The Issue Whether the Florida A&M University's intended action to reject all bids and re-advertise the project to construct "Utilities Improvement-Central Chilled Water Plant, Phase V", known as BR-389, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Neel Mechanical Contracting, Inc., is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in Florida and licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Its business is air conditioning, and it specializes in larger projects such as the one at issue herein. Robert C. Sullivan is the President of Neel Mechanical. Thomas Gregory Lang is a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical and the chief estimator for Neel Mechanical; Mr. Lang is the person primarily responsible for preparing Neel Mechanical's bid proposal for Project BR-389. The Florida Board of Regents is a corporate body consisting of the Commissioner of Education and thirteen citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by three members of the Cabinet; it is subject to the general supervision and control of the Department of Education. Sections 240.203(2), 240.205, and 240.207(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a member of the State University System, is charged generally with overseeing the state universities, and has the authority to approve and execute contracts for "construction for use by a university when the contractual obligation exceeds $1 million." Sections 240.209 and 240.205(6), Florida Statutes (1999). 4/ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ("FAMU") is a public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, and is one of ten universities in Florida's State University System. Section 240.2011, Florida Statutes (1999). The university president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for its operation and administration. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Frederick S. Humphries was president of FAMU, and Samuel J. Houston was the Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. Mr. Houston has primary responsibility for supervising the bid process and the staff that prepared the bid documents and evaluated the bids for Project BR-389. Mr. Houston acts in this capacity on behalf of President Humphries and the Board of Regents. Mr. Houston also is ultimately responsible for the administration of Project BR-389. Bayou Mechanical, Inc. ("Bayou Mechanical") is a mechanical contractor which submitted a bid on Project BR-389. Call for Bids In Volume 25, Number 13, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, dated April 2, 1999, FAMU, on behalf of the Board of Regents, issued a Call for Bids on Project BR-389, which involves construction of a chilled water plant on the FAMU campus. The Call for Bids provided that all bidders must have a valid Florida license to do the work at the time of bid opening and a minimum of five years experience with similar projects. Project BR-389 involves a construction contract and is the fifth phase of the construction of an underground chilled water system on the FAMU campus. The project consists of constructing a portion of the system and connecting it to the existing system. The Call for Bids notified prospective bidders that sealed bids would be received at FAMU on May 4, 1999, until 2:00 p.m., after which time the bids would be opened and the bid tabulations posted. The Call for Bids further provided: "Bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual." The Call for Bids advised that these documents were available at the offices of the Architect/Engineer for the project, Bosek, Gibson & Associates, Inc. ("Bosek, Gibson"), in Tallahassee, Florida. In Addendum #2 to the Project Manual, dated April 30, 1999, the date for submission of bids was changed from May 4, 1999, to May 11, 1999. The Project Manual contains Instructions to Bidders, consisting of pages 6 of 106 through 22 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 23 of 106 through 106 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; Special Conditions of the Contract, consisting of pages I-1 through I-10 and dated October 16, 1989; Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996; Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5 and identified as the February 1999 Revision; Exhibit L, Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 2 through 16; and the Technical Specifications, which are separately identified and numbered. As noted in the Call for Bids, drawings are also included in the bid documents. Neel Mechanical, Bayou Mechanical, and Council Contracting submitted bids for Project BR-389 on May 11, 1999, the date on which the bids were opened and the price proposals were read. According to the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form that was posted from May 14 through 19, 1999, Neel Mechanical was the apparent low bidder on the base bid and on the two alternates 5/; Neel Mechanical's base bid and its bid on alternates were within FAMU's budget for the project. Bayou Mechanical submitted the second lowest bid on the base bid and the alternates; Bayou Mechanical was within the budget on the base bid but over budget on the alternates. No recommended award or intent to award was indicated on the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form. Shortly after the bids were opened, several issues were raised with respect to the bid process. First, the FAMU staff discovered that Neel Mechanical had failed to affix its corporate seal to the signature page of the bid Proposal Form and to the Bid Bond that was part of the bid submission. Second, York International Company ("York") sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, a letter advising FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid. This letter raised the third issue: Of the two manufacturers identified in the project specifications, York and The Trane Company ("Trane"), only Trane manufactured a chiller that could meet the project specifications. Fourth, Mark A. Daughtery, a project manager for Bayou Mechanical, sent a letter dated May 14, 1999, to Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson advising him that Bayou Mechanical intended to file a formal protest on Project BR-389 and identifying two issues of concern to Bayou Mechanical: Neel Mechanical's failure to affix its corporate seal to its bid submission and "the Chiller being sole sourced to Trane Company." Each of these issues is discussed in detail below. Corporate Seal The Instructions to Bidders contained in the Project Manual provide: B-16 Preparation and Submission of Bids Each Proposal shall be submitted on the form contained in the Project Manual and bid prices shall be indicated thereon in proper spaces, for the entire Work and for all Alternates. (See B-8) In the event of a discrepancy in the bid amount on the Proposal between the numeric and written quotes, the written amount will govern. Each Proposal must give the full business address of the Bidder and state whether it is an individual, corporation or partnership. Proposals by a corporation must be signed with the legal name and seal of the corporation followed by the name of the state of its incorporation and the manual signature and designation of an officer, agent or other person authorized to bind the corporation. (Emphasis added.) When it was submitted on May 11, 1999, Neel Mechanical's bid did not include the impression of its corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form signature page or on the Bid Bond submitted as part of the proposal. After the bid opening, an employee of Neel Mechanical received a telephone call from Henry Swift, FAMU's Project Manager for Project BR-389, in which he advised Neel Mechanical that its bid had not been sealed. This conversation was followed by a request from Mr. Swift, sent via facsimile transmittal to Neel Mechanical on May 13, 1999, requesting a "Letter of Clarification which confirms your status as a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, registered with the Secretary of State, etc. Finally, please be sure to sign and seal your letter with your corporate seal." A letter to Mr. Swift, dated May 14, 1999, was signed and sealed by Robert C. Sullivan, President of Neel Mechanical. The letter was received in FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction on May 19, 1999. Shortly after Mr. Sullivan sent the May 14, 1999, letter, Neel Mechanical received another telephone call from Mr. Swift in which he advised Neel Mechanical that the seal needed to be physically affixed to the bid Proposal Form. Peter Lang, a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical, had business in Tallahassee, so Mr. Sullivan asked that he take the seal to Mr. Swift's office and affix it to the bid Proposal Form. When Peter Lang arrived at Mr. Swift's office, someone brought out the file and gave him the bid Proposal Form, and he affixed Neel Mechanical's corporate seal to the signature page of the form. Neel Mechanical's corporate seal was not affixed to the Bid Bond, although the seal of the surety company was on the Bid Bond when the bid was submitted. The Bid Bond was part of Neel Mechanical’s bid submission. FAMU verified on May 13, 1999, that Neel Mechanical was authorized to do business in Florida and held the requisite Florida license to perform the work required by the project. Centrifugal chiller specifications and York's letter of "intent to protest" Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications included in the Project Manual contains the specifications for the Centrifugal Chillers - Water Cooled to be installed as part of Project BR-389. Those specifications provide in pertinent part: PART 2 - PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Available Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide centrifugal chillers from one of the following: Trane Co., The York Int'l. UNIT DESCRIPTION: * * * Refrigerant: Chiller shall be provided with low pressure refrigerant HCFC-123. The size of the chiller specified for Project BR-389 was 2200 tons. 6/ Lane Jackins is the owner of Applied Mechanical Equipment and is a manufacturer's representative for York. He reviewed the technical specifications for the chiller contained in Part II of Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications for Project BR-389 and determined that York could not furnish a chiller that met the specifications. York does not manufacture a chiller of 2200 tons that uses R123 refrigerant, although it uses R123 refrigerant in smaller machines up to 750 tons. The equipment manufactured by York in the 2,000-ton range uses R134A refrigerant, which operates at different pressures than R123. The York equipment using R134A refrigerant is of an entirely different design than that using R123 refrigerant. In addition, York does not manufacture a chiller with the voltage required by the project specifications. Three or four days before the bids were to be submitted, either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lang spoke with Mr. Jackins about York's providing Neel Mechanical with a price for the chiller. Mr. Jackins responded that York would not submit a price for the equipment because York did not manufacture a chiller that would meet the technical specifications included in the bid documents. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: B-12 Basis for Bidding - Trade Names For clarity of description and as a standard of comparison, certain equipment and materials have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base the Proposal on the particular systems, equipment or materials specified and approved substitutes as provided in Paragraph 3.19, Substitutes, of the General Conditions. After bids are received, no equipment or materials will be approved as a substitute for the specified product. Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions provides: Substitutions Substitutions for a specified system, product or material may be requested of the Architect/Engineer, and the Architect/Engineer's written approval must be issued as an addendum before substitutions will be allowed. All requests for substitutions must be submitted prior to the opening of bids, and approvals shall be granted no less than seven (7) days prior to the bid date. Substitutions requested after that date will receive no consideration. Substitutions are changes in materials, equipment, methods, or sequences of construction, design, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, air conditioning controls, or other requirements of the Drawings or Specifications. (Emphasis in original.) In the portion dealing with "SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS," Section 15010 of the Technical Requirements, "MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS," provides as follows: By submitting a bid for equipment or material other than the "Design Basis Equipment" (i.e., that which is shown on the Contract Drawings), the Contractor: Represents that he has personally investigated the proposed substitute product and determined that it is equal or superior in all respects to that specified and complies with all the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions; Certifies that the cost data presented is complete and includes all related costs under this Contract but excludes costs under separate contracts, and excludes the Engineer's redesign costs, and waives all claims for additional costs related to the substitution which subsequently become apparent; Will coordinate the installation of the accepted substitute, making such changes as may be required for the work to be complete in all respects; and, Certifies that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the Contract Documents. Neither York nor any prospective bidder on Project BR-389 requested within the time limits specified in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions that a York product be substituted for the chiller specified for Project BR-389. Mr. Lang contacted Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson a day or two before bids were to be submitted and told Mr. Allen that York was not able to provide a chiller that met the project specifications. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen responded that he "was totally surprised that they [York] didn't have a machine that was going to meet this spec." 7/ Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on pricing information it received from Trane, which manufactures a chiller that meets the project specifications. An additional reason Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on the Trane equipment was his belief that, all things being equal, FAMU preferred to have Trane equipment installed in Project BR-389 because other chillers installed at FAMU were manufactured by Trane. Mr. Lang believed that the specifications for the chiller had been deliberately drawn to require use of Trane equipment. In a letter dated May 11, 1999, the day the bids for Project BR-389 were submitted and opened, Mr. Jackins notified FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid on Project BR-389. Mr. Jackins stated in the letter: The chiller as specified is a flat specification. There is only one manufacturer that will meet the criteria as spelled out in the contract documents. This is not in the best interest of the University System of Florida or the State of Florida. An official protest outlining all the proprietary items will be forthcoming. The letter was sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, prior to the time the bids were opened. Mr. Jackins believed that the "flat specification" was not in the best interest of the university because it precluded competitive pricing for the chiller. Mr. Sullivan learned on May 11 or May 12, 1999, that York intended to file a bid protest. Believing that Neel Mechanical would be awarded the contract as the apparent low bidder, Mr. Sullivan met with Mr. Jackins and several employees of Neel Mechanical, including Greg Lang, at which time Mr. Sullivan proposed an alternative to York's filing a bid protest. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Jackins that, in his opinion, the situation could best be handled through a meeting between Neel Mechanical, Mr. Jackins, Mr. Houston, and the project engineers. According to Mr. Sullivan's plan, Mr. Jackins could present York's pricing, and FAMU, with the engineers’ assistance, could decide if they wanted to switch from the equipment specified in the bid documents to York equipment. If FAMU agreed to accept the York equipment, then, if it were awarded the contract, Neel Mechanical would purchase the York equipment rather than the Trane equipment Neel Mechanical had included in its proposal. After some discussion, Mr. Jackins agreed with Mr. Sullivan's proposed solution. Post-bid activity from the perspective of Neel Mechanical Immediately after the bids were opened, Craig Allen, an employee of Bosek, Gibson telephoned Mr. Lang and asked if Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen stated that "this is a standard practice of mine on bid day to call the apparent low bidder and just make sure that they haven't found some colossal error in their math or whatever that made them low." 8/ Mr. Lang told Mr. Allen that Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. After this conversation, Mr. Lang waited for the letter from FAMU awarding the contract to Neel Mechanical. He was not concerned that the award was not made immediately because, in his experience, some time always passed between bid opening and the time the winning bidder received the contract. However, in anticipation of the award of the contract, Neel Mechanical proceeded to talk with subcontractors, to start scheduling the project, and to line up equipment that it would need to purchase for work on the project. Neel Mechanical employees also made several visits to the site of the project. At some point after the bids were opened, Mr. Sullivan heard that the procurement officials at FAMU were discussing with FAMU's legal department the issues of Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal to its bid and the ramifications of York’s threatened bid protest. Mr. Sullivan responded by telephoning the office of FAMU's general counsel. He spoke with Faye Boyce about these issues and told her that he considered his failure to affix the corporate seal to Neel Mechanical's bid to be insignificant. He also advised her that he had worked out an arrangement with the representative of York whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would talk with the engineers about the York chiller so a decision could be made whether they wanted to use the York equipment or stay with the Trane equipment which met the project specifications. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Boyce, Mr. Sullivan received the impression that she had looked into the issues he had raised in their previous telephone conversation. Mr. Sullivan could not recall Ms. Boyce's exact words, but had the impression from their conversation that the contract award to Neel Mechanical had been approved and that confirmation would be sent out shortly. At some point after Mr. Sullivan's conversation with Ms. Boyce, Greg Lang telephoned Henry Swift to find out the status of the contract award. Mr. Swift told Mr. Lang that, in Mr. Lang's words, "the problem had been reviewed and found to be insignificant, and . . . that the letter of intent to award had already been made." 9/ According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift told him that FAMU would notify the bidders of the intent to award the contract to Neel Mechanical. On the basis of this conversation, Mr. Lang believed that Neel Mechanical would receive a letter "just any day." When Neel Mechanical did not receive a letter, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Swift again. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift stated that he did not know why the matter was being held up. After this second conversation with Mr. Swift, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Houston several times but did not receive a return call. Mr. Lang then wrote a letter to Mr. Houston, dated July 9, 1999, in which he inquired about the status of the contract award: It has now been almost two months since you received bids for this project, and as the low bidder we have still not received notification of your intent to award. We have had several telephone conversations with the attorney representing the regents in this matter, and we were lead [sic] to believe that we would have received information before this time. Please review this matter and call us. If there are outstanding issues which concern you, we would like to know about them and work with you to get them resolved. Post-bid activity from the perspective of FAMU Mr. Houston and members of his staff considered the omission of the corporate seal to be a minor deficiency in Neel Mechanical's bid proposal. Nonetheless, even though Neel Mechanical had been allowed to seal the bid Proposal Form, Mr. Houston asked FAMU's Office of General Counsel to conduct research and determine if the deficiency was one that could be waived. Mr. Houston was not involved in drawing up the technical specifications for Project BR-389; rather, he relied on the project engineers to be familiar with the products to be used in the project. Mr. Houston advised the project engineers that he wanted a competitive bid, and, because the chiller was a major component of the project, he instructed the engineers to prepare specifications that could be met by equipment produced by at least two manufacturers. In a letter dated May 18, 1999, Craig Allen, the engineer at Bosek, Gibson who prepared the specifications for Project BR-389, notified Mr. Houston that he was not aware until the "notice of protest" was received from York that York could not provide a chiller of the required capacity which used R123 refrigerant. Mr. Allen advised Mr. Houston that Mr. Jackins, the York representative, had indicated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Allen to discuss York's chiller selections for the project. A recommendation that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical was signed on June 8, 1999, by Phyllis Nottage, the Assistant Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction; on June 10, 1999, by Mr. Houston; on June 14, 1999, by Louis Murray, an Associate Vice President of FAMU; and on June 14, 1999, by Robert Carroll, a Vice President of FAMU with supervisory authority over the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. The recommendation was contained in a document entitled "Award of Construction Contract," which provided as follows: On May 11, 1999, bids were received for the above-referenced project within the approved budget for the Base Bid and Alternates One (1) through (2), in the total amount of $3,996,400. The requirements for the Minority Business Enterprise Plan as set forth in the project specifications have been satisfied by the Contractor. The consulting Architect/Engineer and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office recommend the award of this contract to Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. President Humphries signed the Award of Construction Contract on June 17, 1999. The preparation and signing of the Award of Contract form and the preparation of the Letter of Intended Decision were part of the bid review process, but Mr. Houston considered them preliminary, without effect until the final decision on the contract award was made and the bidders were formally advised of FAMU's intended decision with respect to the award of the contract. On June 21, 1999, Mr. Houston received a telephone call from Kenneth Ogletree, Director of the Board of Regents’ Office of Facilities Planning, 10/ in which Mr. Houston was advised that the Board of Regents had received an inquiry from a legislator in reference to Project BR-389 and requesting that Mr. Houston prepare a response to the legislator's inquiry. Mr. Ogletree sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Carey Huff, President of Bayou Mechanical, to Durell Peaden, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and a State Representative from District In the letter, Mr. Huff complained that Neel Mechanical, although apparent low bidder for Project BR-389, had failed to seal the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond and that, therefore, Neel Mechanical's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Carey requested that Representative Peaden contact FAMU so that Bayou Mechanical would be awarded the contract for the project as lowest responsive bidder. Mr. Carey stated in his May 28, 1999, letter to Representative Peaden that the college had refused to allow Bayou Mechanical to examine Neel Mechanical's bid but that Mr. Houston had informed them that Neel Mechanical had failed to seal its bid properly. 11/ Mr. Ogletree also sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter from Representative Peaden to Dr. Adam W. Herbert, Chancellor of the State University System. In his letter, Representative Peaden asked that Dr. Herbert look into the matter and "see that all equity was followed in the bid process." In response to the Board of Regents' request that he respond to Representative Peaden's inquiry, Mr. Houston prepared a letter dated June 22, 1999. In this letter, which was directed to Mr. Ogletree, Mr. Houston stated that FAMU wished to award the contract for Project BR-389 to Neel Mechanical as the low bidder on the project. Mr. Houston stated that FAMU considered Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond to be a minor discrepancy. Mr. Houston further stated that FAMU's Office of General Counsel agreed with the conclusion regarding the corporate seal issue and recommended that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical. Finally, Mr. Houston advised Mr. Ogletree that President Humphries had signed the "Award of Construction Contract" form and that Mr. Houston's office was preparing "Letters of Intended Decision" to be sent to the bidders. The final decision on the contract award had not been made on June 10, 1999, when Mr. Houston signed the recommendation that the contract for Project BR-389 be awarded to Neel Mechanical, nor had it been made on June 22, 1999, when Mr. Houston wrote his letter to Mr. Ogletree. Rather, on June 22, 1999, the issues raised with respect to the bid process for Project BR-389 were still being reviewed by Mr. Houston and his staff and by FAMU's Office of General Counsel. The decision to reject all bids on Project BR-389 was made on June 24, 1999. On that date, Mr. Houston met with Vice President Murray, FAMU's attorney, and the Assistant Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction, and the issues relating to the bidding process for Project BR-389 were reviewed. Mr. Houston identified these issues as Neel Mechanical's failure to seal its bid Proposal Form and its Bid Bond; potential protests from York and from Bayou Mechanical; and the problem relating to the technical specifications for the chiller. Of these issues, Mr. Houston considered the most serious the fact that, of the two manufacturers listed in the bid specifications, only Trane could provide the chiller for Project BR-389. The chiller was a major part of the project, and Mr. Houston wanted at least two sources for the chiller in order to encourage competition so that FAMU would get the lowest possible price for the project. Mr. Houston was also concerned that the specifications for the chiller created a de facto "sole source" bid and that the bid solicitation would, therefore, be illegal because FAMU didn't satisfy the statutory requirements necessary for it to specify that the chiller be purchased from a sole source. 12/ FAMU's attorney advised the participants at the June 24, 1999, meeting that the legal department had found no precedent within the State University System for waiving the requirement in the bid documents that the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond be sealed with the bidder's corporate seal. The participants at the meeting considered all of the outstanding issues and decided that it would be in the best interests of FAMU to reject all bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. After the decision to reject all bids was made, Mr. Houston marked an "X" through the Award of Construction Contract form signed by President Humphries, and he prepared letters notifying the bidders of the intent to reject all bids for Project BR-389. Neel Mechanical's bid protest In a letter to Neel Mechanical dated July 6, 1999, Mr. Houston stated: Bids on the above referenced project were opened May 11, 1999. However, we regret to inform you that all Bids have been rejected as in the best interest of the University. This project is presently being re-advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University apologizes for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We trust that you will cooperate with our course of action and look forward to receiving a proposal from you at the next opening. Thanks for your continued interest in the State University System's Construction Program. The envelope containing Mr. Houston's July 6, 1999, letter was post-marked July 9, 1999, and the letter was received by Neel Mechanical on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: Rejection of Bids The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the Owner such rejection is in the best interest of the Owner. Paragraph B-1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides that the Board of Regents is the owner of the project. On July 13, 1999, after Neel Mechanical received the letter from Mr. Houston notifying it that all bids on Project BR- 389 had been rejected, Mr. Sullivan and Greg Lang went to Mr. Houston's office to urge him to rescind the decision and award the contract to Neel Mechanical. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Houston that they felt that the issue regarding the corporate seal was insignificant. At this time, Mr. Sullivan also told Mr. Houston that he and York had reached an agreement whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would present the York product to the University and let the University decide if it wanted to go with the Trane chiller or switch to a York product. Mr. Sullivan thought that Mr. Houston was sympathetic to Neel Mechanical but that the decision had been made by the administration and the legal department. Mr. Sullivan also got the impression that the decision to reject all bids was based on the corporate seal issue. On July 13, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Notice of Intent to Protest Bid to Samuel J. Houston, Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction at Florida A&M University and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. There is no dispute that the Notice of Intent to Protest Bid was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 13, 1999. On July 23, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings to Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. Also on July 23, 1999, a copy of the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was sent by United States Mail to the Board of Regents, Office of General Counsel, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1454, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950. There is no dispute that the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 23, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual dated October 16, 1989, provide: Bid Protest To be considered, a bid protest must be received by the Director, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1601 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, as provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Failure to file a notice of protest in this manner shall constitute a waiver of the Bidder's right to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. * * * B-26 Special Conditions Bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. (Emphasis added.) Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996, provides in pertinent part: (This supplement revises portions of the Project Manual for State University System projects dated October 16, 1989, and supersedes any other previously issued supplements related to the referenced topics.) Revise the Instructions to Bidders Section of the Project Manual as Follows: * * * Revise Paragraph B-22, Bid Protest, to read as follows: B-22 Bid Protest Any person who is affected adversely by the Board of Regents decision or intended decision shall file with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and State legal holidays, after receipt of the bidding documents if the protest is directed toward the bidding conditions or after the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision on contract award or bid rejection if the protest is directed toward contract award or bid rejection. Thereafter, a formal written protest by petition in compliance with Section 120.53(5), and Section 120.57, F.S., must be filed with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, within ten (10) days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Failure to file a timely notice of protest of [sic] failure to file a timely formal written protest petition shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. Any protest filed prior to receipt of the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision will be considered abandoned unless renewed within the time limit provided for protests. (Emphasis added.) Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5, provides in pertinent part: SUPPLEMENT TO PROJECT MANUAL ISSUED BY FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING PARAGRAPH B-26, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (February 1999 Revision) B-26 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - This supplement modifies paragraph B-26 by adding and clarifying bidding requirements and instructions. * * * PROTEST PROCEDURES: This paragraph supersedes the paragraph (No. B-22) under the general terms and conditions whereby the notice of intended protests or written formal protests including bonding requirements from bidders must be submitted to: Mr. Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, FL 32307. A bid tabulation with the recommended award(s) will be posted at the address indicated in Paragraph B-26, sub- paragraph 6 (Posting of Bid Tabulation). Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the award or intended award which is filed before the bid tabulation posting is null and void. To be considered, a notice of protest or formal written protest must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the specifications issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to any amendment issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added.) The instructions regarding the filing of bid protests in Supplement K supersede the instructions in Supplement J, which is dated February 13, 1996, and in the Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual, which are dated October 16, 1989. Summary The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is sufficient to establish that it timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings by hand-delivering the documents to Mr. Houston, at his office on the FAMU campus. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that FAMU acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in deciding that it was in the best interest of FAMU to reject all of the bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. First, FAMU's concerns that, by inadvertently including a technical specification that could be met by only one manufacturer, it had limited competition with respect to the chiller to be used in Project BR-389 and had inadvertently put out an illegal "sole source" specification were legitimate concerns. Mr. Houston instructed the engineer who prepared the technical specifications that he wanted the specifications drawn so that at least two manufacturers could provide the product, and the engineer prepared specifications relating to the "available manufacturers" which clearly contemplated that a chiller meeting the technical specifications could be provided by both York and Trane. FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered as one factor underlying the decision to reject all bids the lack of precedent in the State University System for waiving the requirement that the bid Proposal Form and Bid Bond carry the corporate seal of a corporate bidder. The evidence submitted by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the corporate seal issue was ultimately the only or even the major factor on which FAMU's decision to reject all bids was based. Mr. Houston identified the possibility that bid protests would be filed by York and by Bayou Mechanical as factors which FAMU considered in deciding to reject all bids. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as a whole permits the inference that the focus of the concern about the potential bid protests was not on avoiding the protests but on the validity of the issues raised by York and Bayou Mechanical. Accordingly, FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered these potential bid protests as one factor contributing to the decision to reject all bids. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish that the "Award of Contract" form executed by President Humphries on June 17, 1999, or Mr. Houston’s June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Ogletree bound FAMU to award the contract to Neel Mechanical or that the subsequent decision to reject all bids defeated the purpose of the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and denying Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1999.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1989 the District published its request for bids (number 8980) for an atomic absorption spetrophotometer in local newspapers and to prospective interested parties, as shown in joint Exhibit 1 in evidence. The specifications for the instrument were included in the bid package and were authored by Mark Rials, the District's Laboratory Supervisor. The District received two bids for the instrument in response to the request for bids, one from Varian for approximately $57,000 and one from Perkin-Elmer for approximately $59,900. Mark Rials evaluated the bids. Upon evaluation it was determined that the Varian instrument proposal did not meet bid specifications in three major areas. The specifications required a system capacity of 40 megabytes, hard drive capability. The capacity offered by Varian in its bid was for 20 megabytes. The specifications required a combination of a 5 1/4 inch disk drive for its computer system as well as a 3 1/2 inch disk drive. Varian only bid the 3 1/2 inch diskdrive. It did not offer the 5 1/4 inch disk drive which was required. Additionally, at item IX of the specifications, the District required that a list be submitted with the bid which stated, on an item-by-item basis, how the instrument met or exceeded the specifications. Each item in the specifications had been carefully selected to insure optimum performance for the laboratory so that exceptions to the specifications were required to be noted and attached in the bid response. Varian failed to conform to this item of the specifications. This item allowed a vendor to describe in its bid response how it could differently meet the specifications in a better manner or even exceed the specifications, but Varian failed to provide this itemized list. It was also determined that the Varian bid did not conform with the specifications of item IV page 4 of the invitation to bid document concerning the provision of service manuals, system and application software documentation, methods, manuals, parts catalogs, supplies, accessories, catalog, and training manuals. Conversely, it was determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was responsive in all respects, met the bid specification in these major categories and was the most responsive bidder. After witness Rials conducted the evaluation of the bids, in terms of compliance with the specifications, he and the District determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the lowest, responsive bidder which met all specifications. It duly published the intended award and notified all bidders of the bid results. In this evaluation and award process it was demonstrated that the District followed all applicable procedures in its rules and policies concerning evaluation and award. Varian timely filed an objection to the award of the bid; and in accordance with its normal bid protest procedures, the District scheduled a conference between representatives of Varian and District representatives to review Varian's bid. Varian made several statements at that meeting which constituted a substantial deviation from the bid package it had earlier submitted and amounted to an attempted restructuring of its bid in an effort to meet bid specifications. The District declined to countenance this effort and adhered to its initial intent to reject the bid which was submitted by Varian and to not allow the attempted material deviations to be ascribed to Varian's bid, after the point of bid opening and announcement of award. In summary, based upon the bid specifications issued by the District the evaluator's determination concerning the specifications that the evaluator drafted was that the Varian instrument failed to meet bid specifications because of the major deficiencies in the areas found above, regarding systems capacity, computer disk drive availability, and specification response. It has clearly been demonstrated by competent substantial evidence that the District's decision to reject Varian's bid was a reasonable one. It was based solely on a fair comparison of the response of the two bids to the specifications contained in the invitation to bid and notice to all potential vendors. In consideration of the facts established by the evidence in this record, it is found that the bid by Perkin-Elmer substantially met all bid requirements or specifications, even though the Perkin-Elmer bid was the second low bidder in terms of dollar cost. Since the low-cost bidder, Varian, failed to meet major bid specifications, the facts demonstrate that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the most responsive of the two bids at issue and is, therefore, the best bid. Consequently, award should be given to the Perkin-Elmer bid for the instrument in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order denying the petition filed by Varian Instrument Group and awarding bid number 8980 to Perkin-Elmer Corporation, as the lowest, responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9 are accepted. Petitioner Filed No Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Mickey McAllister District Sales Manager Varian Instrument Group 505 Julie Rivers Road, Suite 150 Sugar Land, TX 77478 A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, J. D. Pirrotta Company (JDP), is a general contracting company located in Orlando, Florida. JDP has bid on projects involving construction of schools or educational facilities, including projects for Valencia Community College. Respondent, District Board of Trustees of Valencia Community College, is the governing body of the community college, with the authority to award contracts. Valencia Community College (VCC), in Bid #90/91-06, advertised for sealed bids for interior remodeling and renovation of existing buildings' modules 3 and 5, on its west campus on South Kirkman Road, in Orlando, Florida. The sealed bids were due at or before 2:30 p.m., on December 13, 1990, in the purchasing department of VCC, 190 South Orlando Avenue, Suite 402B, Orlando, Florida 32801. The Invitation to Bid includes a voluminous project manual containing instructions to bidders, various forms, a standard contract text and detailed specifications. A separate bid packet contains the set of drawings for the construction work. The advertisement of the Invitation to Bid, and Section 00100 of the Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, paragraph 14A, reserve for the owner the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any and all "informalities". (Respondent's Exhibits #1 and #2) Section 00100, Instructions to Bidders, paragraph 18, provides: 18. SUBCONTRACTORS, ETC. The bidders at bid date shall submit to Owner a list of all subcontractors and other persons and organizations (including those who are to furnish the principal items of material and equipment) proposed for those portions of the work as to which such identification is so required. Such list shall be accompanied by an experience statement with pertinent information as to similar projects and other evidence of qualifications for each such subcontractor, person and organization if requested by Owner. If Owner, after due investigation has reasonable objection of any proposed subcontractor, other person or organization either may, before giving the Notice of Award, request the apparent successful bidder to submit an acceptable substitute without an increase in bid price. If the apparent successful bidder declines to make any such substitution, the contract shall not be awarded to such bidder, but his declining to make any such substitution will not constitute grounds for sacrificing his bid security. A subcontractor, other person or organization so listed and to whom Owner does not make written objection prior to the giving of the Notice of Award, will deemed acceptable to Owner. Should the subcontractors list be revised, for any reason, architect and Owner shall be immediately notified. (Respondent's Exhibit #2) Paragraph 9, Section 00300, the bid form, provides: The following documents are attached to and made a condition of the Bid: Required Bid Security in the form of a Bid Bond. A tabulation of subcontractors and other persons and organizations required to be identified in this Bid. Required Bidders Qualification Statement with supporting data. (Respondent's Exhibit #2) Section 00700, the Public Entity Crimes statement form, includes these instructions: Any person responding with an offer to this invitation must execute the enclosed Form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(3) (a), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES and enclose it with your bid. If you are submitting a bid on behalf of dealers or suppliers who will ship and receive payment from the resulting contract, it is your responsibility to see that copy/copies of the form are executed by them and are included with your bid. Failure to comply with this condition shall result in rejection of your bid. (Respondent's Exhibit #2) The Instructions to Bidders and the drawings include a total of ten deductive alternatives to be addressed in the bids, to afford VCC some flexibility in the event the base bid might be higher than the agency's available funds. In response to the advertisement and request for sealed bids, VCC received bids from the following seven contractors: Seacoast Constructors and Consultants; JDP; Southland Construction, Inc.; Harbco, Inc.; Technical Design Systems, Inc.; Hembree Construction, Inc.; and Waltree Construction, Inc. The bids were opened publicly and read aloud beginning shortly after the submittal deadline on December 13, 1990. Jack C. Crawford, Vice-President for Administrative Services, and Stephen Richard Childress, Purchasing Manager, participated in the bid opening on behalf of VCC. Seacoast Constructors was the lowest bidder, at $1,274,000.00, base bid; JDP was the second lowest bidder, at $1,297,000.00, base bid. None of the bidders submitted bids containing all of the requested or required information. None of the bidders included a deduct alternative requested by Drawing E-10, General Notes number 2. Only JDP included the deduct alternative requested by Drawing E-6, General Notes number 2. Seacoast Constructors and Consultants failed to include Form PUR 7068, Public Entity Crimes statement, with their bid, but it executed and submitted the form to VCC on December 13th, the date of the opening. Two of the bidders, JDP and Harbco, failed to submit subcontractor lists with their bids. At the time of hearing, JDP had still not submitted its list. For this project the low base bid is within VCC's available funds, and it does not intend to rely on any of the deduct alternatives in the bids. Following the bid opening, the bid tabulation form was posted on a bulletin board in the administration building. A copy of the tabulation form was also placed in a folder which includes recommendations on other bids and which is maintained at the desk of the security guard outside the room where the bids are opened. Inside the front cover of the folder, in the bottom left hand corner, is a small typewritten statement: Failure to file a protest within the time described in S. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of any other notice of section 120.53, F.S. remedies to bidders, including in the advertisement or in instructions to bidders. JDP filed a written bid protest in a letter dated December 13, 1990 and received on December 14, 1990. The letter clearly states that it is a formal protest, pursuant to Section 120.53(5), F.S. It argues that bids submitted by Seacoast Constructors and others were unresponsive and should be rejected for failure to include the Public Entity Crimes Statement, for failure to bid on a deduct alternative, and for other reasons (immaterial, because they apply to higher bidders). The protest letter requested award to JDP. JDP met with representatives of VCC to attempt to resolve the protest. At the meeting, Joseph Pirrotta was informed that his bid was considered nonresponsive because it failed to include a subcontractors' list. The meeting did not resolve the matter, and on December 19, 1990, Joseph Pirrotta sent a follow-up letter arguing that the text of the bid instructions only require a subcontractors' list for "...portions of the work as to which such identification is so required", and nowhere in the bid packet was any reference to which were required. JDP considered that the subcontractors' list was, therefore, unnecessary. The December 19th letter also reiterated JDP's request to reject the other bids and to award the contract to JDP. The December 13th and 19th letters are the only written protests by JDP. VCC has previously awarded contracts to bidders who failed to submit a Public Entity Crimes Statement with their bid. It considers such failure an "informality" subject to waiver. It considers failure to submit a list of subcontractors an economic advantage with respect to other bidders. Representatives of VCC have recommended to its board that the contract be awarded to Seacoast Constructors, the lowest bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That the District Board of Trustees of Valencia Community College enter its final order awarding the contract in Bid #90/91-06 to Seacoast Constructors and Consultant, and rejecting the protest of J.D. Pirrotta Company. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie King O'Neal, Esquire P.O. Drawer 1991 Orlando, FL 32802 Jeffrey S. Craigmile, Esquire Brian P. Kirwan, Esquire 390 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 2180 Orlando, FL 32801 Jack C. Crawford Vice President Administrative Services Valencia Community College P.O. Box 3028 Orlando, FL 32802
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified general contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license number CG C027718. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Classic Design Builders. William R. DeFreitas describes himself as a broker of building materials for third world countries. His wife is also employed in that same business. They had their office building constructed for them. When they subsequently determined to add an addition to their residence, they solicited bids from that contractor and from two other persons. Aaron Ware, who held himself out to be an architect and the president of a company known as L. A. Designs, Inc., was one of the persons from whom the DeFreitases solicited a bid. He submitted a bid dated April 26, 1990, and a draw schedule on May 3, 1990. The extent of the work to be performed was finalized on June 6, 1990, when Mr. DeFreitas initialed the changes to the initial bid. The construction project contemplated under that contract was the addition of a family room, a laundry room, a shower off the master bath, and a small bath at the front of the house. The June 6, 1990, contract also called for replacement of the garage door and "painting of some interior doors." The total contract price was $50,000. While Ware was negotiating with the DeFreitases, he was also discussing with Respondent entering into a joint venture agreement between Classic Design Builders and L.A. Designs for the DeFreitas construction project. Their verbal agreement was memorialized in a written agreement dated June 18, 1990. Thereafter, Respondent did not advise Petitioner that he had entered into a joint venture agreement and, similarly, did not qualify the joint venture as a separate business entity for licensure purposes. Pursuant to instructions from Ware, Mr. DeFreitas directed a letter to the City of Boca Raton advising the building department that he had entered into a contract to construct an addition to his residence with "L.A. Designs/ Classic Designs." On July 2, 1990, Respondent on behalf of Classic Design Builders obtained a building permit from the City of Boca Raton for the DeFreitas addition. On July 6, Ware began work on the addition. Ware worked on the project from July of 1990 through the end of that year. During the course of that construction, the DeFreitases made many changes in the scope of the work contemplated by the original contract, which increased the contract price to above $56,000. Additional work was performed, which was not covered by the contract and which the DeFreitases agreed to pay for directly to the supplier or subcontractor. On February 4, 1991, the DeFreitases directed a letter to Ware advising him that the construction was close to completion and that it was time for them to "settle our account" as to the extras for which the DeFreitases had not paid. In that letter, the DeFreitases also offered to produce the invoices for materials and labor that they had agreed to pay to finish the job. In July of 1991 the DeFreitases complained to the City of Boca Raton. Respondent, as the holder of the building permit, was contacted and advised that the DeFreitases were alleging that their contractor had failed to complete the project. Respondent immediately went to the DeFreitases' business, met with Mr. DeFreitas, inspected the home, and prepared a punch list of items to be completed, many of which were not covered by the construction contract but were done by Respondent in an attempt to achieve customer satisfaction. Respondent completed the project, obtained the final inspections, and presented the DeFreitases with a warranty and release of lien. The DeFreitases refused to accept the warranty or release of lien. As a result of the DeFreitases' complaints, Respondent and Ware were charged with violating local ordinances. In those prosecutions, as well as in this case, the DeFreitases have attempted to obtain $11,000 from Respondent as "restitution" for moneys they have had to spend or will have to spend to complete the work envisioned by their contract with L.A. Designs, Inc. Most of the items listed as components of the claim for restitution are not even part of the construction contract. Of those few items covered by the contract, the money claimed is not. For example, the contract allocated $500 to be expended on the bathroom cabinets. The DeFreitases spent $1,670 on the cabinets and, surprisingly, are claiming that Respondent should pay them the difference because they spent more than their contractual allowance. Finally, they have claimed the cost of replacing inferior building materials provided by them, such as wood French doors. The DeFreitases paid to Ware approximately $4,000 less than they had promised to pay him as a result of the work completed by L.A. Designs. Rather than suffering a loss, the DeFreitases have actually received a windfall. At no time material hereto was either Ware or L.A. Designs licensed in the state of Florida as a contractor, architect, professional engineer, or landscape architect. Respondent knew that Ware and L.A. Designs were not licensed. At the time that Classic Design Builders and L.A. Designs entered into their written joint venture agreement and at all other times material hereto, Respondent was not an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of L.A. Designs, and Ware was not an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of Classic Design Builders. When Ware approached Respondent about entering into a joint venture for the DeFreitas project, Respondent had already suffered a minor heart attack and two mini-strokes. The joint venture agreement itself recites Respondent's need to limit his activities due to health reasons. In July of 1990 Respondent additionally tore an Achilles tendon in his left leg and was in a cast until Christmas of 1990. Due to his immobility during that time period, Respondent delegated all of his construction jobs to others, understanding that he was ultimately responsible for those projects since he was the contractor of record on them. In the same way, he delegated to Ware the day-to-day responsibility for the DeFreitas project. Other than "pulling the permit" for the DeFreitas project, Respondent's only other involvement in the job until the time that he was contacted as a result of the DeFreitases' complaints to the City of Boca Raton in July of 1991, was right after the job was commenced regarding some problem concerning the lot line. He was able to resolve that problem with the City of Boca Raton by telephone. The DeFreitases did not know that Respondent was the contractor for their construction project and ultimately responsible for that work. Although Ware had advised them that a "buddy" would somehow be involved in the construction, and although Mr. DeFreitas referred to both L.A. Design and Classic Design Builders in his letter to the City of Boca Raton authorizing a building permit to be issued, the evidence is clear that had the DeFreitases known of Respondent's responsibility, they would have been insisting that he perform services months earlier. In 1987 Respondent was charged with abandoning a construction project and/or failing to timely complete it. Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation admitting that fact and agreeing to pay a fine to the Construction Industry Licensing Board in the amount of $1,000. A Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation was entered on June 8, 1988. Respondent received no money from the DeFreitases or from Ware for the work Respondent performed on the DeFreitas addition. Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses for labor and materials on the DeFreitas residence between July of 1991 and June of 1992 total $1,747.50.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and VII of the Administrative Complaint filed against him; Finding Respondent not guilty of Counts III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint filed against him; Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000; and Placing Respondent's license number CG C027718 on probation for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-10, 16-20, and 22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11-15, 21, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 23 has been rejected as being subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: John David Ashburn, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 3932 RCA Boulevard, Suite 3210 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Diane Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Peter Mineo, Jr., Esquire 8220 State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Copies furnished, continued Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Intervenor was properly qualified to complete the construction project contemplated by Invitation to Bid No. DCF-03211120 (ITB)
Findings Of Fact The Department issued the ITB for a construction project, involving the re-roofing of Buildings 1 and 2 at 12195 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida. The ITB was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 24, 2008. The ITB outlined the terms and conditions for responsive bids. The ITB indicated, among other things, that all sealed bids were required to be submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, by January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. Leo Development submitted its sealed bid at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. FBM submitted its sealed bid by the date and time, but at a different location—the offices of Russell Partnership— contrary to the ITB. All other bidders submitted their sealed bids at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. The Department’s architect of record on the project, Russell Partnership, and one of its principals, Terry Holt, performed the examination and bid tabulation. Mr. Holt, a registered architect for approximately 36 years, was very familiar with the procurement process and had extensive experience in determining whether a bidder was licensed by DBPR in order to complete the work contemplated for a project. The sealed bids submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, on or before January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. were as follows: All Time Roofing, with a bid of $73,400.00; Taylor Roofing, with a bid of $59,708.00; Leo Development, with a bid of $54,109.00; John W. Hunter Enterprises, with a bid of $75,000.00; and Trintec Construction, with a bid of $75,500.00. 9. FBM’s bid was $71,600.00. Mr. Holt determined that Leo Development was the lowest bidder. FBM’s bid was not considered as being non-responsive. Additionally, Mr. Holt reviewed Leo Development’s website to ascertain as to whether any factors existed to disqualify Leo Development. The website failed to reveal any basis for Mr. Holt to disqualify Leo Development. Having discovered no basis to disqualify Leo Development as the lowest bidder, Mr. Holt submitted the list of bidders, with their bids, to Bill Bridges, the Department’s senior architect and a registered architect for approximately 25 years. Mr. Bridges was the person responsible for oversight of the ITB process. As Leo Development was the lowest bidder, Mr. Bridges reviewed the website of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (Division of Corporations) in order to ensure that Leo Development was registered with the Division of Corporations. His review revealed that Leo Development was a fictitious name properly registered to Leo Premier Homes, LLC. Further, Mr. Bridges performed a license background check on Leo Development in order to ensure that Leo Development was licensed by DBPR. Mr. Bridges reviewed DBPR’s website, which revealed that Frank Anthony Leo was the owner of Leo Development and that the following licenses were issued by DBPR: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Development; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development. Mr. Bridges confirmed and was satisfied that Leo Development was properly licensed to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Mr. Bridges recommended that Leo Development be awarded the ITB as the lowest responsive bidder. FBM filed a written protest (Initial Protest) of “its exclusion from the bid tabulation.” The Department issued a Final Order Rejecting Bid Protest (Final Order) on February 19, 2009. The Final Order provided in pertinent part: FBM was determined non-responsive because the bid was not presented at the time and place specified in the ITB. . . FBM’s formal written protest alleges that FBM, on the date of the bid submission/bid opening, was misdirected as to the location of the bid opening. . . . FBM’s protest must be rejected because it does not state a claim that could entitle it to relief. . . In the context of a bid protest proceeding . . . the protest must adequately allege that the protestor could obtain the contract award or otherwise benefit should the protest be successful. . . Assuming all of FBM’s factual allegations are true and that those facts entitle FBM to have its bid considered, FBM would still be entitled to no relief. Had FBM’s bid been accepted, FBM would have been the third lowest of six bidders. FBM’s formal protest does not allege that the lowest and second lowest bids were deficient in any manner. FBM was not injured in fact, because it still would not have received the contract award. Accordingly, FBM’s formal written protest is REJECTED. No appeal was taken by FBM of the Department’s Final Order rejecting FBM’s Initial Protest. Among other findings, the Department’s Final Order on FBM’s Initial Protest found that, taking FBM’s allegations as true, FBM would have been the third lowest bidder. FBM would not have been the second lowest bidder. The parties agree that the holder of a certified building contractor’s license and a certified roofing contractor license would be permitted to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Subsequent to the opening of the sealed bids, Leo Premier Homes, LLC, registered the fictitious name of Leo Roofing & Construction with the Division of Corporations. After the registration with the Division of Corporations and after the Department’s Final Order, licenses were issued by DBPR. As to the licenses issued, the record of the instant case provides2: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Roofing & Construction; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction. The licenses reflect the same license numbers, as before, and only the fictitious name is different on each license to indicate Leo Roofing & Construction.3 The contract for the ITB was entered into between the Department and Leo Development. In these proceedings, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $1,311.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing FBM General Contracting Corporation’s Protest and awarding costs in the amount of $1,311.05 to the Department of Children and Family Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of August, 2009.
The Issue On May 12, 2004, did Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), act illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it cancelled the posting and noticed its intent to reject the bid of Rosiek Construction Co., Inc. (Rosiek), in relation to financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement, SR 682 (the Project)? § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Findings Of Fact The subject of this protest is financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement. Respondent and 12 other pre-qualified bidders received copies of the bid solicitation notice, plans and specifications for the Project at issue. Rosiek submitted a responsive bid for the Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on April 28, 2004. There were no other bidders. Rosiek is pre-qualified to bid and receive the contract for the Project and therefore is a responsible bidder. On May 12, 2004, DOT posted its notice of intent to reject all bids. Rosiek timely filed this bid protest on May 14, 2004, with DOT, along with the statutorily required bid protest bond. DOT's 2004 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction is applicable to this project. FACTS BASED UPON ROSIEK'S ADMISSIONS DOT had advertised its bid solicitation notice for Financial Project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on or about March 4, 2004. Rosiek received the copy of the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project. Rosiek did not file a specifications challenge with respect to the referenced Project. DOT advertised the amount of $37,087,000.00 as its budgeted amount for the Project. Rosiek submitted a total bid of $50,470,378.12 for the Project (total bid A+B). ADDITIONAL FACTS Juanita Moore is a manager of the DOT Contracts Administration Office. She served as a member of the Technical Review Committee and the Awards Committee in relation to the Project. When the Technical Review Committee is confronted with a bid, such as the Rosiek bid, which is from a single bidder, something is missing from the bid or for certain differentials in price between the bid received and the official cost estimate, the Technical Review Committee considers these to be "problem jobs." In connection with terminology, Ms. Moore explained that the budget figure, referred to in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project as a Proposal Budget Estimate, is derived from an earlier estimate in the process and in turn an official cost estimate was established for the Project. The official cost estimate is also referred to simply as the estimate. The official cost estimate has not been disclosed as has been explained in the Preliminary Statement to the Recommended Order. The official cost estimate here is broken down into component items within the Project pertaining to cost for Mobilization, Concrete Class IV, Concrete Class V, etc. After the Technical Review Committee considered the Rosiek bid, the bid was passed on to the Awards Committee where it was decided to reject the bid. According to Ms. Moore the bid was rejected as too high when compared to the official cost estimate. The reference to a bid being too high relates to a bid which is more than 10 percent in excess of the official cost estimate. The budget figure and the official cost estimate are not necessarily the same in a given instance. The fact that it was the only bid was also a factor considered in the rejection. As Ms. Moore explained, at the time the Rosiek bid was rejected, it was principally because it was too high in relation to the official cost estimate. Given the posture in this case, the rejection as the only bid will form the basis for resolving this dispute, absent DOT's willingness to divulge the amount of the official cost estimate or how it was established. DOT does not have an established policy for rejecting bids based upon the fact that only a single bidder responded to the solicitation. In her experience, Ms. Moore does not remember DOT rejecting a bid solely on the ground that there was only one bidder. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting held on May 12, 2004, detail the response by that committee to the Rosiek bid. In the copy of that document provided for this proceeding, DOT's official cost estimate is redacted. The percentage differential between the official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is likewise redacted. The item number 0101-1 for Mobilization reflects Rosiek's bid of $4,900,000.00 compared to the official cost estimate which is redacted. Similarly, Item No. 0400-4-4, Concrete Class IV refers to the contractor bid price of $800.00 per cubic yard compared with the official cost estimate which is redacted. There are other comparisons between several additional categories or items in which the contractors bid price is reflected but the official cost estimate in comparison is redacted. The minutes go on to describe how the review being made by the Awards Committee led to the conclusion that the official cost estimate could be adjusted, placing the bid received by Rosiek a certain percentage above the estimate on a 10 percent criteria job but the differential between the adjusted official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is not revealed as a percentage because of redaction. The DOT district where the project would be located is District 7, the Tampa office. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting indicate that the district and the Technical Review Committee recommended to the Awards Committee that it reject the Rosiek bid and re-advertise. That was the decision made by the Awards Committee on May 12, 2004, to re-let in June. Nothing in the minutes prepared by the Awards Committee refers to the significance of Rosiek as the only bidder and any concern which the Awards Committee had about that fact. On May 12, 2004, when DOT provided a Cancellation of Posting and a Notice of Intent to Reject to Rosiek, it did not state the rationale for that decision. It merely indicated to Rosiek that it was DOT's intent to reject all bids on the project and advised Rosiek of its opportunity to contest that decision. On May 5, 2004, Kenneth A. Hartmann, P.E., the District 7 Secretary, prepared the District Response to Post- Bid Evaluation of Bids in Excess of Approved Award Criteria. The document is presented in question-and-answer form. In response to the question numbered 4 within the document, related to the prospect of critical safety deficiencies in the existing system being corrected by the construction of a new bridge, Mr. Hartmann responded with the answer "No." In relation to question numbered 2, excluding normal inflation, the question was asked whether re-advertising the project would likely result in a higher bid. Mr. Hartman answered "No." In response to question numbered 16, related to his recommendation as the district secretary, for action that should be taken by the Awards Committee he stated "This project should be rejected and re-advertised for a June 2004 1st [sic]. Considering that the project is medium to large and was competing against two other large bridge projects on the same day it is understandable that the contractor's bid was higher than our estimate." In response to question numbered 15 concerning the work load level of the contracting industry in the locality where the project would be constructed, Mr. Hartmann referred to "a high level of work load." At hearing Donald Skelton, P.E., the District 7 Secretary testified in support of the rejection of the Rosiek bid. In the past he had served as Director of Transportation Development with DOT, a position that made him responsible for preparation of the design plans and contract packages that are bid. He had involvement with this Project pertaining to the preparation of design plans and getting the Project to contract letting. He reviewed the Rosiek bid. In discussions related to the Rosiek bid during the post-bid evaluation period, there was a concern over a lack of competition and the differential between, what Mr. Skelton refers to, as the budget amount and the bid amount by Rosiek. Mr. Skelton was mindful of potential safety issues that might warrant the prospect of trying to find additional money to fund the Project, if it was necessary to replace the existing bridge for safety reasons. If the bridge were structurally deficient or in bad shape, that would need to be addressed, versus the additional time necessary to potentially rebid the project. No safety issues of that sort were found by Mr. Skelton. Mr. Skelton explained that the fact that there was single bidder made it difficult, if not impossible, to make a comparison between that bid and what the true market value of the bridge construction would be. Mr. Skelton expressed the hope by the DOT, that there would be more than one bidder in the future to truly get an impression of the degree of competition and whether the competition would result in a realistic price for the public. He recognized that there is no guarantee that DOT is going to get a lower bid if the project is re-bid. Mr. Skelton indicated that when you have multiple bids you can compare what the economic system would support in relation to the affordability of the project. That comparison is of similarity in prices among the competitors trying to win the job, with the belief that bidders put their best effort forward to prevail in the competition. A single bid does not give any indication of market factors, in his view. Michael Rosiek is the vice-president for Rosiek. In his testimony, he expressed a concern that if the project was re-let for bid, Rosiek's competitive position would not be good, in that the other contractors would have read the Rosiek bid that was made in the first letting, informing the competitors of the Rosiek price to its detriment. Further, Mr. Rosiek expressed a concern that in a re-letting the company would be bidding "against ourselves." Louis Wenick, P.E., has a business consulting service. The nature of the business is consulting work relating to the construction industry. A considerable part of the business involves DOT projects. In his work Mr. Wenick is involved with scheduling, cost analysis, and entitlement analysis in DOT projects. He is familiar with DOT's specifications, policies, and procedures. Mr. Wenick is a registered engineer in Florida and a certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Wenick obtained information from DOT concerning its history in receiving sole bids for a project and the instances in which the sole bidder was awarded the contract. Mr. Wenick looked at procedures followed by DOT in awarding contracts. Mr. Wenick looked at the DOT experience in re- letting bids to determine if a company was a low bidder in the first letting when bids were rejected, and what percentage of the time that low bidder would succeed in being awarded the contract upon a re-letting. Mr. Wenick prepared certain charts intended to depict the DOT response in the areas examined by the witness. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 3 is referred to as Problem Jobs for the April 28, 2004, letting, with two posting dates of May 20, 2004, and June 7, 2004, respectively. The chart depicts the proposal I.D. number (bid), the project number and the type of problem identified in reviewing bid responses and a brief statement of the Technical Committee's comments and the Awards Committee's disposition in those projects depicted. Nothing more is described in the chart. In no case set forth in the chart was the type of problem described in any detail or, limited to an experience with a single bidder, as opposed to perceived problems in relation to the bid that was too high, as well as having a single bidder or to the problem of having a bid that was too high alone. Seven projects were awarded. Two were not. The rejections were based upon the bids being too high. One of the projects initially awarded was later rejected due to the unavailability of local funding to support the project. Mr. Wenick prepared a chart, Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 4. This reflects the DOT award results for sole or single bidders from the period July 1999 through April 2005. The columns in the chart show the numeric count of sole bids, at certain letting dates, with the contracts numbers, the name of the low bidder, and the disposition of the bids. The numeric count of sole bids is a running tally over the period. This reflects 52 sole bids of which eight were rejected, making the percentage accepted 84.62 percent. Again the nature of the projects is not shown in the chart, and this chart does not indicate the basis for rejection. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 5 is another chart prepared by Mr. Wenick. It reflects instances in which projects were re-let for bid in the period July 1999 to April 2005. The letting dates are reflected. The project numbers, the low bidders names, if known, and the amount quoted is set out. The re-let date if the project was re-let is reflected. The low quote on re-bid and the low bidder's name on re-bid are reflected, as is the percentage difference between the low quote in the first letting and the low quote in the re- letting. Where data is established in all columns in the chart, 18 of the projects are shown to have been re-bid out of 24 projects that were bid initially. Within that group, five bidders who bid in the initial letting were awarded the contract in the re-letting, while 13 low bidders in the first letting were disappointed in the re-letting. This equates to 27.78 percent success rate by the low bidder in the initial letting when re-bidding in the re-letting. Having considered the exhibits prepared by Mr. Wenick, the information is insufficient to discern the reason for DOT's past policies and practices and to compare them to the present case for consistencies in the application of those policies and practices when rejecting bids. Additionally, the reason for the choices in any single project described in the charts cannot be appropriately understood from the charts and compared to the experience here. On the topic of the success rate for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting and the low bid in the re-letting, it is so general an analysis, that it cannot be relied upon to determine the real significance for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting, only to be disappointed in the re-letting when the contractor did not receive the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Rosiek Amended Formal Written Protest challenging the DOT decision to reject its bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Gilbert’s bid proposal was responsive to the Department of Transportation’s bid proposal, and whether the Department of Transportation (Department) erred in accepting the bid of Gilbert. State alleged that Gilbert failed to comply with the DBE bid information submittal requirements of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, in filing the DBE forms for the project.
Findings Of Fact State and Gilbert, among other prequalified bidders, submitted timely bids for State Project No. 86075-3423/03175- 3426, which involves the replacement of toll plazas on State Road 93 (also known as Alligator Alley) in Collier and Broward Counties. The project has been referred to in this proceeding as “the Alligator Alley project.” (Agreed Facts) The Department has adopted Rule Chapter 14-78, F.A.C., to govern utilization of DBE’s on state and federally funded construction projects. The specifications for the Alligator Alley project also include Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, which incorporate many of the requirements of Rule 14-78.003, Florida Administrative Code. Consistent with Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, and the Special Provisions, the Department assigned Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals to the Alligator Alley project requiring bidders to subcontract 4% of the work to black DBE’s and 8% of the work to non-minority women DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) State and Gilbert submitted their sealed bid packages to the Department before the advertised deadline for bids, 10:30 a.m. on August 28, 1996. A Department review of the amounts bid showed that Gilbert was the apparent low bidder, submitting a bid totaling $9,153,215.07, while State was the apparent second-low bidder, submitted a bid totaling $9,566,051.25. (Agreed Facts) Consistent with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, and the bid specifications, bidders were permitted to submit DBE Utilization Summary Forms and DBE Utilization Forms within 72 hours after submittal of their bid packages. State and Gilbert timely submitted DBE Utilization Summary Forms, showing the total amount committed to be subcontracted to DBE’s in order to meet each of the DBE goals set for the contract. The two companies also timely submitted DBE Utilization Forms that purported to commit each bidder to subcontract with DBE’s in amounts that totaled those shown in the DBE Utilization Summary Forms. (Agreed Facts) Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Summary Form stated that Gilbert would subcontract $369,000 (or 4% of its total bid) to black DBE’s and $734,600 (or 8% of its total bid) to non-minority women DBE’s. State’s DBE Utilization Summary Form stated that State would subcontract $400,000 (or 4% of its total bid) to black DBE’s and $800,000 (or 8% of its total bid) to non-minority women DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) The Special Provisions of the bid specifications that address the DBE Forms provide as follows: The contractor’s submission shall include the following information (submitted on Form Nos. 275-020-003 Utilization Summary and 275-020- 004 Utilization Form): The names, addresses of certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs certified by the Department at the time of the bid may be counted toward DBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm. If the DBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. (Agreed Facts) [Emphasis Supplied] Gilbert submitted DBE Utilization Forms for each of its DBEs stating the DBE’s name, address, telephone number, the signature of the DBE or authorized individual. Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Alco Trucking, a firm owned by a Black male, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $369,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) Various Hauling, aggregates, fill, on site trucking Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Swiftline Trucking, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $82,200, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) Various Hauling, aggregates, fill, on site trucking Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Jayalden Enterprises, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $264,000, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 735-74-A Toll Plaza (Partial) 735-74-B Toll Plaza (Partial) Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Precision Contracting, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $305,000, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 544-75-5 Impact Attenuator Vehicular (Partial) 102-1-A MOT (Partial) On each DBE form, Gilbert filled in the line for an “amount to be paid to DBE Subcontractor” and the total committed “toward the DBE goal,” but did not fill in the line for “Amount to be paid to DBE Supplier.” (Agreed Facts) State submitted DBE Utilization Forms for each of its DBEs stating the DBE’s name, address, telephone number, the signature of the DBE or authorized individual. State submitted a DBE form for Metro Engineering Constractors, Inc., a Black owned business, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $400,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 120-6 Embankment and 285-701 Limerock Base and Haul & Supply Materials 285-709 Limerock Base and Earthwork State submitted a DBE form for Freedom Pipeline Corporation, a non-minority female owned business, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $800,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 121-70 Flowable Fill 400-1-2 Class I Concrete Endwalls through Storm Drainage 514-71-3 Plastic Filter Baric (Riprap) and 1513120-118 Pipe Ductile Iron Pusyh on Joint 8” and 415-1-3 Reinforcing Steel Retaining Walls Retaining Walls and 635-1-11 Pull & Junction Boxes through Sewer & Water 1648100-7 Misc Water Fixt Blow Off Assy 285-701 Limerock Base and Haul & Supply Materials 285-709 Limerock Base and Earthwork State indicated on its DBE forms that both contractors were suppliers of materials and indicated that the total amount of the contract in both cases was to go to the DBE contractor. The Department’s Minority Programs Office is responsible for the implementation of the Department’s DBE program and reviews the DBE Utilization Forms submitted with bids. Kenneth Sweet, who is employed in the Minority Programs Office, had responsibility for reviewing Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms and determined that they complied with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, and the Special Provisions of the bid specifications addressing DBE’s. The Department did not contact Gilbert or any of the DBE’s listed on Gilbert’s forms to confirm or obtain clarification of the information stated thereon. (Agreed Facts) The Department posted the bid tabulations for the Alligator Alley project, showing an award to Gilbert as the lowest responsive bidder. State filed its Notice of Protest with the Department’s Clerk of Agency Proceedings on September 23, 1996, 1996, and filed its Formal Protest on October 2, 1996. After this matter was referred to the Division, Gilbert filed its Petition to Intervene on October 22, 1996, which was granted on October 25, 1996. (Agreed Facts) It was stipulated that all of the DBE’s reflected in the DBE Utilization Forms submitted by Gilbert and State were certified DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms were submitted to the Minority Programs Office within 72 hours after the project letting and the forms were signed by DBE representatives. The Department is dependent upon the accuracy of the information provided by the bidders to assess DBE participation. Gilbert and one of its DBE’s did not have the identical understanding of the exact scope of the work to be performed by the DBE which might impact how much of the value of the contract would be credited for DBE participation; however, there is no evidence of collusion or fraud in any of the quotes. The Department credits 60% of the value of a contract when the DBE contractor is a supplier of materials, and 100% of the value of the contract when the DBE Contractor furnishes and installs the materials designated as furnish and install items in the specifications. The toll booths and attenuators were not furnish and install items. Gilbert included 100% of the value of the contracts with Alco, Swiftline, Precision and Jayalden as DBE participation. The Department accepted Gilbert’s representations as presented in its DBE forms without questioning what services were being performed or provided by these DBE Contractors. Ken Sweet of the Department’s DBE programs office testified. The Department's justification for not examining the DBE proposals more closely was that the Department requires the prime contractor to adhere to the amount of the DBE work as presented in the forms. While this may be sufficient to maintain the integrity of the DBE program, it is insufficient review to insure that the contractor has complied with the rules for crediting DBE participation and to insure the competitiveness of the bid process. Although Gilbert asserted at hearing that its subcontractors, Swiftline and Alco, would be supplying and placing the materials, it did not so state in its forms. The forms for Alco and Swiftline said, "hauling, aggregates, fill, and on site trucking." There was no basis for the Department to conclude that the contractors were supplying and placing the materials. Further, there was no evidence that Alco and Swiftline were "regular dealers" in fill or aggregates, or identification of their sources of aggregate and fill. Gilbert indicated no item numbers with regard to Alco and Swiftline. If item numbers had been provided, the status of the work as furnish and install items could have been determined. Only two verb forms were used in the "Description of Work" portion of form: “hauling” and “trucking”. Petitioner showed that the value of the contract exceeded the reasonable value of the trucking and hauling to be done on the project. At hearing, Gilbert asserted that Swiftline and Alco were suppliers. This evidence may not be considered. The Department should have limited Gilbert's DBE credit to the value of the hauling and trucking. This was the only work described in the DBE utilization forms. Although the value of the trucking and hauling alone was not proven, it obviously was less than the full contract amount. Gilbert had stated the DBE participation amounts at the minimum required amount. Any reduction of amount creditable to a Black minority contractor would have placed Gilbert below the four percent goal stated in the specifications. The Department credited Gilbert with 100% of the value of the contract with Jayalden towards DBE participation. The DBE Utilization Form for Jayalden does not indicate Jayalden is a supplier or regular dealer. The form does not state Jayalden would install the toll booths. A contractor may obtain 100 percent credit for DBE participation for materials provided by a DBE manufacturer, a DBE regular dealer or a DBE who furnishes and installs items designated furnish and install items in the specifications. The Department knew there were only two approved manufacturers of toll booths. Jayalden was not one of the manufacturers. Neither of the manufacturers were DBE certified. Gilbert's DBE forms did not identify Jayalden as a "regular dealer," and the toll booths were not designated furnish and install items in the specifications The Department must approve additional items as furnish and install items if not designated in the specifications. The Department did not add the toll booths as furnish and install items. The evidence shows that the manufacturer offered to provide the toll booths and install the toll booths for $75,000 each. Jayalden agreed to acquire, ship and install the booths for $76,000 each. A question arises regarding the commercially useful function Jayalden was performing if the manufacturer would furnish and install the nine booths for $75,000 each. In response to the question regarding the commercially useful function Jayalden performed, evidence was presented that Jayalden assumed responsibility for this acquisition and installation of the booths and Jayalden relieved the contractor of "managing" that part of the project. The rules required the Department's approval of the commission or fee paid for management services of this type. The rules do not permit credit for DBE participation of the value of the toll booths. This would reduce the credit for minority non- Black participation by Jayalden from $684,000 to $9,000, less than the required non-Black minority DBE participation. The evidence regarding Precision established Precision was a regular dealer in traffic control devices, and contracted to supply, service and install these devices on the project. The DBE Utilization Form for Precision indicates the Item No. and indicates "Impact Attentuator Vehicular (Partial)" and "MOT (Partial)". Precision's form provided sufficient data to justify being given 100% credit. Gilbert's other DBE forms did not present any special condition warranting increasing DBE credit. The DBE Utilization Forms as submitted by Gilbert failed to mention or identify any special conditions or circumstances affecting the amount of credit Gilbert received for DBE participation. The facts submitted at hearing reveal that at least one special condition or circumstance was applicable to each subcontractor in order to justify crediting Gilbert with 100% of the value of the contract with the DBE toward DBE participation. With exception of Precision, the information was provided only after the bid opening and improperly supplemented the original proposal. The Department had previously approved DBE Utilization Forms providing the same type of information as contained on Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms. Had the Department reviewed the proposals as required, Gilbert would have been determined not to have met the DBE specifications. Gilbert did not justify its failure to meet the DBE participation because it facially had met the DBE criteria under the Department's existing policies. In contrast, the DBE form submitted by State for Metro indicates the items numbers involved, and that Metro will “Haul & supply materials and earthwork.” Similarly, the work to be performed by Freedom Pipeline was clearly identified and sufficient information provided to advise the Department of any special conditions affecting the credit to be awarded for DBE participation. One can readily ascertain that the subcontractor is a hauler, supplier and installer of the limestone, and that the contractor should receive 100% credit for minority participation of the contract's value. State was able to meet the DBE participation specification.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its Final Order finding that Gilbert was non-responsive; however, because Gilbert followed the existing policies of the Department which were erroneous, it is recommended that the Department reject all bids and republish the invitation to bid to afford interested contractors an opportunity to file new proposals. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 3rd day of February, 1997.
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Department of Transportation (D0T) advertised for bids on State Project Number 97879-3336 in July of 1986. The project involves new roadway construction with specified materials, drainage installation, curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to the Orange Bowl in Dade County. The D0T set a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) participation goal for this project of fifteen percent. In order to comply with this goal, a bidder must state its intention to subcontract with a D0T certified DBE an amount of work equal to or greater than fifteen percent of the total dollar value of its bid. The D0T opened the nine bids received for this project on July 30, 1986. The intervenor Capeletti Brothers, Inc. (Capeletti), submitted the apparent low bid in the amount of $2,044,000.18, and the petitioner Russell, Inc. (Russell), submitted the apparent second low bid of $2,047,503.00 The remaining bids ranged between $2,124,527.32 and $2,851,657.26. Bidders indicate compliance with the minority participation goals established for a project through the submittal of "DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1," which is submitted with the bid. In this case, Capeletti provided information on Form No. 1 that it would subcontract with Ivory Modernized Services to do "trucking" and "aggregates" at a dollar amount of $307,622.00, or 15.05 percent of the total contract amount. Russell indicated on Form No. 1 that it would subcontract with Community Asphalt Corporation to do "asphalt paving" at a dollar amount of $352,151.00, or 17 percent of the total contract amount. During the bid letting process, it is the practice of the DOT to conduct a facial review of the "DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1" submitted with the bid to determine whether the named subcontractor is a certified DBE or WBE and whether the participation goal set for that project has been met. Prior to awarding the contract, the DOT does not make a separate investigation to determine whether a listed DBE subcontractor is actually capable of performing the work for which the bidder has indicated. Any such investigation is made at or after the time a contractor actually submits to the DOT a request for authorization to sublet, which occurs after the DOT has awarded the contract to the bidder. The DOT considers the successful bidder to be bound to pay a DBE at least the amount listed on Form No. 1 submitted with its bid. If, for some reason, the DBE listed cannot perform the work for which it has subcontracted to perform, the DOT will require the prime contractor to either pay that amount to the listed DBE or subcontract with another DBE for that work. Ivory Modernized Services, Inc. (Ivory), is a DOT certified DBE. In its application to the DOT for certification, it listed "trucking (hauling of aggregates)" as the nature of its business. The DOT requests such information on the application because it publishes a directory of certified DBEs for the use of bidders on state contracts. Prior to submitting its bid, Capeletti and Ivory agreed that if Capeletti were the successful low bidder on this project, Ivory would furnish and deliver aggregates to the job site. It was agreed that the responsibility for obtaining and delivering the aggregates to the project site would rest with Ivory. The sum of $307,622.00 was derived by estimating the quantities of the various types of aggregates needed for the project, the material cost per ton, the hauling cost per ton and the amount and charge for on-site hauling. In the past, Capeletti has directly purchased rock from mining pits in the area. While Capeletti has never before purchased fill from Ivory, Ivory has performed one D0T job where it was responsible for both the buying and hauling of aggregates. Ivory does not own any fill land, pits or fill material, does not do any active pit excavation and does not plan to stockpile aggregate materials for this project. Ivory intends to negotiate with the rock pit owner for the required amounts, types and purchase prices of the aggregates needed, pick up those aggregates from the pits and transport them to the job site. The precise methods of payment for the aggregates has not yet been determined. In order to avoid any potential markups in the price of limerock and aggregates, Russell deals directly with the rock pits in purchasing its materials. Truckers are hired separately to deliver the materials to the job site, and they do not purchase the fill. In its bid, Russell did not list a DBE trucker or hauler because the fifteen percent participation goal could not be reached with amounts expended for trucking alone. It has been the past practice and policy of the DOT to allow all material costs to be included in meeting the DBE participation goal where the DBE subcontractor assumed the actual and contractual responsibility for the provision of the materials and supplies. For example, where a DBE grasser or concrete finisher also assumes responsibility for purchasing and obtaining the sod or concrete and responsibility for supplying those materials to the project site, the costs of the sod or concrete are included in meeting the DBE participation goal. The prime purpose of limiting payments which can be included in the case of "suppliers" who perform some commercially useful function is to prevent mere brokerage or pass-through services as qualifying for full participation in meeting DBE goals. "Commercially useful functions" performed by a "supplier" can include the stockpiling and transporting of materials.
Findings Of Fact On December 24, 1986, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified and interested contracting firms that it was accepting bids from firms interested in providing construction and maintenance services on State Job No. 08150-3412. Such bids were due on or before January 21, 1987. The job description read as follows: At State Bridge Nos. 080025 and 000026 over the Withlacoochee River North of Tampa. Work consists of Furnish and Install Integral Pile Jackets (port. cement grout filled); Remove and Replace Sections of Bridge Deck; Floating Turbidity Barrier; and Incidental Items. Length 0.066 Mile. (B.I. 1144013) Stated in plainer language, the project called for repairs to two bridges on I-75 which span the Withlacoochee River southwest of Ocala in Hernando County. The bidders were also provided with a copy of the specifications and bid form dated November 4, 1986 regarding the contract. In response to this offer, petitioner, CSA Marine Services, Inc. (CSAMS), a contractor with offices at 759 Parkway Street, Jupiter, Florida, filed a bid proposal by the established deadline. Its bid totalled $123,347.59. Also filing a bid proposal was Seig and Ambachtsheer, Inc. (SAI), a contractor in Orange City, Florida. Its bid price was $137,209.50. The bid form itself was prepared by DOT and merely required the contractor to fill in the blanks where appropriate. The first two columns were labeled "item number" and "approximate quantities" and were already completed by DOT. For those items having a quantity of only one, the words "lump sum were written in the second column. Where quantities exceeded one, they were expressed in such terms as linear feet, cubic yards and pounds together with the approximate numerical quantities. The third column was labeled "item description and unit or lump price (written in words)." The fourth column read "unit price (in figures)" and required the bidder to indicate the unit price of each line item in figures. The fifth or final column was labeled "amounts" and required the bidder to reflect the lump sum price of each line item in figures. Columns three through five were filled in by CSAMS where necessary. The total price of the bid was to be listed on a bid blank which was attached to the bid form. On its face, the third column on the form offered petitioner the option of either using a unit or lump sum price. In addition, section 2-5.1 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1986 Edition, which governs the awarding of contracts and has been incorporated as a part of the bid documents, provides as follows: Proposals shall be submitted on the form described in 2-2. Unit or lump sum prices for all bid items shall be shown in words and figures, and all extensions shall be carried out. Notwithstanding the form and instructions, according to a DOT representative, a lump sum price may be used only when the quantity in column two is one item. If more than one item is reflected in column two, then DOT expects a contractor to use the unit price. However, there is no written rule, instruction or provision in the specifications that sets forth this requirement. CSAMS properly opted to use lump sum price under column three on at least two line items even though the quantities exceeded one. Of particular interest was line item 8400-3-4 which, according to column two, required 20.800 cubic yards of concrete for a "superstructure." Relying upon the optional language on the form, petitioner wrote the words seven thousand, one hundred, fifty five dollars and 00/100 cents" in column three (which was a lump sum price), and a unit price of $344.00 in column four. It then used the figure of $7,155 in the final column of that item, which is the approximate sum of $344 times the quantity (20.800). Because of the volume of bid lettings each month, DOT uses a computer to total the numbers in each line item for each bid. If the amount in column five does not agree with the figures in columns three and four, the computer flags the item, and a manual review of the line item is made. While reviewing line item 8400-3-4 of petitioner's bid form, the computer found the numbers did not agree. More specifically, when 20.800 in column two was multiplied times $344.00 in column four, it equalled $7,155.20 and not $7,155.00 as reflected in column five of petitioner's bid form. This twenty-cent disagreement arose because petitioner had rounded off the unit price from $343.99038 to $344.00 in column four. The disagreement prompted a manual review of petitioner's bid form and a recalculation of the line item. On January 30, 1987 DOT bureau chief J. Ted Barefield prepared a letter to CSAMS styled "Notice of Switch in Apparent Low Bidder" indicating in part: Due to mathematical error(s) on the bid of CSA Marine Services, Inc. and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., the apparent low bidder, whose bid amount was $123,347.59 is now $265,016.59. Therefore, the apparent low bidder is Seig & Ambachtsheer, Inc. The change in amount was the result of DOT increasing the unit price in column four from $344 to $7,155 (to agree with column three) and multiplying the quantity (20.800) times the sum specified in words in column three ($7,155) to arrive at a total in column five of $148,824. This caused an increase of $141,669 over the original bid price. In making the above change, DOT relied on Section 3-1 of the 1986 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Section 3-1 provides in relevant part as follows: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price for any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, in which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. (Emphasis added) Here, because of the twenty-cent discrepancy in the entries for line item 8400-3-4, DOT used the "unit price as shown in words" in column three to recalculate the item since the extension ($7,155.00) and the unit price shown in figures ($344.00)" did not agree. In doing so, DOT did not first evaluate the price written in words to see if it was a lump sum or unit price. After receiving the above letter, CSAMS and DOT representatives met in early February 1987 to discuss the CSAMS proposal. It was represented to CSAMS that it should have used a unit price in words in column three rather than a lump sum price. Petitioner was also provided with a copy of a letter previously sent to it on September 6, 1985 by DOT which noted the following irregularity on a bid: "Unit prices as written in words and figures do not agree (Item 8457- 70)." However, the letter did not contain explicit advice as to DOT's unwritten policy. On February 5, 1987 Barefield wrote a second letter to CSAMS indicating that there were several discrepancies in its bid proposal. These included: (a) the name on the cover sheet (CSAMS and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc.) did not agree with the name (CSAMS) in other parts of the bid, (b) unit prices as written in words and figures did not agree, (c) an incomplete affidavit was filed, and (d) an incorrect MBE Certification and incomplete Utilization Sheets were submitted. The latter two errors were related to the discrepancy in the names. However, the letter stated that "no further action is requested by you at this time," and that the letter was to serve as a reminder that in the future the irregularities could cause petitioner's bid to be rejected. Petitioner's bid was accepted as being appropriate but with the substantially higher bid price of $265,016.59. The error made by CSAMS is a common one. Indeed, it was stated the same mistake is made by contractors on "several bids during each letting." Even so, DOT has not considered providing some special instruction or rule to clarify this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner be awarded the contract on State Job No. 08150- 3412. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of April, 1987.
