The Issue Whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Respondent or Division), should deny West Flagler Associate, Ltd.’s (Petitioner or West Flagler) June 30, 2015, and July 1, 2015, applications for new summer jai alai permits under section 550.0745, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering activities in Florida pursuant to chapter 550. West Flagler is the owner of pari-mutuel permits and is authorized to conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County pursuant to chapter 550. There are seven pari-mutuel permits for pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County. The permitholders are South Florida Racing Association, LLC (Hialeah Park)(“SFRA”); Fronton Holdings, LLC (Miami Jai Alai); Summer Jai Alai Partnership; West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Flagler Dog Track); Calder Race Course, Inc.; Tropical Park, LLC; and West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Magic City Jai Alai). Summer Jai Alai Partnership is the holder of a summer jai alai permit. West Flagler currently possesses a summer jai alai permit in Miami-Dade County. On June 30, 2015, West Flagler filed the June Application, pursuant to section 550.0745, for a “new permit” to conduct summer jai alai in Miami-Dade County. West Flagler’s June Application was based on its conclusion that a new summer jai alai permit was available because SFRA had the smallest total pool or handle in Miami-Dade County for two consecutive fiscal years, i.e., state fiscal years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, and that SFRA declined to convert its pari-mutuel permit to a permit to conduct summer jai alai. On July 1, 2015, West Flagler filed the July Application, pursuant to section 550.0745, for a “new permit” to conduct summer jai alai in Miami-Dade County. West Flagler’s July Application was based on its conclusion that a new summer jai alai permit was available because SFRA again had the smallest total pool or handle in Miami-Dade County for two consecutive fiscal years, i.e., state fiscal years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, and that SFRA again declined to convert its pari- mutuel permit to a permit to conduct summer jai alai. On July 14, 2015, the Division denied the June Application on the grounds that there was not a summer jai alai permit available for fiscal years 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 because SFRA did not have the smallest play or total pool in Miami-Dade County for those two consecutive years. The Division maintains that West Flagler (Magic City Jai Alai) had the smallest total pool in 2012/2013 and Summer Jai Alai Partnership had the smallest total pool in 2013/2014. That basis for the denial remains the position of the Division in this proceeding. On December 7, 2015, the Division issued an amended notice of denial that modified the denial of the July Application from one based on there being no lowest handling pari-mutuel permitholder for consecutive fiscal years 2013/2014 and 2014/2015, to one based on the grounds that 1) “West Flagler is incapable of converting its summer jai alai permit to a summer jai alai permit because there would not be an actual conversion as contemplated by statute”; and 2) “West Flagler has not shown that the issuance of a summer jai alai permit to West Flagler, which already holds a summer jai alai permit, would generate an increase in total state revenue over the revenue West Flagler generates under its current, identical permit.” West Flagler’s June Application does not seek to convert its existing summer jai alai permit to a summer jai alai permit. Rather, the application is predicated upon the creation of a new summer jai alai permit when SFRA declined to convert its pari-mutuel permit to a permit to conduct a summer jai alai fronton. West Flagler’s July Application does not seek to convert its existing summer jai alai permit to a summer jai alai permit. Rather, the application is predicated upon the creation of a new summer jai alai permit when SFRA declined to convert its pari-mutuel permit to a permit to conduct a summer jai alai fronton. The disagreement between the parties regarding the June Application revolves around whether “simulcast export” wagers should be included in calculating a permitholder’s “play or total pool within the county” for purposes of section 550.0745(1). The Division argues that a permitholder’s total pool includes live wagers, intertrack wagers, and simulcast export wagers. West Flagler argues that a permitholder’s total pool includes only live wagers and intertrack wagers.1/ A live wager is a wager accepted at a permitted Florida facility on a race or game performed live at that facility. Permitholders derive income, in the form of a commission, on live wagers placed at their facilities. Permitholders pay taxes on live wagers. An intertrack wager is a wager accepted at a permitted Florida facility on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at, or simulcast rebroadcast from, another permitted Florida facility. Permitholders derive income, in the form of a commission, on wagers placed at other Florida facilities on races or games transmitted from the permitholder’s facilities. Permitholders pay taxes on intertrack wagers. A simulcast wager is a wager placed at a Florida facility on an out-of-state race transmitted to the Florida facility. Permitholders pay taxes on simulcast wagers. An intertrack simulcast wager is a wager placed at a Florida guest track on an out-of-state race transmitted by the out-of-state track to a Florida host track, and then re- transmitted by the Florida host track to the Florida guest track. Permitholders pay taxes on intertrack simulcast wagers. A simulcast export wager is a wager accepted at an out-of-state facility on a race or game performed live at a permitted Florida facility. Permitholders derive income, in the form of a commission, on simulcast export wagers accepted by out-of-state facilities on races or games transmitted from the permitholder’s facilities. The Division does not know the commission structure between the permitholders and out-of-state facilities. Permitholders do not pay taxes on simulcast export wagers, and the state receives no revenue from simulcast export wagers. In sum, live wagers, intertrack wagers, simulcast wagers, and intertrack simulcast wagers are those placed at Florida pari-mutuel facilities, and subject to Florida taxation. Simulcast export wagers are those placed on Florida events at out-of-state facilities, and not subject to Florida taxation. Licensed betting facilities across the country -- and generally across the world -- contract with a licensed totalisator (the “tote”)2/ by which all wagers are accounted for. Data on all wagers placed on a hosting permitholder’s event (with uncommon exceptions when an out-of-state facility receiving a hosting permitholder’s simulcast broadcast forms its own pool) are sent by the tote to the hosting permitholder to be included in its total price pool, and used to determine payouts on winning wagers. The totes also capture simulcast export wagers for use in calculating the commission paid by the guest tracks. A permitholder’s pool amounts are reported to the Division by the tote company on a daily basis. The daily tote report includes live, simulcast, intertrack, intertrack simulcast, and simulcast export wagers. The daily tote reports are reviewed by the Division’s auditing section to ensure that wagers are accounted for and paid. The Division maintains a central monitoring system by which it captures the daily amounts for all wagers from the daily tote reports, and compiles them up to produce a cumulative report. A permitholder’s pool amounts are also reported to the Division directly by the permitholder in monthly pari-mutuel reports, and annual financial statements. The monthly reports and annual financial statements are reviewed by the Division’s revenue section. Since simulcast export wagers are not taxed by Florida, the Division’s monthly report and annual financial statement forms do not include simulcast export wagers as part of the facility’s handle. Due to the combination of low overall handles, and tax credits available for net operating losses, jai alai facilities (as opposed to cardrooms operating therein) do not generate any tax revenues for the state. Thus, the only revenues derived by the state from jai alai facilities are the $40 per game daily license fees and 15-percent admission tax required by section 550.0951. The parties stipulated that the Third District Court of Appeal considered only live wagers and intertrack wagers in its analysis of whether the “smallest play or total pool within the county” included only wagers physically placed within Miami- Dade County, as reflected in the Court’s opinion in South Florida Racing Association v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, So. 3d , 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11334, 2015 WL 4546935 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 2015).3/ If simulcast export wagers are excluded from a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, SFRA had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2012/2013 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are included in a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, West Flagler Associates, Ltd. (Magic City Jai Alai) had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2012/2013 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are excluded from a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, SFRA had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2013/2014 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are included in a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, Summer Jai Alai Partnership had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2013/2014 state fiscal year.4/ If simulcast export wagers are excluded from a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, SFRA had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2014/2015 state fiscal year. If simulcast export wagers are included in a pari- mutuel facility’s play or total pool within Miami-Dade County, Summer Jai Alai Partnership had the smallest total handle in Miami-Dade County for the 2014/2015 state fiscal year. Regardless of whether out-of-state simulcast export wagers are included in the calculation of facilities’ “play or total pool,” a single pari-mutuel facility (either SRFA or Summer Jai Alai Partnership) had the smallest play or total pool within Miami-Dade County for the consecutive 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 state fiscal years. The Division did not notify West Flagler of any apparent errors or omissions in its July Application. The Division did not request that West Flagler provide any additional information with its July Application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that West Flagler Associate, Ltd.’s, June 30, 2015, and July 1, 2015, applications for new summer jai alai permits be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intent to award a contract for bridge-tending services (RFP DOT 92/93 2088 REBID) to Intervenor constitutes fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, illegal or dishonest action.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.-12., below. Stipulated Facts Respondent issued the RFP for bridge-tending services on May 14, 1993. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP were opened on June 16, 1993. Proposals were submitted by five firms, including Petitioner and Intervenor. All proposals were determined at the time to be responsive. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was appointed to review the technical portion of the proposals. The three members of the TRC were Alan Hyman, J. L. Gillis, and Yingyong Sujjavanich. The members reviewed the technical portion of the proposals on June 17, 1993. The evaluation forms completed by the TRC and a summary score sheet were delivered to Respondent's purchasing office on the morning of June 18, 1993. The price proposal was evaluated by Respondent's purchasing office. The price evaluation of each proposal was performed by applying a formula which compared the submitted price quotations. After the scores for the technical proposal and the cost proposals were totalled, it was determined that Intervenor's proposal had earned the highest number of points. This result was presented to Respondent's District 2 Executive Committee and a recommendation was communicated by the Purchasing Director to award the RFP to Intervenor. The Executive Committee accepted the recommendation and directed that the contract be awarded to Intervenor. On June 18, 1993, at 4 p.m., the bid tabs were posted noticing Respondent's intent to award the contract to Intervenor. On or about July 6, 1993, Petitioner requested a meeting with Respondent's representatives regarding the RFP. That meeting was held on July 9, 1993. At the meeting, Petitioner raised an issue regarding an arithmetic error in the scoring of the technical proposals. Intervenor remained the proposer with the highest number of points. However, another proposal formerly ranked as number two was lowered to number three status and Petitioner, previously ranked number three, was raised to number two rank. On July 12, 1993, Respondent posted an amended bid tab indicating its intent to award the contract to Intervenor. Other Facts Respondent chose to score the bid pricing, a non- subjective task, in Respondent's District 2 office. Technical portions of the proposals were reviewed by the TRC, comprised of members from Respondent's District 5 office. This unusual step was taken by Respondent in order to reduce prejudice to any proposal in view of previous accusations made against District 2 employees. Bud Rosier, Respondent's employee, has overall responsibility for bridge determination that District 5 employees chosen as committee members were qualified to evaluate the proposals. Each response to the RFP contained a technical proposal and a price proposal. Intervenor's technical proposal received 1.33 points less than Petitioner's technical proposal. The price proposals, as noted above, were scored in accordance with a mathematical formula that compares price proposals to each other and does not take any subjective factors into consideration. Intervenor was awarded 5.55 points, compared to Petitioner who received no points for a proposal more than $140,000 higher for the initial year of the contemplated contract. Although members of the TRC were not given any background information by Respondent regarding the competing proposals, beyond that contained in the submitted bid packages, no information was withheld from the committee. The members were given adequate time to review the proposals and do any desired independent background checking regarding past performance of any proposer, although no requirement in the RFP mandated such a background review. At least one of the TRC members, Sujjavanich, chose not to independently research past performance of the Intervenor. No evidence was offered at hearing with regard to whether the other two members independently researched any of the proposers' past performances. Even if review of past performance, apart from the materials submitted by the proposers, were required by provisions of the RFP, failure of the evaluators to accomplish that task would result only in the loss to Intervenor of the 3.66 points awarded for past performance and Intervenor, with a remaining total of 81.89 points, would remain the highest ranked proposer. In view of the objective process used to arrive at the results of the evaluation of the prices of the competing proposals, there was no need to provide this information to the members of the TRC who were doing the technical proposal evaluation. Although the RFP provided that the TRC would be given such results, the failure of Respondent's personnel to provide this information to the evaluators could not have made any difference in the final result since the committee, using the objective price evaluation criteria, would have arrived at the same result as the purchasing office on cost scores. The admitted failure to provide the superfluous cost information to the TRC is inadequate to show that such omission resulted in prejudice to the final scores of any of the competing proposals and must be considered to be only a minor variation from the RFP by Respondent. Contrary to Petitioner's allegations, there is no competent substantial evidence to support any finding that the members of the TRC (Hyman, Gillis, and Sujjavanich) did not possess required background, experience or professional credentials adequate for evaluating proposals for bridge-tending services. All three members of the TRC were familiar with the RFP, attachments to the RFP, bridge-tending procedures and bridge-tending qualification procedures. There is no competent substantial evidence to establish that Intervenor's proposal is not financially feasible. Proposed utilization of 72 bridge-tenders by Intervenor for a total price of $673,333.44 does not mean that 72 bridge-tender positions would be established or filled, or that the positions would be paid at the rate proposed by Petitioner of $8.40 per hour. The evidence establishes that a proposer would need an optimum number of bridge requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the award of the bid in RFP DOT 92/93 2088 Rebid to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 4th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4271BID The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-12. Accepted. 13.-16. Rejected, relevancy. 17. Accepted. 18.-19. Rejected, relevancy. 20.-25. Accepted. 26.-27. Rejected, cumulative. 28. Rejected, credibility. 29.-33. Rejected, relevancy. 34.-35. Accepted. 36.-37. Rejected, argumentative and mischaracterization. 38.-46. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 47.-51. Rejected, relevancy. Intervenor's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected, cumulative. 3.-4. Accepted. 5.-6. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, argumentative. 10.-11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted by reference. 14.-16. Accepted, but not verbatim. 17.-22. Adopted by reference. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-30. Adopted, but not verbatim. 31. Rejected, narrative. 32.-35. Rejected, cumulative. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-11. Adopted. 12. Rejected, unnecessary. 13.-17. Adopted, not verbatim. 18.-19. Rejected, cumulative. 20.-22. Adopted. 23. Rejected, recitation of RFP. 24.-26. Adopted. 27. Rejected, recitation of RFP. 28.-29. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Cassidy, III, Esquire. John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Carolyn S. Holifield, Esquire Mark D. Tucker, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building # 562 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Findings regarding the RFP and all Petitioners On September 3, 1991, the Department issued RFP 92-005-LOT-TEN-P by which it sought proposals for the provision of advertising and related services to the Florida Lottery. During the following two weeks, the Department received written questions from would-be vendors. On October 3, 1991, the Department circulated Addendum 3 to the RFP which included numerous changes to the RFP and which provided written answers to the questions which were submitted to the Department prior to September 17. The Department of the Lottery had issued an earlier RFP to obtain substantially the same advertising and related services. The earlier procurement effort ended in a rejection of all bids and the initiation of the instant procurement effort. The timetable set forth in the RFP indicated that on a date certain the Department would make determinations of non-responsiveness in accordance with Section 3.2 and post a Notice of Non-responsive Technical Proposals. Only after responsiveness had been determined would responsive technical proposals be presented to an evaluation committee for scoring in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP. (RFP Section 2.6) In addition, Section 6 of the RFP provides that the evaluation committee shall complete an evaluation of all responsive proposals. All Petitioners timely submitted a proposal in response to RFP #92-005- LOT/TEN/P. The issuing officer for RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P is Mr. Russ Rothman, CPPO, Office of Purchasing, Florida Lottery, 250 Marriott Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. As issuing officer, Mr. Russ Rothman served as agent of the Florida Department of the Lottery with respect to RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P, even though Mr. Rothman's regular employment is with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The person most directly responsible for preparing the RFP #92-005- LOT/TEN/P was Mr. Russ Rothman. The person most directly responsible for initially determining whether each proposal was responsive or non-responsive was Mr. Russ Rothman. Respondent deemed the proposals of each Petitioner to be non-responsive for the reasons set forth in a Notice Of Non-Responsive Technical Proposal And/Or Non-Responsible Respondent, which notice was posted on October 28, 1991. (Respondent's Exhibit 10) The specific reasons stated in that notice are as follows: Respondent Determination Lintas Non-responsive. Failed to submit a TV commercial storyboard required by Section 5.9.6,B.6. Failed to complete Disclosure Affidavit question 7.b. The Ad Team Non-responsive. Failed to submit TV commercial storyboard (5.9.6,B.6) and 3 product or package designs (5.9.5,3.f). Absence of certification re: lack of audited financial statements (5.9.3,F). Ogilvy & Mather Non-responsive. Failed to submit all resumes and/or selection criteria (5.9.5,2) and 30 second radio spot (5.9.6,B.3). Proposal bond late (3.26). Apparent non- compliance with 3.8, "Conflict of Interest and Disclosure." Failed to complete Disclosure Affidavit, question 7. Beber Silverstein Non-responsive. Failed to present complete financial statements as required by Section 5.9.3,F). Footnotes were not included in any of the three years' statements; disclaimer of opinion on 1989 Statements of Operations and Cash Flows; absence of certification for lack of audited statements (1990 & 1988). Section 2.2 of the subject RFP contains the following definition of the terms "Responsive Proposal" and "Responsible Respondent." Responsive Proposal - A timely submitted proposal which conforms in all material respects to the RFP and which contains, in the manner required by this RFP, all documentation, drawings, information, plans, materials, certifications, affirmations, and documentation of qualifications and other matters required by the RFP. Responsible Respondent - A firm judged by the Lottery to be fully capable of providing the services required, considering security, integrity and financial condition. Section 2.6 of the subject RFP contains the following regarding the timetable for the procurement: October 15, 1991: Separately sealed technical and price proposals must be received at the Lottery's Headquarters, Purchasing Office, 250 Marriott Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, no later than 2:00 p.m. Proposals must be addressed to the Issuing Officer as specified in Section 2.3. All technical proposals will be opened by Lottery employees starting at or after 2:01 p.m. at the Lottery Headquarters. The public may attend the opening but may not review any proposals submitted. The names of respondents will be read aloud, and the names of firms submitting "no proposal" responses will be read. Section 3.1 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions regarding "Mandatory Requirements:" The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicate a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a proposal. Section 3.2 of the subject RFP contains the following relevant provisions regarding "Non-Responsive Proposals:" Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth as mandatory, or without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible, or those which affect the competitiveness of proposals or the cost to the State. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP. Respondents which in the Lottery's judgment, after the investigations required by Section 24.111, Florida Statutes, fail to demonstrate sufficient financial responsibility, security and integrity, shall be rejected as non-responsible. Section 3.5 of the subject RFP includes the following provisions regarding an opportunity to ask questions about the RFP: Questions concerning conditions and specifications of this RFP, and/or requests for changes to conditions and specifications must be in writing, addressed to the Issuing Officer, and received no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 17, 1991. The Lottery will prepare tentative responses to all questions and/or requests for changes, timely received, for discussion at a pre-proposal conference to be held at 2:00 p.m., September 24, 1991. Copies of questions and final answers, along with any changes to the RFP resulting from or following discussion at the pre-proposal conference, will be mailed to all firms who were furnished a copy of this RFP by the Lottery, in the form of a written addendum, as soon as reasonably practicable. Respondents submitting a proposal must submit by the proposal deadline written acknowledgment of any addendum. In response to a vendor inquiry as to the meaning of the term "minor irregularity," the Department responded in the last addendum to the RFP by citing and quoting Rule 13A-1.001(32), Florida Administrative Code, which reads: Minor Irregularity - A variation from the invitation to bid/request for proposal terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid/proposal, or give the bidder or offeror an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or offerors, or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the subject RFP contain the following provisions regarding required disclosures.: Vendor Information and Disclosure. Respondents must provide information and disclosures required by Section 24.111, Florida Statutes. Copies of the Lottery's Vendor Information Addendum and Disclosure Affidavit Forms to be completed are attached hereto as Attachments "A" and "B." These forms must be properly completed, executed and submitted with Respondent's technical proposal. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure. The award hereunder is subject to the provisions of Chapters 24 and 112, Florida Statutes. Respondents must disclose with their proposals whether any officer, director, employee or agent is also an officer or an employee of the Lottery, the State of Florida, or any of its agencies. All firms must disclose the name of any state officer or employee who owns, directly or indirectly, an interest of five percent (5%) or more in the Respondent's firm or any of its branches or affiliates. All Respondents must also disclose the name of any employee, agent, lobbyist, previous employee of the Lottery, or other person, who has received or will receive compensation of any kind, or who has registered or is required to register under Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes, in seeking to influence the actions of the Lottery in connection with this procurement. Section 3.26 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions regarding the required proposal bond: Each Respondent is required to accompany its technical proposal with a certified or cashier's check or bid bond in the amount of $125,000 or have on file with the Department of Lottery an annual bid bond of at least $125,000. The check or bid bond shall be payable to the Department of Lottery. This check/bond is to insure against withdrawal from competition subsequent to submitting of the proposal and to guarantee performance when the Contract is awarded. This check/bond will be returned to all unsuccessful Respondents immediately upon the execution of the Contract. Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of the subject RFP include the following requirements regarding the preparation and submission of proposals: Proposal Labeling. Respondent's technical proposal MUST be in a separate sealed envelope or other container and MUST be identified as the Respondent's technical proposal. The face of the envelope or other container shall contain the following information: Request for Proposal for Advertising and Related Services 2:00 p.m. October 15, 1991 Technical Proposal Name of Respondent Each Respondent's price proposal MUST be in a separate sealed envelope and MUST be identified as the Respondent's price proposal. The face of the envelope shall contain the following information: Request for Proposal for Advertising and Related Services 2:00 p.m. October 15, 1991 Price Proposal Name of Respondent Copies of Proposals. Respondents shall deliver an ORIGINAL AND SIX COPIES OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND ONE COPY OF THE PRICE PROPOSAL AND CREATIVE SAMPLES to the Lottery no later than the date and time in which all proposals must be timely submitted. Information and materials submitted in response to a previous RFP will not be considered in connection with this RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P. This is not intended to preclude a respondent from submitting information or materials previously submitted provided they conform to the requirements of this RFP. Proposal Submission. It is the Respondent's responsibility to ensure that its proposal is delivered by the proper time at the place of the proposal opening. Proposals which for any reason are not timely received will not be considered. Late proposals will be declared non- responsive, and will not be scored. Unsealed and/or unsigned proposals by telegram, telephone, or facsimile transmission or other means are not acceptable, and will be declared non-responsive, and will not be scored. A proposal may not be altered after opening. Section 5.9.3 of the subject RFP describes as follows the documentation which must be submitted to demonstrate vendor responsibility: The proposing firm must submit the following documentation to establish that it is a responsible respondent: Vendor Information Addendum (Attachment A) Disclosure Affidavit (Attachment B) Sworn Statement on Public Entity Crimes (Attachment C) Statement of Agreement to Abide by the Lottery's Code of Ethics, Rule 53ER88- 79(3), Florida Administrative Code (Attachment D) Proposal Bond required by Section 3.26, in the amount of $125,000. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years if they are completed, including an auditor's report. Certified financial statements must be the result of an audit of the Respondent's records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a certified public accountant (CPA). If certified financial statements including an auditor's report were not prepared for one or more of the last three fiscal years respondent shall certify that fact, and shall submit in lieu thereof review reports of financial statements prepared by a CPA for the same period of time. The Lottery will not accept, in lieu thereof, financial statements prepared in whole or in part by an accountant as a result of a compilation engagement. If the parent company of Respondent intends to financially guarantee Respondent's performance of contractual obligations, then Respondent may, to satisfy this requirement, submit such financial statements of the parent company in lieu of its own plus a binding letter from the parent company expressing its commitment to financially guarantee the Respondent. In such event, the parent company shall be required to sign the Contract as Guarantor and shall be held accountable for all terms and conditions of the Contract. The language in Section 5.9.3,F which conditions the use of review reports on the submission of a certificate that there are no audited financial statements was for the purpose of minimizing the possibility that a vendor who had received an adverse audited opinion might conceal the adverse opinion from the Department by obtaining and submitting a favorable review report which did not disclose the adverse opinion. Section 5.9.4 of the subject RFP addresses the subject of "Firm Qualifications." The opening sentence of Section 5.9.4 reads as follows: "At minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested." Section 5.9.5 of the subject RFP includes the following provisions regarding personnel qualifications: Provide the following information: Address the firm's plans for staffing the Lottery account. Include position titles, numbers, duties and responsibilities, and names of incumbents proposed to work on the Lottery account. Include both agency and subcontractor personnel. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all agency and subcontractor personnel who would be compensated in accordance with section 5.11.1 of this RFP, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. If recruitment of personnel to fill a position will be required, indicate firm's criteria for selection including, as appropriate, education, experience, knowledge, skills and abilities, etc. Creative samples (one copy of each) previously produced for the Respondent with the participation of key members of the proposed Lottery creative team and equal to the quality of the products proposed in your marketing plan, to include: * * * f) Three examples of product design or package design. Section 5.9.6 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions requiring a "Plan of Service:" Each Respondent shall provide a written statement of the firm's understanding of the services requested herein as well as a detailed written plan outlining how the firm proposes to go about providing the services. It is the intent of the Lottery that the Plan of Service be based on the premise that all products and product attributes remain as they are now. The plan of service shall consist of the following information and materials: A proposed advertising approach for the Florida Lottery which addresses the following items: A two-year summary outline advertising plan. Respondents shall include recommendations for advertising and promotions, and shall provide a plan for progress reporting, and ongoing evaluation and monitoring. A proposed one-year timetable for advertising, showing development of creative, production, approval, placement and run-time. Plan, Script and Comprehensive artistic representations (comps) of the following: A detailed media plan for an eight (8) week Florida Lottery Instant Game which has a $1,250,000 budget; A name, ticket design and prize structure for the Instant Game; A 30-second radio spot for the Instant Game; A print ad for newspaper or magazine placement for the Instant Game; A point-of-sale example for the Instant Game; A television commercial storyboard. All exhibits must be permanently marked or labeled, with identification of the proposing firm, and the specific section(s) of the RFP to which they respond. The requirement for submission of a television commercial storyboard was elaborated upon by responses which the Department made to two distinct questions submitted by the firms, Bozell, Inc., and West & Company. West & Company asked if proposers were prohibited from submitting fully executed television commercials and the Department responded that proposers were prohibited from submitting fully executed television commercials in complying with the RFP requirement for a television commercial storyboard. Bozell submitted a much more elaborate question in two parts. First, Bozell asked if a proposer could submit a television commercial in a more finished form using an animatic form as an example of a more finished form. The Department respondent in the negative. Second, Bozell asked if a proposer could submit such other more finished forms of television commercials in addition to the storyboard. Again, the Department answered in the negative. In responding thusly, the Department clearly indicated that it desired only traditional two-dimensional storyboards and would not accept more finished forms of television commercial concepts such as animatics. Also, the Lottery indicated that it did not wish to receive television commercial concepts in any form other than the traditional two-dimensional storyboard. The term "television commercial storyboard " is not defined in the RFP, but no definition is really necessary because the term has a clearly understood meaning in the advertising industry. It means a two-dimensional illustration of an advertising concept, presented on stiff cardboard or some similar material, and containing art work (illustrations or still photographs) to demonstrate the visual concept, and containing written words to demonstrate the text and/or describe any special effects. Television commercial storyboards have been in common use since the first days of television advertising and continue to be in common use today. Much more recently, especially since the advent of video cameras, alternative ways of presenting advertising concepts have come into popular use. These newer alternatives include video presentations, one type of which is known in the trade as "animatics," and another type of which is referred to as "stealamatics" or "ripamatics." An "animatic" is, in essence, a series of artistic drawings which is recorded on video. The drawings are developed specifically for a given "animatic" and are presented on the video in a manner which conveys the scenes and sequences in a proposed commercial. An "animatic" typically looks very much like a rough moving cartoon. More often than not an animatic will also include a sound track with a rough version of the words or music for the proposed commercial. An "animatic" is a more finished product than a two-dimensional storyboard because it more nearly resembles the format of the final version of the proposed concept. A "stealamatic" or a "ripamatic" is a video recording typically constructed from a variety of existing film footage and voice and music recordings. The film and sound used in a "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" frequently belong to people other than those who are creating the video, hence the name. "Stealamatics" and "ripamatics" are, in essence, a collage of second- hand images and sounds created for other purposes which are roughly edited together to demonstrate the creative concept of a proposed commercial. The video footage and sound track of a typical "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" is not of television commercial air quality and is not a finished product that can be used for actual advertising. The typical "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" is, in essence, a rough draft of a television commercial designed to demonstrate the primary ingredients of an advertising concept. Although rough, the typical "stealamatic" or "ripamatic" is a more finished product than an "animatic" in the sense that it more closely resembles the finished product than does an "animatic." If the concept of a proposed commercial involves critical timing, special effects, humor, or emotion, a "stealamatic" video is the most effective way, and often the only practical way, to present such a concept. "Animatics" and "stealamatics/ripamatics" are now commonly used in the presentation of advertising concepts in lieu of the old-fashioned, but still often useful, two-dimensional storyboards; they are frequent substitutes for two-dimensional storyboards. But "animatics" and "stealamatics/ripamatics" have not become storyboards and the term "television commercial storyboard" still means a two-dimensional presentation on a board-like material. Section 6.1 of the subject RFP contains the following provisions with regard to the allocation of points during the evaluation of the technical proposals: Firm Qualifications. - (Maximum 31 points) Size and Resources - Maximum 5 points Advertising Experience - Maximum 16 points Example of a Complete Campaign - Maximum 10 points Personnel Qualifications. - (Maximum 18 points) Staffing (numbers, levels, roles) - Maximum 5 points Resumes - Maximum 5 points Creative Samples - Maximum 8 points 6.1.3. Plan of Service - (Maximum 16 points) Advertising Plan and Timetable - Maximum 8 points Plan, Script and Artistic - Maximum 8 points Representations 6.1.4. Certified Minority Business Enterprise Participation. - (Maximum 10 points) Authorized Expenses - Maximum 5 points (1 point for each 2/10 percent (.2%) of participation) Agency Compensation - Maximum 5 points (Respondent's price) (1 point for each 3 percent (3%) of participation) Section 5.9.3 of the subject RFP requires that the proposing firm must, among other things, submit a "Disclosure Affidavit." The Disclosure Affidavit is attached to the RFP and is designated as Attachment B. All proposing firms who were corporations were required to answer Question 7 on Attachment B. Question 7 on Attachment B reads as follows: 7. Please complete either 7a or 7b, whichever is appropriate. RESPONDENT is not a publicly traded corporation. The names and addresses of the shareholders of RESPONDENT are as follows: The above-named persons constitute all of the shareholders of RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT is a publicly traded corporation. The names and addresses of the shareholders of RESPONDENT which own 5% or more of the corporate stock are as follows: The above-named persons constitute all of the shareholders of RESPONDENT which own 5% or more of the corporate stock. Findings regarding the Ad Team of Florida, Inc. Paragraph 5.9.6,B,6 of the RFP (as amended by Addendum 3) requires the submission of a television commercial storyboard. The Ad Team attempted to comply with this provision by submitting a video cassette which contained two short video presentations illustrating proposed advertising concepts. One of these presentations, titled The Fortune Teller, is what is known in the advertising business as an "animatic;" a rough cartoon with some animation and a sound track. The other of these presentations, titled Stars and Stripes, is what is known in the advertising business as a "stealamatic" or "ripamatic." Neither of the presentations on the video cassette submitted by the Ad Team is a television commercial storyboard. Section 5.9.5,3,F requires that a bidder provide three examples of product design or package design that, (1) were previously produced by the bidder, and (2) that were produced with the participation of key members of the proposed Lottery creative team. At the time of submission of its proposal, the Ad Team did not have three examples of product or package design that had earlier been produced with the participation of key members of the proposed Lottery team. Therefore, the Ad Team could not and did not submit three examples of product design or package design that had previously been produced with the participation of key members of the Lottery team. The Ad Team's failure to submit three examples of package or product design did not change the pricing of the proposal submitted to the Department by the Ad Team. The Ad Team did not gain a competitive advantage by virtue of its failure to submit three examples of product or package design. The Ad Team submitted complete review reports of financial statements for the last three years. The Ad Team did not submit any document certifying that no audited financial statements had been prepared for the Ad Team for the past three fiscal years. The Ad Team did not gain a competitive advantage by virtue of its failure to submit the certification that it had no audited financial statements for the past three years. The failure to submit the subject certification leaves the Department with no basis in the proposal materials for having confidence that no adverse audited statements are being concealed, and to that extent diminishes the extent to which it is prudent for the Department to rely on the financial statements submitted. Findings regarding Beber Silverstein & Partners Advertising, Inc. The only issue regarding the proposal submitted by Beber Silverstein relates to its efforts to comply with the requirements of Section 5.9.3,F of the RFP. In response to the requirements of that section of the RFP, Beber Silverstein supplied financial statements for the years 1988, 1989, and 1990. However, the footnotes to all of these financial statements were inadvertently omitted from Beber Silverstein's proposal. The footnotes were prepared by Beber Silversmith's accountants at the time the financial statements were prepared and were in Beber Silverstein's possession. The footnotes were simply inadvertently omitted during the preparation of Beber Silverstein's proposal. The Department of the Lottery knew at the time it reviewed Beber Silverstein's proposal for responsiveness that the vendor possessed the footnotes to the financial statements. In fact, the Department had previously reviewed these footnotes in Beber Silverstein's response to the first Request for Proposal earlier during 1991 when Beber Silverstein's proposal in the earlier RFP was evaluated by the Department. Beber Silverstein could have supplied the Department with the subject footnotes immediately after the omission was brought to Beber Silverstein's attention. The omission of the footnotes did not affect the cost or price of Beber Silverstein's proposal. The footnotes to financial statements do not change the figures presented on the face of the financial statements, but the footnotes are an integral part of any financial statement. The vast majority of the information necessary to conduct a meaningful review of a company's financial responsibility is contained in the footnotes to the financial statements. It is not possible to determine a company's financial responsibility from a review of financial statements without footnotes. In direct response to a request from its bank, Beber Silverstein had its balance sheet audited for the year 1989. However, it did not request its accountants to audit the statements of operations and cash flows for the year 1989 since the bank did not request it. Beber Silverstein provided the Department with all financial statements (except the footnotes) that were available on the company for the year 1989. The accountants' opinion for the 1989 statements clearly acknowledges that they were not engaged to audit the statements of operations and cash flows and, accordingly, no accountants' opinion was expressed on them. However the accountants' opinion for the 1989 statements does not explain why they were not engaged to audit the statements of operations and cash flows. Even though the accountants' opinion for Beber Silverstein's 1989 financial statement does not contain any opinion regarding the statements of operations and cash flows, the level of analysis actually performed by the accountants on the 1989 statements of operations and cash flows met the minimum standards for a review report. This was clarified in a letter dated May 1, 1991, which was submitted in conjunction with Beber Silverstein's prior proposal, but which letter was not included as part of Beber Silverstein's current proposal.2/ Beber Silverstein failed to include in its proposal the certification required by Section 5.9.3,F of the RFP to the effect that it did not have any audited financial statements for 1988 or 1990. The omission of the certificate was inadvertent. The absence of the certificate did not affect the price of Beber Silverstein's bid. Beber Silverstein supplied the Department with all financial statements (except for inadvertently omitted footnotes) that it had available. Although Beber Silverstein failed to provide a certificate, Beber Silverstein, in fact, did not have any audited financial statements (other than the 1989 balance sheet which was submitted). Findings regarding Benito Advertising, Inc. Benito Advertising, Inc., d/b/a Fahlgren Martin Benito, was founded in Tampa in 1954. It has offices in Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, and Jacksonville. It employs approximately 70 people and its 1991 billings will be approximately $45 million. Benito Advertising, Inc., was acquired in 1989 by the Interpublic Group of Companies. Interpublic is one of the largest publicly-held advertising agency holding companies in the world with billings of $13 billion a year. Benito was subsequently assigned to Lintas:Worldwide, an operating unit of Interpublic. Benito and Lintas:Worldwide are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Interpublic. Attachment B to the RFP elicits the disclosure of ownership information (officers, directors, major shareholders, etc.) from vendors as required by Section 24.111, Florida Statutes. Question 7 thereof requires a corporate respondent to provide the names and addresses of its shareholders if the corporation is not publicly traded. A publicly traded corporation is required to state the names and addresses of those shareholders which own five percent or more of the corporate stock. The form which comprises Attachment B was never promulgated as a rule although it is intended for general use by the Lottery. Benito submitted five separate Disclosure Affidavits - one for Benito itself, one for Lintas:Worldwide, one for Interpublic Group, one for its Hispanic minority contractor, and one for its other minority partner. Benito responded "not applicable" to question 7-A on its affidavit as well as on the affidavit for Lintas:Worldwide on the bases that neither are publicly traded corporations because both are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Interpublic. The balance of the information on the five affidavits concerning officers, directors, shareholders, etc., was provided and is correct. Information concerning Benito's corporate status is alluded to throughout its proposal. More importantly, the corporate relationships as between Benito, Lintas, and Interpublic are explicitly stated in the Interpublic Annual Report which is a mandatory supplement to the proposal. Joan Schoubert, the Department accounting manager responsible for reviewing the annual reports and other financial statements, noted these corporate relationships in conjunction with her review and included the following statement on her reviewing document: Benito Advertising, Inc., d/b/a Fahlgren Martin Benito is a wholly - owned subsidiary of Lintas:Worldwide. Lintas:Worldwide is one of three operating subsidiaries of Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (guarantor of Respondents performance- bindings letter present) In the review of other proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP, the Department has overlooked an omission of information in response to a specific question if that information was otherwise available elsewhere in the proposal. An example of this is shown by the following notations on the Department's checklist concerning another proposal: Transmittal letter did not list subcontractors but they are revealed elsewhere, minor irregularity. Billings by media shown in percentages but can be interpreted in connection with Number 8. Paragraph 5.9.6,B,6 of the RFP (as amended by Addendum 3) requires the submission of a television commercial storyboard. Benito attempted to comply with this provision by submitting a so-called "video storyboard" which was recorded on a video cassette. This was submitted along with the balance of the proposal. Benito clearly stated in the text of the proposal that its "storyboard" was in video form. Benito's so-called "video storyboard" was in a format also referred to in the advertising business as a "stealamatic" or "ripamatic." Benito chose to utilize a "stealamatic" to convey its concept which, in essence, is nature photography with human voices inputed to the animals. This is very difficult to express in a two-dimensional format in that the concept does not have an actor carrying a story line. Furthermore, Benito knew that it was not going to be able to present the concept in person and thus could not explain it to the people who were to evaluate it. Given the reliance of the Benito message on animals, another medium would not have been as effective. Findings regarding Ogilvy & Mather Advertising At the time it submitted its proposal, Ogilvy Group, Inc., d/b/a Ogilvy & Mather, failed to submit all resumes and/or selection criteria required in Section 5.9.5,2 of the RFP. Further, it failed to submit a 30-second radio spot as required by Section 5.9.6,B,3 of the RFP and it failed to submit with its proposal the appropriate proposal bond required by Section 3.26 of the RFP. It further failed to comply with Section 3.8 of the RFP by failing to disclose the name of any employee, agent, lobbyist, previous employee of the Lottery, or other person who has received compensation of any kind or who has registered under Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes, in seeking to influence the actions of the Lottery in connection with this procurement. Finally, Ogilvy Group, Inc., failed to complete question 7 of the Disclosure Affidavit required by Section 3.7 of the RFP. With regard to the failure of Ogilvy Group, Inc., to submit all resumes and/or selection criteria required by Section 5.9.5,2 of the RFP, its submission in this regard was missing 17 resumes and 6 descriptions of selection criteria. The 6 missing descriptions covered 13 positions. Three of the missing resumes were found to be located in other portions of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal, but 14 resumes are nowhere to be found in the proposal. Without the information of the missing resumes and in the missing descriptions of selection criteria, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Department to perform an adequate analysis and comparison of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal with other proposals. The Ogilvy Group, Inc., also failed to submit a 30-second radio spot. Instead it submitted two 60-second radio spots because of its belief that 30- second radio spots are not economically feasible. With regard to the late submission of Ogilvy Group's, Inc., proposal bond, its attorney and lobbyist, James J. Cooney, Esquire, delivered its bid package (which included the original and six copies of its technical proposal) to the offices of the Department of the Lottery sometime shortly after 1:00 p.m. on October 21, 1991. The original technical proposal and each copy of the technical proposal contained a photocopy of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal bond, which was in the form of a certified check in the amount of $125,000.00. The original certified check was in Mr. Cooney's pocket. The Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal materials (minus the original certified check, which remained in Mr. Cooney's pocket) were logged-in and officially received by the Department of the Lottery at 1:39 p.m. that afternoon. Mr. Cooney then physically accompanied the dolly on which the Ogilvy & Mather proposal materials had been placed, up the elevator and into the room designated for the bid opening. After Mr. Cooney had accompanied the proposal materials to the room where the bid opening was to occur, Mr. Cooney handed the $125,000.00 certified check to Russ Rothman. The delivery of the check to Mr. Rothman occurred shortly after 2:00 p.m., but shortly before any of the proposals were opened. The deadline for submitting bids was 2:00 p.m. Ogilvy Group, Inc., has retained the services of James J. Cooney, Esquire, as a registered lobbyist and attorney. Mr. Cooney is registered as a lobbyist for Ogilvy Group, Inc., pursuant to Section 112.3215, Florida Statutes. During the period between the issuance of the subject RFP and the submission of the subject proposals, Mr. Cooney on several occasions contacted functionaries of the Department of the Lottery, including the Issuing Officer, Mr. Rothman, in attempts to influence the Department's decision with respect to using previously submitted materials as part of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., proposal in the instant RFP. Such communications by Mr. Cooney were efforts to influence the actions of the Department of the Lottery in connection with the instant procurement. Officials of Ogilvy Group, Inc., were aware of Mr. Cooney's efforts in this regard. Ogilvy Group, Inc., is a corporation that does business under the fictitious name of Ogilvy & Mather. Ogilvy Group, Inc., was the proposing entity on its proposal. As proposing entity, it executed a Disclosure Affidavit (Attachment B to the RFP). Corporations submitting a Disclosure Affidavit were required to answer either Question 7a or 7b. The Ogilvy Group, Inc., did not provide any answer to either Question 7a or 7b. This was because the Chief Financial Officer of the Ogilvy Group, Inc., did not believe that Question 7a was applicable and did not believe that any answer to 7b was required because there was no one who owned five percent or more of the stock of WPP Group, plc, the parent company of which Ogilvy Group, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary. Even though Ogilvy Group, Inc., failed to answer either Question 7a or 7b on the Disclosure Affidavit, information concerning its corporate status and its relationship to WPP Group, plc, is contained in other portions of its proposal. Joan Schoubert, the Department accounting manager responsible for reviewing the annual reports and other financial statements, was able to determine from the information in other portions of the proposal that Ogilvy Group, Inc., was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, which was in turn a wholly-owned subsidiary of WPP Group, plc.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Lottery issue a final order in these consolidated cases concluding that, on the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, all four of the proposals submitted by all four of the Petitioners are not responsive to RFP #92-005-LOT/TEN/P. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner, Raymond J. Holmes, is entitled to the entire $5,000.00 won by him in the Florida Lottery or whether a portion thereof should be withheld for reimbursement of public assistance payments previously paid for the support of his child.
Findings Of Fact On May 7, 1993, a Judge of the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit In and For Collier County, Florida, entered, in case No. 93-1327, an Order Determining Obligation And Repayment of Public Assistance for the repayment of support and repayment of foster care payments, made on behalf of Petitioner's child, Allen J. Holmes, against Petitioner, "Ray" Holmes and his wife, Rachel Holmes, in the amount of $5,439.46 plus costs in the amount of $88.20 and attorneys fees of $176.40, This amount was to be paid at a rate of $80.00 plus $3.20 clerk's fee ($83.20) per month, beginning on June 1, 1993, payments to continue until "all prior public assistance has been completely repaid." This Order was acknowledged in writing by both Petitioner and his wife. The Order also provided: ... the State of Florida, or any political subdivision thereof, or the United States, is directed to deduct from all moneys due and payable to the Respondent [Petitioner, Holmes] the amount of child support ordered above. This income deduction shall be effective immediately, and shall become binding on ... [a] comptroller or disbursing officer, the State of Florida, ... two weeks after receipt of service of this order. None of the money called for under the Court's Order has been repaid. Petitioner's one-half of the joint obligation was $2,807.93. On or about August 2, 1993, Petitioner purchased a scratch-off lottery ticket which carried a prize of $5,000.00. Petitioner immediately submitted a claim form for the award of the prize. He listed his social security number as 144-53-7433 on the form. The social security account card issued in his name reflects the correct number to be 144-52-7433 but there is no doubt the Petitioner was the individual who purchased the winning ticket. The claim form was submitted for payment to Lottery headquarters in Tallahassee. In the course of routine coordination between agencies to determine if any obligations to the state were owing by a lottery winner, the above-noted Court Order was identified and when the Petitioner's winnings were transmitted to the Department of Banking and Finance for payment, his half of the obligation was withheld and only the net amount of $2,192.07 forwarded. Thereafter, by state warrant 4-02 909 875, dated August 20, 1993, this net amount was paid to Petitioner. This figure was arrived at by deducting the amount owed by Petitioner, ($2,807.93) from the gross winnings, ($5,000.00). Petitioner was notified by letter dated August 24, 1993 accompanying the warrant of the reason for the deduction. Petitioner thereafter demanded hearing and this hearing ensued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner, Raymond J. Holmes' request for payment of $2,807.93 withheld from his lottery prize of $5,000.00 by the Department of Banking and Finance. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond J. Holmes 3397-2 Sacramento Way Naples, Florida 33942 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Banking & Finance The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking & Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Respondent's determination that the proposal the Petitioner submitted in response to the Revised Request for Proposal No. 98/99-010/G was non-responsive is arbitrary or capricious. Whether the Respondent's determination that it would initiate contract negotiations with the only company submitting a responsive proposal in response to the Revised Request for Proposal No. 98/99-010/G and that it would award a contract to that company if the negotiations were successful is contrary to the applicable statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of the Lottery is the state agency responsible for operating the state lottery authorized by Section 15, Article X, Florida Constitution. Section 24.104, Florida Statutes (1999). The Department is authorized to "[e]nter into contracts for the purchase, lease, or lease- purchase of such goods and services as are necessary for the operation and promotion of the state lottery " Section 24.105(17), Florida Statutes (1999). Bellsouth Communication Systems, Inc., is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. In 1987, Bellsouth was awarded the contract to install and maintain the Department's telecommunication system. This contract expired in 1993, and Bellsouth and the Department entered into a second contract that expired in 1999. Bellsouth is currently maintaining the Department's telecommunications equipment pursuant to the Second Extension of Agreement for Maintenance of Telephone Equipment and Software, and Miscellaneous Data Processing and Telecommunications Equipment and Software, which was executed on September 29, 1999. This extension commenced on October 1, 1999, and "shall continue until the execution and implementation of a new contract, . . . not to exceed six(6) months." The services that Bellsouth is currently providing to the Department are similar to the services specified in the Revised Request for Proposal. Revised Request for Proposal and Department's Revised Notice of Responsiveness and Responsibility. On February 8, 1999, the Department issued Request for Proposal Number 98/99-007/G, Request for Proposal for Maintenance of Telecommunications Equipment and Software, and Miscellaneous Data Processing Equipment and Software for the Florida Lottery ("Request for Proposal"). The Department received three proposals in response to Request for Proposal Number 98/99-007/G, including one submitted by Bellsouth. The proposals were opened on March 2, 1999. At 4:30 p.m. on March 29, 1999, the Department posted a Notice of Responsiveness and Responsibility, Notice of Rejection of All Proposals for Request for Proposal Number 98/99-007/G. The Department rejected all proposals because it determined that all three proposals were non-responsive. 2/ On April 27, 1999, the Department issued Request for Proposal Number 98/99-010/G - Revised, Revised Request for Proposal for Maintenance of Telecommunications Equipment and Software, and Miscellaneous Data Processing Equipment and Software for the Florida Lottery. The provisions of the Revised Request for Proposal were similar in many respects to the original Request for Proposal Number 98/99-007/G, but some of the original requirements were substantially modified. For the convenience of those responding to the Revised Request for Proposal, those portions of the Revised Request for Proposal in which there were major substantive changes were indicated in bold print, underlined and italicized. 3/ Two addenda to the Revised Request for Proposal were issued, one on May 19, 1999, and one on May 21, 1999. The responses to the Revised Request for Proposal were opened on June 4, 1999, and the Department posted a notice that stated that it had received three proposals, all of which were non-responsive. It subsequently withdrew this notice and posted a Revised Notice of Responsiveness and Responsibility, Notice of Intent to Negotiate, Notice of Contract Award, 98/99-010/G, Request for Proposal for Maintenance of Telecommunications Equipment and Software and Miscellaneous Data Processing Equipment and Software for the Florida Lottery ("Revised Notice") at 9:30 a.m. on September 7, 1999. In the Revised Notice, the Department stated that it had received four proposals and that three had been found to be non-responsive. The Department found Bellsouth's proposal non- responsive for the following reason: Responses to the following sections were conditional: Section 2.10 Section 2.22E Section 2.22H Section 3.3A Section 3.6 The Department also found the proposals of GTE Florida Incorporated and Sprint non-responsive. The Department announced in the Revised Notice: A fourth response which was received timely was inadvertently omitted from the responsiveness and responsibility review. The following Respondent submitted a responsive proposal: GTE Communications Corporation No Respondent was determined to be non- responsible. * * * The Florida Lottery will evaluate GTE Communications Corporation's proposal for acceptability. If the proposal is determined to be acceptable, the Lottery intends to initiate contract negotiations and, subject to completion of successful negotiations, intends to award a contract. Award is contingent upon successful completion of negotiations. Should the Florida Lottery fail to successfully negotiate a contract with the responsive firm, the Lottery will score the technical and price proposals of the non- responsive firms using the criteria set forth in the Request for Proposal. Negotiations will then begin with the firm who receives the highest ranked score. If the Florida Lottery is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with that firm, negotiations will continue with the next highest ranked firm. Failing accord with the second highest ranked firm, the Secretary or designee will continue negotiations with the third highest ranked firm. Should the Secretary or designee be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, additional firms may be selected in accordance with Rule 53ER97-39, Florida Administrative Code, or negotiations may be reinstated following the original order of priority. The Florida Lottery will award a contract to the Respondent offering the terms and conditions which best meet its needs. Although the cost proposals submitted by the four companies submitting proposals to the Revised Request for Proposal had not been opened as of the date of the final hearing, it is undisputed that the value of the contract exceeds $25,000. The Revised Request for Proposal and Bellsouth's proposal. In Section 1.1 of the General Information section of the Revised Request for Proposal, the purpose of the Revised Request for Proposal is explained in pertinent part as follows: This Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been issued by the Florida Department of the Lottery ("Lottery") to obtain sealed proposals from respondents qualified to provide maintenance of the Florida Lottery's statewide telecommunications equipment and software, and miscellaneous data processing equipment and software. This RFP, and all other activities leading toward the execution of a contract per this RFP, are conducted under the Lottery policies set forth in Rule 53ER97-39, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 24, Fla. Stat. The Lottery considers it in the best interest of the State of Florida to acquire the commodities and/or services described herein through a competitive formal Request for Proposal process. Bellsouth's response to the Revised Request for Proposal was prepared by a group of employees located in Alabama and was coordinated by the sales executive who has been handling the current Bellsouth contract with the Department. The group was headed by V. Carol Moore, a bid support manager for contracts, whose duties are to "review incoming RFPs and commercial proposals for terms and conditions of compliance in relation to our company's policies." 4/ Ms. Moore was the person primarily responsible for preparing those portions of Bellsouth's proposal that did not involve purely technical information regarding maintenance and pricing. Her area of responsibility included those sections of the Revised Request for Proposal that were deemed conditional by the Department. In preparing the proposal, Ms. Moore was guided by her interpretation of the description of mandatory requirements of the proposals in Section 2.1 of the Revised Request for Proposal and her interpretation of the evaluation review process described in Section 5.2 of the Revised Request for Proposal, as well as by Bellsouth's business practices and policies. Ms. Moore particularly noted the Department's failure to expressly provide in the first paragraph of Section 2.1 that deviation from the mandatory requirements of the proposal, defined as those requirements containing the words "shall," "must," and "will," would be grounds for rejecting a proposal. She also particularly noted the Department's announced intention in Section 5.2 to negotiate "fair, competitive, and reasonable" conditions and prices with those responding to the Revised Request for Proposal. Ms. Moore assumed that the clarifications and modifications included in Bellsouth's proposal would be considered alternatives to the requirements included in the Revised Request for Proposal and that the clarifications and modifications would be subject to negotiations with the Department once the bid process entered the contract negotiation phase. 5/ Section 2.10 of the Special Conditions section of the Revised Request for Proposal provides: 2.10 Proposal Tenure All Proposals are binding until execution of a contract. Bellsouth included in its proposal the following statement: 2.10 Proposal Tenure Bellsouth Response: Read and Agreed, with the clarification that Bellsouth's proposed pricing is valid for 90 days after bid submission, to allow sufficient time for evaluation and award. Extensions may be mutually agreed if the situation warrants. Bellsouth included the clarification limiting the tenure of its pricing proposal for the following reason: It was a business decision in that with these kinds of RFPs the process can take an extensive amount of time sometimes. And we don't generally hold our pricing open for longer than 90 days and that's because whatever stipulations we get from our manufacturers we have to live with in those bounds also. And so we felt like it was appropriate to put a time frame on the pricing only, but realizing of course these kinds of acquisitions though municipalities and governments sometimes take longer than 90 days, we did give them an avenue for extending it for whatever circumstances that might warrant that particular extension. 6/ It is Bellsouth's practice to include such language in virtually all of its responses to requests for proposals because the prices Bellsouth obtains from manufacturers are subject to change, and Bellsouth cannot guarantee its prices indefinitely. Section 2.22E of the Special Condition section of the Revised Request for Proposal provides: 2.22 Contents of Contract In addition to the terms and conditions referenced above, the Contract between the Lottery and the Contractor shall also include at least the following provisions: * * * E. Subcontracting - The Contractor may enter into written subcontracts for performance of work under the Contract with prior written approval of the Lottery. All subcontractors shall be subject to the approval of the Lottery. The Lottery shall have the continuing right throughout the term of the Contract to disapprove subcontractors if such disapproval would be in the best interest of the Lottery. The Lottery shall have the right to inspect and acquire copies of any of the subcontractor documents executed between the Contractor and the subcontractor. Bellsouth included in its proposal the following statement: 2.22 Contents of Contract * * * E. Subcontracting Bellsouth Response: Read and Agreed. Rejection of Bellsouth's subcontractor(s) shall be reasonably applied and approval not unreasonably withheld. The extent of "copies of any of the subcontractor documents executed between the Contractor and the subcontractor" shall be as mutually agreed and only to the extent required under Florida law. Bellsouth included the final sentence to give notice to the Department that, in the event Bellsouth decided to use subcontractors, it wanted the opportunity to sit down with the Department and discuss the documents that the Department required, as well as the law applicable to their disclosure. Bellsouth was concerned that the Department would require it to provide unlimited access to documents executed between it and a subcontractor because some of the documents might contain proprietary information, such as "specific internal pricing methodologies and profit margins and things like that." 7/ Section 2.22H of the Special Condition section of the Revised Request for Proposal provides: 2.22 Contents of Contract In addition to the terms and conditions referenced above, the Contract between the Lottery and the Contractor shall also include at least the following provisions: * * * Indemnification - Contractor shall act as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the Lottery in the performance of the tasks and duties which are the subject of the Contract. Contractor shall be liable, and agrees to be liable for, and shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Lottery, the state of Florida, its officers and employees harmless from all claims, suits, judgments, or damages (including litigation costs and reasonable attorney's fees) arising from Contractor's performance of the tasks and duties which are the subject of the Contract, including: Claims for the unauthorized use of name or likeness of any person, libel, slander, defamation, disparagement, piracy, plagiarism, unfair competition, idea misappropriation, infringement of copyright title, patent, slogan or other property rights and any invasion of the right of privacy; and Claims arising from contracts between the Contractor and third parties made pursuant to the Contract. Bellsouth included in its proposal the following statement: 2.22 Contents of Contract * * * H. Indemnification Bellsouth Response: Read and Agreed with the following clarifications: (i) to the maximum extent allowed by applicable Florida law, indemnification is reciprocal and applicable only to each parties' negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising under each others' performance under the contract; and (ii) with respect to the intellectual property aspects of section H.1., Bellsouth substitutes section 24 of the enclosed Master Agreement located in Tab 8 of this response. 8/ Bellsouth included this language for the following reason: The indemnification provision itself was staffed through our corporate attorneys who chose to put this particular language in there. We had just gone through another quasi-state agency bid which eventually ended up having this particular kind of language in it so that the indemnification allowed between the parties would be to the point of complying with Florida law and that's what our attorney felt like was appropriate here with an eye on the fact that the lawyers would sit down at contract award time and negotiate this particular provision. 9/ Bellsouth understood that the reciprocal indemnification provision would require each party to the contract to be responsible for its own misconduct, and Bellsouth anticipated that the precise language of the indemnification clause would be worked out during contract negotiations. Section 3.3A of the Scope of Services section of the Revised Request for Proposal provides: SCOPE OF SERVICES Contractor will be required to provide the following services: Maintenance Maintenance is defined as the service necessary to keep equipment and software in or return the equipment and software to good working order. The term includes, but is not limited to, preventative maintenance, adjustments, and replacement or exchange of parts and equipment necessary to remedy and repair all errors or malfunctions of equipment and software, and provision of all software modifications and improvements provided by the Licensor on a priority basis and provision and installation of all engineering orders/field change orders to upgrade the hardware issued by the manufacturer of the equipment. Contractor will be required to provide services in the cities listed on Attachment B. A guaranteed response time for each site listed on Attachment B will be set forth in the Contract. The Contractor will be required to provide maintenance service for additional items of equipment and software added to the Lottery's inventory, either through the contract resulting from the Request for Proposals or otherwise acquired, for the same unit cost as stated on Attachments C1 - C15 (Equipment and Software Maintenance Cost Proposal Forms) of this RFP. The maintenance period for new items purchased will begin at the end of the product's warranty period and will automatically be added by Contractor to any and all occurrences in the Contractor's maintenance tracking database(s) to avoid any lapse in coverage. (Underlining and italics in the original; deleted provisions omitted.) Bellsouth included in its response the following statement: SCOPE OF SERVICES Maintenance Required Bellsouth Response: Read and Agreed, with clarification. * * * Bellsouth maintains one of the most comprehensive proactive preventive maintenance programs in the industry. Bellsouth agrees to provide maintenance service for additional items of equipment and software added to the Lottery's inventory, as long as the equipment/software is either provided by or certified by Bellsouth (through a separate certification process). Please also see Bellsouth Response to Section 4.6 for specific response times. The Department requested that Bellsouth amplify this statement with a description of its certification process. Bellsouth provided the following explanation: Bellsouth Certification Process Should The Florida Lottery install or have installed equipment supplied by companies other than Bellsouth, Bellsouth will certify the equipment - to be added to any existing maintenance/warranty term - on a Time and Materials basis at Bellsouth's then-current rates. These rates may be different from the rates quoted in the bid response because the time of implementation cannot be pre- determined. Should the Lottery decline Certification, the subject part will not be covered by any extended warranty and the Lottery will be liable for any repair cost associated with installing the non-certified part. In some instances, depending upon the part, the existing warranty provided by Bellsouth (if any) may be adversely affected. Generally, the Certification process involves visual inspection, and after installation, complete system diagnostics may be performed. Routine tests as recommended by the system manufacturer as well as the part manufacturer may be performed. The type and amount of testing, diagnostics, and/or repairs are entirely dependent on the individual part. Bellsouth included its clarification to the provisions of Section 3.3A because it wanted the Department to be aware that it had a process for certifying equipment and software purchases from third parties to make sure that the equipment met Bellsouth's standards and would not have a detrimental effect on any of the other equipment Bellsouth was maintaining for the Department. In addition, Bellsouth was concerned that the Department would buy a piece of equipment that was not listed on Attachments C1 - C15 and expect Bellsouth to maintain it for the same price as it would maintain a similar piece of equipment listed in the attachments. Bellsouth wanted to make sure that the Department understood that the prices it provided for the equipment listed in the attachments was for that equipment only, not for similar equipment. It also wanted the Department to understand, first, that additional pieces of equipment certified by Bellsouth would not be maintained at the bid price but at its then-current prices and, second, that the Department would be liable for the costs of maintenance of any additional equipment which was not certified by Bellsouth. Any additional equipment the Department purchased from Bellsouth would be maintained under the terms of the contract. Section 3.6 of the Scope of Services section of the Revised Request for Proposal provides: 3.6 PRICE PROVISIONS The Contractor must provide all labor, commodities and service required to meet the provisions of the Contract. The price proposal must reflect the total cost for maintenance and support services required by the RFP. This includes but is not limited to maintenance, parts and training as specified in Section 3.3. Unless approved in writing by the Lottery, all maintenance costs must be billed monthly in arrears in accordance with Section 215.422, Florida Stat. The monthly billing shall include charges for only those items actually in the possession of the Lottery for the time period maintenance is being charged. There shall be an annual advanced payment discount option which either meets or exceeds the current earnings rate of the State Treasurer. Pricing for maintenance and support service shall not be increased during the first year of the contract. The Contractor may request one (1) price increase per year for the remaining four (4) years of the contract. If the Contract is renewed, Contractor may request one (1) price increase per renewal period to be negotiated by both parties. The request must be supported by documentation acceptable to the Lottery that demonstrates that the Contractor's costs for providing commodities and/or services have increased by at least the percentage of the requested increase; in no event shall the increase exceed the percentage increase in the CPI during the corresponding period. The third paragraph of Section 3.6 of the original Request for Proposal was deleted in its entirety from the Revised Request for Proposal. Bellsouth included in its proposal the following statement: 3.6 PRICE PROVISIONS Bellsouth Response: Read and Agreed. Please see Tab 1 of the Cost Proposal response submitted with this response. The monthly prices quoted for each site are based upon the products outlined in Attachments C1-C15 only (items currently in the possession of Florida Lottery). Monthly maintenance prices quoted for items still under warranty are listed as information only. Once the initial warranty period is over, the equipment will be added to the Florida Lottery's maintenance agreement and Bellsouth's then-current maintenance prices will apply. Bellsouth offers a 5% (five- percent) annual advanced payment discount option. Bellsouth will adjust maintenance prices, not to exceed the CPI, prior to the beginning of the next renewal term, and based on the existing inventory at a particular location. This adjustment shall be automatic as allowed by the contract and not subject to additional documentary justification. Bellsouth included the final sentence because it wanted to make it [price adjustment process] automatic at the time so that it would be a less administrative burden for both parties. And after working with the government, I know what it is to go back in and do price adjustments to contracts. And it is easier if you do know at the onset what it's going to be and how it's going to be adjusted and just do a carte blanche adjustment at that particular point. We wanted to make it easier for everyone to do that. It was certainly a suggestion or an alternative of how they might do it under price and provisions. We also stated that it would be automatic as allowed by the contract. Assuming, of course, that this was going to be a negotiated contract. 10/ Bellsouth specifically included in its proposal the provision that no "additional documentary justification" would be required to support the automatic price adjustment because it was concerned that the Department might require documents containing confidential or proprietary information to support the price increases: [I]t was unknown at that particular point in time when we answered this what kind of additional documentation they [the Department] would be requiring. They could very well have left quite a bit of the company open to their inspection when it didn't have to deal with this particular contract. Not that we tried to hide that particular information, it was just that I didn't -- the company did see the relevance of it. 11/ The Department's determination that Bellsouth's proposal was non-responsive. In Section 1.2 of the General Information section of the Revised Request for Proposal, "responsive proposal" is defined as "[a] timely submitted proposal which conforms in all material respects to the RFP." Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Special Conditions section of the Revised Request for Proposal provide in pertinent part: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself be cause for rejection of a proposal. NON-RESPONSIVE PROPOSALS, NON- RESPONSIBLE RESPONDENTS Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth as mandatory, or without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible, or those which affect the competitiveness of proposals or the cost to the State. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP. Section 2.14 of the Revised Request for Proposal provides in pertinent part: The Contract shall incorporate this RFP, addenda to this RFP, and the Contractor's proposal as an integral part of the Contract, except to the extent that the Contract explicitly provides to the contrary. In the event of a conflict in language among any of the documents reference above, the provisions and requirements of the contract shall govern. In the event that an issue is addressed in the proposal that is not addressed in the RFP, no conflict in language shall be deemed to occur. . . . Nothing in the Revised Request for Proposal instructed those submitting proposals to respond to any of the mandatory requirements of Section 2.22, which specify the contents of the contract, or to any of the mandatory requirements of Section 3, which specify the scope of services to be provided under the contract. The Department generally considers no response to the provisions of these sections, and responses such as "read and understood" or "read and agreed", to indicate acquiescence to the mandatory provisions included in requests for proposals. Section 5.2 of the Revised Request for Proposal describes the evaluation review process as follows: The Secretary shall appoint an Evaluation Committee. All responsive technical proposals submitted by responsible Respondents will be reviewed and scored by the Evaluation Committee. The cost and CMBE proposals will thereafter be publicly opened and evaluated in accordance with the formula set forth in Section 5.4. The issuing Officer shall rank the Respondents based on the total scores of the technical, cost and CMBE proposals. Thereafter, the Lottery shall commence negotiations with the most highly ranked Respondent. Should the Lottery be unable to negotiate with that Respondent the conditions and price that the Florida Lottery deems to be fair, competitive, and reasonable, negotiations with that Respondent shall be terminated. The Florida Lottery shall then undertake negotiations with the second most highly ranked Respondent. Should the Florida Lottery be unable to negotiate a satisfactory Contract with that Respondent, the third and lower ranked Respondents may be selected to participate in this negotiation process or negotiations may be reinstated with the highest ranked Respondent. Negotiations shall continue until an agreement is reached or all proposals are rejected. An award of this RFP does not guarantee execution of a Contract. (Underlining and italics in original.) The "conditions and price" referred to in Section 5.2 of the Revised Request for Proposal include the mandatory requirements of Sections 2.22 and 3. In the course of contract negotiations, the Department can agree to include in the contract provisions different from those contained in these sections of the Revised Request for Proposal. The Department is not, however, required to negotiate or accept alterations to any of the mandatory requirements for the contents of the contract or for the scope of services. In conducting the responsiveness review of Bellsouth's proposal, the Department reviewed only the information contained in the proposal. The Department noted that Bellsouth had included clarifications and modifications to a number of the mandatory requirements of the Revised Request for Proposal, from which it could be inferred that Bellsouth found those mandatory requirements unacceptable. Members of the Department's purchasing office and legal office reviewed the substance of the clarifications and modifications included in Bellsouth's proposal, and some deviations were waived as minor. However, the members of the Department's purchasing office and legal office determined that the clarifications and modifications contained in Sections 2.10, 2.22E, 2.22H, 3.3A, and 3.6 of Bellsouth's proposal constituted material deviations from the mandatory requirements of the Revised Request for Proposal which, by the terms of Section 2.2 of the Revised Request for Proposal, rendered Bellsouth's proposal non-responsive. The Department concluded that Bellsouth's statement in Section 2.10 of its proposal that its pricing proposal would remain valid for only ninety days, with extensions subject to mutual agreement, was a material deviation from the Revised Request for Proposal. Section 2.10 of the Revised Request for Proposal unequivocally states that pricing proposals submitted in response to the Revised Request for Proposal would be "binding until execution of a contract." The Department interprets this requirement as a statement of fact, which would not, under any circumstances, be subject to modification or negotiation. If the Department waived this deviation and accepted Bellsouth's proposal as responsive, Bellsouth could, prior to execution of a contract, unilaterally alter its price proposal. This would not only give Bellsouth a significant advantage over the other companies submitting proposals, it could adversely affect the Department. The Department's legal office reviewed Bellsouth's proposal with respect to the clarifications and modifications included in Sections 2.22E, 2.22H, 3.3A, and 3.6 and concluded that, if the Department waived the deviations from the mandatory requirements in these sections and accepted Bellsouth's proposal as responsive, the Department might be legally bound to accept the clarifications and modifications as part of any contract it might negotiate with Bellsouth. As a consequence, the Department could be precluded from negotiating conditions and prices that it considered "fair, competitive, and reasonable" should Bellsouth's proposal be the most highly ranked and the Department enter into negotiations with Bellsouth. The Department would be adversely affected if it were required to accept Bellsouth's clarifications and modifications to Sections 2.22E, 2.22H, 3.3A, and 3.6: Specifically, Bellsouth would not have an obligation to submit documentation to support price increases; Bellsouth would have the option of refusing to maintain equipment purchased by the Department during the contract period if Bellsouth failed to certify such equipment, with the Department being liable for the cost of maintaining such equipment; Bellsouth would have a more restrictive indemnification obligation than that specified in the Revised Request for Proposal; and Bellsouth could withhold documentation relating to subcontractors to which the Department would be entitled under the mandatory provisions of the Revised Request for Proposal. A document entitled "RE: RFP NO. 98/99-010/G DOCUMENTATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF LOTTERY DETERMINATION THAT A THIRD CALL FOR BIDS WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LOTTERY," was signed by the Department's Purchasing Supervisor on October 15, 1999. The document provides: THIS DOCUMENT is being created pursuant to Florida Lottery Rule 53ER97-39(5)(f) [Florida Administrative Code] and documents the circumstances of the Lottery's determination that it would not be in the Lottery's best interest to issue a third call for bids in this procurement. The Lottery issued RFP 98/99-007/G for Maintenance of Telecommunications Equipment and Software, and Miscellaneous Data Processing Equipment and Software on February 8, 1999, Of the three responses received to that RFP, none was responsive. Consequently, on March 29, 1999, the Lottery posted its Notice of Responsiveness and Responsibility and Notice of Rejection of All Proposals. As a result of receiving no responsive proposals to the above referenced RFP, the Lottery issued a new revised Request for Proposals, RFP 98/99-010/G for the same services and equipment. This RFP was issued on April 27, 1999. Vendors received a cover sheet with the second RFP titled "Important Notice and Instructions to Respondents" drawing their attention to certain changes in the RFP and encouraging a complete review. Of the responses received to the second RFP, three were not responsive. The Lottery inadvertently overlooked a fourth response, initially, to the revised RFP. While still thinking that only three non-responsive proposals had been received, a Notice of Responsiveness and Responsibility and Notice of Intent to Negotiate and Notice of Contract Award was posted on August 30, 1999. This Notice advised of the Lottery's intended procedure for negotiating and awarding a contract. Subsequent to posting the Notice referred to in paragraph 4, the Lottery discovered that a fourth response had been received under the revised RFP. That response was accordingly reviewed for responsiveness and responsibility using the same criteria as had been applied under the RFP for the first three responses. The fourth response was found to be responsive and responsible. Consequently, the Lottery issued a Revised Notice of Responsiveness and Responsibility and Notice of Intent to Negotiate and Notice of Contract Award under RFP 98/99-010/G. This Notice was dated September 7, 1999. It advised of the Lottery's intent to evaluate the one responsive proposal and, if acceptable, to initiate contract negotiations with the responsive Respondent and, pending the outcome of the negotiations, to award a contract to that Respondent. The foregoing facts and circumstances were all taken into account in making the decision not to issue a third RFP, as provided in Rule 53ER97-39(5)(f). The Lottery considered, for example, that after having issued two Requests for Proposals, with a combined total of seven responses, only one responsive proposal had been received. After having made these two attempts, the Lottery had no reason to believe that additional attempts would prove to be more successful. Further, the Lottery considered the fact that its then current contract for these services was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1999, and that, therefore, there was a need to reach a successor agreement on an expedited basis, if possible. Based on all the foregoing circumstances, it was determined to be in the Lottery's best interest to proceed without issuing yet another Request for Proposal. Although it was drafted over a month after the Department made its decision, this document accurately reflects the factors taken into consideration by the Department in deciding to initiate contract negotiations with GTE. Summary The evidence presented by Bellsouth is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the Department's determination that Bellsouth's proposal was non- responsive was arbitrary or capricious. Rather, the evidence establishes that Bellsouth chose to include in its proposal clarifications and modifications to mandatory requirements of the Revised Request for Proposal even though those who submitted proposals were advised in Section 2.14 of the Revised Request for Proposal that a proposal would be rejected as non-responsive if it failed to "meet all material requirements of this RFP," where "material requirements" are defined as "those set forth as mandatory." In the absence of anything in the proposal to indicate that Bellsouth intended to put forward these clarifications and modifications simply as negotiating points, the Department could reasonably interpret Bellsouth's responses as conveying its refusal to accept the mandatory requirements of the Revised Request for Proposal. The evidence further establishes that the Department evaluated Bellsouth's proposal during the responsiveness review and determined that, if it were to accept Bellsouth's proposal as responsive, the clarifications and modifications included in Bellsouth's responses to Sections 2.10, 2.22E, 2.22H, 3.3A, and 3.6 could adversely impact the Department and inhibit its ability to negotiate the best terms and conditions were it to enter contract negotiations with Bellsouth. The evidence presented by Bellsouth is not sufficient to establish that the Department reached this conclusion without considering the factors relevant to a determination of responsiveness or that the Department's interpretation of the provisions of the Revised Request for Proposal was irrational or unsupported by facts or logic. Similarly, the evidence submitted by Bellsouth is not sufficient to establish that the Department's decision to initiate contract negotiations with GTE rather than to solicit proposals for a third time was inconsistent with its governing statutes, rules, or the provisions of the Revised Request for Proposal. The Department's contract with Bellsouth for the maintenance of its telecommunications equipment has twice been extended. The Department has twice solicited proposals and received only one proposal that it determined to be responsive. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the Department to conclude that it would be in its best interests to proceed with contract negotiations with the company submitting the only responsive proposal to the Revised Request for Proposal. The Department is not bound to enter into a contract with GTE unless the Department is able to negotiate the conditions and price that it considers "fair, competitive, and reasonable." Section 5.2, Revised Request for Proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of the Lottery enter a final order Denying the bid protest of Bellsouth Communication Systems, Inc.; Dismissing the Amended Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Bellsouth Communication Systems, Inc. ,and Denying Bellsouth's request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 13th day of December, 1999.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioners to be granted licenses to work in the Mutuels Department of the Fronton, Inc., a Florida Jai Alai concession located in West Palm Beach, Florida. More specifically, the matter to be resolved concerns the Respondent's refusal to license the named Petitioners in the aforementioned capacity based upon the alleged activities of those Petitioners during the 1977 season of the New Port Rhode Island Jai Alai Fronton. The Petitioners are alleged to have conspired to commit a fraudulent or corrupt practice in relation to the game of jai alai and committing fraud or corruption in relation to the game through conspiring to use and using positions as handicappers in misleading the public for the Petitioners' benefit, contrary to Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code. It is further alleged that the Petitioners have violated Rule 7E-3.05, Florida Administrative Code, by associating with their fellow co-Petitioner with a knowledge that the co-Petitioner has violated State of Florida's rules and regulations related to jai alai by conspiring to commit and committing a corrupt and fraudulent practice in relation to the game of jai alai as specified in the discussion of Rule 7E-3.12, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent also claims that it has information, to include the information related in the discussion of the two rules provisions, which information is a prima facia indication that the Petitioners are not of good moral character as required by Chapter 550, Florida Statutes, because of their conduct in the relation to the game of jai alai, which conduct would cause a reasonable man to have substantial doubt about the Petitioners' honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and would erode the public's confidence and the honest outcome of jai alai matches in the State of Florida. 1/
Findings Of Fact Prior to the season for the jai alai known as the Fronton, Inc., located in West Palm Beach, Florida, for the years 1980-81, the Petitioners In the above-styled actions made application for an occupational license to be granted by the Respondent. The licenses requested were to work as employees of the Fronton, Inc., in the mutuels department. The applications for licensure on the part of the Petitioners concerned re-licensure for the upcoming jai alai season in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Petitione'rs had never been denied an occupational license by the Respondent in the past. After reviewing the license applications, the Division Director of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering issued letters on November 4, 1980, directed to the named Petitioners, denying their license requests. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The grounds for license denial were as set forth In the issues statement of this Recommended Order. The letters of denial indicated the Opportunity for the Petitioners to request a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing and the Petitioners availed themselves of that opportunity. Subsequent to the request for a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the Respondent forwarded the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing. That hearing was conducted on the dates as stated in the introductory portion of this Recommended Order. At the time of the hearing, and continuing to the point of the entry of this Recommended Order, the parties are still desirous of being granted the subject occupational licenses. These licenses are required by the terms and conditions set forth in Section 550.10, Florida Statutes (1980). The Petitioners have complied with all procedural requirements for licensure and are entitled to be licensed unless the grounds for license denial as stated in the November 4, 1980, correspondence are well-founded. During the 1977 jai alai season at the Rhode Island Jai Alai in New Port, Rhode Island, Petitioner Gallo was employed as a sellers" This employment involved punching tickets in the mutuels area of the Fronton where tickets are issued to bettors. Petitioner Barth also worked at the Fronton in the calculating room as an employee of the Fronton. This is the area where the money is collected from the bettors and tabulated. In that racing season, while employed by the Fronton in Rhode Island, Gallo, Barth and one Robert Fusco, were involved as partners in a venture known as "list betting." Each of the partners had contributed five to six thousand dollars ($5,000.00 to $6,000.00) for the purpose of conducting "list betting." In particular, the "list betting" involved the placement of numerous combinations of numbers on each jai alai game in an effort to win the trifecta portion of the wagering on the individual games. To be successful in the trifecta wager, it was necessary that the three-number combination which constitutes an individual wager comport with the individual team performance for win, place and show. As example, if the individual number combination bet was 8-1-2, then the number (8) team would need to win, the number (1) team would need to place, and the number (2) team would need to show. The partnership was betting from a list of trifecta combinations which were the result of research conducted by the partnership on the subject of other jai alai seasons. The list of those numbers utilized in the betting may be found as Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. The partnership utilized the "list betting" system for all games during the 1977 season up to August 24, 1977, when the partnership was dissolved. The philosophy of the "list betting" was to win often enough and in sufficient amounts of money to offset the cost of high volume betting. In this pursuit, the partnership leaned toward the utilization of trifecta combination numbers which would grant the largest return in a winning payoff, as opposed to being concerned with the frequency of the payoff of the chosen combination trifecta number. In addition, the skill of the players in the jai alai game was not a critical factor. The amount of money being spent on the individual games varied from five, to, eight hundred dollars ($500.00 to $800.00) and, as a result of the "list betting" activities of the partnership, the partnership realized a profit. The money that was won was constituted of the proceeds from the trifecta pool In a given game less cost deductions extracted by the State and the Fronton. The money pool that remained after these cost items had been deducted was divided between the winning ticket holders in the trifecta pool on an equal basis. Therefore, the fewer winning tickets, the larger the monetary return. After August 24, 1977, the Petitioners still continued to make trifecta bets, but not as part of the partnership. One of the other functions that the Petitioners performed together with another Fronton employee, Thomas F. Dietz, was the position as handicapper. (Dietz was a statistician at the Fronton.) Dietz and the Petitioners each would pick a single combination of three numbers to be placed on the game programs for each of the games during the meet under a code identification. Gallo was under the heading Massachusetts; Barth, Rhode Island; and Dietz, Connecticut. Dietz, In turn, made a determination about the "consensus" of the handicappers and made a three-number combination entry on the program under the heading "consensus." These handicap, picks, are depicted in copies of the racing programs which are found in the Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. Gallo stopped making handicap selections some three or four days after August 24, 1977, and Dietz stopped his handicap selections on September 15, 1977. Barth made handicap selections for the entire season. It is not certain what the Fronton intended in having the handicappers place their "handicap line" on the game programs; however, the only compensation which the handicappers would receive from the Fronton for their efforts was a. monetary prize of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to be awarded at the end of each month for that handicapper who selected the most quiniela predictions. (A quiniela nick is a combination of three numbers in which the successful bettor must have selected the win and place numbers in his three-number selection, without regard for the order of selection. As an example, if the quiniela picked by the bettor was the combination 1-2-3, and the winning number was (2) and the place number was (3), the bettor would win the quiniela selection.) There was no testimony on the subject of the betting public's perception of the "handicap line" found on the programs and nothing about those programs identifies the intended purpose. An analysis of those number combinations on the program, which are picks of a combination of three numbers within the range of (1) through (8)(the numbers representing the players in their game position), leads to the conclusion that the numbers could have been utilized by the betting public as trifecta or quiniela bets. The successful utilization of those numbers as a trifecta pick would always entail success as a quiniela selection, but a successful quiniela bet would not always be a successful trifecta bet. The established breakdown of betting patterns in the jai alai season shows that 55 to 60 percent of bets were made as quinielas. Management expressed no Opposition during the course of the season to the fact that the Petitioners were "list bettors"; employees of the Fronton and handicappers during the same time period. Moreover, it was not, per se, a violation of the regulatory statutes and rules in Rhode Island for an employee to be a "list bettor." It is the juxtaposition of "list bettor/employee/handicapper, which has put the question of the Petitioners' current request for licensure in Florida at issue. In this regard, the witness Dietz' testimony establishes the fact that on numerous occasions, during the 1977 jai alai season in Rhode Island, Gallo requested that Dietz change the numerical order of his picks in his position as handicapper for the individual games as appeared on the programs, because Gallo was of the persuasion that the Dietz selections interfered with the Opportunity for Gallo and Barth to be successful in their trifecta "list betting." Whether the fact of Dietz' changes in his "handicap line" brought about greater success for the Petitioners "list betting" system was not established in the course of the hearing. It is apparent that there was a substantial difference in the utilization of the numbers in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4 (constituted of "list betting" combination numbers), in Barth's program selection In the "handicap line" several weeks prior to August 24, 1977, and several weeks beyond that point, the August date being the date that the partnership was dissolved. The comparison of these numbers demonstrates that Barth utilized the number combinations found in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, four times as much in the several week period beyond August 24, 1977, as contrasted with the several week period prior to August 24, 1977. Gallo had stopped handicapping some three or four days after August 24, 1977, so a comparison of the utilization of numbers in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4, as a basis for handicap selections is limited to three or four days prior to August 24, 1977, and three or four days beyond that date. Again, Gallo used the numbers from the list for handicap selections subsequent to August 24, 1977, for that three or four day period as compared to the three or four day period prior to that date, roughly four times as frequently. A similar comparison of Dietz' handicap selections from several weeks prior to August 24, 1977, and several weeks after August 24, 1977, in the sense of the utilization of number combinations that were found in the Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4; shows that Dietz used those number combinations essentially with the same frequency prior to and after August 24, 1977. This analysis of the matter takes into account the fact that Gallo and Barth, on a few occasions, did not act as handicappers. An analysis of the Gallo, Barth and Dietz choice of handicap numbers and the comments of Gallo made to Dietz about changing Dietz' number combinations when Dietz was handicapping, leads to the conclusion that the Petitioners felt that there was some relationship between exempting the numbers from their list in Petitioners' Exhibit No. 4 from the handicap selections and Dietz altering his numbers on the handicap selections and success in the Petitioners' "list betting" pursuit. This is further substantiated by the fact that around August 24 or 25, 1977, Dietz asked Gallo why the nature of his selections in handicapping had changed and Gallo replied to the effect that he, Gallo, had stopped his "list betting" activities so he could now use "good numbers' without hurting his winnings. The evidence in this case does not reveal the success that the Petitioners had in this pursuit due to the choice not to use numbers from their list in their handicap selections and due to the change of Dietz' handicap selections promoted by the Petitioner Gallo. The lack of data on the question of the overall effect of removing the Petitioners' numbers in their Exhibit No. 4, from the "handicap line" and the further lack of testimony on the question of the public's utilization of the "handicap numbers," does not allow factual conclusions to be drawn on the question of the effect of the Petitioners' action on the outcome of betting; and the possible additional money to be realized by the Petitioners through the implementation of their technique of withholding the numbers from their list and influencing Dietz to change his numbers on order of finish, which caused the public to use the "handicap numbers" for trifecta betting, thereby decreasing the general public's opportunity to be successful In the trifecta bet.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That Richard Joseph Barth and John Randy Gallo he denied occupational licenses to work in the mutuels department of the Fronton, Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida, for the 1981-82 season and that this recommendation he effectuated by the entry of a final order agreeing with the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations set forth. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1981.
Findings Of Fact On August 22, 29, and September 5, 1994, Respondent, School Board of Dade County (School Board), advertised for bids for Project No. KS-0004, Roof Repair/Replacement and Asbestos Removal at American Senior High School. The advertisement stated that "The mechanical and electrical trades have been set aside to be performed by a minority-owned and operated firm." The advertisement made no mention of any requirement that the set-asides were to be performed by minority-owned and operated firms certified by Dade County Public School/Division of Business Development and Assistance (DBDA). The bid and contract documents which were delivered to all interested bidders including Petitioner, Murton Roofing Corporation (Murton), contained page 00030-2 providing various definitions, including the definition of "minority owned and operated business participation" as follows: MINORITY OWNED AND OPERATED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION - This bid is limited to those individuals and businesses (51 percent) owned and controlled by African-American, Hispanics, and Women which are so listed by the Dade County Public Schools/Division of Business Development & Assistance prior to bidding, or to provide sufficient data to verify and certify such ownership and control at the time of the bid. Award will be made to the low bidder meeting this and other project specifications and requirements. Page 00030-2 had been included in the project specifications section dealing with legal advertisements. By addendum issued September 8, 1994, the School Board deleted this page from the bid documents. Section I A of the Special Provisions, page 1 defines Minority/Women Business Enterprises as follows: Any legal entity which is organized to engage in commercial transactions and which is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by minority persons. Minority person means a person who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and who is: An African American, a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa; An hispanic, a person of Spanish or Portuguese culture including, but not limited to persons with origins in Mexico, South America, Central America or the Caribbean Islands regardless of race. A woman. The Project Manual defines a "M/WBE Certification Application" as a "statement signed by an M/WBE contractor, containing certain information with respect to the ownership and control of the firm (See Attachment B-FM 3920)." Page 16 of the Project Manual states that "[a]t any time there is a change in ownership or control of the firm, the M/WBE shall, immediately following the change, submit a new M/WBE Certification Application." Page 2 of Section 1 A of the Special Provisions provides: A subcontractor is qualified to do specific work if it meets all of the following criteria: It has or is able to obtain any and all bonds, insurance and licenses required to do such work; It has the necessary experience, financial ability, organization, technical qualifications, skill and facilities to do such work; It is able to comply with the performance schedule reasonably needed for such work; It does not have an unsatisfactory record of integrity, judgment or performance; It is able to meet the applicable equal employment opportunity requirement if stipulated; and It is not otherwise ineligible to perform such work under applicable law and regulations. Nothing delineated herein shall be interpreted to waive the requirement that the Subcontractor be legally licensed and certified at the time it is scheduled to perform such work. Section III, titled Bid Documents, Section III A, Submittals, states: As a condition of responsiveness, all bid submittals shall contain the documents and information required below. Non-submittals or incomplete submittals shall be cause for finding a Bidder nonresponsive and for the contract not to be awarded to the Bidder. Failure to submit completed forms and other required information, within the time period specified, can neither be cured by supplementary submittals and testimony at hearings, nor shall the nonresponsiveness of the bid be waived, negotiated or compromised. In its bid, Murton listed Goral Enterprises (Goral) as the subcontractor for the mechanical work on the project. Murton indicated on the subcontractor list that Goral was a woman business enterprise. At the time that Murton submitted its bid, Goral was not certified as a M/WBE by DBDA and Murton did not submit with its bid an application from Goral for certification as a M/WBE by DBDA. Goral was certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) by Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Business and Economic Development. Murton relied on Goral's DBE certification to met the M/WBE requirements of the project specifications. The DBE program is a separate program from the School Board's M/WBE program. The School Board does not give reciprocity to contractors who are certified as DBE's for acceptance in the School Board M/WBE program. Goral had been denied certification as an MBE by the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development approximately two weeks prior to Murton submitting its bid for the project. The project specifications do not state that a contractor certified as a DBE will be deemed to meet the criteria of a M/WBE. Intervenor, A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., also submitted a bid on the project; however, its bid was rejected as nonresponsive. By letter dated October 13, 1994, the School Board advised Murton that it was not in compliance with the special provisions of the project specifications because Goral was neither certified as a M/WBE nor had certification pending; therefore Goral could not be used to meet the M/WBE requirements for the mechanical work on the project. By letter dated October 14, 1994, Murton requested a meeting with the Contract Administrator to discuss the Notice of Noncompliance issued the day before. A meeting was held on October 18, 1994. On October 21, 1994, the School Board issued a Final Notice of Noncompliance. On October 26, 1994, the School Board issued a Revised Final Notice of Noncompliance, wherein it inaccurately stated that the legal advertisement required that the M/WBE's be certified by the DBDA at the time of submittal or that the bid submittal contain sufficient data to verify and certify M/WBE qualification. However, the Revised Final Notice of Noncompliance also stated that the bid document when read as a whole required that the M/WBE be either certified or pending certification at the time of bid submittal or that a certification application be submitted with the bid. The notice stated that Goral did not meet the requirements of the bid documents for a M/WBE. Murton requested an appeals hearing before the Certification Appeals Committee (Committee). The hearing was convened on October 26, 1994, at which time it became apparent to the Committee that the October 21, 1994 letter contained an error in that the paragraph stating that M/WBE's must be certified by the DBDA prior to bidding or provide sufficient data to verify or certify such ownership and control at the time of bid had not in fact appeared in the advertisement and the second page of the advertisement in the project manual which represented that this language had been a part of the advertisement had been removed by addendum. The meeting was recessed in order to review and obtain clarification of documentation presented by Murton. The Committee reconvened on November 15, 1994. At that time, upon reviewing the project manual and other documentation, the Committee determined that the language remaining in the Project Manual, read as a whole, did require DBDA certification and voted to uphold the determination of noncompliance. The School Board has interpreted similar project specifications to require that the proposed M/WBE be certified by DBDA at the time of bid submittal or that the bidder submit sufficient data with the bid to be able to determine whether the entity qualifies as a M/WBE. Such data is to be submitted on the application form contained in the project specifications as Attachment B- FM 3920, which is the form used by DBDA for application for certification as a M/WBE. The School Board has on numerous occasions rejected bidders for failure to submit either currently certified M/WBE's as subcontractors or for failure to submit an application for DBDA certification for the subcontractor with the bid. School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.02 delineates the objectives for its M/WBE program. The rule states that the program's objectives may be accomplished by affirmative actions which include set aside contracts, subcontracting goals, prime contracting and designated scopes of work. In the instant case the School Board had designated certain portions of the work of the project to be performed by M/WBE firms. School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.02 IV. provides: In order to ensure that business firms seeking to participate in the M/WBE Program are at least fifty-one (51) percent legitimately owned, operated and controlled by minorities, each M/WBE firm shall be required to be certified as to its minority ownership at the time of each bid award. Such certification shall be on the basis of a completed M/WBE Certification Application with supporting documentation, submitted by the firm, sworn to by an officer of the firm, invest- igated and verified by the Division of Business Development and Assistance, prior to any contract award. The School Board desires to rebid the project. On January 9, 1995, the School Board placed a new legal advertisement for bid on the project, specifically indicating that it would require and accept only DBDA certified M/WBE's.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Murton Roofing Corporation's Petition and rejecting all bids for the project and rebidding the project. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 1st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6919 To comply with the requirement of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted that Goral was certified as a DBE but rejected that DBE certification meant that Goral was qualified as a M/WBE. Paragraphs 7-11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Accepted that that portion was deleted, but rejected to the extent that it implies that section was the only portion of the bid documents relied upon by the School Board. Paragraphs 13-15: Rejected as not necessary. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 18: Accepted to the extent that that was his testimony. Paragraphs 19-22: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 23-24: Rejecting as constituting argument. Paragraphs 25-26: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 27: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 28: There is no paragraph 28. Paragraph 29: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 30-31: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first two paragraphs are rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 5-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-12: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 14: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The second sentence is accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Vincent F. Vaccarella, Esquire Elder & Kurzman Grand Bay Plaza, Suite 702 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Phillis O. Douglas Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Steven M. Rosen, Esquire 5601 Building 5601 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, #403 Mimai, Florida 33132-1308 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether proposed rules 25-4.300 ("Scope and Definition"); 25-4.301 ("Applicability of Fresh Look"); and 25-4.302, ("Termination of Local Exchange Contracts"), Florida Administrative Code, known as "The Fresh Look Provision," constitute an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority".
Findings Of Fact Telecommunications carriers/providers may "wear different hats," dependent upon what function they are performing at a given time. Local exchange carriers are abbreviated "LECs" in the proposed rules. For purposes of this case only, Time Warner is an Alternative Local Exchange Carrier ("ALEC") and GTE and BST are Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ("ILECs"). Both types of companies provide local telephone service over the public switch network. On February 17, 1998, Time Warner filed a Petition to Initiate Rulemaking. Time Warner's Petition requested that the Commission adopt what it described as a "Fresh Look" rule, under which a customer a/k/a "patron" a/k/a "end user" of an ILEC who had agreed to a long-term, discounted contract would have an opportunity to abrogate that ILEC contract without incurring the liability to the ILEC which the customer had agreed to, so that the customer could then enter a new contract with an ALEC. On at least one prior occasion, the Commission had elected to reach a similar result by a Final Order, rather than by enacting a rule. This time, the Commission granted Time Warner's Petition, and the Commission began the rulemaking process. Other states have adopted "Fresh Look" rules or statutes with varying degrees of success. The legislative, administrative, or litigation histories of these extraterritorial matters are immaterial to the rule validity issues herein, which are governed by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Those histories are likewise non-binding on this forum. The Commission has no way of identifying, let alone notifying, ILEC contract customers as a separate class of the public or as a separate class of potentially interested parties. However, the public, including customers and carriers, received the required statutory notice(s) at each stage of the rulemaking process, and only the following dates and occurrences have significance within the rulemaking process for purposes of the issues herein. A Notice of Rulemaking Development was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 3, 1998. Commission staff held a Rule Development Workshop on April 22, 1998. Based on information received from carriers in response to staff data requests, the rules as proposed April 3, 1998, were revised by staff. On March 4, 1999, staff recommended that the revised rules be adopted by the Commission. At its Agenda Conference on March 19, 1999, the Commission set the rulemaking for hearing. On March 24, 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Rulemaking, which included further revisions to the proposed rules. The Commission received a letter from JAPC dated April 28, 1999 ("the JAPC letter") which stated, in pertinent part: Article 1, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution prohibits the passage of laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Inasmuch as the rules effectively amend the terms of existing contracts, please reconcile the rules with the Constitution. The JAPC letter was not placed into the rulemaking record, responded-to by the Commission, or specifically addressed on its merits by any interested parties. Interested parties did not find out about it until many months later. A rulemaking hearing on the proposed rules was held before the Commission on May 12, 1999. Interested persons submitted written and oral testimony and comments at the hearing. No customer with a contract that would be affected by these rules participated in the rulemaking proceedings, including the hearing, before the Commission. At no time did anyone formally submit a lower cost regulatory alternative, but it was clear throughout the rulemaking process that Petitioners herein opposed the adoption of the proposed rules. Two Statements of Estimated Regulatory Cost ("SERCs") were prepared by Commission staff. The proposed rules were further revised after the May 12, 1999, hearing. On November 4, 1999, Commission staff issued a recommendation that the Commission adopt the latest rules draft, in part on the basis that the proposed rules will implement the "regulatory mandates" of Section 364.01, Florida Statutes, that the Commission should "promote competition by encouraging new entrants" and "encourage competition through flexible regulatory treatment among providers of telecommunication services." Attached to this recommendation was a revised SERC, dated September 13, 1999. The September 13, 1999, SERC addressed the alternative of not adopting the proposed rules, and found such an alternative was not viable because it would not foster competition. In preparing both SERCs, Commission staff relied solely on market share data for analyzing competition and did not fully account for revenues to which ILECs were contractually entitled, but which potentially could be unilaterally cancelled by the ILEC customer as a result of the proposed rules. Staff did not ask for such data for estimating cost of the proposed rules to the ILECs. At its November 16, 1999, Agenda Conference, the participation of interested parties was limited to addressing the new SERC. During this Agenda Conference, the Commission revised the rules further, limiting the contracts affected by them to contracts entered into before July 1, 1999, and voted to approve the proposed rules as revised. The exact language of the proposed rules under challenge, as published in the December 3, 1999, Florida Administrative Weekly, pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(d), Florida Statutes, is as follows: PART XII - FRESH LOOK: 25-4.300 Scope and Definitions. Scope. For the purposes of this Part, all contracts that include local telecommunications services offered over the public switched network, between LECs and end users, which were entered into prior to June 30, 1999, that are in effect as of the effective date of this rule, and are scheduled to remain in effect for a least one year after the effective date of this rule will be contracts eligible for Fresh Look. Local telecommunications services offered over the public switched network are defined as those services which include provision of dial tone and flat-rated or message-rated usage. If an end user exercises an option to renew or a provision for automatic renewal, this constitutes a new contract for purposes of this Part, unless penalties apply if the end user elects not to exercise such option or provision. This Part does not apply to LECs which had fewer than 100,000 access lines as of July 1, 1995, and have not elected price-cap regulation. Eligible contracts include, but are not limited to, Contract Service Arrangements (CSAs) and tariffed term plans in which the rate varies according to the end user's term commitment. The end user may exercise this provision solely for the purpose of obtaining a new contract. For the purposes of this Part, the definitions to the following terms apply: "Fresh Look Window" - The period of time during which LEC end users may terminate eligible contracts under the limited liability provision specified in Rule 25- 4.302(3). "Notice of Intent to Terminate" - The written notice by an end user of the end user's intent to terminate an eligible contract pursuant to this rule. "Notice of Termination" - The written notice by an end user to terminate an eligible contract pursuant to this rule. "Statement of Termination Liability" - The written statement by a LEC detailing the liability pursuant to 25-4.302(3), if any, for an end user to terminate an eligible contract. 25-4.301 Applicability of Fresh Look. The Fresh Look Window shall apply to all eligible contracts. The Fresh Look Window shall begin 60 days after the effective date of this rule. The Fresh Look Window shall remain open for one year from the starting date of the Fresh Look Window. An end user may only issue one Notice of Intent to Terminate during the Fresh Look Window for each eligible contract. 25-4.302 Termination of LEC Contracts. Each LEC shall respond to all Fresh Look inquiries and shall designate a contact within its company to which all Fresh Look inquiries and requests should be directed. An end user may provide a written Notice of Intent to Terminate an eligible contract to the LEC during the Fresh Look Window. Within ten business days of receiving the Notice of Intent to Terminate, the LEC shall provide a written Statement of Termination Liability. The termination liability shall be limited to any unrecovered, contract specific nonrecurring costs, in an amount not to exceed the termination liability specified in the terms of the contract. The termination liability shall be calculated as follows: For tariffed term plans, the payments shall be recalculated based on the amount that would have been paid under a tariffed term plan that corresponds to the actual time the service has been subscribed to. For CSAs, the termination liability shall be limited to any unrecovered, contract specific nonrecurring costs, in an amount not to exceed the termination liability specified in the terms of the contract. The termination liability shall be calculated from the information contained in the contract or the workpapers supporting the contract. If a discrepancy arises between the contract and the workpapers, the contract shall be controlling. In the Statement of Termination Liability, the LEC shall specify if and how the termination liability will vary depending on the date services are disconnected pursuant to subsections (4) and (6). From the date the end user receives the Statement of Termination Liability from the LEC, the end user shall have 30 days to provide a Notice of Termination. If the end user does not provide a Notice of Termination within 30 days, the eligible contract shall remain in effect. If the end user provides the Notice of Termination, the end user will pay any termination liability in a one-time payment. The LEC shall have 30 days to terminate the subject services from the date the LEC receives the Notice of Termination. (Emphasis provided only to facilitate the following discussion of "timed" provisions) "Tariff term plans" or "tariffed term plans" are telecommunication service plans in which the rate the customer pays depends on the length of the service commitment. The longer the service commitment the customer makes with the company, the lower the monthly rate will be. Ninety-eight percent of the contracts affected by the proposed rules are tariff term plans filed with the Commission. Contract service arrangements (CSAs) have many functions. By tariff term plans and CSAs, carriers and their customers formalize a negotiation whereby the customer signs-on for service for an extended period, in exchange for lower rates than he would get if he committed to shorter periods or under the regular tariff. Both tariff term plans and CSAs are subject to the Commission's regulatory oversight. No reason was given for use of the "included but not limited to" language added in the rules' current draft. The Commission has published that the "specific authority" for the proposed rules is Sections 350.127(2) and 364.19, Florida Statutes. The Commission has published that the "law implemented" by the proposed rules is Sections 364.19 and 364.01, Florida Statutes. The proposed rules would allow customers of ILECs, including Petitioners GTE and BST, to terminate their contracts and tariffed term plans for local exchange services without paying the termination liability stated in those contracts and tariffs. Instead, customers would only be required to pay the ILEC "any unrecovered, contract specific nonrecurring costs" associated with the contracts. (Proposed rule 25-4.302(3)(b)). For tariffed term plans (but not contracts), termination liability would be recalculated as the difference, if any, between the amount the customer paid and the amount he would have paid under a plan corresponding to the period during which he actually subscribed to the service. (Proposed rule 25- 4.302(3)(a)). The "Fresh Look" rule applies to agreements entered into before June 30, 1999, and that remain in effect for at least one year after the date the rule takes effect. (Proposed rule 25-4.300(1)). The window for contract termination starts 60 days after the rules' effective date and lasts for one year thereafter. (Proposed rule 25-4.301). In the case of ILEC customers who may exercise the "opt-out early" (termination) provisions of the proposed rules, the proposed rules would provide the ILECs with the compensation they would have received if the contracts had been made for a shorter period than for the period of time for which the parties had actually negotiated. The proposed rules clearly modify existing contracts. Indeed, they retroactively impair existing contracts. It may reasonably be inferred that the retroactive elimination of the respective durations of the existing contracts would work to the detriment of any ILECs which have waived "start up costs" on individual contracts or which planned or invested in any technological upgrades or committed to any other business components (labor, training, material, development, expansion, etc.) in anticipation of fulfilling the contracts and profiting over the longer contract terms legally entered-into prior to the proposed rules. The purpose of the proposed rules, as reflected in the Commission's rulemaking notices, is to "enable ALECs to compete for existing ILEC customer contracts covering local exchange telecommunications services offered over the public switched network, which were entered into prior to switch-based substitutes for local exchange telecommunications services." However, the Commission now concedes that switch-based substitutes for the ILECs' local exchange services were widely available to consumers prior to June 30, 1999, the date provided in the proposed rule. At hearing, the Commission asserted that it is also the purpose of the proposed rules to actively encourage competition, and that by proposing these rules, the Commission deemed competition to be meaningful or sufficient enough to warrant a "fresh look" at the ILECs' contracts, but not so widespread that the rules would not be necessary. In effect, the Commission made a "judgment call" concerning the existence of "meaningful or sufficient" competition, but has not defined "sufficient" or "meaningful" competition for purposes of the proposed rules. The Commission's selection of June 30, 1999, as the cut-off date for contract eligibility was motivated primarily by a concept that using that date would render approximately 40 percent of existing ILEC contracts eligible for termination. The rulemaking process revealed that the terms of so- called "long-term" agreements range from six months to four years in duration. The Commission selected a one-year term for eligible contracts subject to the proposed rules as a compromise based on this spread of actual contract durations. The one-year window of opportunity in which a customer will be permitted to terminate a contract was selected by the Commission as a compromise among presenters' views expressed during the rulemaking process. The one-year window is to be implemented 60 days after the effective date of the rule to avoid the type of problems incurred when a "fresh look" was previously accomplished by a Commission Order and to allow the ILECs and ALECs time to prepare. Tariffed term plans were developed as a response to competition and have been used at least since 1973. As early as 1984, the Commission had, by Order, given ILECs authority to use CSAs for certain services, upon the condition that there was a competitive alternative available. The Commission has long been aware of the ILECs' use of termination liability provisions in CSAs and tariff term plans, including provisions for customer premises equipment (CPE), and has not affirmatively determined that their use is anticompetitive, discriminatory, or otherwise impermissible. Private branch exchanges (PBXs), which are switches, competed with the ILECs' Centrex systems for medium- to large- size business customers and key telephone systems for smaller businesses, from the early 1980's, as recognized by a Commission Order in 1994. Commission Order No. PSC-94-0285-FOF-TP, dated March 3, 1994, in Docket No. 921074-TP, permitted a "fresh look" for customers of LEC private line and special access services with terms equal to, or greater than, three years. Customers were permitted a limited time to terminate their existing contracts with LECs to take advantage of emerging competitive alternatives, such as alternative access vendors' (AAVs') ability to interconnect with LECs' facilities. Termination liability of the customer to the ILEC was limited to the amount the customer would have paid for the services actually used. Prior to 1996, only ILECs could offer dial tone service, which enables end users to communicate with anyone else who has a telephone. Chapter 364, Florida Statutes, Florida's telecommunication statute, was amended effective January 1, 1996, to allow ALECs to operate in Florida. ILECs had offered tariffed term plans and CSAs for certain services before the 1996 revision of Chapter 364, Florida Statutes, but effective 1996, substantial amendments allowed the entry of ALECs into ILECs' markets. The new amendments codified and expanded the ILECs' ability to use CSAs and term and volume discount contracts in exchange for ILECs losing their exclusive local franchises and deleted statutory language requiring the Commission to determine that there was effective competition for a particular service before an ILEC could be granted pricing flexibility for that service. Tariff filings before the amendments had required Commission approval. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 also opened the ILECs' local exchange markets to full competition and imposed upon the ILECs a number of obligations designed to encourage competitive entry by ALECs into the market, including allowing ALECs to interconnect their networks with those of ILECs; "unbundling" ILEC networks to sell the unbundled elements to competitors; and reselling ILEC telecommunications services to ALECs at a wholesale discount. See 47 U.S.C. Section 51 et seq. "Resale" means taking an existing service provided by a LEC and repackaging or remarketing it. The requirement that ILECs resell their services, including contracts and tariffed term plans, to competitors at a wholesale discount, has been very effective in stimulating resale competition, but to resell or not is purely an internal business decision of each ALEC. For instance, Time Warner has elected not to be involved in "resales," and is entirely "facility based." Since 1996, competing carriers could and do sell additional (other) services to customers already committed to long-term ILEC contracts. They may also purchase ILEC CSAs wholesale at discount and resell such agreements to customers. Market share data demonstrates that there has been greater ALEC competition in Florida since the 1996 amendments, but typically, ALECs target big cities with denser populations and denser business concentrations. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the affected ILEC contracts (those post-June 30, 1999) were entered into by customers who did not have competing alternatives from which to choose. In fact, testimony by Commission staff supports a finding that since LECs' CSAs are subject to Commission review and their service tariffs are filed with the Commission, the Commission has not authorized CSAs unless there was an "uneconomic bypass" or competition. "Uneconomic bypass" occurs where a competitor can offer service at a price below the LEC's tariffed rate but above the LEC's cost. The Commission presented an ILEC customer, Mr. Eric Larsen of Tallahassee, who testified that he had had the benefit of competition, not necessarily from an ALEC, when he had entertained a bid from a carrier different from his then-current ILEC in 1999. However, at that time, he renegotiated an expiring contract with his then-current ILEC instead of with the competitor. This renewal contract with an ILEC would not be affected by the proposed rules. Business customers, such as Mr. Larsen, may reasonably perceive business trends. They could reasonably be expected to have factored into their negotiations with competing carriers at the time the contracts were formed that a potential for greater choices would occur in the future, even within the life of their long-term contracts with an ILEC. As of 1999, 80 ALECs were serving Florida customers, 100 more had expressed their intention of serving Florida before the end of the year 2000, and ALECs had obtained some share of the business lines in many exchanges. While this does not mean that every area of Florida has every service, it is indicative of a spread of competition. Petitioner GTE is anchored in the Tampa Bay area. By June 30, 1999, the date expressed in the proposed rules, nine facilities-based competitors were in the same geographic area. One ALEC (MCI) was serving 10,000 lines. Competitors operated 20 switches and 83 percent of the buildings in GTE's franchise area were within 18,000 feet of a competitor's switch. However, in most cases, GTE's CSA or tariff term agreements had been successful against specific competing bids for the respective services. Market share data showed that by June 30, 1999, Petitioner GTE had executed 101 agreements allowing ALECs to provide service by inter-connecting their networks with GTE's networks, reselling GTE's services, and/or taking "unbundled" parts of GTE's network. While market share data is not conclusive, in the absence of any better economic analysis by the Commission or other evidence of existing ALEC presence or of a different prognosis for ALEC penetration, market share is at least one indicator of the state of competition when the contracts addressed by the proposed rules were entered into. The Commission has no data about how many customers currently opt-out of their ILEC contracts prior to natural expiration and pay the termination liability to which those ILEC agreements bind them in order to accept a competing offer from another carrier, but clearly, some do. This evidences current competition. Competing carriers can and do sell to ILEC customers at the natural expiration of their long-term agreements. This evidences current competition. The Commission has no data predicting how many more customers would opt-out if the proposed rules are validated. Therefore, the presumption that "if we publish a rule they will come" is speculative. Likewise the Commission's presumption that customers regard termination liability provisions in ILEC contracts as a barrier to their choices and a bar to competition was not proven. Some of the factors that went into that presumption were speculative because the Commission has not reviewed the termination liability provisions of Petitioners' contracts and has offered no evidence of formal complaints to the Commission by customers who want to opt-out of ILEC contracts. "Informal communication" with Commission staff by customers was undocumented and unquantified. The Commission did present the testimony of Mr. Larsen who explained that because he needs to keep the same business telephone number, he feels that it is not economically feasible for him to opt-out of his several overlapping ILEC contracts unless he can synchronize all his existing contract termination dates and that the proposed "fresh look" rules would permit him to do that. However, his testimony provided no valid predictor that even if the termination of all his existing ILEC contracts were enabled by the proposed rules he would, in fact, be able to find a competitor in his area whose contract(s) were more to his liking. The proposed rules, with their arbitrary date of June 30, 1999, would not allow Mr. Larsen to terminate, without liability, the one ILEC contract he entered into after that date. (See Finding of Fact No. 47). Based on his sincere but unfocused testimony, it remains speculation to presume that Mr. Larsen would be willing to incur contractual liability by early termination of his single non-qualifying ILEC contract just because the proposed rules would let him "opt-out" of the several qualifying ILEC contracts. It is indicative of the proposed rules' possible effect on future competition that Mr. Larsen speculated that if he could terminate all his qualifying ILEC contracts simultaneously under the proposed rules, he might be able to persuade a competitor, perhaps an ALEC, to pay his termination costs on his single non- qualifying ILEC contract if he renegotiated all his business away from his ILEC and to that competitor. The introduction of the proposed rules into the market place could create a "competitive edge" not anticipated by the Commission. Other carriers, including ALECs competing with ILECs, can and do enter into contracts with their customers which, like the contracts which would be affected by the proposed rules, are long-term contracts subject to termination liability, but the long-term contracts of carriers other than ILECs would not be affected by the proposed rules. The proposed rules pertain only to ILECs and their business customers. In effect, the proposed rules apply predominantly to ILECs' large business customers. Under the proposed rules, competitors which had originally bid against the ILECs for an affected contract at the time it was entered-into could get "a second bite at the apple" occasioned solely by the application of the proposed rules.
Findings Of Fact Background On March 12, 1991, the Department of Lottery (Department) issued Request for Proposal No. 91-007-LOT/TEN/P entitled "Request for Proposal for the Provision of Advertising and Related Services to the Florida Lottery" (hereafter "the RFP"). The deadline for submitting sealed proposals in response to the RFP was established as April 22, 1991, but extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3 to the RFP. At the time of the deadline, ten proposals had been filed, including those of petitioner, Bozell, Inc. (Bozell), and intervenors, Earle Palmer Brown (EPB) and BBDO South (BBDO). By "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, and posted at the Department's headquarters, the Department advised all bidders that: After review of written proposals submitted in response to the subject RFP, the Florida Department of the Lottery's Evaluation Committee has ranked the responsive proposals in the following order of preference: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Fahlgren Martin Benito West & Company Beber Silverstein LMPM The Ad Team In accordance with Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Department intends to conduct oral presentations with the following firms for the purpose of determining final rankings: Ogilvy & Mather Earle Palmer Brown BBDO South Bozell W.B. Doner Pursuant to Florida Statute and Rule 53ER87-16, failure to file a formal written protest and the bond required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat., with the Secretary within 72 hours shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Here, there was no showing that any protest was timely filed to contest the Department's selection of the five finalists. The five finalists made oral presentations to the evaluation committee on May 7 and 8, 1991, and their cost proposals were opened and scored on May 8, 1991. At the conclusion of its work, the committee awarded EPB an average total score of 174.550 and Bozell an average total score of 171.150; 200 points was the maximum total possible. By notice dated Wednesday, May 8, 1991, at 8:07 p.m., the Department issued its "Notice of Intent to Negotiate a Contract" ranking the top five firms in the following order of preference: (1) EPB, (2) Bozell, (3) Ogilvy & Mather; BBDO; and (5) W.B. Doner. Bozell filed its formal written protest and petition for formal administrative hearing with the Department of Monday, May 13, 1991, at 4:29 p.m. The Request for Proposals The RFP consists of the original RFP issued by the Department, three amendments, and the Department's response to various written questions submitted by potential bidders. Pertinent to this case, the RFP provided: SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION Introduction. This Request for Proposal ("RFP") has been issued by the Florida Department of Lottery ("Lottery") to obtain sealed proposals from qualified firms for the provision of advertising and related services to the Florida Lottery. This RFP, and all other activities leading toward the execution of a contract per this RFP, are conducted under the Lottery policies set forth in Rules 53ER87-10 through 53ER87-19, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 24, Fla. Stat. The Lottery considers it in the best interest of the State of Florida to procure the commodities/services described herein through a competitive process. All responding firms should read and be familiar with the Florida Public Education Lottery Act [Chapter 24, Fla. Stat.] to ascertain an understanding of the purposes and requirements placed on the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., is attached to this RFP. This proposed purchase is a Major Procurement as defined in Section 24.103, Fla. Stat. (1989). Glossary of Terms. * * * Responsive Proposal - Refers to a proposal which contains, in the manner required by this RFP, all documentation, drawings, information, plans, materials, certifications and affirmations, regardless of which section of the RFP sets forth the particular requirements. * * * Questions About This RFP. * * * If revisions to this RFP are necessary after the closing date for submitting proposals, the revisions will be provided to only those Respondents who have submitted Responsive Proposals and have met the basic requirements of this RFP. Such Respondents will then have the opportunity to modify their proposals in conformance with the revisions. Timetable The following timetable will be strictly adhered to in all actions relative to this procurement. * * * All proposals will be opened by Lottery employees at 2:00 p.m. on April 22, 1991 [extended to April 29, 1991, by Amendment 3] in the Purchasing Office at the aforesaid Lottery Headquarters. The public may attend the opening but may not review any proposals submitted. The evaluation process will begin immediately following the proposal opening. The Evaluation Committee will rank the proposals in order of preference based on the evaluation of the technical proposals in accordance with the criteria specified herein. Notice of selection of finalists shall be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If more than five Responsive Proposals are submitted, at least the five top firms which have submitted Responsive Proposals will be selected for oral presentations to be made in Tallahassee, Florida, at the Lottery's Headquarters. Oral presentations are tentatively scheduled for the week of April 29, 1991 [extended to the week of May 6, 1991, by Amendment 3] . . . . The Evaluation Committee will score the oral presentations and then open and score the cost proposal. The final rankings will be determined based on the evaluation of the technical proposals, oral presentations and cost proposals. Notice of Intent to negotiate with the highest ranked firm will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. If negotiations with the highest ranked firm are not successful, the Lottery may negotiate with the other listed firms in descending order of rank. Upon successful conclusion of negotiations with a Respondent, a Notice of Award of Contract will be posted at the Lottery's headquarters. * * * 1.12. Proposal Submission. It is the Respondent's responsibility to ensure that its proposal is delivered by the proper time at the place of the proposal opening.... * * * 1.14 Correction or Withdrawal of Proposal. A correction to, or withdrawal of, a proposal may be requested within 72 hours after the proposal opening time and date. Requests received in accordance with this provision may be granted by the Lottery upon proof of the impossibility to perform based upon an obvious error. The Lottery, in its sole discretion, will determine whether a bid may be corrected or withdrawn. Interpretations/Disputes. Any questions concerning conditions and specifications of this RFP shall be directed in writing to the Issuing Officer in the manner provided in Sections 1.8 and 1.9 of this RFP. Inquiries must reference the bid number and the date of proposal opening. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the Lottery. Any prospective Respondent who disputes the reasonableness or appropriateness of the terms, conditions, and specifications of this RFP shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the availability of answers to questions as provided in Section 1.9 of this RFP. Any Respondent who disputes the Lottery's Notice of Selection of Finalists, Notice of Intent to Negotiate, or Notice of Award of Contract, shall file a formal written protest in appropriate form within 72 hours of the notices. Any person who files a formal written protest shall, at the time of filing the formal written protest, post a bond as set forth in Section 287.042(2)(c), Fla. Stat. Failure to file both a protest and bond within the time prescribed in Rule No. 53ER87-16, Florida Administrative Code, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Fla. Stat. Legal Requirements. Applicable provisions of all federal, state, county, and local laws and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules shall govern the development, submittal and evaluation of all proposals received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons submitting a proposal hereto and the Lottery. Lack of knowledge of the law or applicable administrative procedures, regulations or rules by any Respondent shall not constitute a cognizable defense against their effect. * * * Purpose and Overview. A. In accordance with Chapter 24, Fla. Stat., the Florida Department of the Lottery has been charged with the responsibility "to operate the state lottery . . . so as to maximize revenues in a manner consonant with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens." The Contractor will support the Lottery in its mission by providing the advertising services set forth in Section 2.2. The goal of these services is to maximize the sale of tickets, enhance the public image and visibility of the Lottery, and assist in communicating the intent that Lottery proceeds enhance education . . . . Scope of Services. The Contractor shall be the principal advisor and provider to the Lottery for the following advertising and services: Development of strategic advertising plan; Creative strategy, creation and production of all advertising (including television, radio, print, transit and outdoor); Placement of all print, radio, television, transit and outdoor advertising at the lowest competitive rate; Coordination of and contracting for televised broadcasts of lottery drawings; Ticket design; Creation and production of point-of- sales material; Media plans; Educational, promotional and other related activities as directed. The Technical Proposal. The objective of the technical proposal is to demonstrate the Respondent's understanding and proposed method of rendering the requested services. Each Respondent shall provide a written statement of the firm's understanding of the services requested herein as well as a detailed written plan outlining how the firm proposes to go about providing the services set forth in Section 2.2. At a minimum, the technical proposal shall consist of the following information and materials: * * * E. Firm Qualifications. At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report. Certified financial statements must be the result of an audit of the Respondent's records in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards by a certified public accountant . . . . * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. * * * 33. Disclosure information required by and listed in Section 24.111, Fla. Stat. * * * Section 3: INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM RESPONDENT 3.1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. * * * D. Technical proposals must include the following information, be limited to not more than 100 pages (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes) and be presented in the following sequence: * * * Vendor Information Form (Attachment B). * * * Performance bond commitment letter required by Section 6.6. All material or information required to be submitted as part of the technical proposal required by Section 2.3. * * * 13. Any other material or information required by this RFP. * * * 3.4 Use of Subcontractors. If a Respondent proposes to use one or more subcontractors, the proposal must identify the contemplated subcontractor(s) and the scope of the subcontractor's services, and must include evidence of each subcontractor's ability to fulfill its respective duties on behalf of the Respondent. Respondent must also provide the information required by Section 24.111(2), Fla. Stat., for each subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. * * * 3.6 Additional Information and Comments. Respondent shall not submit with their written proposals material beyond that which is covered in the 100-page technical proposal (not including cover sheet, table of contents, divider pages, creative materials or resumes), plus creative comps and samples, resumes of key personnel and the separate cost proposals. The Lottery reserves the right to request additional information from a Respondent in order to make a thorough review and fair comparison of all proposals submitted.... Section 4: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Terms. The Lottery has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any proposal. The use of the terms "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicate a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this RFP indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a proposal. 4.2 Non-responsive Proposals. Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of the RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. SECTION 5: PROPOSAL REVIEW AND CRITERIA FOR SELECTION 5.1. Proposal Submission. Only proposals submitted in the time frame stated herein and with the content required above will be reviewed and considered by the Lottery. A copy of Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, was attached to the RFP, and Section 24.111, Florida Statutes, was specifically referenced in Sections 2.3.E.33 and 3.4 of the RFP. The vendor information form itself referenced the requirements of Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes. In accordance with RFP Section 1.8, EPB submitted the following question, among others, to the Department: "Does Attachment B [Vendor Information Form] need to be completed by all company officers?" The Department answered "Yes, see question #8, BBDO Atlanta, letter dated March 26, 1991." The referenced answer to BBDO Atlanta emphasized that "a vendor information form must be completed by each person listed in the instructions on the form [all officers, all directors, all owners, all partners, all trustees, all stockholders holding five percent or more, executive director and chairman of the board]." Even section 1.27 of the RFP required that vendor information forms be submitted to the Department prior to or at the time of submitting the proposal. Responsiveness of proposals Under the terms of the RFP, Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the Department was not to consider and evaluate non-responsive proposals. Non-responsive proposals are defined by Section 4.2 of the RFP as follows: Proposals which do not meet all material requirements of this RFP or which fail to provide all required information, documents, or materials will be rejected as non- responsive. Material requirements of the RFP are those set forth in Section 3.1 and without which an adequate analysis and comparison of proposals is impossible. The Lottery reserves the right to determine which proposals meet the material requirements of the RFP and to accept proposals which deviate from the requirements of the RFP in a minor or technical fashion as determined by the Lottery. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB did not submit the vendor information forms required by subsections 2.3E33, 3.1 and 3.4 of the RFP and by Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, for at least three of its corporate officers or directors (Sally Brown, Louise Smoak, and Robert Morse), and did not submit any vendor information forms for its designated subcontractor, Premier Maldonado & Associates. The Department, through its counsel, first requested submission of these forms from EPB on May 8, 1991, the date on which the Notice of Intent to Negotiate was posted. EPB did not supply the missing forms for Premier Maldonado & Associates until May 14, 1991, and for the three corporate officers or directors until on or about May 29, 1991. The RFP required that the vendor information forms be submitted with the proposal, and Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, provided in mandatory language that: The Department shall investigate the financial responsibility, security, and integrity of any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement. Any person who submits a bid proposal or offer as part of a major procurement must, at the time of submitting such bid proposal or offer, provide the following: A disclosure of the vendor's name and address and, as applicable, the name and address of the following: If the vendor is a corporation, the officers, directors, and each stockholder in such corporation, except that in the case of owners of equity securities of a publicly traded corporation, only the names and addresses of those known to the corporation to own beneficially 5 percent or more of such securities need be disclosed. If the vendor is a trust, the trustee and all persons entitled to receive income or benefit from the trust. If the vendor is an association, the members, officers, and directors. If the vendor is a partnership or joint venture, all of the general partners, limited partners, or joint ventures. If the vendor subcontracts any substantial portion of the work to be preformed to a subcontractor, the vendor shall disclose all of the information required by this paragraph to the subcontractor as if the subcontractor were itself a vendor. (Emphasis added) The Department, at hearing offered proof that it did not consider the language of the RFP or Section 24.111(2), Florida Statutes, to require that all such forms be submitted at the time the proposal is submitted, and that it had been the Department's policy to allow bidders to submit additional forms after bid submission. The articulated rationale for such policy is that based solely on the proposals or, stated differently, absent investigation, the Department is unable to assure itself that forms for all required individuals are submitted with any proposal. Accordingly, the Department considers the omission of such forms a technical deficiency that can be cured up to the point of contracting, and limits its investigation to the successful bidder. While the Department may find it difficult, absent investigation, to assure itself that the vendor information mandated by section 24.111(2) is submitted with the proposal, the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP is clear and unequivocal: such information "must" be submitted with the proposal. Notably, under the provisions of the statute and RFP, the onus is on the bidder, the party privy to such information, to assure that its disclosure is complete and where, as here, its disclosure is not complete its bid is non-responsive, since it is at variance with the mandate of section 24.111(2) and the RFP. Importantly, under the requirements of section 24.111(2), the Department is precluded from contracting with any bidder who fails to submit the required vendor information. Accordingly, a successful bidder who, wittingly or unwittingly, failed to make the required disclosure (such as EPB in the instant case) could subsequently decline to provide the Department with the information and thereby effectively withdraw its bid, contrary to the provisions of section 1.14 of the RFP. Such renders the failure to submit the required information at the time of bid submittal a material defect, since it accords such bidder an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders that submitted the required information. In accordance with subsection 3.1D9 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal the performance bond commitment letter required by section 6.6 of the RFP. Section 6.6, as amended by Amendments 1 and 3, provided, in pertinent part: The successful Respondent shall be required, at the time of executing the Contract with the Lottery, to post an appropriate performance bond or other security acceptable to the Lottery in the amount of $2.5 million . . . The other acceptable forms of security are: irrevocable letter of credit; Certificate of Deposit assigned to the Lottery (which must be obtained from a financial institution having its principal place of business in the State of Florida) . . . . Respondents must submit with their proposal evidence that they will be able to provide the performance bond or other security. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, a letter from an authorized agent of a bonding company committing to provide the performance bond or indicating that the bond underwriter is processing a request to provide the bond and stating unequivocally that the bond will be available upon execution of the Contract. At the time it submitted its proposal, EPB submitted an April 25, 1991, letter addressed to it from Sovran Bank as evidence of its ability to provide the required security. That letter provided: As follow up to our conversation yesterday, the company can restrict its revolving line of credit by $2,500,000 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) for a Letter of Credit of the same amount. The alternative is to apply for the Letter of Credit as a separate facility. The particular terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit would be worked out at the time of application . . . . While of the opinion that the Sovran letter evidenced EPB's ability to provide the required security, the Department likewise felt that the letter failed to evidence any commitment on EPB's part to restrict its line of credit to secure the subject letter of credit. Accordingly, it requested additional information from EPB, and by letter of May 1, 1991, EPB responded: This is to clarify the language in the Sovran Bank letter of April 25, 1991, included as Page 9 in Earle Palmer Brown's Proposal . . . Should Earle Palmer Brown be a successful respondent we will, at the time of executing the contract with the Lottery, either restrict our revolving line of credit with Sovran Bank by $2,500,000.00 for an irrevocable letter of credit, or will provide the Lottery with a surety bond for a like amount. The letter of May 1, 1991, adds more confusion than enlightenment regarding EPB's commitment to provide a letter of credit. Clearly, under the provisions of subsection 6.6 of the RFP, EPB's bare assurance that it would, alternatively, provide the Department with a surety bond was not acceptable evidence of its ability to provide such bond. As importantly, by phrasing its proposal as an alternative, to be exercised at its discretion, EPB lent confusion to the issue of what form of security it would provide. Notwithstanding, the requirement of the RFP was that the bidders "submit with their proposals evidence that they will be able to provide the . . . security," and the letter of April 25, 1991, while perhaps sparse, is facially adequate in that regard. Notably, the proof in this case confirms that EPB does have an adequate credit line with Sovran Bank which could be so restricted for a $2.5 million irrevocable letter of credit. In accordance with section 2.3E12 of the RFP, each bidder was required to submit with its technical proposal "certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report." In response to a question submitted pursuant to section 1.8 of the RFP, which asked: "If a company does not have certified financial statements for the last three years as required by Section 2.3.E.12 of the RFP, will it be disqualified from submitting a proposal?", the Department answered: "No. Although the absence of certified financial statements would render the proposal nonresponsive." At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it submitted certified financial statements for fiscal years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. As EPB's fiscal year is the calendar year, its auditors had not yet completed their audit for fiscal 1990 by the response deadline. When EPB's certified financial statement for its fiscal 1990 became available on May 14, 1991, it promptly delivered a copy to the Department. While the RFP required financial statements for the last three fiscal years, the Department understood that a bidder's ability to provide such statements would depend on when its fiscal year closed. In this regard, it is common for an independent audit to require up to six months following the close of a fiscal year. Here, EPB was faced with exactly such a dilemma, specifically disclosed such dilemma in its proposal, and provided the financial statements for the last four fiscal years that were available to it. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Department departed from the essential requirements of law when it declined to declare EPB's proposal non- responsive for its failure to include a certified financial statement for fiscal 1990, and accepted, as satisfying the requirements of the RFP, financial statements for the last three fiscal years that were reasonably available to EPB. In accordance with the RFP, each bidder was to identify all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of work under the contract. Pertinent to this case, subsection 2.3E provided: At a minimum, each Respondent must provide the following information which demonstrates the Respondent's ability to provide the services requested: * * * 4. Resumes not to exceed one page each in length of all personnel who would be assigned major roles in the fulfillment of the work obligation outlined in Section 2.2, with a statement identifying the percentage of time, calculated annually, of each person who will work on the Lottery account. * * * 18. List of type and number of additional employees that may be needed if awarded contract. At the time EPB submitted its proposal, it identified twenty-four key positions in account service, creative, media and several other categories. As to the management supervisor, the employee is identified as "selected," and as to an account executive and public relations supervisor, the employee is identified as "TBD" (To Be Determined). All other positions were identified with specific individuals and resumes were included for each. Here, Bozell contends that EPB's proposal is non-responsive because EPB did not name and include resumes for the foregoing three positions. Such contention is, however, unpersuasive. Section 2.3E18 clearly contemplated that some bidders would have to hire additional personnel if awarded the contract, and EPB complied with that section of the EPB by identifying such positions. Accordingly, EPB's proposal was not at material variance from the RFP in this regard. Although the Department's "Notice of Selection of Finalists," dated May 1, 1991, discussed supra, purported to rank the "responsive proposals" in order of preference, the proof demonstrates that the evaluation committee, who was charged with such responsibility, did not, by consensus or otherwise, ever determine the responsiveness of any proposal. Here, for the reasons heretofore set forth, EPB's proposal was non-responsive to the RFP, and the committee's failure to address the issue of responsiveness prior to scoring the proposals, for reasons discussed infra, materially affected the fairness of the evaluation process. Bozell's proposal was, however, responsive to the RFP. 2/ The evaluation committee Pursuant to Rule 53ER87-13(5)(i)(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 5.3 of the RFP, the Secretary of the Department appointed an evaluation committee, consisting of six members, to evaluate the proposals which were received from interested firms. Regarding the composition of such committee, the Department advised all prospective bidders, in response to a question posed pursuant to Section 1.8 of the RFP, that: The Evaluation Committee will be comprised of Lottery staff and volunteers from a cross- section of Florida business and academic communities. Subsequently, by notice of April 16, 1991, the Department advised all prospective bidders that the members of the evaluation committee would be as follows: Bernard Edwards Deputy Secretary Marketing Department of the Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Ben Johnson Newspaper Columnist Homles Beach, Florida Robert W. McKnight Assistant Secretary Department of Lottery Tallahassee, Florida Richard Mizerski Professor Tallahassee, Florida John Ruchalski Retired Businessman Jupiter, Florida Alan Sawyer Professor Gainesville, Florida Of the six committee members, only two, Bernard Edwards and Robert W. McKnight, were employees of the Department. No objection to the composition of the committee was lodged until the filing of the subject protest; however, there was likewise no point of entry provided by the Department to challenge the composition of the committee. Robert W. McKnight, who chaired the committee, has been employed by the Department as Assistant Secretary since March 4, 1991, and in such capacity has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Department. Mr. McKnight holds a B.S. and M.B.A. degree in business administration, with concentrations in advertising, and has in excess of fifteen years experience in marketing. Throughout the course of such employments, as well as his tenure as a Florida legislator, he has had the opportunity to monitor or supervise the work of advertising agencies employed to advance his products or person. Bernard Edwards, currently Deputy Secretary for Marketing of the Department, has been with the Department since 1988. During that tenure, he has filled, at various times, all three deputy secretary positions (operations, administration and marketing), and has participated in the advertising operations of the Florida lottery. Prior to his employment with the Department, Mr. Edwards was Executive Director of the Washington, D.C., lottery, and from 1983 to 1987 Deputy Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State lottery. During the course of such employments, Mr. Edwards has acquired significant experience in the marketing of lottery products, and the advertising incident thereto. Alan Sawyer is a Professor of Marketing and Chairman of the Department of Marketing of the University of Florida in Gainesville, and holds a Ph.D. from Stanford University in marketing. In addition to his teaching and research, Dr. Sawyer has worked with the Federal Trade Commission, as well as numerous other clients, on advertising matters, including matters of advertising deception, and is a recognized expert in advertising and marketing. Ben Johnson is a Doctoral Teaching Associate and Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida where he teaches upper division and graduate College of Education courses in methods of teaching English, reading, and learning skills. In addition to teaching, Mr. Johnson has, for some years, been researching the lottery operations of various states. As a consequence of the knowledge he has gained concerning those operations he has written a book, The Lottery Book, scheduled for publication in September 1991, which provides general information for players of various state lotteries, and has a nationally syndicated newspaper column called "The Lottery Column" wherein he answers readers' questions regarding lottery operations. From such experience, Mr. Johnson has developed a knowledge of lottery operations, as well as an appreciation for effective lottery marketing and advertising. John Ruchalski, currently retired, holds a degree in business and marketing, and has 35 years of retail management experience. Of those years, 17 were spent as Senior Vice President of Burdines, three as Chief Executive Officer of Bullock's, and two as president of Bloomingdale's. Mr. Ruchalski's past activities have also included service as president of the Florida Chamber of Commerce and chairman of the board of the Florida Retail Federation. In all, the proof shows that Mr. Ruchalski has a strong marketing background, and a familiarity with the advertising needs incident to such operations. The final member of the committee, Richard Mizerski, is a Professor of Marketing at Florida State University, and holds a Ph.D. from the University of Florida in Economics and Business Administration, with a major concentration in marketing and a minor concentration in advertising. Dr. Mizerski, like Dr. Sawyer, has, in addition to his teaching and research, extensive consulting experience in marketing and advertising, and is a recognized expert in the field. Overall, the proof demonstrates that the composition of the evaluation committee was appropriate for the work it was tasked to do, and that it had adequate time to perform an appropriate evaluation. Each committee member had experience and knowledge in marketing, and advertizing incident thereto, and lent to the evaluation process common and diverse experiences in such areas which helped provide a balanced consideration of the proposals. As importantly, each was shown to be committed to the integrity of the process, and complied with the provisions of Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, by assuring that all committee meetings at which official acts were to be taken were conducted publicly, and by not discussing any matter pertaining to their evaluations with any other member except during meetings that had been properly noticed. Market research data Prior to reviewing the proposals, one or more of the committee members requested information from the Department that would accord them insight into the program area. In response to such request, the Department provided each committee member with the market research data it had available. Such data provided demographic insight into Florida lottery marketing operations. At hearing, Bozell complained that it was never informed that the market research data had been provided to the committee, and offered proof, if credited, that had it known such fact it would have drafted its proposal differently. Such proof was not, however, persuasive, nor was the provision of such information to the committee inappropriate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the data provided by the Department was a matter of public record, and many of the committee members, through their research and training, were already familiar with it prior to their appointment. Bozell, as the current provider of advertising services to the lottery, was very familiar with the data, its subcontractor had complied it, and Bozell used it extensively in its proposal. In sum, Bozell was not disadvantaged by the provision of such data to the committee, and it was not treated any differently than any other bidder in this regard. As importantly, the provision of such information to the committee to lend insight into the program area for which services were being sought was quite appropriate to the evaluation process. Technical proposed evaluation Section 2.3 of the RFP describes the items required to be submitted with a firm's technical proposal, and was designed to assess a firm's understanding and proposed method of rendering the services requested by section 2.2 of the RFP. It provides that, "at a minimum," the proposal shall contain the information and materials requested by subsections 2.3A through 2.3E. Subsection 2.3A required submittal of a proposed advertising approach for the Florida lottery which addresses a three-year summary outline advertising plan, to include recommendations for advertising and promotion, and a proposed one-year timetable for advertising, showing development of creative, production, approval, placement and run-time. Subsection 2.3B required comprehensive artistic representations consisting of a detailed media plan for an eight-week Florida lottery instant game within a $1,250,000 budget; a name, ticket design and prize structure for the instant game; a 30-second radio spot for the instant game; a print ad for newspaper or magazine placement for the game; and a point- of-sale example for the game. Subsection 2.3C required one complete advertising campaign representative of the firm's work, including budget, creative strategy, positioning, media strategy and execution, and post-buy analysis. Subsection 2.3D required creative samples previously produced by key members of the proposed creative team consisting of TV ads, radio ads, print ads, outdoor campaigns, and point-of-sale samples. Finally, subsection 2.3E, entitled "firm qualifications," required, "at a minimum," information concerning 33 specific items, "which demonstrates the [firm's] ability to provide the services requested." Among the items for which information was required were the following: 3. Brief and concise statement of Respondent's advertising philosophy, taking into consideration the following points and others that you may feel are appropriate: Method the Respondent uses for developing advertising. How the Respondent currently measures the effectiveness of its advertising. * * * Evidence of any work done for a state, multi-state, national or provincial lottery. Information regarding any advertising or other experience with state agencies and other governmental entities. * * * 12. Certified financial statements in customary form for the last three (3) fiscal years including an auditor's report . . . . * * * 29. Discussion of contributions that your firm could make toward the growth of the Lottery. Section 5.4 of the RFP set forth the general criteria by which a firm's response to subsections 2.3A-E would be evaluated. Such general criteria were the overall qualifications, experience and abilities of the firm, its staff, and contractors to provide timely and professional advertising and related services, determined by evaluating the information contained in subsection 2.3E; and, the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plans directed toward subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Such section concluded: "The evaluation worksheet for the technical proposal is attached as Attachment F." Attachment F to the RFP set forth the specific criteria by which a firm's response would be evaluated. That attachment provided as follows: This evaluation considers information submitted in the technical proposal. Emphasis is placed on the firm's qualifications and ability to do the work, which is addressed in the Technical Proposal. A total of 80 points is obtainable. The Technical Proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria: Overall Ability - 40 points maximum Do the resumes of the account team support the Respondent's competency to provide the services required by Section 2.2? Proposed Account Team: Is the team make-up appropriate for the work? Do the team members have experience with comparable work? Are there any sub-contracted firms involved? Are minority sub-contractors utilized? Are the hours assigned to the various team members for each task appropriate? Has the Respondent provided advertising services of the scope required in the past? Experience of the Respondent and staff providing advertising service within the State of Florida. Experience of the Respondent and staff in providing Lottery, pari- mutuel, or other gaming related advertising. Financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services. Experience of the firm in providing advertising services to accounts in excess of $10 million. Experience of the firm in placing large volumes of electronic media in all media markets in Florida. Based on 1-3, award points, as follows: 20-30 points for exceptional experience 10-20 points for average experience 0-10 points for minimal experience Has the Respondent provided advertising services to other state or governmental entities? If the work was acceptable, award up to 3 points. If the firm has not done such work, award zero points. Does the Respondent possess unique abilities which would make a noticeable (positive) impact on the project? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the team composition and each member's percentage of involvement, the use of subcontractors (if any), office location, and/or information contained in the proposal indicate that the Respondent will meet time and budget requirements? If the answer is yes, award up to points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Does the Respondent's current workload make it likely the Respondent can provide timely and complete service? If the answer is yes, award up to 2 points and note reasons. If the answer is no, award zero points. Advertising approach and creative samples required by Sections 2.3A-D = 40 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the firm's proposed plan for providing the requested services required by Section 2.3(A). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the comprehensive artistic representations required by Section 2.3(B). Value: 10 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of the advertising campaign required by Section 2.3(C). Value: 5 points The relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of samples required by Section 2.3(D). Value: 15 points The criteria for evaluating the creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of above items B-1 through B-4 are as follows: Creativity Were the ideas and approach exciting and interesting? Did the samples evoke positive and appropriate emotions? Did the samples capture and hold attention? Did the samples demonstrate fresh and original thought or were they banal and mundane? Approach Was the approach germane and appropriate? Was the approach unified and integrated? Was the approach clear, direct and unambiguous? Quality Were images crisp, sharp, and distinct except where the intention is clearly otherwise? Was the production professional? Was sound free of distortion and visual free of unnecessary clutter? Thoroughness Did the advertising show an appropriate consideration for all facets of the market? Was the advertising comprehensive and balanced? Did the advertising use a full range of tools and techniques to ensure maximum penetration and retention? By memo to all committee members, entitled "Instructions and Timetable for Evaluation Committee Members," and again at the commencement of their deliberations, all committee members were advised that they must evaluate the proposals based on the criteria set forth in the RFP, and to utilize their own individual expertise in applying the criteria. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the members of the committee abided such directive, and scored the proposals based on the established criteria, except as hereinafter discussed, as applied through their own background and experience. 3/ At the commencement of their deliberations, the committee members agreed that the format they would follow in evaluating the technical proposals would be to first review all the proposals, and then score the proposals individually. This procedure was followed although, not unexpectedly, some members made preliminary assessments as they progressed through the various proposals. Upon completion of their review, the members then scored each proposal and, as appropriate, made adjustments to preliminary assessments they had made based on the perspective they had acquired after their review of all the proposals. Here, Bozell complains that the RFP did not permit the scoring of proposals relative to each other but, rather, required that the proposals be evaluated and scored solely by applying the criteria independently to each proposal, and that the failure of all committee members to so evaluate the proposals is a fundamental flaw in the evaluation process. Bozell's complaint is not, however, persuasive. Here, the RFP required, among other things, a determination of the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of a firm's plans for providing the services requested by subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. Under such circumstances, considering the subjective nature of the evaluation, it would not be unreasonable to assign points based on relative merit. And, considering the fact that the proposals were not scored until all proposals had been reviewed that, more likely than not, is what was done by each committee member, consciously or subconsciously. As importantly, each member of the committee scored the proposals independent of any other member of the committee, and was consistent with the approach he took as to each firm's proposal. 4/ Accordingly, it cannot be concluded, based on the proof in this case, that the evaluation process was fundamentally flawed because of the manner in which points were awarded. However, because points were awarded on a relative basis, the inclusions of non-responsive proposals in the evaluation process could have materially affected the scoring of proposals and the Department's failure to exclude non-responsive proposals from the scoring process, as required by section 5.1 of the RFP, was a material departure from the requirements of the RFP. Bozell also complains that Mr. Johnson evaluated the technical proposals in light of his knowledge about the success of other states' lottery advertising. The application of such expertise to the criteria contained in the RFP was, however, appropriate, as discussed supra. As noted by Mr. Johnson: . . . That's my frame of reference against which I measured all of the companies. I could tell that some of the companies really didn't know what they were talking about, because they were suggesting things that were failing in other states. And I was aware of that from my general information background. [Tr. 471] As heretofore noted, selection of committee members with knowledge of the program area, and the exercise of that expertise in applying the criteria, is most appropriate to a reasoned evaluation of a proposal. Finally, with regard to the evaluation of the technical proposals, Bozell offered proof that some committee members failed to apply specific criteria mandated by the RFP, or otherwise scored the proposals in a manner at variance with that called for by the RFP. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that while proposals were to be evaluated, at least in part, based on the different games and formats that were presented in the technical proposals (see subsection 2.3B of the RFP), Mr. Ruchalski did not do so because he had no knowledge upon which to base a decision. Regarding subsections A5-8 of Attachment F (the scoring criteria), Mr. Johnson did not award points in the manner mandated by each subsection. Finally, notwithstanding that an evaluation of the overall ability of the applicant, as set forth in section A of Attachment F to the RFP, required an examination of the "financial stability of the firm and financial capability to provide the entire scope of services," no evaluation of the financial integrity and responsibility of any of the firms was made, and such criteria were not applied in the evaluation process. 5/ In its proposed recommended order, the Department suggests that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require a detailed financial review by the agency at the initial bid analysis stage since, ultimately, only one firm will be awarded the contract, and because security and financial investigations will be done before a contract is awarded. While such may be the case, it was the Department's election to provide for an analysis of financial stability and capability as part of the review criteria. Oral presentation evaluation The second phase of the evaluation process was the scoring of the oral presentations. Pertinent to this case, section 5.3 of the RFP provided: . . . The oral presentations must be made by the account service, creative and media personnel who would work on the account. There will be no limitation on the information and materials pertinent to this RFP which may be utilized . . . . Section 5.5 of the RFP provided that presentations would be scored based on the following general criteria: Understanding of services requested -- up to 20 points, account team -- up to 25 points, responsiveness to questions -- up to 15 points, and overall impression -- up to 20 points. Finally, Attachment G to the RFP provided that the evaluation relative to the account team would be scored as follows: Account Team = 25 points maximum Did the proposed account team participate? Creativity, quality, uniqueness demonstrated by account team? Respondent's advertising philosophy demonstrated, long term image building? Did account team members prepare samples submitted? EPB's oral presentation was made by Jeb Brown, the chief executive officer of EPB; Craig Davis, the president of EPB's Florida operations; Mike Knaisch, account group head; Kandi Kirkland, account supervisor; Bruce Ayers, media director; Scott Mackey, associate creative director; Pat Hanlon, creative director; Tom Hall, chairman of EPB; and Jeff Tucker, president of public relations. Each of the presenters were identified by EPB as key personnel to be assigned to the Florida lottery account, except Jeb Brown and Tom Hall. As part of its oral presentation, EPB utilized a video tape, which presented favorable comments by the head of the Virginia lottery concerning EPB's performance for it. Addition-ally, EPB included in such video a character it utilizes for the Virginia lottery, "Lady Luck," who also said "nice things" about EPB. Here, Bozell complains that the participation of Jeb Brown and Tom Hall, in the oral presentation, as well as the use of the video which included comments by the head of the Virginia lottery and "Lady Luck," was improper under the provisions of the RFP because they were not members of the account team. Such compliant is, however, unpersuasive. While section 5.3 of the RFP did require that the oral presentation be made by the account, creative, and media personnel who would work on the account, it did not expressly preclude others from participating, and the RFP placed no restrictions on the information and materials pertinent to the RFP that could be utilized. Accordingly, EPB's oral presentation was not at variance from the RFP and, if it were, it was not shown to be a significant deviation. As heretofore noted, the evaluation relative to the account team allowed an award of up to 25 points, and required, among other things, a determination of whether the account team participated; the creativity, quality and uniqueness demonstrated by the account team; and whether the account team members prepared the samples that were submitted. The committee members did not, however, make any specific inquiry regarding whether the account team participated or prepared the samples, although the bidders generally made it a practice to introduce the account team members, but assumed such to be the case for purposes of scoring the presentations. Here, Bozell contends that the committee's failure to expressly inform itself as to whether the account team participated and prepared the samples, as opposed to indulging the assumption that they did, constitutes a significant failing in the evaluation process. However, Bozell failed to demonstrate, at hearing, that the committee's assumption was misplaced. Finally, Bozell offered proof that Dr. Sawyer awarded Bozell 21 points and EPB 22 points for "overall impression," when 20 points were the maximum contemplated by the RFP. Such error was, however, inadvertent, it simply being the intention of Dr. Sawyer to award EPB one more point than Bozell, and was harmless since it did not affect the overall outcome. Cost proposal evaluation Section 5.6 of the RFP provided the criteria for evaluation of the cost proposals and provided that: Finalists' cost proposals will be given points based on an evaluation of the proposed compensation and the experience and qualifications of the proposed staff. A maximum value of 40 points was established for this part of the evaluation. The cost proposals, which the committee members were to evaluate, were contained in a "sealed cost proposal envelope" and were, pursuant to subsection 2.4B of the RFP, to contain: The cost proposal shall include a calculation of the Respondent's proposed compensation for undertaking and completing all phases of the services requested and outlined in this RFP. The cost proposal shall be prepared in the same format as illustrated on Attachment "E" and shall be completed as follows: The Respondent shall provide an aggregate gross salary by work category and position classification for all personnel who will work on the Lottery's account. The aggregate gross salary shall include only that portion of each individual staff member's time that will be attributable to the Lottery account. The portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required in Section 2.3(E)(4). The Respondent shall also include a proposed multiplier of the type described in paragraph A above. The Respondent shall multiply the aggregate gross salary by the multiplier and the product shall be included in the cost proposal. The Respondent shall also include, in the sealed cost proposal envelope, resumes for all personnel whose salary, or portion thereof, was included in the calculation of the proposed aggregate gross salary resumes shall be included regardless of whether the resumes have also been included in the technical proposal envelope. While the RFP contemplated that all three sections of the proposal (technical, oral presentation, and cost) would be evaluated and scored independent of each other, and that the evaluation of the cost proposal would be limited to an evaluation of the information contained in the "sealed cost proposal envelope," not all committee members so limited their evaluation. Rather, some committee members utilized the knowledge they had gleaned from evaluating the technical proposals and oral presentations, as well as the scores they had assigned during the course of those evaluations, to assist them in assessing the qualifications and experience of the proposed personnel and weighing the firms' proposed compensation. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how any committee member could ignore the knowledge he had acquired during the course of his evaluations that was reflective of the quality and experience of the proposed staff, any more than he could ignore the expertise he had acquired through his life experiences, in evaluating the cost proposal. Notably, the RFP, as it related to the cost proposals, provided that "the portion of time proposed in the cost proposal shall match the labor hour percentages proposed for each individual as required by section 2.3(E)(4)" of the RFP [the key personnel], and the committee had, as part of their evaluation of the technical proposal, previously evaluated the proposed account team, as well as the relative creativity, approach, quality and thoroughness of their proposals relative to subsections 2.3A-D of the RFP. At the oral presentation, the committee had an opportunity to put faces with names, and broaden their knowledge of the individuals involved. Accordingly, when it came time to evaluate the cost proposals, which involved a consideration of staffing and salary, the members of the committee had certainly formulated opinions regarding the quality of the staff proposed by the respective firms, and balanced that opinion against the proposed compensation to derive the most cost effective proposal. While it may seem unreasonable to restrict the committee to the bare resumes and costs set forth in the cost proposal, as the basis for their evaluation, the reasonableness of the provisions the Department formulated are not at issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is concluded that by going beyond the information contained within the cost proposal, the members of the committee materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. This conclusion prevails, since those bidders who were favored in the evaluation of the technical proposals or oral presentation were, by the consideration of the opinions derived from such evaluations, accorded an unfair advantage over other bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which rejects all bids, and that a new invitation to bid be extended. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of July 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July 1991.
The Issue The two major issues in this case are as follows: Was the failure of Datamaxx to submit resumes of training and maintenance personnel as required by Performance Mandatory No. 10 of the Invitation to Bid a material deviation from the Invitation to Bid such as to render Datamaxx a nonresponsive bidder? If Datamaxx was a nonresponsive bidder, must the contract be awarded to Burroughs, or must DHRS, pursuant to Section 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, have the contract rebid, or seek single source procurement or negotiation approval from the Division of Purchasing?
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: For at least the past 10 years, the DHRS Data Communications Network has been maintained by Burroughs on a sole source basis. At the end of the previous Burroughs Terminal Maintenance contract with Burroughs, the Department of General Services (DOS) asked DHRS to bid the contract in lieu of sole source procurement, it being the belief of DOS that there was competition in this area. On or about September 19, 1986, DHRS published an Invitation to Bid which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on October 20, 1986, for a contract, known as "Burroughs Terminal Maintenance" [Bid No. 86 ATM] regarding maintenance of the terminals of the DHRS Data Communications Network. The Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid contained, among others, the following provisions: The State has established certain require- ments with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this Invitation to Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. Material deviations cannot be waived. (at p. 1) No negotiations, decision, or actions shall be initiated or executed by the bidder as a result of any discussions with any State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Department's Purchasing office may be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the State. Also, only communications from bidders which are signed and in writing will be recognized by the State as duly authorized expressions on behalf of the bidder. (at p. 2) All personnel performing maintenance must be trained to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be completed before the individual is assigned to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be provided to whatever level is necessary to ensure the individual has the required qualifications to perform satisfactory maintenance service on Burroughs equipment listed in Attachment A of this Invitation to Bid. Bidder shall submit with their bid a summary of their Burroughs training program and resumes of personnel who will be performing this training and the resumes of personnel who will be per- forming the maintenance. (at p. 8) Bidder shall certify to the State, at the time the bid is submitted, that bidder has existing established service centers staffed with personnel trained to service the equipment covered by this contract . . . In lieu of this requirement, if bidder does not have existing established service centers, liaison office, and trained personnel, and bidder submits a plan for compliance, the required certification must be given the State no later than two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated starting date of the contract as indicated in the paragraph of this document entitled Calendar of Events. Failure to comply with this requirement shall result in rejection of the bid and award of the bid to the next lowest responsive bidder. The Invitation to Bid was drafted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The only bidders on the contract (other than no- bids) were Burroughs and Datamaxx. DHRS found Burroughs and Datamaxx both to be responsive bidders and posted their bids making them public in the recognized manner of publicizing the bidder to be awarded a bid. Both bids were found to be responsive by DHRS at the time they were made public. The Datamaxx bid was the lowest bid and the Burroughs bid was the next to lowest bid. DHRS staff recommended the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. The Datamaxx bid was approximately $784,000 less than the Burroughs bid. In its bid Datamaxx indicated that it understood and agreed to all provisions of the Invitation to Bid, specifically including those dealing with Mandatory Requirements, Verbal Instruction Procedure, Rejection of Bids, Bid Evaluation, Performance Mandatories, and Certification. Datamaxx submitted the Certification required under the terms of the Invitation to Bid and did not submit a plan for compliance with its bid. Datamaxx never requested in writing that the requirement for resumes be waived, and DHRS never advised Datamaxx in writing that it did not have to submit the resumes. Datamaxx did not submit with its bid the resumes of training and maintenance personnel required under Performance Mandatory 10 of the Invitation to Bid. Performance Mandatory No. 10 required the submission of resumes with the bid, and did not concern an event that would take place after the bid had been let. DHRS considered the requirement for resumes to be a mandatory requirement. The qualifications of the persons who would be performing the maintenance under the contract would have a potentially significant effect on the quality of the maintenance provided. Nothing could be more material to the contract than the ability of the personnel to perform that contract. The difference in the dollar amount of the bids of Burroughs and Datamaxx influenced the decision of DHRS in finding Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder. This was a major reason Datamaxx was found to be a responsive bidder. In evaluating the Datamaxx bid, DHRS went outside the material provided in the Datamaxx bid. Subsequent to the posting of bids, DHRS met with Datamaxx and advised Datamaxx that its initial submission was deficient for not including resumes with the bid, that DHRS had waived the resumes, but that in order for DHRS to continue its recommendation that the bid be awarded to Datamaxx, DHRS had to have the resumes prior to the awarding of the bid. DHRS considered it an error and a deficiency in the bid that the resumes were not furnished. Datamaxx, on November 6, 1986, advised DHRS in a letter to Charles Ray that it would submit a plan which would address, among other things, service personnel resumes by November 17, 1986. DHRS could not have considered Datamaxx's letter of November 6, 1986, in evaluating whether Datamaxx was a responsive bidder, because that letter was not received until after DHRS had already found Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder and recommended that the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. Had Datamaxx not submitted the resumes prior to November 17, 1986, DHRS staff would have recommended that the award of the contract be withdrawn. The performance the State would receive under the contract would directly depend on the qualifications of the persons performing the service and the maintenance, and the resumes would be the only source of information regarding the qualifications of the personnel.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a final order be entered to the following effect: Concluding that the bid submitted by Datamaxx USA Corporation on Bid No. 86 ATM should be rejected on the grounds that it is not responsive, Concluding that the bid submitted by Burroughs Corporation should be rejected on the basis of Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, and, Providing for the agency to issue a second invitation to bid/request for proposals or take other action provided by Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 25th day of June 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4460B1D The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted with a few minor editorial modifications. The first two lines of paragraph 20 are rejected as redundant. The remainder of paragraph 20 is accepted. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted in substance. Paragraph 3 is rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected in part as irrelevant and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as constituting irrelevant and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
