lavatories w/mirrors- 1 Men's (Public); 1 Men's (Staff); 1 Women's (Public); 1 Women's (Staff) Note: If space is offered on more than one floor, restroom facilities must be provided to code on each floor in conformance with occupancy and code requirements whichever is greater. . . . The RFP contained the following "General Provisions," among others: 2. All bids accepted by the State are subject to the State's terms and conditions and any and all additional terms and conditions submitted by bidders are rejected and shall have no force and effect. . . . 5. All Proposal sheets must be executed and submitted in a sealed and titled envelope, enclosed in an outer envelope. The face of the inner envelope shall contain, in addition to the Department's address . . ., the date and time of the bid opening and the lease number. PROPOSALS NOT SUBMITTED ON THIS PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM SHALL BE REJECTED. All proposals are subject to the conditions specified herein. Those which do not comply with these conditions are subject to rejection. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s), corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). . . . The Department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and accep- tance of the proposal in the best interest of the Department and the State. The Department reserves the right to reject any and all proposals for reason which shall include, but not be limited to, the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor infor- mation or technicality in proposals, to accept the proposal deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the State, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. . . . Late proposals, modification of proposals, or withdrawal of proposals: Any proposal received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered and will be returned unopened. A proposal may be withdrawn in person by a proposer or his/her authorized representative provided his/her identity is made known and he/she signs a receipt for the proposal, but only if the withdrawal is made prior to the exact time set for the receipt of proposals. . . . Sealed proposals will be received until 10:00 a.m. on August 21, 1996 by Maria L. Cortes at 3810 Inverrary Blvd., Bldg. C, Suite 101 Conference Room, Lauderhill, FL 33319, at which time all proposals will be publicly opened and read aloud. Notification of award will be made within 30 calendar days and shall be given either by posting the proposal tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. . . . A preproposal conference . . . will be held at 10:00 a.m. on July 17, 1996 at 3810 Inverrary Blvd., Bldg C, Suite 101, Conference Room, Lauder- hill, FL 33319 "Attachment A" to the RFP was the "Standard Method of Space Measurement," which was referenced in the "Net square footage required" provision of the RFP's "General Specifications and Requirements." "Attachment A" read as follows: STANDARD METHOD OF SPACE MEASUREMENT The purpose of this standard is to permit communication and computation on a clear and understandable basis. Another important purpose is to allow comparison of values on the basis of a generally agreed upon unit of measurement (net square footage). It should also be noted that this standard can and should be used in measuring office space in old as well as new buildings, leased office space as well as State-owned office space. It is applicable to any architectural design or type of construction because it is based on the premise that the area being measured is that which the agency may occupy and use for its furnishings and its people. This standard method of measuring office space measures only occupiable space, undistorted by variance in design from one building to another. It measures the area of office building that actually has usable (rental) value and, therefore, as a standard can be used by all parties with confidence and with a clear understanding of what is being measured. Area measurement in office buildings is based in all cases upon the typical floor plans, and barring structural changes which affect materially the typical floor, such measurements stand for the life of the building, regardless of readjustments incident to agency layouts. All usable (rentable) office space, leased or State-owned, shall be computed by: Measuring to the inside finish of permanent outer building walls to the office side of corridors and/or other permanent partitions, and to the center of partitions that separate the premises from adjoining usable areas. This usable (rentable) area shall EXCLUDE: bathrooms, stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, air-conditioning rooms, fan rooms, janitor closet, electrical closets-- and such other rooms not actually available to the tenant for his furnishings and personnel--- and their enclosing walls. No deductions shall be made for columns and projections necessary to the building. Pre-Proposal Conference A pre-proposal conference was held, as scheduled, to give prospective lessors the opportunity to receive from the Department answers to questions they had regarding the RFP. The Department emphasized to those prospective lessors who attended the pre-proposal conference that, as indicated in the "Net square footage required" provision of the RFP's "General Specifications and Requirements," it would not accept a proposal offering space with a "net square footage" of less than 9,196 square feet. Petitioner did not send a representative to the pre-proposal conference. Petitioner's Proposal Two proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. One of these proposals was submitted by Petitioner, which offered the Department the entire space in a two-story building located at 609 South Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Petitioner's Building). In its proposal, Petitioner indicated that the "net square feet available" in its building was 9,370. Along with its proposal, Petitioner submitted to the Department existing and proposed floor plans. There are currently two restrooms on the first floor of Petitioner's Building and two restrooms on the second floor of the building. None of these restrooms meets the accessibility requirements prescribed in the RFP. It is Petitioner's intention, if it is awarded the lease by the Department, to eliminate these existing restrooms and replace them with restrooms to be constructed adjacent to the existing structure in space that is not now, nor was it at the time of the submission of Petitioner's proposal, "Dry and Measurable," as that term is defined in the "Existing building" provision of the RFP's "General Specifications and Requirements." These intentions of Petitioner's were reflected in the materials Petitioner submitted to the Department along with its proposal. The Department's Initial Evaluation of the Responsiveness of the Two Proposals Douglas Sweredoski is the Facilities Services Manager Assistant for the Department's Region IV. He is a certified real estate appraiser. On or about September 15, 1996, Sweredoski went to Petitioner's Building and measured the dimensions of the building (and certain of its component parts), using an electronic measuring device, to ascertain whether the building had the "net square footage required" by the RFP. Employing the "Standard Method of Space Measurement," Sweredoski reasonably determined that Petitioner's Building had less than the "net square footage required" by the RFP and that therefore Petitioner's proposal was not responsive to the RFP. The other proposal that the Department received was also deemed to be non-responsive (a determination that has not been challenged). The Department's Notice of Rejection of Proposals Having determined that both proposals it had received were materially non-responsive, the Department, by letter dated September 19, 1996, informed Petitioner of the following: This letter is to inform you that the Department of Corrections has determined that it is in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all bids submitted for the above referenced lease [Lease No. 700:0754]. A new Request for Proposal will be issued soon. This letter constitutes agency action concerning the referenced bid. You have seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of this letter to file a written notice of protest to this action, and ten (10) days after filing such written notice of protest to file a formal written protest. All documents should be addressed to the undersigned at 3810 Inverrary Boulevard, Building C, Suite 101, Lauderhill, Florida 33319. Failure to file a protest within the times prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Protest Petitioner timely protested the Department's decision to reject Petitioner's proposal and to issue a new RFP. Sweredoski's Return to Petitioner's Building On or about October 1, 1996, Sweredoski returned to Petitioner's Building to verify the accuracy of the measurements that he had obtained (using an electronic device) during his earlier visit to the building. On this follow-up visit to the building, Sweredoski used a mechanical device (more specifically, a tape measure) to measure the dimensions of the building (and certain of its component parts). The measurements he obtained during this second visit were "very close" to the measurements he had obtained during his previous visit. Sweredoski, employing (as he had during his earlier visit) the "Standard Method of Space Measurement," reasonably determined that Petitioner's Building had a "net square footage" of 8,731 net square feet (a "gross square footage" of 9,369 square feet minus: 271 square feet for the existing stairway leading from the first to the second floor; 110 square feet for the existing telephone/mechanical closet on the second floor; and 257 square feet for the existing bathrooms on the first and second floors). Referral of Petitioner's Protest to the Division On October 10, 1996, the Department referred Petitioner's protest to the Division.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order denying Petitioner's protest of the Department's decision to reject all proposals (including Petitioner's) submitted in response to the Department's request for proposals for Lease No. 700:0754. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November, 1996. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge 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 21st day of November, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The bid protest, which is the petition for administrative hearing, is a letter to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Department of Transportation, from Irwin M. Hart, President, Winko-Matic Signal Company, dated September 13, 1985. The bid protest letter alleges that Winko-Matic bidded as a joint venture on State Project No. 72000-3542 with BHT Electrical. The bid protest further alleges that Winko-Matic is currently working on the same intersections in Jacksonville, and Traffic Control Devices is a strong competitor of BHT, and that Winko-Matic fears that there will be severe problems arising from having two competitors working in the same intersection at the same time. The bid protest letter does not allege that Traffic Control Devices was not the lowest responsible bidder or that Winko-Matic was the lowest responsible bidder. None of the exhibits or testimony presented at the final hearing by Winko-Matic was directed to the issue of whether Traffic Control Devices was not the lowest responsible bidder, or the issue of whether Winko-Matic was the lowest responsible bidder. All of the evidence was directed to the issue of problems that might arise if Traffic Control Devices and Winko- Matic work in the same intersection together at the same time. The Respondent presented evidence, not contradicted by the Petitioner, that the Petitioner's bid was the fifth lowest out of about six bids. Traffic Control Devices, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. The formal opening of the bids on State Project 72000- 3542 was July 31, 1985. The Notice of Solicitation was four weeks before that date. The Petitioner did not file a notice to protest the Notice of Solicitation at any time prior to the final hearing. The only notice to protest filed by the Petitioner is the one mentioned above in paragraph 1. There is no direct evidence in the record that the Petitioner in fact received the Notice of Solicitation, but it must have received some form of notice since it submitted a bid.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Florida Department of Transportation enter its final order dismissing the petition for a section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., for lack of a substantial interest. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Irwin M. Hart, President WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 6th day of November, Winko-Matic Signal Company 6301 Best Friend Road Norcross, Georgia 30071 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Should Petitioner Elizabethan Development, Inc. prevail in its challenge of Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Invitation to Bid (ITB) pursuant to Section 120.53(5) F.S. and Rule 10-13.011 F.A.C.?
Findings Of Fact On May 15, 1990, HRS mailed its ITB which is the subject of this proceeding. The ITB sought an existing facility for the agency to lease in Cross City, Florida, for use as a full client service center. Upon the face of the ITB documents, a preproposal conference was scheduled for May 23, 1990. Petitioner Elizabethan Development, Inc. received the ITB on May 16, 1990, as evidenced by a certified mail return receipt for that date. Petitioner filed its written intent to protest dated July 13, 1990 with the HRS agency clerk on July 16, 1990. Petitioner filed nothing with HRS prior to that date. Under the terms of the ITB, sealed bids were due to be received by HRS no later than 2:00 p.m. July 18, 1990. Petitioner filed no bid in response to the ITB prior to bid closing, nor at any other time. HRS proceeded to open and award the lease on July 18, 1990, despite Petitioner's July 16, 1990 intent to protest. Petitioner filed its formal protest dated July 24, 1990 with the agency clerk on July 26, 1990. Petitioner currently leases to HRS the building HRS now occupies in Cross City, Florida, and which HRS occupied at the time the ITB was issued. The July 16, 1990 intent to protest contained no specific information as to the nature of Petitioner's protest. The main thrust of the allegations contained in the July 26, 1990 formal written protest is that the specifications in the May 1990 ITB were so narrowly drawn that only one potential bidder (not Petitioner) could be responsive and that Petitioner could become responsive if ITB specification changes were negotiated. Additionally, the written protest alleged a number of problems which are, in essence, disputed issues with regard to the existing lease contract between Petitioner and HRS, which issues should more properly be brought before an Article V court. Petitioner admitted that its delay in filing its intent to protest and formal protest was occasioned by its conscientious preparation of its protest through undertaking an investigation of the existing available buildings in Cross City, Florida. Petitioner further admitted that its delay in filing its intent to protest and formal protest was voluntary and not induced by any representations by HRS or its employees.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order determining the Petitioner's intent to protest and formal written protest to be untimely and dismissing same. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990. Copies furnished to: Alan Taylor Elizabethan Development, Inc. Post Office Box 7077 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Frances S. Childers, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
