The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact State Project No. 46090-3511 (the project) is for construction of the West Bay Bridge on State Road 79 in Bay County, Florida. Competitive bids on the project were solicited in February, 1990. The bid letting on the project was held in March, 1990. The Petitioner, Fairchild, the Hardaway Company and ten other contractors bid on the project. The Hardaway Company submitted the lowest bid on the project in the amount of $9,487,258.17. Fairchild submitted the next lowest bid in the amount of $9,835,279.34. Divergent Unit Prices and Imbalances. The part of the Hardaway Company's bid relating to construction of the foundation for the approaches to the bridge (the "structural bid") is obviously below reasonable cost in several respects. The contract specifications require the use of sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid (biaxial type 2), and Class III (seal) concrete. The Hardaway Company's unit prices for these items were, respectively, one dollar per cubic yard for the sand fill, fifty cents per cubic yard for the shell fill, twenty-five cents per square yard for the reinforcement grid, and ten cents per cubic yard for the Class III seal concrete. As a result, the Hardaway Company's bid for these items is obviously significantly below reasonable cost and approximately $95,500 below what Fairchild bid for the same portion of the contract. In contrast to the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III concrete, the Hardaway Company's bid on some of the other parts of the structural bid were relatively high. The reinforcing steel for the substructure (Item 415-1-5) was bid at approximately twice reasonable cost (80 a pound versus, e.g., 42 in Fairchild's bid), resulting in $609,936.80 attributable to that part of the bid versus, e.g., $320,216.82 for Fairchild. The statistical average (the DOT's so-called "average 2") for the other serious bidders under this item also was 42 a pound. The Hardaway Company also bid obviously in excess of reasonable cost for the lump sum item of mobilization for pile installation--$600,000 versus $125,000 in Fairchild's bid and less in the bids of several of the others bidders. (The statistical average for the other serious bidders under this item was $225,000.) But the Hardaway Company bid only $60,000 for the lump sum item for removal of existing structures (versus $160,000 in Fairchild's bid) and only $30,000 for the lump sum item for removal and disposal of fender system (versus $110,000 in Fairchild's bid). The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to mobilization for the roadway work is significantly less than the Fairchild bid under this item ($200,000 versus $375,000) and partially counterbalances the excess in the part of the Hardaway bid for mobilization for the pile installation. The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to clearing and grubbing also was high, at $20,000 an acre versus a statistical average of $4,200 an acre for the other serious bidders, resulting in $216,000 for the Hardaway Company bid versus, e.g., $32,400 for the Fairchild bid and the $45,360 statistical average. DOT Review Procedures. Section 2-6 of the DOT's Standard Specifications applicable to the project provides: 2-6 Rejection of Irregular Proposals. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditioinal or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. The DOT is in the process of formulating a policy on the use of the Technical Review Committee in the bidding process. A proposed procedure has been developed, which has not yet been made final and has not yet been signed by the Secretary of the DOT, under which the Technical Review Committee would review the low bid on each contract, among other things not applicable to this case, for "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" and for "unbalanced bidding." The DOT has not yet defined "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" or "unbalanced bidding" for purposes of defining the event that triggers review by the Technical Review Committee. The DOT Director of the Office of Construction, Robert Buser, is of the opinion that the unit prices the Hardaway Company bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III seal concrete are "significant irregularities in unit bid prices." On the other hand, the DOT's Preliminary Estimates Engineer, Robert Griner, who, unlike Buser, is a member of both the Technical Review Committee and its Preliminary Technical Subcommittee, and is of the opinion that the Hardaway bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III (seal) concrete are "mathematical imbalances," not "significant irregularities in unit bid prices," which he would define as bids that omit a unit price, whose numerical values do not match words used to express the values, or that are not signed. Under Griner's approach, which was followed in this case, the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee looks at "mathematical imbalances" to see if they are "material imbalances." If the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee decides that it is not a "material imbalance," it simply reports this finding at the outset of the meeting of the Technical Review Committee, which accepts the finding and does not itself consider the matter any further. Only if the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee reports a "material imbalance" does the Technical Review Committee further consider the question. Front-end Bidding. Under the DOT contract for the project, like other items in the specifications, mobilization and land clearing and grubbing are paid in installments as the work proceeds. But, unlike the other items, all of the portion of the contract attributable to mobilization and land clearing and grubbing is paid by the time the entire project is half completed. Similarly, a contractor is paid for reinforcement steel (substructure) when it is delivered to the site. As a result, by shifting dollars in a bid to these "front-end," lump sum items, a contractor can manipulate the bid process and contract to reasonably insure himself of early payment of these inflated items regardless what may happen to the project later. In analyzing these front-end, lump sum items, Griner treated them (along with the unreasonably low bids on the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grids and C III seal concrete) as "mathematical imbalances." Following the guidance of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum, dated May 16, 1988, on the subject of "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids," Griner analyzed the Hardaway bid to be sure it would not be susceptible to cost overruns (it was not) and to be sure the quantities were correctly estimated (they were). He also analyzed the additional cost to the DOT of paying the Hardaway Company early (by the half way point of the project) for the inflated front-end items to determine whether the "mathematical" imbalance was "material," i.e., whether "the mathematically imbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." Based on a twelve percent interest rate, Griner calculated that the inflated front-end items would cost the DOT approximately an additional $98,000, 1/ still much less than the difference between the low Hardaway bid and any other bid. Based on this calculation, Griner concluded that the "mathematical imbalance" in the Hardaway bid was not a "material imbalance" and did not require the award of the bid to Fairchild or one of the other bidders. Griner overlooked and did not apply another portion of the method of analysis in the FHWA memorandum on "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids" that states: There are numerous reasons why a bidder may want to unbalance his/her bid on a contract. One reason is to get more money at the beginning of the project. The bidder does this by overpricing the work done early in the project. This is called "front loading" the contract. The leading case in the "front loading" area is Matter of: Riverport Industries, 64 Comp. Gen. 441 (1985). Here the Comptroller General held that if the bid is front loaded, regardless if it is the lowest bid, it "should be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the bid would result in the same evils as an advance payment. An advance payment is prohibited by law." The "front loading" may also be materially unbalanced due to the cost of money that must be paid out early versus over the normal construction fo the project. Under the Hardaway Company bid, the pile mobilization, the land clearing and grubbing, and the reinforcement steel (substructure) parts of the bid are "front-ended." 2/ Under the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, the Hardaway Company would be paid approximately $428,000 in "advance payments" under these two items if it is awarded the contract. Approximately $375,000 in pile mobilization, $183,600 in land clearing and grubbing, and $289,700 in the reinforcement steel were shifted to these front- end items from the unbalanced sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items. These dollars The shifted dollars are estimated by taking the difference between the statistical average for these items and the Hardaway bid on them. Since roiughly half of the shifted dollars would be paid earlier than they would be paid if they were bid under the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III (seal) concrete items, the amount of "advance payment," under the FHWA analysis would be approximately $428,000. Griner did not explain why he only followed part, but not all, of the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, other than to say he overlooked it. But he also testified that it is common practice for contractors to submit mathematically unbalanced bids, and the DOT always analyzes them the way he did in this case. Indeed, in the March, 1990, bid letting, Griner found "mathematical imbalances" in 21 of the 29 low bids but no "material imbalances." The Fairchild bid also contains "mathematical imbalances." It also "front-ends" several items. The total dollar value of the "front-ending" in the Fairchild bid (including roadway mobilization) closely approximates that found in the Hardaway bid and, under the FHWA analysis, would result in approximately the same amount of advance payment. Under Section 101-2.2 of the DOT's Standard Specifications for this project, contractors are limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total contract for mobilization. The Hardaway Company's total mobilization bid is within the maximum under the specifications. Notwithstanding the imbalances in the Hardaway bid, and the so-called "advance payments" that would result from the "front-ending" in the Hardaway bid, the Hardaway bid remains the lowest and best bid on the project, and it is the best interest of the DOT and the public to award the contract to the Hardaway Company. Even if the Hardaway Company had bid the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items exactly as Fairchild did, Hardaway still would be low bidder. "Value Engineering" and Alleged Alternative or Contingent Bidding. Inferences reasonably could be drawn from the evidence that the Hardaway Company may intend to propose to the DOT that the approach to the bridge be re-engineered so as to eliminate the need for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the C III (seal) concrete. If the DOT accepts such a proposal, the contract between the DOT and the Hardaway Company would have to be modified. If the re-engineered project were to allow the Hardaway Company to do the job for less than its bid price, half (or, if the proposal is innovative or unique, up to 80%) of the savings would be paid to the Hardaway Company under what the DOT calls "value engineering." Under DOT procedures, "value engineering" proposals are not made or evaluated until after the original contract is signed with the successful bidder. It is not an alternative bid or a contingent bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, enter a final order dismissing the bid protest filed by W. R. Fairchild Construction Company, Ltd., and awarding State Project No. 46090-3511 to the Hardaway Company. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of July, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the preliminary determination to reject Petitioner's bid as not responsive to Respondent's Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V and to award the contract to another bidder that submitted a higher bid?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: On March 12, 1991, Respondent issued Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB") through which Respondent solicited the submission of bids to supply Respondent with prestressed concrete poles for a one year period beginning May 16, 1991. The ITB was a multi-page document with various component parts. Bidders were instructed on the first page of the ITB to complete and "RETURN ONE COPY OF ALL BID SHEETS AND THIS [BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT] FORM." They were advised elsewhere on the first page of the ITB that "[o]ne copy of all bid documents that ha[d] page numbers, and this executed Invitation to Bid [Bidder Acknowledgment] [F]orm [had to] be returned for the Bid to be considered." The advisement concerning the requirement that all numbered pages had to be returned for a bid to be considered was repeated at the bottom of each numbered page of the ITB. Directly beneath the Bidder Acknowledgment Form on the first page of the ITB was the following provision: This Invitation to Bid, General Conditions, Instructions to Bidders, Special Conditions, Specifications, Addenda and/or any other pertinent document form a part of this proposal and by reference are made a part thereof. The ITB further provided, among other things, that "[i]n the best interest of [Respondent], [Respondent] reserve[d] the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received." Petitioner and South Eastern Prestressed Concrete, Inc. (South Eastern) submitted the only bids in response to the ITB. In accordance with the ITB'S instructions, Petitioner completed and returned to Respondent the Bid Summary Sheet, on which it indicated its price offer. It also completed and executed the Bidder Acknowledgment Form and returned it, along with the entire first page of the ITB, to Respondent. Petitioner, however, failed to return, as part of its bid submittal, all of the numbered pages of the ITB. Omitted from Petitioner's submittal were numbered pages 3 and 4. These missing pages contained paragraphs A. through N. of the ITB's Special Conditions, which covered the following subjects: A. Scope; B. Delivery; C. Award; D. Term of Contract; E. Brand Name; F. Catalog Cuts; G. Estimated Quantities; H. Bid Exempt; I. Bidders Responsibility; J. Corrections; K. Joint Bidding, Cooperative Purchasing Agreement; L. Withdrawal; 1/ M. Minority Certification Application; and N. Public Entity Crimes. There was nothing on numbered pages 3 and 4 of the ITB that the bidder needed to fill out or sign. While paragraphs M. and N. of the ITB's Special Conditions did make reference to certain forms that the bidder had to complete and submit to Respondent, these forms did not appear on either numbered page 3 or numbered page 4. They were separate documents. Petitioner completed these forms and submitted them to Respondent pursuant to the requirements of the Special Conditions. Petitioner did not propose in its bid submittal any contract terms or conditions that were at variance with those set forth in paragraphs A. through N. of the ITB's Special Conditions. Petitioner did not intend to signify, by failing to return numbered pages 3 and 4, any unwillingness on its part to adhere to contract terms and conditions set forth on those pages. Of the two bids submitted in response to the ITB, Petitioner's was the lowest. A preliminary determination, though, was made to reject Petitioner's bid because Petitioner had not returned numbered pages 3 and 4 of the ITB and to award the contract to South Eastern as the lowest responsive bidder. It is this preliminary determination that is the subject of the instant bid protest filed by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order sustaining the instant bid protest and awarding to Petitioner the contract advertised in Invitation to Bid No. SB 91C-284V. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid protest of Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a city pool known as the George A. Pierce Swimming Pool at the Ferran Park complex in Eustis. The pool is nearly 40 years old and is in need of renovations and repairs. Deciding to renovate the old pool and build a new one next to it, Respondent obtained plans for the intended work from Project Engineering. These plans, which are dated January 31, 1990, consist of seven pages of blue-line drawings of the site, the existing pool, a new training pool, and various details, such as gutters (Blue Drawings). The Blue Drawings formed the basis of a request for proposals that Respondent issued at some point prior to the events at issue in the present case. The offers submitted in response to the request for proposals were unsuitable because they exceeded the money that Respondent had available for the job. At this point, employees of Petitioner learned that Respondent was seeking to repair and renovate the pool. Bill West, who is responsible for sales for Petitioner, visited with Norma Showley, who is in charge of purchasing for Respondent. She showed him the Blue Drawings and informed him that the proposals that had been submitted were double the budget. Mr. West agreed, at no charge, to prepare a new set of drawings for Respondent. Ms. Showley did not agree that Petitioner's drawings would necessarily be incorporated into a new request for proposals or invitation to bid. However, Ms. Showley explained that time was critical, and she needed his drawings in a hurry. She gave Mr. West the original set of Blue Drawings for his company to use in preparing the new drawings. Mr. West asked Jack Arthur to prepare the new drawings. Mr. Arthur does estimates and drawings for Petitioner and is a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in Florida and several other states. He is also a Florida-licensed commercial pool contractor. Mr. Arthur met with Ms. Showley a few days prior to March 12, 1990. Also attending this meeting was Harvey Spears, who, although not an employee of Respondent, assisted Ms. Showley on this project. Apparently, Mr. Spears was the contractor in charge of other work in the pool area, such as the construction of a bathhouse. Working 40-50 hours over the next three days, Mr. Arthur finished the plans, which bear the date of March 12, 1990 (Black and White Drawings). Mr. West then delivered the plans to Ms. Showley. Ms. Showley discussed with the City Comission the possibility of using the Black and White Drawings instead of the Blue Drawings as the basis of a new bid solicitation. The Commission directed her not to abandon the specifications contained in the Blue Drawings, but revise them as appropriate. No decision was ever made to use the Black and White Drawings, except for the purposes expressly indicated in the later-issued invitation to bid, such as to indicate the location of the bathhouse relative to the existing pool and the details of an alternate gutter system. On April 13, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid, which was identified as Bid NO. 026-90. The invitation to bid was accompanied by the Blue Drawings and the Black and White Drawings. The text, Blue Drawings, and Black and White Drawings are collectively referred to as the "ITB." Each of the pages of the Black and White Drawings were marked "Attachment `A,' `B,' `C,' or `D."' The ITB required that the bids, which had to be sealed, were to be delivered to a certain place, where they would be opened at a specified time on May 14, 1990. The ITB provided for a "bid evaluation period" of up to 30 days after opening. Other relevant provisions in the unlabelled introductory section of the ITB include: ACCEPTABLE FORMAT--Bid format provided by "the City is the only acceptable format on which a bidder may return his bid. Bids submitted, on any other format shall be disqualified. (Any additional information relative to the bid, should be submitted on a separate format.) * * * CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION OF BID ENTRY--The City of Eustis reserves the right to allow for the clarification of questionable entries and for the correction of obvious mistakes. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS--The City of Eustis reserves the right to reject bids containing any additional terms or conditions not specifically requested in the bid/proposal solicitation. * * * AWARD--This bid may be awarded in part or whole as best serves the interest of the City. All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to all applicable ordinances of the City of Eustis. RESERVATION--The City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive minor technicalities or informalities in bids received. * * * For information regarding bid specification, contact Norma M. Showley, General Services, Coordinator [telephone number provided in ITB]. The Scope section of the ITB provides that this is a bid to provide all labor, materials, equipment, supplies and incidental necessary for the performance of all work required for the proper and professional renovation of the existing City Pool with an additive alternate for addition of a . . . training pool . . . The following are suggested methods of renovating the existing pool and constructing the new pool. Plans that differ will be considered for award if determined to be in the best interest of the City. The Scope section explains that the existing pool was built in 1951 and is a "poured-in place pool . . . with no flood inlets." This part of the ITB also informs the bidder that separate contracts have been executed for the construction of a new bathhouse, including a new chemical and filter room, and the work may be performed concurrently with the renovation of the existing pool. The bathhouse layout is shown on Attachment "A". NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. The Scope section continues with a description of the base bid and alternates. The alternates are provided "[d]ue to the time restraint involved with the funding for this project" and Respondent's desire to complete the project quickly. The Scope section of the ITB states that the base bid for the renovation of the existing pool includes replacement of the filtering system with a D.E. filter system, replacement of the circulation system, replacement of the existing guttering system with a one foot open face overflow gutter, replacement of the Marcite on the walls, and addition of underwater lighting "as per plans prepared by Project Engineering (i.e., the Blue Drawings). Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the overflow gutter system and adds a stainless steel facing overflow system as shown on Attachment "B." Additive Alternate B eliminates the recirculating system shown in the Blue Drawings and provides for a proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner. Additive Alternate 3 eliminates the D.E. filter system, as shown in the Blue Drawings, and adds a high rate vacuum sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates the underwater lighting. The Scope section of the ITB describes the base bid for the new pool, which in fact is not an additive alternate, as located west of the existing pool and having a D.E. filter system and underwater lighting. Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the D.E. filter system and adds a pressure sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates underwater lighting. The next section of the ITB is the Instructions to Bidders. Among the provisions listed under the "Submittals" subsection are: License--Bidders shall submit with the bid response a copy of their license from the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. * * * Bidder Qualification-- * * * References shall be furnished with bid response Other relevant subsections of the Instructions to Bidders section of the ITB provide: Visit to Site--The bidder/contractor shall visit the site of the work to become fully informed as to the conditions that exist and under which he/she must work, and by bidding, represents that he/she has read and understands the bid documents. * * * Evaluation and Award--Bids will be evaluated on the basis of cost, bidder's ability to perform, previous experience, experience of personnel and required completion time. It is the City's intent to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder. However, the City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive technicalities or informalities in bids received. NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. Negotiation of Contract--If deemed in the best interest of the City, the City may, either before or after receipt of bids, select one or more persons or companies and negotiate a contract for the proposed work. The decision of the City as to the firm or firms with whom the City will negotiate will be final. During the negotiations, the right is also reserved to change the plans and specifications as the City may at that time determine to be in the best interest of the City. The section of the ITB devoted to Requirements and Specifications restates the base bids and alternates set forth above in the Scope section. Under the subsection entitled, "Work and Products Not Included," the ITB lists, among other items, "Concrete decking--bleacher area, bathhouse area." Under the subsection entitled, "Description of Work--Existing Pool," the ITB includes the demolition necessary to remove the existing overflow system, install a new one, and provide a recirculation system. Under a similar subsection for the new pool the ITB provides: Provide decking around new pool to match height of existing decking, 4" thickness, 3000 psi concrete, as shown on attachment showing pool layout. Decking shall slope three inches (3") in ten feet (10') away from pool or to deck drains. Minimum unobstructed deck width shall befour [sic] feet (4'). This subsection also refers the bidder to the Black and White Drawings for the curing of the floor of the new pool. For the renovation of the existing pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, three additive alternates, and one deductive alternate. For the construction of the new pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, one additive alternate, and one deductive alternate. Two bid addenda were issued. The first concerned additive alternate 3 for the existing pool and additive alternate 1 for the new pool. This addendum adds, respectively, a vacuum sand filter (instead of a high rate vacuum sand filter) and a high rate pressure sand filter system (instead of a pressure sand filter system). The second addendum, which was accompanied by "a new bid form for prices, adds an automatic water level sensor unit, as described in the Black and White Drawings, to the base bids for the existing and new pools. For the existing pool, the addendum added alternate 4, which replaces the existing main drain with a stainless steel drain, as described in the Black and White Drawings. The Blue Drawings contain four special notes and ten general notes. The first special note is that the final location of "pool and configuration of deck to be determined by architect." The first general note is that the bathroom floors, pool deck, and first 15 feet of connecting walkway are to be concrete or other impervious material, positively drained, and slip resistant. Three unrelated items are noted in red handwriting to be "in bathhouse contract," and one unrelated item is similarly noted to be "by City." Notes on the Black and White Drawings indicate that the contract does not include pool decking around the new pool and a retaining wall beside the new pool, which is in close proximity to a lake. The new pool clearly has to be built to the elevation of the existing pool because, among other reasons, the lake contributes to a high water table in the area of the pool. In order to achieve this elevation, the construction of the decking around the new pool would require either a retaining wall (with some fill) or a larger amount of fill sloped down to the ground level. Due to the close proximity of the lake, it is not entirely clear that the latter approach would work. Even though Mr. Arthur detected inconsistencies between the Black and White Plans and the remainder of the ITB, neither he, Mr. West, nor any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Showley regarding the decking and retaining wall. Following the issuance of the ITB but before the submission of bids, Mr. West met with Ms. Showley, but the conversation involved only the replacement of the main drain and installation of the automatic water level sensor unit. Ms. Showley covered these matters by the addenda described above. They also discussed the possibility of alternate bids with one based exclusively on the Blue Drawings and one based exclusively on the Black and White Drawings. However, Ms. Showley's ability to deviate significantly from the specifications depicted in the Blue Drawings was limited by the lack of time and the earlier directive of the City Commission to revise, rather than abandon, the specifications in the Blue Drawings. Ultimately, timely bids were submitted by only Petitioner and Intervenor, ignoring one or two "no-bid" bids. Petitioner's base bid for the existing pool was $92,399. Additive alternate 1 added $22,897. Additive alternate 2 added $12,383. Additive alternate 3 added $18,500. Additive alternate 4, which was the replacement of the main drain, was included in the base bid and all alternates, even though the only alternate specifying that the main drain be replaced was Additive alternate In fact and as evident from the bid, Petitioner would not perform the job without replacing the main drain due to concerns about the durability of the existing main drain. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $2500. For the new pool, the base bid was $38,389. Additive alternate 1 subtracted $3103. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $798. Intervenor's base bid for the existing pool was $107,170. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Additive alternate 2 added $25,601. The bid was apparently incorrectly filled out. Additive alternate 2, which was the proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner, in fact was not bid, and Additive alternate 1 was bid. Additive alternate 3 added $22 927. Additive alternate 4, which called for the replacement of the main drain, added $5340, but Intervenor noted on its bid form that it did not recommend this alternative. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $3444. Intervenor's based bid for the new pool was $50,472. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $920. Intervenor also bid three "Voluntary alternates." These alternates, which were not requested in the ITB, involved variations on equipment for the existing pool. Voluntary alternate 2, which totalled $143,253, included a full stainless steel gutter with grating and a high rate pressure sand filter with automatic backwashing feature. Petitioner's base bid for both pools was $130,788. Intervenor's base bid for both pools was $157,642. Intervenor's base bid for both pools, using Voluntary alternate 2, was $193,725. Both bid packages disclosed obvious problems. Petitioner had not bid on any decking or the retaining wall and fill. Ms. Showley and Mr. Spears called Mr. West and, after confirming these omissions, asked for a price. The additional labor and materials added $13,526 for the decking and fill, but apparently not the retaining wall as the slope approach would be used around the new pool. This would have raised Petitioner's base bid to $144,314. However, Petitioner still did not address the issue of the replacement of the main drain. Based on advice from Mr. Spears, Respondent did not want to replace the main drain. The process would require cutting the bottom of the pool. Due to the pool's location, age, and type (poured-in), Mr. spears felt, and Respondent agreed, that the main drain should not be disturbed. Intervenor's bid did not include a copy of its contractor's license or references. Ms. Showley obtained this information after the bid opening. She and Mr. Spears also spoke with Harold von Weller, owner and president of Intervenor, concerning the filtration and gutter systems described in Voluntary alternate 1 and where they had been used. In response to a question concerning the 2 approximate cost of the retaining wall and decking, for the purpose of making a deduction that would facilitate comparison with Petitioner's bid, Mr. Weller wrote a letter estimating the cost of these items as $7004.43. An informal committee consisting of Mr. Spears, Ms. Showley, the architect for the bathhouse, and the City Manager, Michael G. Steerman, considered the bids and determined, after consulting with staff, that Petitioner's bid was not responsive. The City Commission met on May 17, 1990, to award a contract for the renovation and construction of the pools. Mr. Steerman recommended that Respondent reject Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to Intervenor on its Voluntary alternate 2 bid for the existing pool and its base bid for the new pool less the Deductive alternate 1. The amount of $189,361 was derived by subtracting from the Voluntary alternate 2 amount of $143,253 the sum of $3444 for Deductive alternate 1, for a net amount of $139,809 for the existing pool. The new pool net of $49,552 thus generated a total figure of $189,361. It is not entirely clear whether Respondent viewed any of Intervenor's bids as responsive. Most likely, it was assumed by staff and the City Commission that the base bid and possibly the Voluntary alternate 2 bid were responsive. Petitioner and Intervenor are responsible bidders. They are highly qualified and experienced in the construction of commercial pools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the City of Eustis enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner. ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on February 16, 1993, requesting bids for the removal, preparation, and installation of carpet-glue down on project SB93C-216T. The ITB provided that all bids were to be submitted by March 31, 1993, at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent sections of the ITB to the case at hand include a section entitled "Invitation To Bid" which provides in pertinent part: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Another section entitled "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" provides in pertinent part: 26. Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. The section entitled "Special Conditions" provides in pertinent part: C. AWARD: Bid will be awarded to the lowest and best bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions . . . The School Board shall elect to award to a primary and a secondary vendor . . . . * * * N. CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS: The contractor must have at least three years of verifiable experience in the floor covering contracting business. The contractor must have in force the required occupational licenses from Palm Beach County and it's municipalities. All documentation of the above requirements must be submitted with the proposed bid by each bidding contractor. The contractor shall not sub-contract any portion of their work, outlined in this contract, to any person(s) or company, without advance written permission from the Carpentry Supervisor of the Department of Maintenance & Plant Operations. Another section of the ITB entitled "Additional Information" provides in pertinent part: Additional information will not be a determining part of the award of this bid except in the instance where the per square yard prices are too close to determine a clear awardee. In that instance we will look at the optional items in this section as the determining factor. (This usage is also based upon all other factors being equal.) . . . Cost of heavy patching. $ per sq. ft. . . . Cost of heavy patching. $ per sq. ft. . . . By March 31, 1993, eight bids were received. However, only seven bids were considered. Respondent's Department of Contracting & Procurement reviewed the bids. On April 12, 1993, the Department of Contracting & Procurement (Department) posted the bid tabulations, which showed, inter alia, that the apparent lowest bidder was Carpetech at $28,029.61, that the apparent second lowest bidder was Buy the Square Yard (Petitioner) at $32,107.32, and that the apparent highest bidder was Acousti Engineering of Florida (Intervenor). Additionally, the recommendation was that the bid be awarded to the "lowest and best bidder meeting specifications, terms, and conditions" with Carpetech being the "Primary" bidder and Petitioner being the "Secondary" bidder. Moreover, the bid tabulation sheet noted that the "price" of each bid was determined by using a "hypothetical" that was typical of a School Board project. This was the first time that the bidders were aware of a hypothetical being used. Respondent had not used a hypothetical in past bids for this type of work, and it was not included in the bid specifications At first, after the bids were opened, Respondent's Department used the base bid, which excluded any alternate work, to determine the apparent lowest bidder. The calculation showed Intervenor as the apparent lowest bidder at $11.03 sq. yd. and Petitioner as the apparent second lowest bidder at $11.08 sq. yd. Carpetech's base bid was $11.295 sq. yd. A discussion ensued as to whether the bids were "too close"; but, there was no consensus as to the meaning of "too close." However, the Department determined that, taking into consideration the alternate work which would have to be done, Intervenor was not the best bidder. The Department first considered recommending the rejection of all bids and readvertising, but decided upon using a hypothetical which included the base bid and the alternates in the calculations. As a result of using the hypothetical, Carpetech, not Intervenor, was the apparent lowest bidder. However, Carpetech, unlike any other bidder, changed one of the specifications in its bid from the "cost of heavy patching" to the "cost of light patching." Respondent admits that a clerical error had occurred and that particular specification should have been "light" patching, instead of "heavy" patching. Also, Carpetech failed to submit an occupational license with its bid. However, subsequent to the bid opening, Carpetech submitted an occupational license. Like Carpetech, Intervenor also failed to submit an occupational license with its bid. 2/ To the contrary, Petitioner submitted an occupational license with its bid. The occupational license forbade Petitioner to have employees at its location but allowed it to hire outside employees, which meant that it could hire contract labor to perform under the contract of the bid. 3/ Out of the three bidders--Carpetech, Petitioner and Intervenor--only Petitioner is a minority owned business. Initially, when Petitioner began its business in December 1991, it was owned by a minority female and a minority male. Subsequently, for financial purposes, the minority female became the sole shareholder/owner and the minority male became the business consultant (consultant), receiving consulting fees. On or about March 24, 1992, Petitioner was certified as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) by Palm Beach County, and on or about March 19, 1992, it was certified as a MBE by Respondent, with the certification effective from May 1992 to May 1993. Petitioner became incorporated in or around April 1992 and again in July 1992 when the minority female became the sole owner. Prior to Petitioner's formation, its consultant had his own flooring business (carpet and tile sales and insulation) for several years. The prior business had financial difficulties which resulted in court judgements against it. Petitioner's sole owner was never involved in the consultant's prior business. She provides Petitioner's financial security, and there have been no court judgments against Petitioner. Respondent's Department was familiar with flooring work of Petitioner's consultant before he became associated with Petitioner. He had performed flooring work for Respondent in the past, which was very satisfied with his work. The Department was not aware of the court judgements against the prior business of Petitioner's consultant. However, even if it was, the judgments would not have had a negative effect on Petitioner in the award process of the current contract. On or about April 14, 1993, Intervenor filed its written protest, which was timely. On or about April 22, 1993, Petitioner filed its written protest, which was timely. On April 28, 1993, Respondent held an informal meeting on the written protests. On May 3, 1993, Respondent's counsel issued its recommendation on the protests, which was to "reject all bids and rebid with new terms and conditions and specifications" in order for all bidders to be given "a fair playing field."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on project SB93C-216T and readvertise. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 2nd day of December 1993.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's protest challenging the Department of Transportation's Notice of Intent to Award Contract No. E-6A14, FIN Project No. 251999-1-32-01/251999-1-52-01, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., should be sustained in whole or in part.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: 3/ The District VI Warehouse. The District VI (District) warehouse is used to store archived records, paper supplies, and surplus equipment. In addition, it houses the District's divers and their gear. The District Warehouse Roof Since at least the time of the first solicitation, the District warehouse roof has had a ponding problem and been in disrepair. The condition of the roof has deteriorated to such an extent that there is now an urgent need to replace it. The current roof has five overflow drains or scuppers. The Department has determined that additional scuppers are necessary to provide adequate drainage. The List of Interested and Prequalified Contractors When the District warehouse roof replacement project was originally advertised in 1997, 25 contractors, including Petitioner, A-1, Zurqui, Grace, ART, and Southern Coast Enterprises, requested that the Department send them information about the project. The Department compiled a list containing these 25 contractors' names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. The Department subsequently prequalified each of these 25 contractors. Petitioner Pedro Glaria is Petitioner's president. He is now, and has been since 1981, licensed in the State of Florida as both a general contractor and a professional engineer. Petitioner currently has two contracts with the Department, the dollar values of which are $140,000.00 and $110.00.00. Both contracts were awarded during the summer of 2000. They each require Petitioner to provide "roadside mowing" and "roadside litter pickup" services. Since its incorporation in 1989, Petitioner has had a total of 10 to 12 contracts with the Department, at least one of which involved roofing work. At no time has the Department indicated to Mr. Glaria that it has been dissatisfied with Petitioner's work. The Third Solicitation In the third solicitation, as in the first two solicitations, the District warehouse roof replacement project was advertised as a design-build project (involving both design and construction services). The Notice of Informal Bid (No. 6012DS) that the Department used to solicit bids contained the following "work description," "evaluation criteria," and "project information": Work Description Sealed written bids are requested from licensed roofing contractors, general building contractors, professional architectural engineers or professional consultant services for the purpose of a design-build project consisting of roof replacement for the District warehouse building located at the District office complex, 1000 Northwest 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The bidder shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, travel, consultant inspection services, shop drawing reviews to design, and furnish plans and specifications necessary to perform all work required for this project. Evaluation Criteria The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will evaluate the technical bid along with the price bid at the same time. The Department may award this contract to the firm whose proposal meets the needs of the Department as outlined in the technical bid criteria, and to the responsible, responsive bidder submitting the lowest total bid. Technical Bid Will Consist of the Following Experience and qualifications of personnel Plans and specifications. 3). Design Warranty Contract time Price Bid 3). Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE) Participation . . . Project Information ESTIMATED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A With respect to a protest of the specifications contained in an Invitation to Bid or in a Request for Proposals, the Notice of Protest shall be filed in writing within seventy two (72) hours after the receipt of notice of the project plans and specifications or intended project plans and specifications in an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals." A formal written protest stating with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based and in substantially the same form as a petition in accordance with Rule 60-4.012, F.A.C., shall be filed within ten (10) days after filing of the notice of protest. The ten (10) day period includes Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays; provided, however, if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday. Any person who files an action protesting an award shall post with the Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond payable to the Department in the amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Department's estimate of the contract amount for the purchase requested or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), whichever is less, which bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against him in the Administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent Appellate Court Proceedings. In lieu of a bond, the Department may accept a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. The protest must be filed with The Department of Transportation, Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 THE DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Exhibit "A" (Attachment V) to the Notice of Informal Bid was the "Scope of Services for Design Build of Replacement Roof at the District Warehouse Building," Section 2.5(a) of which provided as follows: Bidder shall furnish plans and specifications that comply with the South Florida Building Code, Permits Office of the Department of Management Services, and the State Fire Marshall's Office, including but not limited to the following: The design of the roof shall provide for the installation of overflow drains or scuppers in addition to the existing scuppers to prevent an accumulation of water. Petitioner's technical bid, which was prepared by Mr. Glaria, contained a roof design that did not provide for the installation of the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." In Mr. Glaria's professional opinion, these additional scuppers were unnecessary for the design of the roof to comply with the South Florida Building Code. (Petitioner, however, did not file a protest challenging the bid specifications.) By not incorporating the additional scuppers in its design of the roof, Petitioner was able to submit a price bid lower than it could have offered had its design been in compliance with the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." All three members of the Department's Technical Review and Awards Committee found Petitioner's technical bid to be non- responsive because it deviated from the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A.". Had the Department not rejected the Department's technical bid on the grounds that it was non-responsive, Petitioner would have had an unfair competitive advantage over those bidders whose design of the roof included the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." Petitioner's Formal Protest of the Department's announced intention to contract with A-1 contained the following argument concerning the Department's determination that Petitioner's technical bid did not "comply with design criteria for overflow scuppers": FDOT's Technical Panel determined that SPEC failed to comply with the design criteria for overflow scuppers because SPEC did not provide for additional scuppers. . . . The roof already contains five scuppers. As engineer of this design- build project, SPEC determined that additional scuppers were not necessary for proper drainage of the roof. Rather, the roof only necessitated the installation of crickets between the existing scuppers to facilitate drainage of water between the scuppers. The drawing submitted with SPEC's bid reflects the location of the existing scuppers and the use of the crickets to drain any water on the roof. A-1's drawing reflects the use of additional scuppers, but the location of these additional scuppers cannot assist water drainage as the scuppers are located above the crickets, and therefore above roof level, thereby losing any effectiveness. . . . The additional scuppers provided by A-1 will not prevent the accumulation of water as required by section 2.5 and will only create unnecessary expenditure for FDOT. SPEC's design for the drainage of water from the roof is superior to that of A-1, complies with the requirements of the bidding documents and does not require unnecessary expenditure of funds. Accordingly, SPEC should be awarded the project. The Department's December 17, 1998, Notice of Intent Not to Award (Re: Informal Bid No. 6012DS) stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of the Department of Transportation to not award the above Contract. This contract will be re- advertised at a later date. . . . ALL BIDS HAVE BEEN REJECTED On January 4, 1999, Petitioner's attorney, Alejandro Espino, Esquire, sent a letter to Department Assistant General Counsel Brian McGrail, which read as follows: This letter confirms our telephone conversation today wherein you stated that the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") rejected all bids on the above referenced project because FDOT intends to rewrite the specification for the mansard roof wood replacement and because FDOT has no available funding for the project. However, you stated that FDOT will not provide a written explanation to SPEC Incorporated or any other bidder for the rejection of the bids for the project. If you believe that the above is not an accurate summary of our conversation, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best regards. Mr. McGrail responded to Mr. Espino by letter dated January 4, 1999, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter this morning regarding our telephone conversation concerning the captioned matter. In response to your rendition of our conversation, I must clarify that I expressed my understanding that the specifications for the project will be reviewed, which may include the issues raised in the protest about the bid specifications, before any further action will be taken by the Department. However, the Department's decision to reject all bids is due to the unavailability of funding for this contract at the present time. I cannot speak to the future of the project with any degree of certainty, nor represent any to you or your client. This is a matter strictly for District VI to decide, and I am not involved in that decision making process. The Department will defend the decision to reject all bids based on the lack of available funding. I refer your attention to Attachment II of Informal Bid #6012DS, Contractual Obligation, Section 1.10 through 1.13. In particular, Cancellation Privileges, regarding the Department's obligations under the Notice of Informal Bid and subsequent agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon the availability of monies appropriated for this contract. Additionally, I am sure that you are aware that the bid documents clearly and repeatedly state the Department's reservation of rights to reject any and all bids for this bid letting. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Department's action in rejecting all bids is appropriate under Florida law, if not required, due to the lack of available funds at the present time. If Spec Inc. intends to p[rotest] the Department's decision to reject all bids, I feel it is my responsibility to advise you that the Department will seek any and all costs and attorney fees to which it may be entitled against the protest bond filed in this case. If however, Spec Inc. decides to withdraw the current protests against the intent to award filed on September 28, 1998, and the rejection of all bids filed on December 22, 1998, the Department will agree to return the protest bond in full. After you have had an opportunity to review this matter with your client, please advise at your earliest convenience how Spec Inc., wishes to proceed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to a prompt response, as the hearing date is approaching rapidly. Mr. Glaria "realized that [Petitioner was] going to have a hard time [in its bid protest] to overcome the issue of lack of funding." In addition, he had the "hope that [Petitioner] would [have the opportunity to] bid the project again for the fourth time." Accordingly, he authorized Mr. Espino to file, on behalf of Petitioner, the following Notice of Voluntary of Dismissal of Formal Protest, dated January 11, 1999: Petitioner, SPEC Incorporated, hereby withdraws its formal protest, dated October 18, 1998, of the Florida Department of Transportation's notice of intent to award Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. Upon agreement of counsel for the parties, SPEC Incorporated's bid protest bond will be returned to it. Mr. Espino, in addition, sent the following letter, dated January 11, 1999, to Mr. McGrail: Based on the Florida Department of Transportation's ("FDOT") representation that it rejected all bids for Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, because of the unavailability of funds and because of necessary amendments to the project specifications, SPEC Incorporated hereby withdraws its formal protest of FDOT's notice of intent to reject all bids. As we discussed earlier, FDOT will return SPEC Incorporated's protest bond thirty days after FDOT files . . . the final order in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Fourth Solicitation The Project is funded through appropriations made by the Legislature in the fixed capital outlay category. 4/ Fixed capital outlay funds are subject to reversion if not obligated (through the execution of a contact or the issuance of a notice of intent to award a contract) within 19 months of their appropriation by the Legislature. In mid-January of 2001, Brenda Garner, the manager of the Department's Fixed Capital Outlay Program, advised Ms. Lyons that, if not obligated by February 1, 2001, a portion of the funds ($45,000.00) appropriated for the Project would revert. Ms. Lyons (who had not been involved, as the District's contract administrator, in the first three solicitations) quickly proceeded (in a day's time) to assemble the documents needed to solicit bids for the Project. These documents included detailed plans and specifications that the District's senior structural engineer and senior project manager had prepared, at Ms. Lyons' request, following the third solicitation, as well as "boilerplate" that the Department uses for non-design-build fixed capital outlay projects like the Project. Ms. Lyons determined that it was unnecessary to advertise for bids and that the Department only needed to solicit bids from three contractors. She selected these three contractors from the list of interested and prequalified contractors that the Department had compiled in the first solicitation. As Ms. Lyons was aware, each of the three contractors she selected (A-1, Zurqui, and Grace) was a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). She intentionally selected MBE contractors because the District was "trying to meet an MBE goal." Ms. Lyons had some professional familiarity with the three MBE contractors she selected. A-1 had just completed another roofing project for the District, and Zurqui and Grace were performing construction work at the District office complex. Ms. Lyons' decision to not include Petitioner among the three contractors asked to submit bids was not made in bad faith. Inasmuch as the Department was "in a big hurry to get that project done" she did not ask more than three contractors to submit bids. Ms. Lyons required each of the three contractors to first provide proof that it was a licensed general contractor qualified to work on the Project. After receiving such proof, Ms. Lyons then asked the three contractors to bid on the Project. A-1, Zurqui, and Grace submitted their bids on January 25, 2001. The Technical Review and Awards Committee met on January 26, 2001, to review the bids. All three bids were deemed to be responsive. A-1's bid of $58,300.00 was the lowest of the three bids. Neither Zurqui nor Grace protested the Department's proposed decision, announced in its January 26, 2001, Notice of Intent to Award, to award the contract for the Project to A-1. Only Petitioner, which had not been invited to submit a bid and had first learned of the fourth solicitation when Mr. Glaria saw the Notice of Intent to Award while at the District office complex on January 26, 2001, filed a protest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order rejecting in its entirety Petitioner's protest of the Department's announced intention to award Contract E-6A14 to A-1. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 24th day of September 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the Department issued an Advertisement for Bids (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (Department Project No. NV-30A, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving the expansion of the water treatment facility at the Martin Correctional Institution. The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a two-volume Specifications Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") that was made available for public inspection. Section B of the Manual's first volume contained the Instructions. Section B-2 2.A.(11) thereof provided that "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications must be submitted and the qualifications listed therein must be satisfactory to the Owner and the Engineer. " "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications" was a "Bidder's Qualification Form, Reverse Osmosis Treatment System Component" (hereinafter referred to as the "R.O. Form"), on which the bidder was to provide "R.O. [Reverse Osmosis] System Supplier" information. The R.O. Form repeated the directive that the bidder was to "[r]eturn [the] [c]ompleted [R.O.] Form [w]ith [its] proposal." Section B-14 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "preparation and submission of bids" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Bidder shall copy the proposal form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the Base Bid and for alternates on which he bids. . . . Proposals containing . . . . items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Section B-16 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "disqualification of bidders" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that a Bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the same work will cause the rejection of all proposals in which such Bidders are believed to be interested. The subject of "contract award" was addressed in Section B-21 of the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The qualified bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that bidder who has submitted the lowest price for the base bid, or the base bid plus additive alternates or less deductive alternates, taken in the numerical order listed in the bid documents in an amount to be determined by the Owner. The Order of the alternates may be accepted by the Owner in any sequence so long as such acceptance does not alter the designation of the low bidder. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. Section C of Volume I of the Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use to indicate their bid prices. The following statement appeared at the bottom of the second page of the Proposal Form: There is enclosed: A certified check, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or Bid Bond in the amount of not less than five (5) percent of the Base Bid payable to the Department of Corrections, as a guarantee. An executed Trench Excavation Safety Certification, Section F-13. An executed Experience Questionnaire and Contractor's Financial Statement and Public Entity Criminal Conviction Form, Section L. An executed Bidder's Qualifications Form (Reverse Osmosis), Technical Specification Section 01420. While one completed R.O. Form had to accompany each bid, there was no provision in any of the bid documents issued by the Department requiring a bidder to submit only one such completed form and no more. Petitioner, McMahan and R.J. Sullivan Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sullivan") were among the contractors that timely submitted bids in response to the Advertisement. McMahan's and Sullivan's bids were each accompanied by more than one completed R.O. Form. Petitioner, on the other hand, provided the Department with only one completed R.O. Form along with its bid. Of the bids submitted, McMahan's was the lowest, Sullivan's was the second lowest and Petitioner's was the third lowest. McMahan's base bid price was $857,000.00. Petitioner's was $905,000.00. McMahan's total price, including the nine additive alternates accepted by the Department, was $948,000.00. Petitioner's was $1,032,600.00, $84,600.00 more than McMahan's. By letter dated July 1, 1993, the Department advised McMahan of its intent "to award the contract [for Department Project No. NV-30A] to [McMahan] as the lowest responsive bidder." On July 9, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the preliminary determination to award the contract to McMahan alleging that McMahan was not a responsive bidder inasmuch as McMahan "submitted Reverse Osmosis ("R.O.") Qualifications Forms for more tha[n] one vendor." According to Petitioner, "[t]his [was] not in conformance with the Bid Documents and gave [McMahan] an unfair advantage."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order finding Petitioner's bid protest to be without merit and awarding McMahan, as the lowest responsive and qualified bidder, the contract for Department Project No. NV-30A. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993.
Findings Of Fact In November, 1990, the Respondent, the Department of State, sought proposals for the lease of office space for its Division of Licensing. On or prior to December 7, 1990, the proposal opening date, at least six proposals were received by the Respondent. Those proposals were designated by the Respondent as "Tallahassee Associates" (the Petitioner's proposal), "Crossland Agency" (the Intervenor's proposal), "Woodcrest A", "Woodcrest B", "T.C.S." and "DeVoe". On January 2, 1991, the Respondent posted a standard form Bid Tabulation indicating that the following scores had been awarded to the following proposals: Proposal Score Woodcrest A 82 Woodcrest B 82 Tallahassee Associates 73 Crossland Agency 85 DeVoe 54 The proposal of T.C.S. was not evaluated by the Respondent because it was determined to be non-responsive. The Respondent also posted a copy of a memorandum dated January 2, 1991, with the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The memorandum was from John M. Russi, Director of the Division of Licensing, to Ira Chester, Chief of the Bureau of General Services. Mr. Russi indicated in the memorandum that the Intervenor would be awarded the lease. Attached to Mr. Russi's January 2, 1991, memorandum was a Lease Evaluation Worksheet which indicated the scores which had been awarded by the evaluation committee to the responsive bidders for each of the criteria to be considered in determining the winning bidder. Printed at the top-center of the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation was the following notice: FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 120.53(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES. . . . The January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation was posted at 1:00 p.m., January 2, 1991. Therefore, pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, any bidder desiring to contest the Respondent's proposed award of the lease was required to file a notice of protest with the Respondent no later than 1:00 p.m., January 5, 1991, and a formal written protest on or before January 15, 1991. T.C.S. filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest to the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation within the time periods prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. T.C.S. contested the Respondent's determination that it was not responsive. The Petitioner did not file a notice of protest or a formal written protest to the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation within the time periods prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, the Respondent reviewed the formal written protest filed by T.C.S. and agreed that T.C.S. was responsive. After agreeing that T.C.S. was responsive, the Respondent evaluated T.C.S.'s proposal and awarded points for each of the criteria to be considered. Toward the end of January, 1991, after deciding that T.C.S.'s proposal was to be evaluated, the Respondent notified all other bidders of its decision in a document titled Posting of Notice of Agency Decision. The Posting of Notice of Agency Decision was signed by the Respondent's General Counsel and was addressed to "All Responsive Bidders". The Posting of Notice of Agency Decision provided, in pertinent part: Notice is hereby given that the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, is reviewing the bid tabulation which was posted at 1:00 P.M., January 2, 1991 for Lease No. 450:0070. The revised bid tabulation will be posted at 8:00 A.M. on February 4, 1991 at the Purchasing Office of the Department of State . . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person interested in the new tabulation should contact . . . after the posting time listed above. The Petitioner filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the Posting of Notice of Agency Decision within the times prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The Respondent dismissed this formal written protest by final order dated February 22, 1991. On or about January 31, 1991, more than four weeks after the posting of the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, Ocie Allen spoke by telephone with Phyllis Slater, the Respondent's General Counsel. Ms. Slater told Mr. Allen that all proposals would be reevaluated as a result of T.C.S.'s protest. Mr. Allen was a lobbyist for the Petitioner in January, 1991. On February 4, 1991, the Respondent posted another standard form Bid Tabulation indicating that the following scores had been awarded to the following proposals: Proposal Score Crossland Agency 83 Woodcrest A 80 Woodcrest B 80 Tallahassee Associates 71 T.C.S. 71 DeVoe 51 The differences in the scores of the proposals which had been listed on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, which are reflected in the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation were caused by automatic changes in the scores resulting from the addition of T.C.S. and the fact that T.C.S. had the lowest priced bid. The points awarded for the "rental" criterion, which was worth up to 25 points, were determined by a mathematical formula by which the scores of each bidder are calculated based upon the proposed rental charges of all bidders. The award of points for this criterion was determined objectively based upon the mathematical formula. By adding another bidder, T.C.S., the points awarded to all the proposals automatically changed. The scores of the proposals which had been listed on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, were not otherwise changed. Nor were the proposals of any bidder reevaluated. The Respondent also posted a copy of a memorandum dated January 24, 1991, with the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The memorandum was from John M. Russi, Director of the Division of Licensing, to Ira Chester, Chief of the Bureau of General Services. Mr. Russi indicated the following in the memorandum: Pursuant to the settlement stipulation signed by Counsel for T.C.S. Associates on January 23, 1991, in reference to the Bid Protest filed January 11, 1991, the attached "Lease Evaluation Work Sheet" is provided for you to re-post. After reevaluating six bid proposals, the evaluating committee concludes that Crossland Agency should be awarded this bid. Each bidder needs to be notified by certified mail of this action. . . . . Attached to Mr. Russi's January 24, 1991, memorandum was a Lease Evaluation Worksheet which indicated the scores of the responsive bidders which had been awarded by the evaluation committee for each of the criteria to be considered in determining the winning bidder. On February 6, 1991, the Petitioner filed a notice of protest to the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest, Request for Formal Hearing and Motion for Stay with the Respondent on February 18, 1991. These documents were filed within the time periods specified in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's Formal Written Protest was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Respondent on February 28, 1991. Crossland Agency, Inc., was allowed to intervene in the proceeding. On March 1, 1991, the Respondent and Intervenor filed a Motion to Dismiss. A motion hearing was conducted on March 6, 1991, to consider the Motion to Dismiss.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Respondent granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this case, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3, 5 and 9. 2 12-13. 3 15-16 and 18-21. See 14. 15. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the scores of the bidders for the "option period" criterion reflected on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation were modified or reconsidered on the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The suggestion that "the department had discretion to change scores in any of the remaining eight categories" is a conclusion of law and is rejected. These proposed facts are not relevant to the issue raised in the Motion to Dismiss. Nor was any evidence presented to support these proposed findings. 12. The last sentence is a conclusion of law and is rejected. Proposed Findings of Fact of the Respondent and Intervenor Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 3 and 7. 5-6 and hereby accepted. 4 8-12. 5 See 14. 6 15 and 17. 18. The last sentence involves an issue not raised in the Motion to Dismiss or at the motion hearing. Nor was any evidence presented to support these proposed findings. See the Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire 1589 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Benjamin E. Poitevent Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements 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/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
