The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Transportation’s intended decision to conduct negotiations with Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., under ITN-DOT-13/14-8001-SM is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The ITN The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with planning, acquiring, leasing, constructing, maintaining, and operating toll facilities and cooperating with and assisting local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system. § 334.044(16)-(22), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill these duties. See §§ 20.23(6) and 334.044(7), Fla. Stat. FTE is a legislatively created arm of the Department and is authorized to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate, and manage the Florida Turnpike System. § 338.2216(1)(b), Fla. Stat. FTE is also authorized to cooperate, coordinate, partner, and contract with other entities, public and private, to accomplish these purposes. Id. The Department has the express power to employ the procurement methods available to the Department of Management Services under chapter 287, Florida Statutes.2/ § 338.2216(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of Transp., Case No. 06-1541BID (Fla. DOAH July 20, 2006; Fla. DOT Aug. 21, 2006). OOCEA (now known as the Central Florida Expressway Authority), MDX, and THEA are legislatively created or authorized agencies of the State with the power to fix, alter, charge, establish, and collect tolls, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges for the services and facilities system. §§ 348.0003(1)- .0004(2)(e), Fla. Stat. Each of these authorities has the power to enter contracts and to execute all instruments necessary or convenient for the carrying on of its business; to enter contracts, leases, or other transactions with any state agency or any other public body of the State; and to do all acts and things necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business and the general welfare of the authority in order to carry out the powers granted to it by law. § 348.0004(2)(g), (h), (k), Fla. Stat. On November 1, 2013, the Department advertised the ITN, soliciting proposals from vendors interested in participating in competitive negotiations for the award of a contract to provide a CCSS and associated operations and maintenance. The ITN was issued pursuant to section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the ITN is to replace the existing customer service center systems of FTE, OOCEA, THEA, and MDX with a CCSS that can be expanded over time to include other tolling and transit agencies in the State of Florida. The CCSS is expected to process nearly all electronic toll transactions in Florida. The successful vendor will enter a contract directly with the Department. The Department will then enter agreements with the other authorities to address coordinated and joint use of the system. Generally, the ITN sets forth a selection process consisting of two parts. Part one involves: (a) the pre- qualification, or shortlisting, of vendors in order to determine a vendor’s eligibility to submit proposals; and (b) the proposal submission, evaluation, and ranking. Part two is the negotiation phase. The instant proceeding relates only to part one. Part two -- negotiations -- has yet to occur. The TRT and Selection Committee – The Evaluators Cubic alleges that “not all of the members of either [the Technical Review or Selection Committee] teams had the requisite experience or knowledge required by section 287.057(16)(a)1., Florida Statutes.” Accenture alleges that “the Selection Committee did not collectively have expertise in all of the subject areas covered by th[e] ITN.” Section 287.057(16)(a) provides in part that the agency head shall appoint “[a]t least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought.”3/ In accordance with the requirements of section 287.057(16)(a), the ITN established a Technical Review Team (TRT) that would be “composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff.” The ITN also provided for a Selection Committee that would be “composed of executive management at the Agencies.” Each agency executive director appointed two individuals from their agency to the TRT. Each agency director was familiar with the background and qualifications of their appointees, who had experience in various aspects of tolling operations including tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals were appointed to serve on the TRT. Bren Dietrich, a budget and financial planner for FTE, has an accounting degree and has worked at FTE for 12 years in budget and financial planning. Mr. Dietrich has been a technical committee member for seven or eight procurements. Mohamed Hassan, a senior operations manager for FTE, has been in information technology for nearly 40 years and with FTE for 22 years handling all aspects of software development and maintenance for the state’s largest tolling authority. Mr. Hassan’s expertise is in software development and maintenance. Mr. Hassan oversees staff that is responsible for maintaining the database application systems, hardware, communications coming in and going out of the customer service center, and any development projects such as transaction processing or account management system upgrades. Steve Andriuk is a deputy executive director for MDX and oversees all tolling operations within MDX’s jurisdiction. Mr. Andriuk’s tolling background goes beyond his tenure at MDX, as he previously was an executive director at Chesapeake Bay Bridge Authority. Jason Greene, MDX’s comptroller of financial controls and budget manager, has a background in finance and accounting and in project management. Mr. Greene has been with MDX for 11 years. Lisa Lumbard, who has been with OOCEA for 16 years, is the interim chief financial officer and previously was the manager of accounting and finance. Ms. Lumbard runs OOCEA’s finance and accounting office and has both procurement experience and substantial experience in the financial aspects of back- office tolling. David Wynne is the director of toll operations of OOCEA and is responsible for the overall collection of all tolls and for the violation enforcement process. Mr. Wynne has held some iteration of this position for approximately 11 years and worked for OOCEA for 16. He also has both procurement and substantial tolling experience. Robert Reardon, THEA’s chief operating officer, is responsible for THEA’s day-to-day operations, including tolls. Mr. Reardon has been with THEA for six years and has experience as a technical evaluator for public procurements. Rafael Hernandez is THEA’s manager of toll operations and oversees all toll operations within THEA’s jurisdiction. The TRT members collectively have the requisite knowledge and experience in tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals constituted the Selection Committee. Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti has been FTE’s executive director since 2011 and worked for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for over 20 years, the last two as executive director and the previous 14 as deputy executive director. Laura Kelley is OOCEA’s deputy director over finance administration and the interim executive director. Ms. Kelly has 30 years’ experience in transportation finance and management, 15 of which occurred at the Department and eight of which occurred at OOCEA overseeing information technology, finance, and procurement. Javier Rodriguez, MDX’s executive director, oversees all MDX operations, including planning, finance, operations, and maintenance functions. Mr. Rodriguez has been with MDX for seven years and was with the Department for over 15 years prior to his employment with MDX. Joseph Waggoner has been THEA’s executive director for approximately seven years. Prior to joining THEA, he was with the Maryland Department of Transportation for nearly 30 years, six of which were in tolling operations. ITN section 2.6.2 provides as follows: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. The ITN is structured such that both the TRT and the Selection Committee have shared responsibility for evaluating proposals, with the Selection Committee having ultimate responsibility for ranking the Proposers for the negotiations stage of the procurement process. Combining the eight members of the TRT with the four members of the Selection Team means that there were a total of 12 individuals tasked with the responsibility of evaluating the proposals prior to the negotiations stage of the process. Pre-Qualification and Rankings In the pre-qualification portion of the ITN, interested vendors initially submitted reference forms to demonstrate that the vendors met the minimum project experience set forth in the ITN. Vendors meeting this requirement were invited to give a full-day Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation to the TRT in which each vendor was given the opportunity to demonstrate its proposed system. Under ITN section 2.6.1, A Technical Review Team will attend the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations and will develop scores and written comments pertaining to the reviewed area(s) identified in Section 2.5.1. The Technical Review Team will be composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff. The scores provided by each Technical Review Team member for each area of the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations will be totaled and averaged with the scores of the other Technical Review Team members to determine the average score for an area of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation. The average score for each area of a Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation will then be totaled to determine a total Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation score. Each vendor’s Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation was then scored based on criteria set forth in ITN section 2.5.1. Any vendor that received a score of 700 or higher was “short- listed” and invited to submit proposals. Put differently, those receiving a score of at least 700 were deemed qualified to submit formal proposals. ITN section 2.5.1 provides that the “review/evaluation of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list of Proposers to proceed in the ITN process.” Accordingly, the scores assigned in the pre-qualification phase were irrelevant after the short-listing. Six vendors submitted pre-qualifications responses, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. On January 21, 2014, the Department posted its short-list decision, identifying that all six vendors, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, were deemed qualified to submit formal written proposals to the ITN (the “First Posting”). As required by section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the posting stated, “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” This posting created a point of entry to protest, and no vendor initiated a protest. After the First Posting, short-listed vendors submitted technical and price proposals and made Proposal Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.24 provides detailed instructions for technical and price proposal preparation and submission. ITN section 2.25 (as amended by Addendum 8) sets forth the process for short-listed vendors to make Proposal Oral Presentations to the TRT. Short-listed Proposers will each be scheduled to meet with the Technical Review Team for Proposal Oral Presentations of their firm’s capabilities and approach to the Scope of Work and Requirements within the time period identified in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. Short-listed Proposers will be notified of a time and date for their Proposal Oral Presentation. Proposal Oral Presentation sessions are not open to the public. The Selection Committee will attend these Presentations. In advance of the Proposal Oral Presentations Proposers will be given detailed instructions on what the format and content of the Proposal Oral Presentation will be, including what functionality shall be demonstrated. The Department may also provide demonstration scripts to be followed. Proposers should be prepared to demonstrate key elements of their proposed System and Project approach and to respond to specific questions regarding their Proposals. These Proposal Oral Presentations will be used to present the Proposer’s approach and improve understanding about the Department’s needs and expectations. The Technical Review Team will participate in all Proposal Oral Presentations. After each Oral Presentation, each individual on the Technical Review Team will complete a written summary evaluation of each Proposer’s technical approach and capabilities using the criteria established in Section 2.5.2 in order to assure the Technical Proposal and Oral Presentations are uniformly ranked. The evaluation will consider both the Technical Proposal and the Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.5.2 is titled “Best Value Selection” and provides as follows: The Department intends to contract with the responsive and responsible short-listed Proposer whose Proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Department. “Best value,” as defined in Section 287.012(4), F.S., means the highest overall value to the state, based on objective factors that include but are not limited to . . . . ITN section 2.5.2 goes on to delineate seven “objective factors,” or evaluation criteria, on which proposals would be evaluated: Company history Project experience and qualifications Proposed Project approach to the technical requirements Proposed approach to the Project plan and implementation Proposed approach to System Maintenance Proposed approach to Operations and performance Price ITN section 2.6.2 explains the process for evaluation of technical proposals and Proposal Oral Presentations and states that: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see Section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review Team and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. Of the six short-listed vendors, five submitted proposals and gave Proposal Oral Presentations, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. The Department then undertook a ranking using the evaluation criteria delineated in ITN section 2.5.2. To perform this ranking, TRT members individually evaluated the proposals and prepared detailed, written evaluations that tracked the evaluation criteria factors. The TRT’s evaluations, together with proposal summaries prepared by HNTB, were provided to the Selection Committee in preparation for a joint meeting of the TRT and Selection Committee on April 9, 2014. At the April 9th meeting, the TRT and Selection Committee members engaged in an in-depth discussion about the bases for and differences between the individual TRT members’ rankings and evaluations. Thereafter, the Selection Committee made its ranking decision. On April 10, 2014, the Department posted its ranking of vendors, with Xerox first, Accenture second, and Cubic third (the “Second Posting”). The Second Posting also announced the Department’s intent to commence negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked vendor.4/ If negotiations fail with Xerox, negotiations will then begin with second-ranked vendor Accenture, then Cubic, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. Accenture and Cubic each timely filed notices of intent to protest the Second Posting and timely filed formal written protest petitions and the requisite bonds. Negotiations are not at Issue ITN section 2.26 provides: Once Proposers have been ranked in accordance with Section 2.6.2 Proposal Evaluation, the Department will proceed with negotiations in accordance with the negotiation process described below. Proposers should be cognizant of the fact that the Department reserves the right to finalize negotiations at any time in the process that the Department determines that such election would be in the best interest of the State. Step 1: Follow the evaluation process and rank Proposals as outlined in Section 2.6 Evaluation Process. Step 2: The ranking will be posted, in accordance with the law (see Section 2.27), stating the Department’s intent to negotiate and award a contract to the highest ranked Proposer that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. Step 3: Once the posting period has ended, the Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established, or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be achieved with such Proposer. If negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract. The Department reserves the option to resume negotiations that were previously suspended. Negotiation sessions are not open to the public and all negotiation sessions will be recorded by the Department. Step 4: The Negotiation Team will write a short plain statement for the procurement file that explains the basis for Proposer selection and how the Proposer’s deliverables and price will provide the best value to the state. Step 5: The Department will contract with the selected Proposer. As Accenture and Cubic protested the decision by the Department to enter negotiations with Xerox (and because of the automatic stay provision of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes) the negotiation phase of the procurement never commenced. Thus, this proceeding concerns the Department’s actions up to the Second Posting, and not what may happen during future negotiations. Second Posting and Intended Award Section 1.2 of the ITN sets forth the procurement timeline for the CCSS project. The ITN originally indicated that the “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” would occur on March 31, 2014. By addendum issued on February 13, 2014, the date for “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” was changed to April 10, 2014. Section 1.3.1 of the ITN provides an agenda for the April 10, 2014, “Meeting to Summarize and Determine Ranking/Intended Award.” Section 2.27 of the ITN is labeled “POSTING OF RANKING/INTENDED AWARD.” Section 2.27.1, Ranking/Intended Award, provides that “[t]he Ranking/Intended Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Proposer that is determined to be capable of providing the best value and best meet the needs of the Department.” Section 2.27.2 is labeled “Posting of Short- list/Ranking/Intended Award” and provides in part that “[a]ny Proposer who is adversely affected by the Department’s recommended award or intended decision must . . . file a written notice of protest within seventy-two hours after posting of the Intended Award.” Joint Exhibits 10 and 12 are copies of forms used to announce the rankings of the Proposers. It is not clear from the record if these forms are a part of the ITN. Nevertheless, the forms are identical in format. Each form has three boxes that follow the words “TYPE OF POSTING.” The first box is followed by the word “Shortlist,” the second box is followed by the word “Ranking,” and the third box is followed by the words “Intended Award.” The form also has three columns that coincide with the three boxes previously referenced. The three columns are respectively labeled, “X indicates shortlisted vendor,” “ranking of negotiations,” and “X indicates intended award.” With respect to the last two columns, explanatory comments appearing at the bottom of the form read as follows: ** Ranking: The Department intends to negotiate separately and will award a contract to the highest ranked vendor that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. The Department will commence negotiations with the number one ranked vendor until an acceptable contract is agreed upon or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with such vendor. If negotiations fail with the number one ranked vendor, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department is able to negotiate an acceptable agreement. *** Intended Award: “X” in the Intended Award column indicates the vendor whom the Department intends to award the contract to, but does not constitute an acceptance of any offer created by the vendor’s proposal or negotiations. No binding contract will be deemed to exist until such time as a written agreement has been fully executed by the Department and the awarded vendor. If irregularities are subsequently discovered in the vendor’s proposal or in the negotiations or if the vendor fails to submit required [b]onds and insurance, fails to execute the contract, or otherwise fails to comply with the ITN requirements, the Department has the right to undertake negotiations with the next highest vendor and continue negotiations in accordance with the ITN process, reject all proposals, or act in the best interest of the Department. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a posting wherein the “Ranking” box was checked and the “Intended Award” box was not. According to Sheree Merting, it was a mistake to have only checked the “Ranking” box because the box labeled “Intended Award” should have also been checked. Petitioners contend that by not simultaneously checking both the “Ranking” and “Intended Award” boxes that the Department materially changed the process identified in the ITN. Protesters’ arguments as to this issue appear to be more related to form than substance. In looking at the plain language of the ITN, it reasonably appears that the Department intended to simultaneously announce the “Ranking” and “Intended Award.” The fact that the Department failed to combine these two items in a single notice is of no consequence because neither Cubic nor Accenture have offered any evidence establishing how they were competitively disadvantaged, or how the integrity of the bidding process was materially impaired as a consequence of the omission. In other words, Sheree Merting’s confessed error of not checking the “Intended Award” box contemporaneously with the “Ranking” box is harmless error. See, e.g., Fin. Clearing House, Inc. v. Fla. Prop. Recovery Consultants, Inc., Case No. 97-3150BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 25, 1997; Dep’t of Banking & Fin. Feb 4, 1998)(applying harmless error rule to deny protest where agency initially violated provisions of section 287.057(15), Florida Statutes, by selecting two evaluators instead of three required by statute, but later added required evaluator). Sequential Negotiations As previously noted, section 2.26 of the ITN provides that following the ranking of the short-list proposers, the “Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first- ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established . . . [and] [i]f negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract.” Petitioners assert that the Department has abandoned the sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 and has announced “that it will conduct the procurement negotiations only with Xerox as the number one ranked proposer” and that the process of negotiating with only one proposer is contrary to the law because section 287.057(1)(c) “requires that the Department negotiate with all proposers within the competitive range.” Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti testified as follows (T: 1119): Q: Now, you understand that as a result of the rankings that were posted on April 10th, negotiations under this ITN are to proceed with only a single vendor, is that right? A: I believe the ITN provided for consecutive negotiations starting with the first-ranked firm and then proceeding down until we reached a contract. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertions, the evidence establishes that the Department intends to follow the negotiation process set forth in section 2.26. Petitioners’ contention that section 287.057(1)(c) does not authorize sequential negotiations is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Petitioners have waived their right of protest with respect to this issue. Petitioners’ waiver notwithstanding, section 287.057(1)(c) does not preclude the type of sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 of the ITN. Section 287.057(1)(c) provides in part that “[t]he invitation to negotiate is a solicitation used by an agency which is intended to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem and identifies one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” (Emphasis added). Section 287.057(1)(c)4. provides that “[t]he agency shall evaluate replies against all evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation to negotiate in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award [and] [t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). The opening paragraph of section 287.057(1)(c), which is essentially the preamble portion of the ITN provisions, expresses the purpose for which the ITN process was developed, to wit: “to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem.” In furtherance of the stated purpose, the Legislature instructs, in the preamble, that the process should “identif[y] one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” If the preamble is read in statutory isolation, then one could reasonably conclude that if the agency identifies more than one responsive vendor then the agency should negotiate with each of the vendors “in order to receive the best value.” Arguably, the preamble merely looks at vendor “responsiveness” as the guidepost for determining with whom the agency shall negotiate. Mere “responsiveness” however, is clearly not the only standard for selecting a vendor through the ITN process and illustrates why this portion of the statute cannot be read in isolation. As previously noted, subparagraph four of section 287.057(1)(c), provides that the agency “shall . . . establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award,” and once this is done, “[t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). By using the word “may” in subparagraph four, the Legislature is authorizing agencies to exercise discretion when selecting vendors with whom to negotiate. In exercising its discretion, agencies can decide to negotiate with a single vendor or with multiple vendors. An agency’s exercise of its discretion is not absolute and the “check” on the exercise of its discretion, in the context of the instant case, is a bid protest whereby an unsuccessful bidder can attempt to prove that the procurement process was impermissibly tainted. Contrary to Petitioners’ allegations, the sequential negotiation process utilized by the Department in the present case does not run afoul of section 287.057. Petitioners forcefully argue that they have been shutout of the negotiation process because neither of them was ranked first. This assertion mischaracterizes the nature of the sequential negotiation process used by the Department. The evidence shows that if the Department fails to come to terms with Xerox, then negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. The truth of the matter is that neither of the protesters has been shutout of the negotiations. It is simply the case that neither occupies the preferred position of being the highest ranked, short-listed vendor. Petitioners also argue that the Florida Department of Transportation Commodities and Contractual Services Procurement Manual – 375-040-020, prohibits sequential negotiations. For invitations to negotiate, the manual provides: There are two general negotiation methods used: Competitive Method A – Vendors are ranked based on technical qualifications and negotiations are conducted commencing with the first ranked vendor. Competitive Method B – Vendor qualifications are evaluated and vendors may be short-listed. Negotiations of scope and price will be conducted with short-listed or all vendors. An award is made to the vendor with the best combination of proposal, qualifications, and price. According to Petitioners, the ITN does not comport with either Method A or Method B. Again, Petitioners failed to timely challenge the ITN specifications regarding sequential negotiations and thus have waived this argument. Even if the merits of the argument are considered, Petitioners’ argument fails. The methods described in the manual are not the only methods available to the Department; in fact, the manual, by stating that “there are two general negotiation methods used (emphasis added),” recognizes that the methods are subject to refinement or modification as the Department deems best to meet the perceived needs of a particular solicitation as long as the final method complies with section 287.057(1), Florida Statutes. Further, the procurement manager for the ITN, Sheree Merting, testified that the shell, or template, provided by the Department’s central office, and used when drafting an invitation to negotiate, contains a combination of the manual’s methods A and B, which is referred to as A/B. The order of negotiations provided for in the ITN and reiterated in the First and Second Postings is not, therefore, inconsistent with the Department’s policies or procedures. Best Value Decision Petitioners contend that the Department, via the Second Posting, has already (and improperly) determined which vendor will provide the best value to the State even though negotiations have not yet occurred. This contention is not supported by the evidence. ITN section 2.5.2 states the Department’s intent to contract with the vendor whose proposal is determined to provide the best value and sets forth the statutorily mandated objective factors, or criteria, on which proposals will be evaluated. ITN section 2.6.2 provides that the TRT and Selection Committee will review and discuss the TRT members’ individual summary evaluations and the Selection Committee “will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities and best value.” The evidence reflects that the evaluation factors were applied during the evaluation process to formulate a best value ranking, but the question of which vendor ultimately provides the best value to the State will not be conclusively determined until after negotiations are concluded. See § 287.057(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. (“After negotiations are conducted, the agency shall award the contract to the responsible and responsive vendor that the agency determines will provide the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.”). As testified by Ms. Gutierrez- Scaccetti, “[t]he Selection Committee agreed upon the ranking of firms. It has not made an award.” This is consistent with the ITN and Florida law, which require award to the best value proposer after negotiations. Evaluation Criteria Properly Followed As explained above, ITN section 2.5.2 sets forth the evaluation factors that the TRT and Selection Committee were to use in evaluating proposals. Petitioners allege that the TRT and Selection Committee did not follow the ITN and based their evaluations and rankings on factors other than those listed in ITN section 2.5.2. The evidence establishes that the TRT did in fact use these factors, as evidenced by the detailed evaluation summaries prepared by each of the eight TRT members, which almost uniformly tracked these factors. Seven of these summaries are organized by headings that mirror the seven criteria of section 2.5.2. The remaining summary, prepared by TRT member Mohamed Hassan, was formatted in terms of pros and cons, but nonetheless addressed all of the section 2.5.2 evaluation criteria. Reflective of the TRT’s approach, TRT member David Wynne prepared detailed, typed proposal summaries that are four pages long and single-spaced for each proposal. Mr. Wynne’s summaries capture his deliberate thought process in ranking the proposals and include headings that directly tie back to the evaluation criteria in the ITN. His summaries include specific details from each proposal justifying his qualitative assessment of the proposals. For example, he discusses the benefits of Xerox’s Vector 4G tolling platform, Xerox’s proposed project schedule, and maintenance. Mr. Wynne even included a breakdown of the pricing and his thoughts on how the pricing compared to the other vendors. The other TRT members had equally detailed summaries. When read as a whole, these summaries demonstrate that the TRT engaged in a rational, deliberative, and thoughtful evaluation of the proposals based on the ITN criteria. Additionally, the TRT members testified that they applied the ITN section 2.5.2 factors in conducting their evaluations. Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the TRT members did as instructed in the ITN and evaluated proposals based on ITN section 2.5.2’s factors. There is no credible basis to find that the section 2.5.2 criteria were not the bases of the TRT’s evaluations, rankings, and narratives. The evidence also establishes that the Selection Committee applied ITN section 2.5.2 factors in reaching its decision. The Selection Committee reviewed the TRT summaries, along with a detailed notebook prepared by HNTB, the Department’s consultant. The HNTB notebook was a comprehensive summary of information compiled from the vendors’ voluminous proposals and organized in a digestible format to aid the Selection Committee’s review, including helpful summaries providing head-to-head objective comparisons of vendor pricing, software development, and vendors’ exceptions and assumptions. The HNTB notebook of materials objectively compiled the content taken directly from the vendors’ own proposals and included no editorial comments or opinions by the Department’s consultants. Moreover, the HNTB notebook contained a chart summarizing the TRT’s rankings by TRT member, along with copies of each TRT member’s detailed written summaries. It also contained a detailed, 36-page pricing summary that pulled price information directly from the vendors’ proposals and summarized the information in a manner that allowed for easy side-by-side comparison. The notebook also included a systems matrix summary that was prepared by taking proposed systems information directly from the vendors’ proposals and combining it in a format that could be easily processed. In fact, the notebook even included pages copied directly from the proposals. Armed with the comprehensive TRT summaries and the HNTB notebook, the Selection Committee then engaged the TRT in a thoughtful and detailed discussion and analysis of the qualitative merits of each vendor’s proposal -- all within the bounds of the section 2.5.2 criteria. Petitioners contend that during the TRT and Selection Committee’s discussions, issues such as risk were improperly considered. Although “risk” was not a separately labeled criterion under section 2.5.2 (“risk of solution” is, however, referenced as a sub-bullet), risk is inherently a significant consideration in each of the evaluation factors. Stated differently, the concept of risk is integral to the ITN section 2.5.2 factors, and the Department properly considered such risks. For example, a vendor’s prior project experience -- whether it has successfully completed similar projects before -- was a listed criterion, which is directly relevant to the risk the Department would take in selecting a vendor, that is, the risk that the vendor’s experience is or is not sufficient to assure a timely project completion and quality services under the ITN. Indeed, section 287.057(1)(c) requires that the Department consider prior experience. Another example of risk considered by at least one Selection Committee member was the potential that Accenture’s project manager would not be assigned solely to this project, but might be shared with Accenture’s Illinois tolling project (“local presence commitment” is referenced as a sub-bullet in section 2.5.2). The evidence shows that Accenture stopped short of saying without qualification that its project manager would be released from Illinois and solely assigned to CCSS. This uncertainty raised a risk concern whether the critical project implementation would be properly managed. Considerations such as these are rational and reasonable. There is a Reasonable Basis for the Department’s Ranking Petitioners further contend that there was no reasonable basis for the Department’s intended decision to begin negotiations with Xerox. However, as explained above, the evidence demonstrates the opposite as the TRT and Selection Committee collectively discussed and considered the evaluation criteria and the Selection Committee reached consensus on moving forward to negotiations with Xerox. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Selection Committee’s decision was rational and reasonable. The TRT and Selection Committee’s discussion at the April 9, 2014, meeting where the ranking decision was reached, demonstrates the studied analysis by which the evaluations were conducted. At the meeting, the four Selection Committee members, who had already reviewed the TRT members’ individual rankings and evaluations, each questioned the TRT members about their assessments of the proposals. Selection Committee members asked about the bases for the differences between the individual TRT members’ evaluations, and the TRT members explained why they ranked the vendors the way they did. The discussion revolved around the top three ranked vendors, Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, which one TRT member described as being “head and shoulders above the rest” -- that is, above the vendors ranked fourth and fifth. As noted above, the Selection Committee members’ primary focus in these discussions was on risk assessment -- the financial risks, operations risks, and information technology risks that the TRT members believed accompanied each proposal. Major Selection Committee items of discussion included modifications to the existing systems, proprietary versus off- the-shelf software issues, and the vendors’ proximity to Florida. Additional discussion points included the risk associated with Accenture’s use of multiple subcontractors and Cubic’s lack of experience with certain tolling systems. From these discussions, it appears that the overriding factor behind the Selection Committee’s ranking decision at the April 9 meeting was Xerox’s proven experience with other similar and large tolling projects, including some of the country’s largest tolling systems, which Accenture and Cubic simply did not possess.5/ As one Selection Committee member expressed, Xerox brought a “comfort level” that did not exist with Accenture and Cubic. Moreover, Xerox, with 78 percent, is the leader in the evaluative category that looks at the percentage of the company’s existing baseline system that meets the CCSS requirements -- more than Accenture’s and Cubic’s combined percentages. As the percentage of existing baseline system compliance increases, the implementation risks decrease. Selection Committee members Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti and Joseph Waggoner expressed the importance of this based on their firsthand experience with existing tolling systems in use for their respective agencies. In sum, this analysis and assessment is a valid and reasonable basis for the Department’s decision. Cubic also contends that such analysis is improper because the ITN allowed transit firms to submit proposals, thus making tolling experience an irrelevant evaluative factor. This contention fails because by prequalifying transit firms to bid, the Department was not precluded from considering a vendor’s specific tolling experience as part of the evaluative process. Contrary to Cubic’s allegation, the factors listed in ITN section 2.5.2, including “Project Experience and Qualifications,” contemplate tolling experience as being part of the relevant analysis. Therefore, the Selection Committee was fully authorized under the ITN to consider the benefits of a proven commodity -- a firm with Xerox’s extensive tolling experience. The Selection Committee’s qualitative assessment that, on the whole, Xerox was the better choice for commencing negotiations was supported by reason and logic and was wholly consistent with the ITN specifications. Petitioners further argue that the Department’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the pre-qualification scoring, where Accenture and Cubic each scored slightly higher than Xerox. This argument fails as ITN section 2.5.1 expressly provides that the evaluations and scoring of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list. Regardless, these three vendors were essentially tied in that scoring: Accenture’s score was 885.38, Cubic’s was 874.75, and Xerox’s was 874.00. Petitioners also contend that the Selection Committee’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the ranking decision of the TRT majority. The ITN is clear, however, that the Selection Committee would be the final arbiter of ranking. No Demonstrations Were Cancelled The procurement timeline in the original ITN allotted ten business days for Proposal Oral Presentations. The revised timeline in Addendum 8 allotted two days. Cubic asserts that this reduction in presentation time occurred because the Department, without explanation, cancelled planned vendor demonstrations that were to occur during Proposal Oral Presentations, thus placing Cubic at a disadvantage as it was unable to present its demonstrations to Selection Committee members. Cubic also asserts that the cancellation of demonstrations is an indication that the Department had already made up its mind to select Xerox. The ITN and the testimony are unequivocal that no demonstrations were “cancelled.” ITN section 2.25 contemplates that the Department may request demonstrations in the proposal evaluation phase but in no way states that demonstrations will be held. Section 2.25 also provides that if any demonstrations were to be held, they would be as directed by the Department. Thus, the ITN did not guarantee Cubic any presentation, as Cubic suggests. Moreover, all vendors were treated equally in this regard. Further, the evidence reflects that the decision to hold demonstrations only during the Pre-Qualification Presentations was made when the ITN was released and that the Department never planned to have vendor demonstrations at the Proposal Oral Presentations. Indeed, during the mandatory pre- proposal meeting, the Department informed all vendors of the planned process, to include one demonstration at the pre- qualification phase and an oral presentation and question-and- answer session during the proposal and ranking phase. In short, Cubic presented no credible evidence in support of its allegations regarding the alleged cancellation of the demonstrations or any resulting harm. Exceptions and Assumptions were properly considered The ITN required vendors, in their technical proposals, to identify assumptions and exceptions to contract terms and conditions. Significantly, the ITN states that the Department is not obligated to accept any exceptions, and further that exceptions may be considered at the Department’s discretion during the evaluation process. ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 provides, in its entirety: Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions If Proposers take exception to Contract terms and conditions, such exceptions must be specified, detailed and submitted under this Proposal section in a separate, signed certification. The Department is under no obligation to accept the exceptions to the stated Contract terms and conditions. Proposers shall not identify any exceptions in the Price Proposal. All exceptions should be noted in the certification provided for in Proposal Section 9. Proposers shall not include any assumptions in their Price Proposals. Any assumptions should be identified and documented in this Section 9 of the Proposal. Any assumptions included in the Price Proposals will not be considered by the Department as a part of the Proposal and will not be evaluated or included in any Contract between the Department and the Proposer, should the Proposer be selected to perform the Work. Failure to take exception in the manner set forth above shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department. Petitioners allege that the ITN did not clearly set forth how vendors’ exceptions and assumptions would be treated and that the Department accordingly failed to consider such exceptions and assumptions. This is a belated specifications challenge and therefore has been waived. Regardless, the evidence demonstrates that both the TRT and Selection Committee did, in fact, consider the exceptions and assumptions in the evaluation and ranking of proposers. The TRT and Selection Committee were instructed to consider exceptions and assumptions and to give them the weight they deemed appropriate subject to staying within the confines of the ITN’s section 2.5.2 criteria. Consistent with these instructions, some TRT members included comments regarding exceptions and assumptions in those members’ evaluation summaries, reflecting that exceptions and assumptions were considered during the evaluation process. Other TRT members considered the exceptions of minimal significance given that the Department would address them during negotiations and was not bound to agree to any. Indeed, the evidence was that it was the Department’s intent to sort out the exceptions and assumptions in the negotiation process and, again, that the Department need not agree to any exceptions initially set forth by the vendors. Thus, the Department acted rationally and within the bounds of the ITN and its discretion when considering exceptions and assumptions. The Selection Committee Reached Consensus Accenture alleges that the Selection Committee failed to carry out its duty to reach a “consensus” in ranking vendor proposals. The evidence establishes the exact opposite. The ITN provides that the Selection Committee will come to “consensus” about ranking the vendors in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities, and best value. A consensus does not require unanimity. According to the testimony of Selection Committee member Javier Rodriguez, who was the only Selection Committee member who voted for Accenture as his first choice, “at the end, Xerox got three votes from the Selection Committee; Accenture got one. So for me, consensus meant: Are we in consensus to move forward with Xerox? And as I said at the selection meeting, I didn’t object. So from a consensus standpoint, we’re moving on to starting negotiations with Xerox, and that was the intent.” Therefore, the unrebutted evidence is that the Selection Committee did, in fact, reach consensus. Subject Matter Experts Accenture contends that the TRT and Selection Committee made use of subject matter experts in the course of the evaluation and ranking in violation of Florida statutory requirements and governing procurement policies. The record, however, is void of any substantial competent evidence in support of these allegations. Tim Garrett is the tolls program manager for HNTB under the General Engineering Consulting contract for FTE. Mr. Garrett was the overall project manager assigned to support FTE in the development and execution of the ITN. He and other HNTB employees, such as Wendy Viellenave and Theresa Weekes, CPA, provided support to both TRT and Selection Committee members in regards to summarizing proposals and defining the process. There is no evidence that any employee of, or sub-consultant to, HNTB communicated qualitative assessments or opinions about any of the competing proposals to TRT or Selection Committee members. Rather, the evidence shows that HNTB facilitated the TRT’s and Selection Committee’s evaluation work by presenting to the committee members data in the form of summaries, charts, and recapitulations pulled from the voluminous technical and price proposals submitted by the five competing vendors. Other than the support provided by HNTB, the record is essentially devoid of evidence that proposal evaluators made use of subject matter experts.6/ But in any event, neither Petitioner has made a showing that the use of subject matter experts is proscribed by governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of the ITN. Although the use of subject matter experts was not addressed in the ITN itself, the Department, before the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations in early January 2014, issued written “Instructions to Technical Review Committee.” These instructions authorized TRT members to confer with subject matter experts during the procurement process on specific technical questions and subject to certain additional parameters, as follows: Subject Matter Experts Subject matter experts are authorized to support the TRC on specific technical questions that the TRC members may have throughout the procurement process. Subject matter experts may respond to questions on any aspect of the procurement or proposal, but may not be asked to, nor will they support, the evaluation of proposals, which is the responsibility of each TRC member. A subject matter expert can discuss the specific elements of the ITN and a vendor’s proposal with a TRC member, but they cannot meet with more than one TRC member at a time, unless in a public meeting – subject to the Procurement Rules of Conduct stated above. The subject matter experts are fact finders. A subject matter expert cannot disclose the specific questions asked by another TRC member. No evidence has been presented to establish that the Instructions to Technical Review Committee, as to the use of subject matter experts, violated Florida law or the terms of the ITN, or that any subject matter expert -- whether affiliated with HNTB or not -- failed to perform within the parameters set forth in the Instructions.7/ Both Petitioners devoted significant hearing time to the FTE consultancy work of John McCarey, McCarey Consultants, LLC, and John Henneman, an employee of Atkins Engineering, Inc., and sub-consultant to HNTB. There has been no showing by Petitioners that either Mr. McCarey or Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert to any member of the TRT or Selection Committee or that either had improper contacts in regards to the evaluation or ranking of the vendors. The undisputed evidence is that Mr. McCarey did not serve as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators. As for Mr. Henneman, although one TRT member testified in deposition that he “believe[d]” Mr. Henneman was a technical expert or considered one of the subject matter experts, there is no evidence that Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators -- TRT or Selection Committee. In sum, there is simply no evidence that any of the subject matter experts had any improper influence on the TRT or Selection Committee members.8/ No Improper Contacts, Attempts to Influence, or Bias Cubic alleges that there was improper contact between the Department and Xerox during this protest that violates the statutorily imposed “cone of silence” for procurements. Cubic also asserts that there were attempts by Xerox to influence the evaluations or rankings based on the Department’s, or the other agencies’, past or existing relationships with Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. There simply is no record support for the assertions that there was any improper contact or any attempt by any person to influence the Department’s evaluations or rankings based on past or existing relationships between the Department and Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. Xerox’s counsel did not have any contact with the TRT or the Selection Committee prior to the filing of the protests and the attendant “stop” of the procurement process pursuant to section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The only contact Xerox’s counsel had with TRT or Selection Committee members was as a participant with the Department’s counsel in pre-deposition meetings with some witnesses designated by Petitioners -- all in the context of ongoing litigation following the filing of Accenture’s and Cubic’s protest petitions. This contact is essentially no different than Petitioners’ contact with Department personnel in depositions and the trial, as well as during the section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes, settlement conference with the Department. Furthermore, all such contact was after both the TRT’s and the Selection Committee’s work under the ITN was completed and the said contact was of no import to the procurement process. In short, there is no evidence of attempts by Xerox to influence the process, improper contact between Xerox and the Department, or Department bias in favor of Xerox. Responsiveness of Xerox’s Proposal The evidence, at best, is that the Department has yet to fully vet the representations made in the proposals by the respective Proposers, including Xerox. Protesters suggest that such a full vetting is a condition precedent to negotiations. Such an argument, however, ignores ITN section 2.12, which has to be reconciled with ITN section 2.9.1 b). ITN section 2.9.1 b) provides in part that “[t]he Proposer shall have Key Team members with the following experience at the time of Proposal submission.” The section then goes on to list several positions that fall within the “Key Team Personnel” category. Petitioners contend that the Contract Project Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Human Resources Manager proposed by Xerox fail to meet the “Qualifications of Key Team Personnel” set forth in ITN section 2.9.1 b), thus rendering the Xerox proposal nonresponsive. ITN section 2.12 provides in part that “[a]fter the Proposal due date and prior to Contract execution, the Department reserves the right to perform . . . [a] review of the Proposer’s . . . qualifications [and that] [t]his review will serve to verify data and representations submitted by the Proposer and may be used to determine whether the Proposer has an adequate, qualified, and experienced staff.” Xerox’s omission, at this point in the process, amounts to a non-material deviation from the ITN specifications given that ITN section 2.12 reserves in the Department the right to review key personnel representations made by Xerox, and any other short-listed Proposer, at any time “prior to Contract execution.” Cubic also contends that Xerox and Accenture submitted conditional Price Proposals rendering their proposals non- responsive under ITN section 2.16. The analysis turns on the provisions of Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions, which provides a detailed description of how exceptions and assumptions are to be provided by vendors, and explains that “[e]xceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department.” As provided by the ITN, all vendors included a detailed listing of exceptions and assumptions in their Technical Proposal. Consistent with the discretion afforded to the Department under ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 to consider listed exceptions during the Proposal evaluation process, the Department then made the following inquiry of each of the Proposers: Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Exceptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Assumptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Xerox responded to both inquiries as follows: “The Xerox price proposal is based on the assumptions and general risk profile created by the inclusion of Section 9. We assume the parties will reach mutual agreement on the issues raised in Section 9 without a material deviation in the price proposal.” In addition to providing written answers to the questions, the vendors also addressed these issues in the Proposal Oral Presentations in response to questions by the Department. By the end of the Proposal Oral Presentations, all three vendors had made clear to the Department that resolution of exceptions and assumptions would not affect the proposed price. For example, Xerox’s senior executive in charge of the procurement, Richard Bastan, represented that there is no financial implication to any of the exceptions and that Xerox would honor the terms and conditions and the scope of services in the ITN for the price set forth in the Price Proposal. Accordingly, none of the proposals were improperly conditioned, and Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic were treated equally. Cubic also contends that Xerox’s proposal was nonresponsive as Xerox allegedly failed to meet the stated experience minimums for transactions processed and accounts maintained. There is, however, no credible evidence to support this contention. Indeed, the evidence is that the Department, through its consultant HNTB, verified these requirements by calling the referenced projects. Moreover, Xerox met or exceeded the stated minimums with its New York project reference. The Department’s decision that Xerox was responsive on this issue is logical, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. Price Proposals ITN section 2.5.2 lists “price” as a factor to consider in determining “Best Value.” The vendors’ price proposals were presented to the TRT members for purposes of conducting their evaluations. Price was also an appropriate factor for consideration by the Selection Committee. Accenture argues that “[t]he ITN does not indicate how pricing will be considered by FDOT during the selection process.” Accenture’s contention that the ITN failed to disclose the relative importance of price is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation, as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Accenture has waived its right of protest with respect to this issue. Conflict of Interest Accenture complains that “[n]either Mr. Henneman nor Mr. McCarey submitted conflict of interest forms as required under the Department’s Procurement Manual . . . [because both] were present during the oral presentations made by the vendors in connection with this procurement.” Accenture also complains that Wendy Viellenave never disclosed that her husband works for TransCore, a company that is a subcontractor for Xerox. Ms. Viellenave’s husband currently works for TransCore as a maintenance and installation manager in California and has not worked in Florida in nearly twenty years. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Viellenave, through the relationship with her husband, has any “significant” direct or indirect -- financial or otherwise -- interest in TransCore that would interfere with her allegiance to the Department. The fact that Ms. Viellenave is married to an individual that works for a Xerox subcontractor is insufficient, in itself, to establish a real or potential conflict of interest. Jack Henneman currently runs the back office operation for FTE at its Boca Raton facility. His future role for the CCSS is as project manager for the implementation of the CCSS. Mr. Henneman became aware of the CCSS procurement through his work on a Florida Transportation Commission Report that culminated in 2012. This report documented the cost efficiencies for all of the tolling authorities in Florida. Mr. Henneman attended some of the Pre-Qualification Demonstrations as his schedule would permit because he is the “go-forward” project manager for the CCSS implementation. Mr. Henneman formerly worked for ACS from 2002 – 2009, and met Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti during his employment with the company. Mr. Henneman was the transition manager for the transfer of the back office operation of the New Jersey Turnpike from WorldCom to ACS. Mr. Henneman did not have any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti from approximately 2009 to 2012. In his capacity as the “go-forward” project manager, Mr. Henneman reviewed the technical proposals submitted by the vendors in the instant proceeding but he did not have any discussions with the TRT members or the Selection Committee members about the proposals. He reviewed the technical proposals for the purpose of educating himself so that he would be better prepared to carry out his functions as the “go-forward” project manager. John McCarey is a sub-consultant to FTE general engineering contractor, Atkins. Mr. McCarey has a future role as being a part of the negotiations group for the CCSS. Mr. McCarey formerly worked for Lockheed for approximately 25 years and then spent 5 years working for ACS. Mr. McCarey was the chief financial officer for ACS’s State and Local Solutions Group at one time. Mr. McCarey left the employment of ACS in 2006. Mr. McCarey currently assists with various functions, including work on issues with the consolidation of the back office systems of OOCEA and FTE. For approximately 10 years before becoming a sub-consultant, Mr. McCarey had not had any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti. As it relates to the CCSS project, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. McCarey provided recommendations to the TRT or the Selection Committee.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioners’ protests be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 26, 1993, FDOT issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on a contract for landscaping approximately 3.6 miles of roadway in St. Lucie County, State Project No. 94030-3502. The ITB required bidders to submit unit prices for 31 items of work. Bidders were to multiply the unit price by the estimated quantity of the item to arrive at a total quote for each item. The item totals were to be added together to arrive at the total bid. FDOT provided the estimated quantities upon which the bids were to be based. In preparing its ITBs, FDOT utilizes standard unit price designations. These standard unit price designations are not altered on a job-by-job basis and are not altered after bids are opened. The ITB herein included two bid items for mulch work: item no. 580-173 for bed preparation and mulching, and item no. 580-326-3 for shredded cypress bark mulch. The two mulching items result in one task: spreading the mulch under the landscaping plants. FDOT always designates item no. 580-326-3, mulch shredded cypress bark, to be paid on a square yard basis. This is not an uncommon procedure. FDOT never pays contractors on this item in other than square yard computations. FDOT's Basis of Estimates Manual (FDOT Exhibit 3) contains all the measurement units for all bid items and lists shredded cypress bark mulch as being measured and paid for in square yards. None of the mulch items are paid for in cubic yards. FDOT considers itself bound by this Manual as to method of payment (unit of measure). See Findings of Fact 17 and 24-25 infra. Project plans, typically prepared by consultants, may designate units of measurement differently from FDOT's standard unit price designations. It is not unusual for a unit of measurement to be expressed one way on the project plans and another way on the ITB. It is not unusual for a bidder to be required to adjust a plan quantity in order to arrive at a different unit price. Bidders are expected to convert measurements of items to correlate with how the item will be paid. With regard to ITB 94030-3502, four certified landscape contractors submitted bids. Among them were Intervenor Hayslip, Weekly Asphalt, Inc. (Weekly), Central Florida Landscaping of Tampa, Inc. (Central), and Petitioner Vila. Bids were opened on May 26, 1993. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by FDOT's Technical Review Committee to determine whether the bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced, contained all appropriate signatures, contained all appropriate documents, and otherwise met the technical requirements of the ITB. In essence, the Technical Review Committee reviews each bid to determine whether it is responsive to the ITB and, if not responsive, whether the bid's lack of responsiveness is immaterial and waiveable by FDOT. Only after reaching that determination does the Technical Review Committee make a recommendation to FDOT's Contract Awards Committee as to whether or not a bid should be rejected for material nonresponsiveness to the ITB. As a result of the responsiveness review, Central's bid was declared irregular due to an altered bid bond and was rejected. Central filed no protest and no petition and has not moved to intervene herein. The thrust of the instant proceeding involves item no. 580-326-3, mulch shredded cypress bark, stated in the ITB as "500 square yards." All the bidders utilized the consultant's plans which specified the correct quantity of mulch contrary to the ITB. Hayslip's bid for item no. 580-326-3 was $2.50 per square yard. Weekly's bid for that item was $2.25 per square yard. Central's bid for that item was $2.12 per square yard. Petitioner's bid for that item was $8.50 per square yard. Clearly, Petitioner's bid on this item was mathematically unbalanced since Petitioner's unit price bid of $8.50 per square yard far exceeded each of the other bidders' responses on that item on this ITB. Petitioner's bid was also exceptionally high in comparison with its own usual bid price in square yards of mulch, averaging $1.95 to $2.50 per square yard and unaccountably low in comparison with its own usual bid price in cubic yards of mulch, averaging $20.00 to $30.00. Mr. Ricardo Leal, Petitioner's General Manager and Chief Estimator, prepared Petitioner's bid herein and testified with regard to how its mathematical imbalancing occurred. When Mr. Leal received the ITB package approximately fourteen days before the May 26, 1993 bid date, he performed some preliminary work on the bid, such as getting prices from subcontractors, obtaining a bond for the job, and making copies of the plans. He then did nothing with the bid until approximately two days before the May 26 bid letting. Despite Mr. Leal's testimony that crucial discrepancies between the consultant's plans and the ITB could not have been discovered within 72 hours of receiving the ITB, it is clear that his decision to delay concentrated work on this bid was based on extensive experience with a constant cycle of bidding. In preparing Petitioner's bid during the last two days before the letting, Mr. Leal formed the opinion that the plans' 500 cubic yard requirement for cypress bark mulch was correct and the ITB's 500 square yard requirement was a typographical error and that the project would probably require 6,000 square yards of cypress bark mulch. He based his calculations on 6,000 square yards (which equals 500 cubic yards from the plans) but expressed the unit price on Petitioner's bid according to the square yard unit FDOT had used in the ITB. Despite testimony concerning confusion arising from the ITB and plans, Mr. Leal candidly stated that he consciously bid in that manner to protect Petitioner in case FDOT required the successful bidder to provide 500 cubic yards (6,000 square yards) instead of 500 square yards, and he then split the final number he came up with between the two items so as to bid $.95 per square yard on item 580-173 and $8.50 per square yard on item 580-326-3. In so doing, he relied on his own judgment. The ITB also contained other questionable items including meter fees and contradictory specifications on plant size and color. Despite testimony that Vilma Croft, FDOT Project Manager was not helpful, it appears that in preparing Petitioner's bid, Mr. Leal asked Vilma Croft to clarify a concern about local meter fees, which she did late on the day before bid letting. He also asked her three additional questions about plant list specification discrepancies, and she told him he must use his own judgment. However, he then did not ever pose his prepared question with regard to the mulch discrepancy (TR-47-54). Unbalancing to some extent is discernible in virtually all bids. FDOT does not, therefore, reject all bids that are unbalanced. Only when unbalancing results in reasonable doubt that an award to the mathematically unbalanced bidder will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the state does FDOT consider the unbalancing "material." Unbalancing in a bid is determined by computerized program. The FDOT computer program figures in the bids on every item, does a bell curve distribution, keeping a center of 1 and 1/2 deviations and then discards the high and low bids. It then re-averages the remaining bids to determine a reasonable cost for any particular pay item. Any bids falling outside a certain tolerance window, either above or under, are flagged as mathematically unbalanced. FDOT's computer assessment identified as mathematically unbalanced five items in Petitioner's bid, among them the mulch item already referenced, and three items in the Intervenor's bid. FDOT's computer for purposes of determining imbalancing is programmed according to FDOT's interpretation of its Basis of Estimates Manual and its Standard Specifications for Roadway and Bridge Construction, which interpretation is to the effect that the agency may not alter the method of payment (unit of measure) without letting a new ITB/contract but may alter quantities without such a new bid letting procedure. (TR 159-160; 271-272. FDOT Exhibits 3 and 4). The square yard pay unit is entered in the computer program for these reasons and is standard FDOT practice. (See Findings of Fact 5 and 24-25.) When a mathematical unbalancing is discovered, FDOT analyzes the bid further for purposes of discovering whether the bid is materially unbalanced. FDOT personnel conducted further investigation to determine whether there was a likelihood of an overrun in the quantity of shredded cypress mulch which would be sufficient to change the order of the bidders. Vilma Croft, FDOT's Project Manager, acted as a conduit between FDOT's design consultant and Robert Griner, FDOT's Preliminary Estimating Engineer. At her request, the consultant who had designed the project plans, filled in unbalanced review sheets stating that the quantity of 500 square yards for cypress bark mulch was not correct in the ITB and that the correct quantity was 6,000 square yards. Croft relayed the adjusted quantity to Griner's office, noting that page LD28 of the plans had expressed 500 cubic yards. Thus, the quantity of cypress mulch to be placed on the project was not 500 square yards but 500 cubic yards which translates into 6,000 square yards, amounting to a likely overrun of 5,500 square yards. After multiplying the likely quantity overrun by the Petitioner's unbalanced unit price of $8.50 per square yard, FDOT personnel adjusted Petitioner's contract price by $46,750.00, reaching an adjusted total contract price of $793,351.45. FDOT made similar adjustments for mathematically unbalanced items in both Intervenor's and Weekly's bids. After those adjustments, the contract prices were $763,346.15 and $920,278.45, respectively. FDOT's further investigation and reconciliation of the remaining unbalanced items in Petitioner's bid and the unbalanced items in the Intervenor's bid and Weekly's bids are not at issue here. Mr. Griner made a presentation to FDOT's Technical Review Committee that there would be an overrun of 5,500 square yards of cypress bark mulch and that the overrun had resulted in a switch in the order of the bids. Again, square yards is FDOT's standard unit of calculation. The Technical Review Committee recommended rejection of Petitioner's bid as materially unbalanced and award of the contract to Intervenor. The Contracts Award Committee followed this recommendation. It voted to reject Petitioner's bid and declared FDOT's intent to award the bid to Intervenor. Intervenor was declared to be the apparent low bidder. Petitioner timely protested. Intervenor timely moved to intervene and was granted intervention. Both have standing in this proceeding. Weekly filed no protest and no petition and has not moved to intervene. It is not unusual for a mistake to be made in the estimated quantity of a project. FDOT routinely corrects mistakes that show up in quantities after bids are opened. FDOT does not assume responsibility that final quantities in a project will remain in accordance with quantities as "estimated" in its ITBs. Put in layman's terms, ITBs are created upon FDOT's "best estimates," but FDOT reserves the right to pay only for actual work done. Sometimes, this means contractors get more work/pay than they initially anticipated and sometimes they get less. ITBs do not guarantee successful bidders a dollar amount of work. (TR 271-272; FDOT Exhibits 3 and 4). Specifically, FDOT's "Contract Bible," the Standard Specifications for Roadway and Bridge Construction (FDOT Exhibit 4), which is incorporated by reference in its agency rules and in its ITBs, provides as follows: 2-3 Interpretation of Estimated Quantities. For those items which are to be constructed within authorized plan limits or dimensions, the quantities shown in the plans and in the proposal form are given as the basis of bid and also for final payment as limited by the provisions for the individual items. For those items having variable final pay quantities which are dependent on actual field conditions, use and measurement, the quantities shown in the plans and in the proposal form are approximate and are given only as a basis of calculation upon which the award of the contract is to be made. Where items are listed for payment as lump sum units and the plans show estimates of component quantities, the Department's responsibility for the accuracy of those quantities is limited to the provisions of 9-3.3. Where items are listed for payment as lump sum units and the plans do not show estimates of component quantities, the contractor shall be solely responsible for his own estimates of such quantities. The Department does not assume any responsibility that the final quantities will remain in accordance with estimated quantities, nor shall the contractor claim misunderstanding or deception because of such estimate of quantities. The estimated quantities of work to be done or materials to be furnished may be increased, decreased, or omitted as hereinafter provided. FDOT interprets this specification/rule to permit the agency to adjust quantities under the circumstances of this case with regard to its ITBs.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's protest and awarding the contract to the Intervenor. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 93-4556BID The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's (Vila's) PFOF: Accepted. (Findings of Fact 1, 4). Accepted but subordinate material not adopted. (Findings of Fact 4- 6, 11-12, 14, 18). Accepted but subordinate material not adopted. (Findings of Fact 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 13- 14). Accepted in part in Finding of Fact 13. Remainder rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Covered in the conclusions of law as legal argument. Accepted but subordinate material not adopted. (Findings of Fact 6, 12, 14). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 17, 24-25). Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 12, 14, 18. Rejected in part as unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative to the facts as found. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the record and as argument contrary to law. Accepted. (Findings of Fact 14- 15). Accepted in part and rejected in part as not supported by the record as a whole. (Findings of Fact 14- 15). Rejected as immaterial and/or not supported by the record as a whole. Accepted that Petitioner usually bids in cubic yards, but the record demonstrates that mulch items are bid in all variety of ways and that FDOT typically requires bids in square yards for payment purposes. (Findings of Fact 2-3, 5-7, 13, 17, 21, 24-25). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 12, 14). Accepted but not dispositive or adopted. Accepted. (Findings of Fact 6, 18). Accepted but not adopted because unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, or immaterial. (Finding of Fact 18). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 16). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 16). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 16, 18). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 16). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 16, 20). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 16, 19-20). Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted. (Finding of Fact 18). Accepted but unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material. Not adopted. (See Finding of Fact 18). Accepted in Finding of Fact 18 except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. Also, the motivations of the project manager and the fact that this has not occurred before, is deemed irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted but not adopted to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. (See Finding of Fact 18). The first sentence is accepted but not adopted to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. The second sentence is rejected as out of context and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. (Findings of Fact 2-3, 5-7, 17, 21, 24-25). Rejected as stated because not supported by the record as a whole. There is no secret in this case as to the discrepancy between the plans and ITB. (Findings of Fact 12, 18). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 18, 21-22). Accepted but not adopted because immaterial. Covered in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as misleading and contrary to the record evidence supporting Findings of Fact 2-3, 5-7, 17, 21, 24-25. Covered in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as not material, as speculative, and as not dispositive. Also rejected as use of isolated testimony as legal argument. FDOT is entitled to alter quantities. The substance is discussed in Findings of Fact 18, and 21-25 and the Conclusions of Law. Accepted. (Finding of Fact 21). Accepted but not adopted because unnecessary to disposition. Accepted but not adopted because unnecessary to disposition. Accepted but not adopted as cumulative. See Findings of Fact 4-5, 17, 24-25. Rejected as stated. Covered in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 11-12, 18 and the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as legal argument. Covered in substance in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as use of isolated testimony for argument. Rejected as not supported by the record evidence as a whole. (Findings of Fact 5, 17, 24-25). Rejected as legal argument. Not dispositive. See Findings of Fact 2-4, 14 and Conclusions of Law. Accepted but not dispositive. See Findings of Fact 2-4, 14, 18, and the Conclusions of Law. Accepted. (Findings of Fact 12, 14, 18). Rejected as stated as not supported by the record evidence as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 14 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as not supported by the record and as argument contrary to law. See Finding of Fact 14 and the Conclusions of Law. Rejected as Immaterial. Rejected as Immaterial. Respondent's (FDOT's) PFOF: Accepted. (Findings of Fact 1, 10). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 14). Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. (Finding of Fact 14). Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. (Finding of Fact 2, 4, 11, 14). Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. (Finding of Fact 2-3, 5-7, 13, 17, 21-25). Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. (Finding of Fact 16). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 16). Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found. (Findings of Fact 2-3, 5-7, 13, 17, 24-25). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 18). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 18). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 6-7). Accepted as modified to better conform to the record. (See Findings of Fact 5, 17, 24-25 and Conclusions of Laws). Accepted as modified to better conform to the record and eliminate mere argument. (Findings of Fact 24-25). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 18- 22). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 9, 16, 21-22). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 9, 16- 18, 21-22). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 2, 4, 14). Intervenor (Hayslip's) PFOF: 1 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 1). 2 Accepted. (Findings of Fact 2). 3 Accepted. (Findings of Fact 8). 4 Accepted. (Findings of fact 9, 21- 22). 5 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 10). 6 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 11). 7 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 13). 8 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 13). 9 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 13). 10 Accepted. (Finding of Fact 13). Accepted as modified to eliminate mere argument. (Finding of Fact 13). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 13). Accepted as modified to better conform to the record. (Finding of Fact 16). Accepted as modified to better conform to the record and eliminate cumulative material. (Finding of Fact 18). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 18, 21-22). Accepted. (Findings of Fact 21- 22). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 19). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 3). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 5). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 6). Accepted. (Finding of Fact 7). Rejected as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found or immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Alan Cummings, Esquire, Mary Piccard, Esquire, and Jeffrey V. Nelson, Esquire Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 James W. Anderson, Esquire Savlov & Anderson Post Office Drawer 870 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0870 William H. Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Floirda 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 10-DC-8200 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, and the specifications of the Request for Proposals.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida has, by legislative enactment, developed programs to electronically supervise offenders sentenced under a community control alternative to prison, and to supervise, register, and monitor designated sexual offenders and predators under the Jessica Lunsford Act. The Department of Corrections is the agency charged with the implementation of the electronic monitoring program, and to ensure that probation officers and other community supervision personnel have access to offender monitoring data. Pro Tech and BI are both well-recognized and established providers of electronic monitoring devices and monitoring and reporting services to federal, state, and local law enforcement and correctional agencies in Florida and across the United States. Pro-Tech is the incumbent vendor to the Department for electronic monitoring services. RFP 10-DC-8200 On August 30, 2010, the Department issued RFP 10-DC- 8200, the purpose of which was to select a contractor to provide active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) electronic monitoring services for supervision of offenders sentenced under a community control alternative to prison, and to monitor designated sexual offenders and predators under the Jessica Lunsford Act. As of June 30, 2010, the Department was utilizing approximately 2,538 active GPS units to monitor offenders. The Department projected that within three years, as many as 3,015 offenders would be on active GPS monitoring. The scope of work for the contract was detailed in section 3 of the RFP. Briefly, the winning vendor is expected to ?provide active [GPS] services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which shall include a monitoring system that is capable of being accessed through a secure internet connection and fully supported by a secure database for transactional records.? Provisions of the RFP that are material to this proceeding include, by section number, the following (all emphasis is in the original): 1.13 Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the proposer to be responsive to this RFP. The responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet the responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a proposal. Any proposal rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be evaluated. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by Proposers. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation therefore is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this RFP's requirements, provides an advantage to one Proposer over other Proposers, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services proposed, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a response. Because this is an RFP, the Department will apply this definition liberally in reviewing responses in regard to service delivery. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the RFP terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or gives the proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 5.2.9 The Proposer shall provide for both the Contractor and Contractor‘s personnel, copies of any and all documents regarding complaints filed, investigations made, warning letters or inspection reports issued, or any disciplinary action imposed by Federal or State oversight agencies within the past five (5) years. Narrative/Record of Past Experience As indicated in Section 2.2 and Attachment 1, it is a mandatory responsiveness requirement that the Proposer has at least three (3) years of business/corporate experience within the last five (5) years relevant to providing electronic monitoring services and equipment similar to the services described in this RFP, to correctional, criminal justice or law enforcement agencies. Details of the Proposer‘s experience that meet this requirement shall be provided in narrative form and in sufficient detail so that the Department is able to judge its complexity and relevance. Specifically include: provide a description of past years‘ experience providing electronic monitoring equipment and services. provide a description of past experience and the specific length of time providing Active GPS services (as identified in this RFP). identify all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provision of electronic monitoring services, and the number of active GPS units utilized for each. provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above-identified contracts, including any major adverse findings. provide the name and telephone number and address for the specified federal, state, or government contract manager. provide a summary of any exemplary or qualitative findings, recommendations, or other validations, demonstrating operational experience. (i.e., specialized accreditation, grant awards, etc.). The proposer shall provide a detailed description of the General Equipment specifications that meets or exceeds all requirements in Section 3.7.2 and specifically: provide manufacturer‘s specifications and literature on all equipment proposed, including equipment which is acquired from any other source than the proposer; describe the process utilized to notify the Department and/or the offender when a low battery condition exists in any component of the equipment (transmitter or receiver dialer); describe and list the tools necessary for installation of any of the monitoring unit equipment; and provide copies of required licensing by the Federal Communications Commission for the equipment proposed. The proposer shall provide a detailed description of the Contractor‘s method and approach for meeting or exceeding all Monitoring Center requirements in Section 3.13, and specifically: provide a copy of the staffing plan for monitoring services twenty four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, including holidays; and provide a copy of the Disaster Recovery plan. The proposer shall provide a detailed description of the approach to meeting or exceeding all Training requirements in Section 3.16, and specifically: provide a description of the method(s) for securely sizing and installing the transmitter securely to offenders; provide a copy of the training curriculum; and provide a copy of proposed course/instructor evaluation form. Please note - final evaluation form to be approved by Contract Manager and/or designee. As part of the RFP process, each interested vendor was allowed to submit questions regarding the terms of the RFP, and the services being sought. The Department responded to each of the 72 questions submitted. On November 2, 2010, the responses, along with revised RFP pages resulting therefrom, were provided to each prospective vendor as RFP #10-DC-8200 Addendum #1. Among the questions for which the Department provided answers were the following: Question #11: Sections 5.3.2.3 & 5.3.2.4 on Page 38 requires that we: ?identify all current and/or past (or within (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provisions of electronic monitoring services, . . . .? And that we ?provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above identified contracts,. . .? In the case of Pro Tech, this would amount to more than a hundred contracts resulting in a voluminous response. Perhaps a more reasonable requirement would be to provide the information for our 10 largest or 10 most similar contracts. Answer #11: These requirements remain as stated in the RFP. Question #16:5.3.2. Narrative/Record of Past Experience identify all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provision of electronic monitoring services, and the number of active GPS units utilized for each. Question: Since it is feasible that Proposers could have several hundred current/past contracts, will Florida Department of Corrections consider revising the requirement to be “Provide the total number of current and/or past (or within 3 years) federal, state or government contracts?” Answer #16: This requirement remains as stated in the RFP. Question #17: provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above-identified contracts, including any major adverse findings. Question: Since it is feasible that Proposers could have several hundred current/past contracts, will Florida Department of Corrections consider revising the requirement to be “Provide a performance summary of all contracts past/present?” Answer #17: This requirement remains as stated in the RFP. Question #28: Should respondents view ?shall? and ?must? language as mandatory requirements? Answer #28: This question is confusing different terms. See Section 1.13 that defines ?Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements?. See Section 1.15 that defines ?Material Deviations? which explains the terms ?shall and must?, and should not be confused with Section 5.1 Mandatory Responsive Requirements/ Fatal Criteria. Each proposed vendor signed an Addendum Acknowledgement Form for RFP #10-DC-8200 Addendum #1, and included it as part of its proposal. By signing and submitting the Addendum Acknowledgement Form, the vendors understood that the changes reflected in the Addendum ?are applicable to the original specifications of the above-referenced RFP? and that ?this addendum now becomes a part of the original RFP.? No prospective vendor filed a protest of any of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the RFP or Addendum #1. Proposals in Response to the RFP Proposals were submitted on November 22, 2010, by Pro Tech and BI, as well as five other electronic monitoring vendors, G4S Justice Services, LLC, iSecureTrac Corporation, Satellite Tracking of People, LLC, SecureAlert, and SOS International. BI proposed using its ExacuTrack One monitoring device to monitor offenders in Florida. The ExacuTrack One is a single piece device that is affixed to the offender‘s ankle. The unit contains a GPS signal receiver, a transmitter, cellular capability to transmit data to the monitoring center, a speaker for transmitting warnings, a device for the offender to transmit acknowledgement signals, and a rechargeable battery. The ExacuTrack One device meets the specifications of the RFP. When offenders go into prohibited areas, or when tracking capabilities are interrupted, either through shielding of the GPS signal or unauthorized tampering with the device, an alert is transmitted to the monitoring center. Each customer has a time interval set by contract by which a notification is sent to the customer, which may vary based on the nature of the alert. For example, if an offender strays into a prohibited area, an alert is transmitted to the monitoring center. If the offender exits the area before the contractual time interval is exceeded, a violation report is not required. The ExacuTrack One device has the ability to transmit an audible alert to the offender when the offender enters into an exclusion zone or otherwise violates the terms of his or her release. When an audible alert is given, the offender is required to acknowledge receipt of the alert, and to exit the area. The ExacuTrack One units are fully capable of meeting the requirements of the RFP operating on their own. However, in order to provide an option to conserve battery life of the ankle device, BI proposed to use a radio frequency ?Beacon.? When an offender is in range of his or her Beacon, generally being within the perimeter of the offender‘s home, the GPS feature goes into a low power state, and data is transmitted through the Beacon, thus extending the battery charge. BI considered the Beacon to be an optional device that exceeded the requirements of the RFP, and that could be provided at no additional cost at the discretion of the Department. Monitoring of the ExacuTrack One device may be accomplished in one of two ways. The monitoring system and devices can be sold to an agency which then provides its own monitoring, referred to as a ?local host? facility. The more commonly used system and that proposed for Florida, is one in which the monitoring devices are provided to the agency, with the resulting data sent to the BI monitoring center. The data is then stored and made available through the TotalAccess case management system. Department staff, correctional and probation officers, and other authorized users can access the system to perform a number of tasks, and are notified according to contract when monitoring alerts are transmitted to the monitoring center. The BI monitoring center has fully redundant capabilities, with all data being replicated both at the primary monitoring center in Boulder, Colorado, and at the backup center in Anderson, Indiana. Review of the Proposals Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Review The Department initially reviewed each of the proposals to determine if Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements were met. Pursuant to section 5.1 of the RFP, the only Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements/Fatal Criteria were: a) that the complete proposal be submitted on time; and b) that the certification and cover sheet be signed. No prospective vendor was determined to be non-responsive for either of the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements. Material Deviations/Minor Irregularities Review The procedure by which the Department was to begin the process of review of those proposals that survived the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements/Fatal Criteria review was for procurement staff to review the proposals ?for compliance with the items required in the . . . Proposal Submissions outlined in Section 5 of the RFP.? The purpose of the compliance review was to determine whether the proposals contained any deviations from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, and whether such deviations were material deviations requiring rejection of a response, or whether they were waivable minor irregularities. If a deviation was determined to be a minor irregularity, the Department reserved the right to require additional information prior to the contract award. Kelly Wright was the Department staff person who was directly, and almost exclusively, responsible for the RFP. Ms. Wright was, in consultation with the Department‘s subject matter experts, the primary drafter of the RFP. She was responsible for vendor questions and for preparing the Addendum #1 in which those questions were answered. She prepared the evaluation manual, trained the evaluators, and compiled their scores. She performed the review of the proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements/fatal criteria, and reviewed the executive summaries and transmittal letters. It was also Ms. Wright‘s responsibility to identify deviations from the RFP requirements and initiate the process by which such deviations were resolved. Gail Hillhouse, who is Ms. Wright‘s supervisor, and is an active participant in the decision-making process for other procurements, was not materially involved in Request for Proposals No. 10-DC-8200. She did not assist Ms. Wright in the review of responses, nor was she involved in the process of resolving deviations of the proposals from the terms of the RFP. Ms. Hillhouse never reviewed the BI proposal at any time prior to the posting of the award. If during the course of the pre-evaluation review of the proposals, or otherwise during the selection process, a deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications was discovered, Ms. Wright was to take it directly to her bureau chief, Robert Staney. Mr. Staney‘s practice was to consult with the Department‘s legal staff, and then make a determination as to whether the deviation was a non-waivable material deviation under section 1.15 of the RFP, or a waivable minor irregularity under section 1.16 of the RFP. The Department appointed an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the proposals. The evaluators were charged with scoring the proposals as they were provided to them. The evaluators were not asked to determine whether any provision of the responses constituted a material deviation from the terms, conditions, or specifications of the RFP, and none did so. The evaluators were provided with scoring sheets that established the factors, referred to as ?considers,? that were to go into each individual score by section. Most sections contained multiple ?considers? that were to be evaluated to determine the overall score for that section. In the event a proposal was ?completely utterly unresponsive? as to the ?considers? listed for a particular section, a score of zero could be assigned. A zero would generally be an indication that some item had been omitted, thus triggering a ?material deviation? review. The scoring was to be performed as a composite, and the ?considers? within a section were not to be scored individually. Therefore, even if an element of a section was omitted in its entirety, a score of greater than zero would be required as long as there was information provided regarding the other ?considers.? That was so even if the omitted ?consider? would -- standing alone -- constitute a material deviation from the terms, conditions and specifications of the RFP. Only if an evaluator assigned an overall section score of zero would a review be undertaken to determine whether that section of the proposal materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. Neither Pro Tech nor BI scored a zero for any section. Since there were no zeros, no ?material deviation? review was made. Ms. Wright did not review the BI proposal from beginning to end until the evaluation and scoring was completed, and the award to BI was ready to be posted. The evidence in this case demonstrates that, except as related to the financial documentation discussed herein, no one in the Department reviewed the proposals to determine if they contained deviations, material or not, from the terms, conditions or specifications of the RFP, nor was any such determination made prior to the posting of the intended award. Financial Documentation Review Each prospective vendor was required to submit financial documentation of its ability to perform the contract pursuant to section 5.4 of the RFP. The financial documentation was not a Mandatory Responsiveness Requirement/Fatal Criteria pursuant to section 1.13. Rather, section 5.4.4 provided that the ?proposer shall provide financial documentation that is sufficient to demonstrate its financial viability,? and listed the items to be included in the proposal. The RFP further provided that ?[f]ailure to provide any of the aforementioned financial information may result in proposal disqualification.? The financial documentation for each proposal was reviewed by an independent Certified Public Accountant, who determined its sufficiency under section 5.4 of the RFP. Three of the responses, those of iSecureTrac Corporation, SecureAlert, and SOS International, failed to pass the Financial Documentation review, and were disqualified from further review and consideration. The CPA determined that the G4S Justice Services, LLC financial statement had several deficiencies, including the omission of items required by section 5.4.1 of the RFP. The information was provided by the CPA to the Department‘s procurement office. After consultation with legal staff, the Department determined the deficiency to be a minor irregularity, and it was therefore waived. Evaluation Each member of the evaluation committee had experience in the field of electronic monitoring. There are no disputed issues of fact regarding the qualifications or training of the evaluation team, the procedures by which the RFP scoring was performed, or of any individual score. Therefore, further findings or conclusions regarding the evaluators or the scoring of the proposals are unnecessary. Proposed Award As a result of the process of evaluating and scoring the proposals, the Department determined that BI was the highest scoring proposer. Pro Tech was the second highest scoring responsive proposer. Satellite Tracking of People, LLC and G4S Justice Services, LLC were ranked third and fourth, respectively. The final scores were calculated, and the proposers were ranked as follows: Proposers Actual points received by Proposers (X) Highest points received by any Proposal (N) Awarded Points (Z) CATEGORY 1 - Business/Corporate Experience - Maximum 300 Points - (X/N x 300 = Z) BI 209.64 253.39 248.20 G4S 186.07 253.39 220.30 Pro Tech 253.39 253.39 300 STOP 196.43 253.39 232.56 CATEGORY 2 - Technical Specs & Service Delivery Approach - Maximum 400 Points - (X/N x 400 = Z) BI 241.96 285.54 338.95 G4S 246.96 285.54 345.96 Pro Tech 285.54 285.54 400 STOP 248.57 285.54 348.21 Proposers Proposed Per Diem Unit Price (X) Lowest Verified Per Diem Unit Price of All Proposals (N) Awarded Points (Z) CATEGORY 3 - Cost Proposal - Maximum 300 Points - (N/X x 300 = Z) BI $3.00 $3.00 300 G4S $6.88 $3.00 130.81 Pro Tech $5.20 $3.00 173.08 STOP $4.15 $3.00 216.87 Total Proposal Points and Ranking Proposers Total Proposal Points Ranking BI 887.15 1 G4S 697.07 2 Pro Tech 873.08 3 STOP 797.64 4 On December 17, 2010, the Department posted its intent to award the contract to BI. The ?October 5, 2010 Incident? BI has contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, several states, and numerous political subdivisions under which persons are monitored with BI-supplied equipment. The data from the monitoring devices is transmitted to a centralized monitoring location. All of the BI GPS devices, as well as a number of radio frequency and alcohol monitoring devices, were monitored through BI‘s ?TotalAccess? system. On October 5, 2010, at approximately 7:30 a.m. MDT, the number of records contained in the ?identity column? field in the TotalAccess database, which operated on a 32-bit platform, exceeded the capacity of that field. As a result, the monitoring center could no longer receive data from any of the 16,000 devices using the TotalAccess system, which included all of BI‘s almost 9,000 GPS devices. The ?outage? lasted approximately 12 hours. Although the monitoring devices continued to collect and store data on the whereabouts of the offenders during that period, the data could not be sent to the monitoring center or accessed by officers. Offenders had no direct way of knowing that the monitoring devices were not transmitting data. When the system came back on-line at approximately 7:25 p.m. MDT, the data was transmitted from the affected devices to the monitoring center. No data was permanently lost as a result of the outage. Officers were notified of any activities that would have triggered an alert during the period of the outage. If any questions arose as to the movements of an offender during the outage, that data could be retrieved and examined after the fact. During the outage, BI customers were alerted, either by e-mail or by telephone, and advised of the problem. The customers were updated throughout the outage period. The resolution of the issue was achieved by rewriting the ?identity column? data file from 32-bit, with a capacity of 2.1 billion records, to a 64-bit file, with a capacity of 9 quintillion records. In addition, a customized monitor was developed and installed so that a warning will be provided in the future if the system nears capacity. Thus, it is unlikely that this particular problem will recur. The October 5, 2010, incident was, by BI‘s own admission, the single worst event in BI‘s operational history. Protest Issues Petitioner, Pro Tech, timely filed a protest of the award of the contract to BI. The January 3, 2011, protest petition identified the issues that formed the basis for its protest of the award of the contract to BI.1/ The issues alleged by Petitioner are: Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.3.2 of the RFP by failing to: identify all of its federal, state or government contracts under which it provided electronic monitoring services and the number of active GPS units utilized for each; and provide a narrative summary of contract performance for each contract so identified, including major adverse findings; Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.2.9 of the RFP by failing to disclose ?complaints filed, investigations made, warning letters or inspection reports issued, or any disciplinary action? by governmental entities, specifically related to the outage of service that occurred on October 5, 2010; Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.5.13 of the RFP by refusing to provide a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan. Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.5.15 of the RFP by failing to provide a copy of its training curriculum; and Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.5.5 of the RFP by failing to provide a copy of the FCC Grant of Authorization for the ?Beacon? device identified in its proposal. Pro Tech alleged that each of the deficiencies identified in its protest petition constituted a Material Deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP that, pursuant to section 1.15 of the RFP, could not be waived and that warranted rejection of the BI response. On November 15, 2011, BI filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene, in which it raised, as a disputed issue of fact and law, ?[w]hether Pro Tech‘s RFP reply met all of the requirements of the RFP and/or was materially non-responsive.? The responsiveness of Pro Tech‘s proposal was not preserved as an issue remaining for disposition in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation.2/ Issue 1: Failure to comply with past experience requirements Section 5.3.2. requires that details of the proposed vendors‘ experience ?shall be provided in narrative form and in sufficient detail so that the Department is able to judge its complexity and relevance,? and as part of that directive, the proposed vendor was required, in part, to ?identify all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provision of electronic monitoring services, and the number of active GPS units utilized for each,? and to ?provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above-identified contracts, including any major adverse findings.? (emphasis added). The subsections directing the vendors to provide supportive information, including 5.3.2.3. and 5.3.2.4., can be reasonably read in no way other than to be inclusive of the requirement that such information ?shall be provided in narrative form and in sufficient detail . . .? As part of the scheduled process of refining and clarifying the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, potential responding vendors were allowed to submit questions to the Department. The requirement that prospective vendors provide information regarding all government contracts was worrisome to two vendors, including Pro Tech, due to the fact that such a requirement would involve at least a hundred, and up to ?several hundred? contracts. As a result of its concern with the extent of the work necessary to identify all of its electronic monitoring contracts, Pro Tech made the specific inquiry as to whether it would be allowed to ?provide the information for our 10 largest or 10 most similar contracts.? Similarly, another vendor sought to limit the scope of the specification by requesting to ?provide the total number of current and/or past (or within 3 years) federal, state or government contracts,? rather than identifying them individually, and to provide an aggregated, rather than an individual, narrative summary of contract performance. To each question, the Department responded that ?[t]hese requirements remain as stated in the RFP.? The answers were posted by the Department, and became part of the RFP‘s terms, conditions, and specifications. The only reasonable construction of the Department‘s response is that it remained ?a requirement or condition? of the RFP for vendors to identify all electronic monitoring contracts, specify the number of GPS units utilized in each contract, and provide a narrative summary of contract performance. While that requirement may appear to be burdensome, it nonetheless is the requirement. If a proposed vendor believed the requirement to be overly broad or unnecessary, it was obligated to challenge the specification. The specification was not challenged. Failure to identify all contracts In response to section 5.3.2.3, BI responded as follows: ?While BI currently has contracts for EM equipment and services with approximately 1,000 customers, as directed by the requirements in Section 5.3.2 we are providing contracts that are similar in size and scope to those specified in this RFP only.? BI thereupon listed seven contracts, the largest of which used approximately 3,500 ExacuTrack One GPS units, and the smallest of which used 100 ExacuTrack One GPS units. BI believed that listing all of its contracts was not necessary for it to show that it had the requisite experience to perform the Florida contract. Mr. Murnock testified that ?[i]t was clear we did not respond with all one thousand contracts,? and that BI‘s deficient response was made with ?[t]he risk of being scored lower, yes, is one of the risks.? The decision to limit the information to be provided in response to what is an objectively clear requirement was made with considerable forethought and calculation. With regard to the decision to identify seven of its approximately 1,000 customers, Mr. Murnock testified that ?there's certain things that we did not put in this response. We provided our answers to that because we knew, at the risk of getting a lower score, it was a risk-risk situation, you know, where do I expose contracts, do I expose my customer list that could -- while being protected by confidentiality we don't trust, we have seen that breached in other jurisdictions, we've seen that breached here in Florida, I was not going to expose information that we feel to be protected. I answered the specification as I defined it.? (emphasis added). Mr. Murnock stated that BI‘s decision to limit contract disclosure was, in part, the result of a desire to avoid the risk of exposing its customer list because ?[t]here are some customers that don‘t like their information being disseminated.? The suggestion that BI‘s decision was driven by an altruistic concern for the interests of its customers is unconvincing. The Department requested only ?federal, state or government contracts.? No explanation was offered as to why the existence of a government contract would be confidential, or a narrative of BI‘s performance under that contract would be a problem. Regardless of the purported reasons for non-compliance, the options when faced with a clear, direct, and unambiguous requirement of a public procurement to disclose ?sensitive? information are to: a) protest the specification; b) submit the information under the procurement‘s confidential information provisions; or c) choose not to submit a proposal. Picking and choosing what required information to provide, and what not to provide, is not among the acceptable or competitive options. Section 5.2.3 of the RFP is clear and unambiguous. BI‘s response was not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements. The suggestion that vendors are free to unreasonably ?define? terms so as to meet their subjective desires is contrary to a fair and even-handed procurement process. All vendors are expected to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications in the same way so as to present an equal playing field. BI‘s decision to provide only a tiny percentage of its government contracts tilted the field in its favor by allowing it to devote the time saved by not compiling the required information -- time spent by the other complying vendors -- to other sections of its proposal, a result that is contrary to competition. BI‘s representation that it provided contracts ?similar in size and scope? is itself questionable. The contract with the Wisconsin DOC was described as an Electronic Home Detention Program. Wisconsin uses the BI 9000, the HomeGuard 200, and the Sobrietor systems. Those systems were not described in the proposal. There was no indication of whether they are active GPS units or whether they are comparable to the ExacuTrack One system proposed for Florida. In short, the proposal failed to provide any information that would allow the reader to conclude that the Wisconsin DOC contract is similar in scope to the services being sought by the Florida DOC. The contract with the Delaware DOC does not include monitoring of the field units, as is called for in the Florida contract. The lack of a monitoring component makes the Delaware contract dissimilar in scope from the proposed Florida contract. The information provided with regard to the Broward County, Florida contract failed to indicate whether that contract utilizes BI monitoring services. Furthermore, the Broward County narrative indicated that the Broward Pretrial Services Division ?uses BI ExacuTrack AT, HomeGuard 200, GroupGuard Plus, and BI VoiceID,? but failed to describe those units or indicate their comparability to units proposed for the Florida contract. The undersigned will presume that the ?ExacuTrack AT? is a version of the ExacuTrack One. However, the narrative failed to list the ?number of active GPS units? as required by the specification, so it is unknown how many are in service. There was little information provided that would allow a determination that the Pennsylvania contract is ?similar in size and scope? to the proposed Florida contract. The RFP proposal states that ?the Pennsylvania Office of Probation and Parole Services have been operating its own offender monitoring center . . . .? Mr. Murnock confirmed that Pennsylvania was not affected by the October 5, 2010, incident because it used its own local host monitoring system. The lack of a monitoring component makes the Pennsylvania contract dissimilar in scope from the proposed Florida contract. The proposal also indicated that Pennsylvania ?has 450 HomeGuard units and 649 BI 9000‘s units, operating through a GuardServer 750 system.? None of those units, or the GuardServer 750 system, are described in the proposal, and they are not the devices or services proposed for the Florida contract. As such, the proposal fails to provide any information that would allow the reader to conclude that the Pennsylvania contract is similar in scope to the services being sought by Florida. In addition to the fact that Wisconsin, Delaware, Broward County, and Pennsylvania contracts are not, based on the information provided in the RFP, of the same scope as the Florida proposal, the Delaware DOC contract (175 ExacuTrack One units), the Broward County, Florida contract (an unknown number of ExacuTrack AT units), the Fayette County Adult Probation contract (120 ExacuTrack One units), and the City and County of Denver contract (100 ExacuTrack One units, along with 300 radio frequency and 70 alcohol monitoring units) do not approach the size of the Florida contract. As a result of BI‘s decision to forego its duty to identify all of its contracts, as required by the RFP, the Department was left with precious few contracts ?similar in size and scope? to that proposed for Florida with which to compare. BI was a party to other contracts that included BI monitoring and the use of the GPS device proposed for Florida that it elected not to disclose. BI has a contract with the state of Missouri that includes BI monitoring services and, in part, the ExacuTrack One field device. BI failed to list its contract with the state of Missouri in its response to section 5.3.2, purportedly because it consisted predominantly of alcohol and radio frequency monitoring, with ?a few GPS, but I couldn‘t tell you the count.? However, at section 5.5.19 of its proposal, BI noted that the Missouri Department of Corrections ?awarded BI with a contract for GPS, alcohol monitoring and radio frequency? that included the use of the same ExacuTrack One unit proposed for Florida. BI touted the Missouri contract as an example of its ability to rapidly implement the Florida contract. By tucking away information regarding the Missouri contract (along with contracts with agencies in California and Illinois) in section 5.5.19, BI was not obligated to provide a narrative summary of contract performance, or contact information that would allow the Department to follow up if it so chose. The reasoning for excluding the Missouri contract is disingenuous, considering that BI listed its contract with the City and County of Denver, in which GPS monitoring is a small percentage of the total monitoring devices in that contract. Because of BI‘s failure to disclose, it is not known how many other contracts among the 1,000 include features proposed for Florida, and which may have been of value to the evaluators. BI made a calculated decision not to disclose all of its contracts. Petitioner‘s allegations that BI ?cherry-picked? the contracts it chose to disclose is a harsh assessment, but it is an assessment that is supported by the evidence of this proceeding. BI made similar decisions to limit disclosure of its contracts in past procurements, with other agencies, without the consequence of disqualification. Therefore, BI decided to stay with its practice, in the words of Mr. Murnock, to ?disseminate it as we see fit? and chose not to disclose all government electronic monitoring contracts ?at the risk of being scored low.? The fact that BI was ?allowed?3/ to proceed, despite the fact that its response was not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements, provided a competitive advantage to BI over other proposers. The first advantage is the immeasurable advantage conferred by withholding information on its contracts, and possible problems related thereto. The more direct advantage is the time saved by BI as a result of its decision to forego the work necessary to compile the contracts, and provide a narrative summary of their performance. The competitive advantage conferred on BI was, in this case, significant. Petitioner‘s President, Mr. Chapin, testified that Pro Tech devoted two full- time employees for approximately two weeks to collect the data necessary to fully respond to section 5.2.3, in addition to the time devoted by contract account managers in verifying contract performance matters. That was time not expended by BI –- and was time that BI could use to bolster and enhance other sections of its proposal. In addition to the direct competitive advantage conferred on BI, the Department‘s failure to enforce the clear and unambiguous requirements, especially when its ?decision? was made after the preliminary results of the evaluation were known, and when the deviation benefitted the vendor proposing a lower price, fosters an appearance and opportunity for preferential treatment that compromises the integrity of the competitive process.4/ The response to section 5.2.3.3. of the RFP provided by BI is clearly deficient, is not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements, and is a material deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. The Department‘s failure to enforce the requirement in accordance with the terms of section 1.15 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, and capricious. Failure to provide a narrative summary of contract performance Section 5.3.2.4 of the RFP required proposed vendors to provide a narrative summary of their contract performance, including major adverse findings. The summaries were not limited to major adverse findings. Rather, contract performance goes beyond adverse findings, and includes the manner and efficiency in which the contract services are accomplished, whether good or bad. BI provided narrative summaries of the few contracts it chose to identify, but little information as to contract performance. The evidence in this case demonstrates that the October 5, 2010, incident was, without question, the worst single operational event in BI‘s history, and among the two or three most significant failures in the history of the electronic monitoring industry. It affected at least one of the contracts identified by BI, that being with the state of Wisconsin. It occurred while the RFP proposal was being prepared, and approximately six weeks prior to its submission. It is absurd to believe that the October 5, 2010, incident was not a significant element that should have been disclosed in any discussion of contract performance. It may well be, as asserted by BI, that its customers were satisfied with its response to the October 5, 2010, incident. If so, it would have been a simple matter to provide an assessment of the satisfaction of BI‘s customers with its response, and with a description of the remedial measures taken to ensure that it would never recur. BI did not. Although several customers, including the state of Wisconsin, expressed their concern with the situation in writing, and BI offered credits to its customers, there do not appear to have been any ?major adverse findings? as that term may be narrowly construed. As a measure of ?contract performance,? Mr. Murnock testified that the October 5, 2010, incident ?is certainly not a good incident to occur. But when you look at the specifications, we interpreted them exactly the way they were listed.? That is not the case. Rather, the decision to withhold any mention of the incident came about by a careful and measured parsing of words. BI witnesses testified that the October 5, 2011, incident was no secret, and that it had put out media coverage and press releases because it ?wanted to be an open book? regarding the incident. However, as to the ?threshold? of the items that would have to be disclosed as a significant issue of contract performance, Mr. Murnock testified that ?that would be a very long list of performance items, whether it be from a billing issue that may have been raised, to this October 5th issue.? The equation of a simple ?billing issue? with the October 5, 2010, incident -- the single worst event in BI‘s history -- serves to highlight the attitude that allowed BI to willingly avoid disclosure of a direct, material, and significant element of contract performance that affected the very goods and services being proposed for Florida. The incident was enough of a secret that no evaluator was aware of it. The evaluators acknowledged that the event was significant, and could have affected their scores on the performance section of the RFP, though none could state whether the effect would have been positive or negative. It may well be that the explanation of the prompt remedial measures would have been well received by the evaluators, and that no reduction in scores would have resulted. It may also be that the event, given its severity, would have negatively affected their scores.5/ The testimony of Department witnesses that the October 5, 2010, incident was not necessarily something that it would have wanted to know about rings hollow. There is absolutely no reason why that information would not be pertinent and material to this RFP. The suggestion that the October 5 incident was something the Department viewed with ambivalence goes more to its desire to support the contract award than it does to the sufficiency of the BI narrative of contract performance.6/ Despite what is clearly a designed and calculated effort on the part of BI to withhold information regarding the incident from the Department -- and the Department‘s inexplicable lack of concern regarding the withholding of material information regarding subject matter of the RFP -- the fact is that BI‘s proposal included ?narrative summaries,? thereby meeting the minimal requirement established in section 5.3.2.4. Despite a lack of candor on the part of BI that raises significant concern, the undersigned cannot conclude that the deficiencies in the narrative summaries constituted an issue of basic responsiveness. Therefore, the undersigned cannot find that BI‘s omission of information regarding the goods and services proposed for Florida is a material deviation from section 5.3.2.4. of the RFP. Issue 2: Failure to disclose ?complaints? related to the October 5, 2010 event Section 5.2.9. of the RFP requires proposed vendors to provide ?any and all documents regarding complaints filed, investigations made, warning letters or inspection reports issued, or any disciplinary action imposed by Federal or State oversight agencies within the past five (5) years.? Pro Tech asserts that an October 7, 2010, ?deficiency notice? from the Missouri Department of Corrections regarding the October 5, 2010, incident, and follow-up correspondence through December 23, 2010, fell within the class of governmental action that should have been disclosed, but was not. The October 7, 2011, letter from the Missouri DOC identifies itself as a ?letter of notification to BI of a deficiency notice,? and requested of BI ?a written response within 7 calendar days identifying the problem area(s) which led to the failure and what steps BI intends to initiate to ensure that the system failure is not repeated.? BI witnesses testified that a ?deficiency notice? was not one of the specific items listed in section 5.2.9 of the RFP, and that it was therefore not obligated to disclose the Missouri letter under its very narrow reading of the items requested. BI‘s candor with regard to the October 5, 2010, incident as expressed in its response to section 5.2.9. is roughly approximate to that evident from its response to section 5.3.2.4.7/ Section 5.2.9. uses very specific terms. It is doubtful that the Department intended potential vendors to disclose only those documents with the words ?complaint,? ?investigation,? ?warning letter,? ?inspection report,? or ?disciplinary action? splashed prominently across the document. Rather, a fair reading of the requirement, coupled with an interest in being open and forthright regarding performance -- an ?open book? as stated by Mr. Murnock -- would clearly include a ?deficiency notice? to be within the class of items being requested. However, since the specific RFP language listed specific items, without a more inclusive descriptor, such as ?including but not limited to,? or ?in the nature of,? the undersigned will not broaden the specific RFP requirement. Since the Missouri letter did not include the words ?complaint,? ?investigation,? ?warning letter,? ?inspection report,? or ?disciplinary action? within the body of the correspondence, despite its being plainly within the general class of those documents, the response provided by BI to section 5.2.9. was not a material deviation from that requirement of the RFP. Issue 3: Failure to provide a copy of the Disaster Recovery Plan The RFP, at section 5.5.13., provides that ?[t]he proposer shall provide a detailed description of the Contractor‘s method and approach for meeting or exceeding all Monitoring Center requirements in section 3.13, and specifically . . . provide a copy of the Disaster Recovery plan.? The requirement is clear, direct, and unambiguous. BI did not file a protest of the specification, nor did it question the submission of its Disaster Recovery Plan during the process that resulted in the issuance of Addendum #1. In response to section 5.5.13. of the RFP, BI responded as follows: ?Because of security reasons, the Disaster Recovery Plan is not included with this response. For an outline of the Disaster Recovery Plan, see „3.13.4? beginning on page 148.? BI‘s refusal to provide the Disaster Recovery Plan is reiterated in its response to section 3.13.10. There is no industry standard as to what constitutes a Disaster Recovery Plan. However, BI clearly understood what constituted its Disaster Recovery Plan, and made the calculated decision that it was not going to submit it. The response provided by BI is clearly deficient, and is not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements. BI decided that it would not provide its Disaster Recovery Plan to the Department ?because it has always been a practice that we not provide that unless it is outside of the production of the RFP, upon request.? The decision to ignore the requirement was made with calculated and matter-of-fact intent, relying on the assumption that it would entail at most a scoring reduction. In lieu of providing the Disaster Recovery Plan as required, Ms. White testified that elements of the plan were ?listed within the RFP itself in several different sections, about 30 different pages.? Thus, according to BI, various elements of what one might expect to find in a Disaster Recovery Plan lay flung about in unrelated sections of its RFP proposal, awaiting the efforts of the intrepid evaluators to uncover their existence and significance. BI‘s assertion that it intended those far-flung elements to meet the RFP‘s requirement that it provide its Disaster Recovery Plan is belied by its express statement that, with knowledge of its action, it elected to omit the Disaster Recovery Plan. The evaluation of a procurement proposal is not akin to a game of hide-and-seek. It is unreasonable to expect evaluators to scour each proposal to glean information scattered throughout, when there is a clear, unmistakable, and mandatory direction to provide the Disaster Recovery Plan as a single, stand-alone document. Compliance with a mandatory item of a public procurement, particularly one designed to ensure that the proposing vendor can adequately reply to a disaster scenario when its services are arguably most needed, cannot be left to the chance that an evaluator might be able to sift through the proposal, and to thereby piece together an understanding of what disaster preparedness measures are proposed. The fact that the Disaster Recovery Plan contains confidential and proprietary information does not lessen the obligation to provide that information. Section 4.3.20. of the RFP provides the procedure by which confidential, proprietary, or trade secret material may be subject to protection under the Constitution and laws of Florida. If a proposed vendor believes the protections to be insufficient, it has a hard decision to make as to whether to submit or not submit a proposal. That decision does not include whether to ignore a mandatory requirement of the RFP on the chance that the consequence would be insignificant. It is clear that the Department never determined whether BI‘s admitted failure to disregard the Disaster Recovery Plan requirement was a material deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. When Ms. Wright finally reviewed the BI proposal immediately before the posting of the award of the contract, she noted that BI had not submitted a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan as required by the RFP. Ms. Wright did not follow the established procedure of discussing the issue with Mr. Staney, nor was legal staff consulted. Rather, Ms. Wright called Douglas Smith, who was an evaluator. Ms. Wright indicated that, despite BI‘s express statement that it was not submitting a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan as required, she wanted ?to check with Mr. Smith on if he felt comfortable with what they had shared about the Disaster Recovery Plan, and was it sufficient.? Mr. Smith recalled his conversation with Ms. Wright, and indicated that ?it wasn‘t so much the Disaster Recovery Plan specifically, she was asking about the elements we reviewed. Are you comfortable with the score that was given? Are they adequate, satisfactory to be able to perform the services based on the contract?? Based on her discussion with Mr. Jones, Ms. Wright unilaterally determined that she did not need to take the issue of the omission of the Disaster Recovery Plan to Mr. Staney or to legal staff. Notably, Ms. Wright admitted that she did not make a determination of whether BI‘s admitted failure to provide a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan, as required by the RFP, was a material deviation or a minor irregularity. Vendors with an interest in the Florida contract may have been discouraged from submitting proposals because of similar concerns with the security of their Disaster Recovery Plans, or because they did not have a stand-alone Disaster Recovery Plan. It generally cannot be known how many, if any, potential proposers may have been dissuaded from submitting a proposal because of one project specification or another. However, although the effect of an agency choosing to ignore a clear and unambiguous requirement for one proposer that is applicable to all other proposers confers a competitive advantage that is difficult to calculate, it is nonetheless real. Furthermore, withholding its Disaster Recovery Plan until after the posting of the award gave BI the opportunity to review the other proposals. If it then determined that its proposal was less than advantageous, it could effectively pull itself from the procurement by maintaining its refusal to submit its Disaster Recovery Plan when requested by the Department. Thus, the failure to submit the Disaster Recovery Plan when required was a material deviation that conferred a competitive advantage on BI that was not enjoyed by the other compliant proposers. In addition to the foregoing, the refusal to enforce the clear and unambiguous requirement that BI submit a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan, particularly when such a waiver has occurred outside of the Department‘s normal practice of evaluating deviations from the requirements of the RFP, and after the preliminary outcome of the evaluation was known, raises the distinct appearance of favoritism and preferential treatment towards BI. BI‘s failure to provide a copy of its Disaster Recovery plan is not in substantial accord with the RFP‘s requirements, and is a material deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. The Department‘s failure to enforce the requirement in accordance with the terms of section 1.15 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, and capricious. Issue 4: Failure to provide a training curriculum The RFP, at section 5.5.13, provides that ?[t]he proposer shall provide a detailed description of the approach to meeting or exceeding all Training requirements in section 3.16, and specifically: . . . provide a copy of the training curriculum.? In response to section 5.5.15 of the RFP, BI provided a summary of the topics to be covered in its course for training officers and other employees in the use of the monitoring system. The summary described the outline for the training to be provided, but did not go into detail as to manner in which the training would be provided. The RFP does not define the term ?curriculum.? In general, a curriculum is defined as ?the courses offered by an educational institution? or ?a set of courses constituting an area of specialization.? MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, at http://www.merriam-webster.com. In this case, there is a single training course. The information provided by BI described the basic course that it intended to provide. What appears to be the subject of Pro Tech‘s complaint is that BI did not provide a complete syllabus, or the complete set of materials, for the training course that was to be provided. A syllabus or training materials were not required. The RFP, at section 3.16, provided that: [t]he training curriculum . . . [is] hereby adopted as the approved curriculum . . . to be utilized for all training purposes under this Contract. Said curriculum . . . [is] incorporated herein as if fully stated. Any changes to these documents shall be approved in writing by the Department‘s Contract Manager. Based on that provision of the RFP, a credible argument can be made that the intent of the provision was for the proposer to submit a document far more comprehensive than provided by BI. The Department‘s proffered explanation that the ?curriculum? provided by BI was what was intended by the RFP is not convincing, and generally runs contrary to the requirements of section 3.16. However, the description of what was to constitute a curriculum was imprecise and ambiguous. The information provided by BI describes the training course offering, and may reasonably be construed -- in a broad sense of the term -- to be a curriculum. The response provided by BI to section 5.5.15 is in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements as stated, and was not a material deviation from those requirements. Issue 5: Failure to provide the FCC license for the ?Beacon? Section 5.5.5 of the RFP requires the proposed vendors to provide the Department with ?a detailed description of the General Equipment specifications that meets or exceeds all requirements in section 3.7.2,? and ?provide copies of required licensing by the Federal Communications Commission for the equipment proposed.? The equipment proposed by BI as responsive to the general equipment specifications of section 3.7.2 consists of the ExacuTrack One single piece GPS tracking unit. The ExacuTrack One meets or exceeds all requirements established in section 3.7.2. The FCC grant of equipment authorization was provided for the ExacuTrack One unit. The ?Beacon? was identified in section 5.5.21 of the RFP as a value-added service that was above and beyond the RFP‘s minimum service delivery requirements and specifications. The Beacon is not a necessary component of the equipment for tracking offenders as established in section 3.7.2, but serves as a home-base unit to transmit location and data, and conserve battery power. Section 5.5.5, is reasonably construed to require that the FCC ?license? be provided only for the general equipment proposed pursuant to section 3.7.2 of the RFP. BI complied with that requirement. Based on the terms, conditions and specifications of the RFP, the response provided by BI to section 5.5.5 is in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements, and was not a material deviation from those requirements. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based on the foregoing, the BI response to Request for Proposals, Solicitation Number 10-DC-8200, materially deviated from the mandatory terms, conditions, and specifications of sections 5.3.2.3. of the RFP, as supplemented by Addendum #1, and section 5.5.13 of the RFP. The items that rendered the BI proposal non-responsive, and that materially deviated from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, gave BI an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers, were not minor irregularities, and could not be waived under the terms of the RFP. Based on the foregoing, Pro Tech demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the award of the contract to BI was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, and capricious. The undersigned is not unmindful of the fact that BI proposed the lowest cost, and that the rejection of the BI proposal will result in a higher overall cost for offender monitoring services to the state. Perhaps the fact that Pro Tech proposed a system that was scored higher based on its business experience and technical merits will offset any concerns. Regardless, the decision as to whether BI met the clear and unambiguous requirements of RFP 10-DC-8200 cannot, in the interests of fair and open competition, be the result of preferential treatment afforded to BI based on one element of a multi-factored RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further recommended that the contract issued in response to Request for Proposals, Solicitation Number 10-DC-8200, entitled "Global Positioning Satellite Electronic Monitoring Services" be awarded to Petitioner, Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. as the highest scoring responsive vendor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2012. 1/ The protest petition initially alleged that the evaluation team members did not meet the experience and knowledge requirements of section 287.057(16)(a), and that the price proposed by BI was unrealistically low, thereby jeopardizing the ability of BI to provide service under the contract. Both of those issues were withdrawn prior to the final hearing. 2/ If the issue of the responsiveness of the Pro Tech proposal had not been waived, the undersigned would have found and concluded that BI failed to demonstrate that the Pro Tech proposal was not responsive to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. The responsiveness issue was related solely to whether Pro Tech identified its contracts, provided narrative summaries, and disclosed complaints related thereto, in violation of sections 5.3.2. and 5.2.9. of the RFP. The only evidence of such non-responsiveness was related to a contract between G4S Justice Services, LLC, and the state of Connecticut, for which Pro Tech was a subcontractor. The RFP contained no requirement that a proposer disclose or discuss its subcontracts with other vendors, but rather required only the disclosure of ?all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts.? Therefore, Pro Tech‘s failure to disclose its subcontract with G4S -- despite its disclosure of a different subcontract to which it was a party in Missouri - - was not a deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. 3/ The suggestion that the Department ?allowed? the BI proposal to pass through the review process, or that the Department made such a decision, is a bit inaccurate. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the Department made no decision as to whether BI‘s proposal contained material deviations until faced with the issue in the context of litigation. However, for ease of reference, the terms ?allowed? and ?decision? will be used when describing the effect of BI‘s decisions to submit less information than required under the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, and the Department‘s after-the-fact litigation strategy to support its determination to award the contract to BI. 4/ In Syslogic Technology Servs., Inc. v. So. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., Case No. 01-4385BID, at 61, n.19, (Fla. DOAH Jan. 18, 2002; SFWMD Mar. 6, 2002), Judge Van Laningham was similarly faced with a situation in which the agency failed to make a determination as to whether a deviation from the procurement specifications was material until after the proposals were scored and ranked, and the preliminary outcome known. His analysis is instructive and well-written, and is adopted, with full attribution, by the undersigned. The reason for this should be clear: If the decision on materiality were made from a post facto perspective based on extrinsic factors, then the temptation would be great to base the determination on reasons that should not bear on the issue. In particular, the materiality of a deviation should not depend on whether the deficient proposal happens to be highest ranked. To see this point, imagine a close football game in which, at the start of the fourth quarter, one team scores a go-ahead touchdown -- if the receiver came down in bounds. Would anyone think it fair if the referees awarded the points provisionally and reserved ruling on whether the touchdown should count until after the end of the game? Of course not. In a contest, potentially determinative decisions involving a competitor's compliance with the rules need to be made when the outcome is in doubt, when the effect of the decision is yet unknown; otherwise, the outcome may be manipulated. 5/ The Department would treat the failure to disclose the October 5, 2010, incident as a minor irregularity, thus allowing it to be treated as a scoring issue. However, the October 5, 2010, incident cannot be treated as a scoring issue due to BI‘s failure to disclose. Captain Yossarian would have made an appropriate evaluator of Request for Proposals No. 10-DC-8200. 6/ Again, with a tip of the hat to Judge Van Laningham: When an agency asserts for the first time as a party litigant in a bid protest that an irregularity was immaterial, the contention must be treated, not with deference as a presumptively neutral finding of ultimate fact, but with fair impartiality as a legal argument; in other words, the agency is entitled to nothing more or less than to be heard on an equal footing with the protester. Phil‘s Expert Tree Service v. Broward Co. Sch. Bd., Case No. 06- 4499BID at 42, n.13, (Fla. DOAH Mar. 19, 2007; BCSB June 11, 2007). 7/ To BI‘s credit, it did disclose an investigation by the state of New Jersey into its billing practices which, not surprisingly, ?concluded that BI was not at fault,? and for which BI included 23 pages of supportive information. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, and Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 smenton@reuphlaw.com Christopher Ryan Maloney, Esquire Foley and Lardner Suite 1300 1 Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 cmaloney@foley.com Benjamin J. Grossman, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP Suite 900 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 bjgrossman@foley.com Jonathan P. Sanford, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 sanford.jonathan@mail.dc.state.fl.us Ken Tucker, Secretary Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Department of Transportation's rejection of all bids in this case meets the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact In August 1996, the Department sought bids for several road projects to be constructed in Bradenton, Florida. The projects were identified as State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6501, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. The construction project includes utility relocation work to be performed on behalf of the Manatee County, the City of Bradenton, and GTE, the owners of various utilities within the project area. In preparing for road construction projects, the Department enters into joint partnership agreements with utility owners. The agreements identify the responsibilities of the parties related to performance of utility relocation/construction work related to the road project. Essentially, the owner and Department determine an estimated cost for the utility construction which the owner places into escrow and the Department assumes the responsibility for obtaining bids for the utility work. In the event that the bid exceeds the escrowed estimated cost, the utility owner may withdraw from the agreement. Upon such withdrawal, the joint partnership agreement provides that the owner may perform the work itself or the Department can pay the amount in excess of that which the owner has escrowed. If the Department agrees to pay the "excess" cost, the utility work remains included in the bid project. If the Department does not pay the "excess," the work is performed by the utility owner in accordance with the Department's construction schedule, and is deleted from the final contract negotiated with the winning bidder. Six companies filed bids in relation to the projects at issue in this proceeding, including Gator Asphalt Co., APAC- Florida, MacKenzie E.T. Company, Westra Construction Corporation, Smith and Co., Inc., and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bid of $6,586,034.13 was the low bid submitted. The Petitioner has been properly prequalified by the Department to perform the work that is the subject of the bid at issue in this proceeding. The date upon which the bids were opened is unclear, but by October 4, 1996, the bids had been opened and tabulated. By letter dated October 4, 1996, the Department notified the City of Bradenton of the bid tabulation. Although the estimated cost of work to be performed on behalf of the city was about $400,000, the letter indicates that the total amount of the deposited escrow should be $534,160.50. The letter provided a deadline of October 10 to provide certification to the Department that the funds had been escrowed. Although the Department's letter of October 4 does not address whether the Department was willing to pay the "excess," the request for additional city funds indicates that the Department was not offering to pay the additional costs associated with the work. By letter dated October 9, 1996, the City of Bradenton withdrew its participation from the project. The city portion of the work was State Project Number 13160-6501. The Department's technical review committee met on October 9, 1996. The committee reviews bid proposals and makes a recommendation to the awards committee. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the technical review committee meeting. No one who attended the technical review committee meeting testified at the hearing. At the hearing, a witness who did not attend the meeting reviewed minutes of the committee meeting and testified as to what the minutes appeared to indicate. The minutes were not offered into evidence. The awards committee met on October 15, 1996. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the awards committee meeting. No one who attended the awards committee testified at the hearing. Despite the lack of information as to what occurred during the committee meetings of October 9 and 15, the evidence establishes that the Department made no attempt to recalculate the bid amounts after the City of Bradenton withdrawal. On November 4, 1996, the Department posted notice of its intention to reject all the bids for State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. Four bids exceeding the maximum acceptable bid established by the Department were rejected. Two bids, including the Petitioner's, were rejected as nonresponsive for failing to meet requirements related to utilization of "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" (DBE) in the project. The Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's proposed rejection of all bids. The Department requires that each bid proposal either meet specific goals for DBE utilization or include an adequate "good faith effort" package identifying the efforts made by the bidder to meet the goal. The DBE goal for these projects was 12 percent of the total bid amount. Failure to either meet the DBE goal or submit an adequate "good faith effort" package renders a bid submittal nonresponsive. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive for failing to meet the DBE requirements. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's proposal did not include an adequate "good faith effort" package. The Petitioner's bid identifies DBE participation as 11.3 percent of its total bid. The Petitioner's total bid amount included the utility work for the City of Bradenton. The Petitioner asserts that a specification set forth in the bid package requires that the Department recalculate the bid proposals by deleting the City of Bradenton work from the project. Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications issued as part of the bid package at issue in this proceeding, states as follow: The Department reserves the right to delete the bid portion of the utility relocation work from the Contract. Deletion of any utility relocation work from the Contract will require the Contract bid tabulations to be recalculated based on the remaining project quantities. According to calculations made by the Petitioner, reducing the amount of his total bid by the cost of utility work related to the City of Bradenton, results in his DBE participation rising to 11.9777 percent of the revised total. The DBE reporting form supplied to bidders by the Department states that the "[g]oal may be rounded to the nearest tenth percent," indicating that his 11.977 percent could be rounded up to 12 percent. The Petitioner asserts that the withdrawal of the City of Bradenton from the project and the rounding of the goal results in his bid meeting the DBE requirement of 12 percent. The language of Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications is applicable, not to bid proposals, but to the contract negotiated between the successful bidder and the Department. In practice, the Department has implemented this provision according to the specification language. Items specifically related to withdrawn utility relocation work are deleted from the contract negotiated with the successful bidder. The evidence fails to establish the Petitioner is entitled to recalculation of his bid proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by the Petitioner in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Brant Hargrove, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary S. Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent should award a contract for a new telecommunications system to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC, Inc., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Florida. Respondent is a political subdivision and agency of the state. Intervenor is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Florida. The System Respondent's telecommunications system lacks the capacity to meet current and future needs. Respondent seeks a new telecommunications system to serve a minimum of seven high schools, 10 middle schools, 29 elementary schools, and 12 support offices (the "system"). 1/ The Expert Respondent contracted with Omnicom, Inc. ("Omnicom") to assist Respondent in obtaining a new system that is in Respondent's best interest. Omnicom is an expert in telecommunications. The contract requires Omnicom to perform several functions. Omnicom must prepare an RFP, administer the solicitation and receipt of proposals, evaluate the proposals on a point system, issue a report of its evaluation, and recommend a selection that is in Respondent's best interest. Subjectivity There are two primary means of public procurement. One is an invitation to bid ("ITB"). The other is an RFP. The consulting contract refers to a "Request for Bid." The contract indicates that the document will establish an award to the "low fixed price bid meeting specifications." An ITB is significantly different from an RFP. An RFP is inherently more subjective than an ITB. An ITB requires bids to comply closely with the specifications prescribed in the ITB. An ITB prescribes specifications and a solution sought by the issuer. A bidder estimates the cost that the issuer will pay for the solution prescribed in the ITB. An RFP is more subjective. An RFP generally asks proposers to propose a solution to the issuer's stated needs and to estimate the cost of the proposed solution. Proposals generally describe the proposer's sense of the best solution and its cost. The criteria and procedures prescribed in an RFP are intended to minimize, but not eliminate, the subjectivity inherent in the RFP process. The procurement document Omnicom prepared is an RFP. The consulting contract does not require Omnicom to design and implement a new system for Respondent and then obtain bids for the cost of such a system. The RFP solicits solutions to Respondent's telecommunication needs. It prescribes criteria important to Respondent, and Respondent then evaluates proposals on the basis of those criteria. Those criteria include service. Intent Respondent paid Omnicom to recommend a proposal that is in Respondent's best interest. However, neither Omnicom nor Respondent intended the recommendation to usurp Respondent's authority to exercise discretion in taking final agency action. The RFP makes it clear that the proposal selected will be the system that Respondent determines to be in its best interest. The RFP states: The proposal selected will be the . . . system that meets the present and future needs of [Respondent] and is in the best interest of [Respondent]. * * * The objective of [Respondent] in soliciting and evaluating proposals . . . is to obtain a system that best meets the present and future needs of [Respondent] at a cost that is consistent with the features and services provided. * * * It should be understood that the information provided in this RFP is not to be construed as defining specific system equipment, features, or solutions, but rather is intended to present [Respondent's] needs and objectives in terms of system services and control. * * * The submission and acceptance of proposals does not obligate [Respondent] in any way. . . . [Respondent] reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. [Respondent] makes no representation, implied or expressed, that it will accept and approve any proposal submitted. * * * Proposals submitted may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of [Respondent]. * * * In submitting a proposal, the proposer understands . . . [Respondent] will determine at [its] discre- tion, which proposal, if any, is accepted. RFP at 1-2, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-11. The RFP The evaluation criteria and procedures established in the RFP are consistent with Respondent's intent in contracting with Omnicom. The RFP establishes a fixed rule or standard by which Respondent selects the proposal that is in Respondent's best interest. Respondent paid Omnicom with public funds to formulate that fixed rule or standard. Final Decision The RFP requires the proposal with the greatest total awarded points to be selected for a contract award. The RFP does not require the proposal with the greatest total awarded points to be recommended for selection. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points. . . . The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. (emphasis supplied) RFP, Appendix E, E-2. Alleged ambiguities within the RFP are resolved by the clear and unambiguous meaning of the underscored words in the quoted language. The proposal with the greatest total awarded points is to be selected by Respondent for a contract award. The clear and unambiguous words in the RFP are reasonable. Respondent hired a recognized expert in telecommunications to oversee the acquisition and implementation of a new system. The evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP reflect Respondent's intent to rely on the expertise it purchased with public funds unless Respondent: rejects all proposals; rejects Omnicom's evaluation and recommendation and asks Omnicom to re-evaluate the proposals; or conducts an independent evaluation of the proposals and substitutes Respondent's own independent judgment. The underscored language in the RFP is specific. It is consistent with general language in the RFP. For example, selection of the proposal with the most points awarded by Omnicom is consistent with the following general provision: Proposals submitted may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of [Respondent]. * * * In submitting a proposal, the proposer understands . . . [Respondent] will determine at [its] discre- tion, which proposal, if any, is accepted. RFP at 2-7, and 2-11. Other general language in the RFP authorizes Respondent to reject all proposals and either develop a new RFP, seek a system through the ITB process, or seek a system through a process that is exempt from public procurement requirements if the system or Respondent qualify for such an exemption. The RFP states: The submission and acceptance of proposals does not obligate [Respondent] in any way . . . [Respondent] reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. [Respondent] makes no representation, implied or expressed, that it will accept and approve any proposal submitted. RFP at 2-6. Such language is "boiler plate" in public procurement documents. Nothing in the RFP is intended to, or has the effect of, exempting Respondent from the law applicable to public procurement. The RFP states: [Respondent] reserves the right to . . . negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. RFP at 2-6. Respondent can not solicit proposals and then negotiate separately with a select proposer or a third party in violation of the body of law applicable to public procurement. The language quoted in the preceding paragraph does not authorize Respondent to take final agency action in a manner that is not governed by fixed rule or standard. The fixed rule or standard that governs Respondent's determination of its best interest is prescribed in the RFP and sanctioned by Respondent. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points. . . . The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. (emphasis supplied) RFP, Appendix E, E-2. The quoted language is specific, clear, and unambiguous. To the extent it is inconsistent with general provisions in the RFP, the plain meaning of the specific language controls any general provisions that may be contrary to either the specific language or the law applicable to public procurement. Scope Of Review The RFP limits the scope of review to information contained in the proposals submitted by the proposers. The RFP states: . . . Only the information contained in the proposal and references verifications will be used in the evaluation. RFP at E-2. Respondent fixes the scope of review by limiting it to the information contained in the proposals. Review And Approval Respondent reviewed the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent approved the RFP on July 11, 1995. On July 12, 1995, Omnicom issued the RFP. Omnicom's Evaluation And Recommendation The RFP solicits base proposals and alternate proposals that achieve Respondent's objectives for a new system. No alternate proposal is authorized without a base proposal that complies with the basic configuration prescribed in the RFP. Seven proposals were submitted to Omnicom. Omnicom determined that one proposal did not satisfy mandatory requirements. Omnicom evaluated the six proposals that satisfied mandatory requirements. They are: Petitioner's base proposal; Petitioner's alternate proposal; Intervenor's proposal; a base proposal from Bell South Business Systems, Inc. ("Bell South"); a base proposal from Orlando Business Telephone Systems ("OBTS"); and a base proposal from WilTel Communications, Inc. ("WilTel"). Omnicom awarded the following technical, cost, and total points. PROPOSAL TECHNICAL COST TOTAL NEC (Alternate) 699 200 899.0 Siemens ROLM 715.5 179 894.5 Bell South 719.5 161.1 880.6 NEC (Base) 700 172.8 872.8 WilTel(Base) 617 157.2 774.2 OBTS 595.5 158.4 753.9 Omnicom ranked Petitioner's alternate proposal highest in total points and points awarded for cost. Omnicom ranked Intervenor's proposal highest in technical merit. Omnicom conditioned its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal on resolution of several concerns Omnicom expressed in its evaluation report. Those concerns are included in the discussion in paragraphs 108-124, infra. Omnicom recommended Petitioner's alternate proposal for selection if Respondent could resolve the concerns Omnicom had with Petitioner's alternate proposal and if Respondent deemed it to be in Respondent's best interest. Omnicom recommended Intervenor's proposal if Respondent either could not resolve Omnicom's concerns or if Respondent did not deem Petitioner's alternate proposal to be in Respondent's best interest. Arbitrary Selection Respondent selected Intervenor's proposal over Petitioner's alternate proposal. Respondent's selection of Intervenor's proposal was within the scope of the recommendation made by Omnicom. However, the manner in which Respondent exercised its agency discretion is arbitrary. The manner in which Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is in Respondent's best interest is not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent did not conduct an independent evaluation and substitute Respondent's own judgment. Respondent did not apply the rule or standard fixed in the RFP to the information included in the proposals and substitute its judgment for that of Omnicom. Respondent did not substitute a fixed rule or standard different from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent substituted a rule or standard that is not fixed but is invisible and known only to Respondent. Respondent expanded the evaluation procedure and scope of review fixed in the RFP. Respondent improperly applied criteria fixed in the RFP and applied improper criteria not established in the RFP. 6.1 Scope Of Review The RFP assignes a maximum of 800 points to criteria prescribed in six technical categories. It assigns a maximum of 200 points to cost. The maximum total score for technical and cost criteria is 1,000 points. The points Respondent fixed for the criteria in the RFP indicate the relative importance of the criteria. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points and a short list of proposals established for further evaluation. The short listed proposals will then be evaluated on a cost basis and points awarded accordingly. Awarded cost points will then be summed with the awarded technical and administrative points. The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. RFP, Appendix E, at E-2. 38. Omnicom evaluated the six proposals that met mandatory requirements and submitted an evaluation report in accordance with the evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP. The report recommends that the contract be awarded to Petitioner. In accordance with the evaluation procedure established in the RFP, Omnicom's evaluation report was submitted to a review committee on September 8, 1995. The committee consisted of knowledgeable representatives from the community and select employees of Respondent. The committee reviewed the evaluation report for accuracy and objectivity. The committee took no exception to any portion of the evaluation report and recommendation. In accordance with the evaluation procedure established in the RFP, the Superintendent of the Seminole County School District (the "Superintendent") recommended that Respondent award the contract to Petitioner for its alternate proposal. Respondent did not take issue with the recommendations of Omnicom, the committee, or the Superintendent. Respondent issued a notice of intent to award the contract to Petitioner on September 8, 1995. Respondent scheduled a work session for September 12, 1995, to consider the evaluation report from Omnicom and to vote on Omnicom's recommendation. 6.1(a) Intervenor's Expanded Proposal On September 11, 1995, Intervenor sent a letter to each of Respondent's members. Separately, each member obtained a report on user ratings of telecommunications equipment. The letter urged Respondent to consider Intervenor's local presence, including the local presence of Siemens Stromberg Carlson, Intervenor's corporate sibling. The letter asserted that Petitioner has no significant local presence. It claims that Intervenor is a "Tier 1" telecommunications vendor and that Petitioner is not. None of these matters were included in Intervenor's proposal even though service was one of the criteria for evaluation. Intervenor's solicitation provided Respondent with information not included in Intervenor's proposal. The additional information exceeded the scope of review and evaluation procedure fixed in the RFP. 6.2(b) Altered Procedure At the work session conducted on September 12, 1995, Respondent accepted comments from the public and from proposers. Intervenor emphasized its status as a Tier 1 vendor. One of Respondent's members expressed concern that Petitioner had only one local representative and that he worked out of his home. Petitioner has four technicians and stated in its alternate proposal that two additional technicians would be added. No member read any of the proposals. A second member stated that cost is an insignificant matter. The second member opined that cost should not be an issue considered in making the final decision. The second member is a senior management employee for Bell South. Bell South was ranked third in total points by Omnicom. The second member seconded a motion to postpone the contract award. In considering postponement of their vote, the members relied on information contained in Intervenor's expanded proposal. The members voted to postpone the award of the contract until September 20, 1995. At that meeting, each proposer was to make a twenty minute presentation to Respondent. 6.2(c) Improper Consideration Of Fixed Criteria And Consideration Of Improper Criteria The background statement in the agenda to the meeting scheduled for September 20, 1995, stated that Omnicom's point scores could not be used as the determining factor in awarding the contract because all but one of the proposals "did not meet all mandatory requirements." This was the first instance in which either Respondent or Omnicom indicated that any proposal except the alternate proposal submitted by WilTel failed to satisfy mandatory requirements in the RFP. 2/ None of Respondent's individual members read any portion of the proposals submitted to Omnicom. The members did not make independent determinations of whether the proposals submitted by Petitioner or Intervenor in fact satisfied mandatory requirements established in the RFP. On September 18, 1995, Petitioner notified Respondent that Petitioner protested the meeting scheduled for September 20, 1995. Petitioner stated that it would participate in the meeting under protest; without waiving any right it had to protest Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria, procedure, and scope of review fixed in the RFP. In the Notice of Public Meeting issued for the September 20 meeting, Respondent stated it may add up to 200 points to the total points awarded by Omnicom. The additional points were to be based upon the information the proposers submitted at the meeting. This was the first time Respondent disclosed the availability of points other than the 1,000 points fixed in the RFP. The Notice of Public Meeting stated no criteria upon which the additional points would be awarded. Respondent did not formulate any criteria upon which to award the additional points. 6.2(d) Final Decision: Expanded Scope, Altered Procedure, Improper Consideration Of Fixed Criteria And Consideration Of Improper Criteria At the meeting conducted on September 20, 1995, the proposers gave presentations to Respondent and Omnicom. The proposers answered questions posed orally by Respondent's individual members. Omnicom responded to comments made by the proposers. Each proposer was then allowed two minutes for "surrebuttal." The majority of comments related to reasons why specific points were deducted during Omnicom's evaluation. The proposers did not have access to a specific point award matrix to which the members may have referred during the meeting. The subject matter of the inquiry included criteria established in the RFP, including service capability. The inquiry did not focus on conditions Omnicom attached to its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal. See, paragraphs 108-124, infra. Intervenor repeated its representation that it is a Tier 1 vendor. Intervenor asserted that it is the number one PBX supplier in the world and the number two vendor in annual expenditures for research and development. Intervenor submitted documents substantiating its claims. None of this information was included in Intervenor's proposal. After the presentations, the Superintendent suggested the members write down three of the five proposers. The Superintended stated that the additional points would not be written down because they were for the use of the individual members. The first round of voting produced a new short list that deleted Petitioner and consisted of Intervenor and Bell South. The members then discussed the two proposals on the new short list. During the discussion, one member stated that she felt the RFP assigned too many points for cost. The members voted to award the contract to Intervenor. The member who is an employee of Bell South recused himself from the final vote. The voting members did not disclose the criteria they relied on for their vote, the weight assigned to the criteria relied on, the additional points assigned, or the fixed rule or standard which governed Respondent's determination of which proposal was in Respondent's best interest. On September 21, 1995, Petitioner received Respondent's formal notice to award the contract to Intervenor. The notice states only that Respondent's decision is based on the evaluations by Omnicom and the presentations on September 20, 1995. 3/ The manner in which Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is in Respondent's best interest was not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent selected Intervenor's proposal in a manner contrary to the rule or standard fixed in the RFP and on the basis of criteria and procedures that are not fixed in the RFP. Major Variation Respondent's deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP is a major variation. The deviation affects the price of the contract selected. It gives Intervenor a benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. It adversely impacts the interests of Respondent. 4/ Contract Price Respondent's deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP affected the contract price in two ways. First, it affected the stated cost of the contract. Second, it added costs that are inherent, but not stated, in Intervenor's proposal. 7.1(a) Stated Cost The complete system is to be installed in all 58 facilities over five years. The useful life of the system is between 7 and 10 years. Omnicom valued the system included in each proposal over its 10 year life expectancy. Omnicom placed the cost for each facility on a spread sheet correlating to the anticipated time of installation. The cost of each facility was discounted to its net present value at the time of evaluation. The evaluation report rates costs through 10 years because that is the reasonable life expectancy of the system. The cost of Intervenor's system was less in years 1-5. For the total life expectancy of the system, however, the cost of Petitioner's alternate proposal was less. During the 10 year useful life of the new system, the cost of Petitioner's alternate proposal would save Respondent $1,547,726 over the cost of Intervenor's proposal. The net present value of that savings is $1,212,528. Omnicom awarded the following technical, cost, and total points for the seventh year of operation. PROPOSAL TECHNICAL COST TOTAL NEC (Alternate) 699 200 899.0 Siemens ROLM 715.5 179 894.5 Bell South 719.5 161.1 880.6 NEC (Base) 700 172.8 872.8 WilTel(Base) 617 157.2 774.2 OBTS 595.5 158.4 753.9 The total point differential between Petitioner and Intervenor widened for years 8-10. The points awarded for the cost of Intervenor's proposal dropped to 178.4, 177.8, and 177.3, respectively, in years 8-10. The corresponding total scores for Intervenor's proposal dropped to 893.9, 893.3, and 892.8. 7.1(b) Unstated Cost The RFP requires five out of eight categories of work station devices to be two-way speaker phones. Two-way speaker phones eliminate the need for ancillary intercom equipment. Two of the five categories required to be two-way speaker phones are noncompliant in Intervenor's proposal. Compliant telephones are more expensive than the telephones used by Intervenor to calculate the cost Omnicom evaluated. Compliant telephones would cost approximately $736,901 more than the cost evaluated by Omnicom; based on information available in Intervenor's proposal. 5/ Respondent will either incur additional costs to acquire compliant telephones or incur the cost of ancillary intercom equipment. Benefit Not Enjoyed By Others Intervenor enjoyed a benefit not enjoyed by others. Intervenor obtained a competitive advantage and a palpable economic benefit. 7.2(a) Expanded Scope Respondent's reliance on a rule or standard not fixed in the RFP resulted in a benefit to Intervenor. Other proposers did not enjoy a similar benefit. 6/ The proposers relied upon the point distribution, evaluation procedure, and criteria fixed in the RFP. Any of the proposers could have solicited Respondent to consider information not included in the proposals, to follow procedures not established in the RFP, to assign an undisclosed weight to criteria fixed in the RFP, and to consider undisclosed criteria. However, only Intervenor successfully solicited Respondent to do so and then enjoyed the benefit of being selected for the contract. Respondent made concessions that favored Intervenor. No other proposer enjoyed the benefit of Respondent's concessions in a manner that changed the outcome of the contract award. 7.2(b) Alternate Proposal The base proposal required in the RFP included a configuration using analog tie lines. Intervenor prepared only one proposal. It included only digital tie lines. Intervenor's proposal is an alternate proposal. It does not include the analog tie lines required in the basic configuration prescribed in the RFP. Omnicom deducted points for Intervenor's failure to include analog tie lines. However, Omnicom evaluated Intervenor's alternate proposal in the absence of a base proposal. 7/ All other proposers complied with the provision in the RFP that prohibited alternate proposals in the absence of a base proposal. The prohibition, in effect, required Petitioner to submit two proposals. Petitioner prepared a base proposal and an alternate proposal. Petitioner prepared two quotes for each of the 58 facilities contemplated in the new system. Intervenor prepared only one quote for each of the facilities contemplated in the new system. Intervenor did not invest the time, energy, and expense invested by Petitioner in its two proposals. 7.2(c) Cost By using noncompliant telephones in its proposal, Intervenor lowered the cost evaluated by Omnicom. If other proposers had proposed noncompliant telephones, they would have been able to affect their evaluation scores in a positive manner. Intervenor received a palpable economic benefit from its omission. A cost difference of $50,000 to $100,000 translates to approximately two points in the evaluation process. An increased cost of $736,901 would have lowered Intervenor's cost score between 7.36 and 14.7 points. 8/ Omnicom did deduct points from Intervenor's technical score for the failure to include compliant telephones in its proposal. However, Omnicom did not deduct points for Intervenor's failure to include unit prices for compliant telephones. 9/ Unit prices are necessary for Omnicom to accurately calculate the increased cost of compliant telephones. Omnicom could not calculate the increased cost of compliant telephones based on the information available in Intervenor's proposal. Omnicom evaluated the cost of Intervenor's proposal based on the cost stated in the proposal. Adverse Impact On Respondent Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP has an adverse impact on the financial interests of Respondent. The award of the contract to Intervenor will cost Respondent approximately $1,212,528 in present value. Respondent may need to purchase compliant telephones at an additional cost of up to $736,901. Alternatively, Respondent may need to purchase ancillary intercom equipment at an unknown cost. Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria and procedures established in the RFP has an adverse impact on the Respondent's technical needs. The award of the contract to Intervenor may result in the use of noncompliant telephones, ancillary intercom equipment, or, in the event of an unforseen budget shortfall at the time, none of the technical capabilities needed by Respondent. Public Policy There is a "strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical deficiencies. . . ." 10/ Although an RFP inherently demands more subjectivity than an ITB, Respondent disqualified the low proposer for reasons that are not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent could have rejected all six proposals and sought to obtain its system through a new RFP, the ITB process, or a process exempt from public procurement requirements; if the system or Respondent qualifies for such an exemption. 11/ However, Respondent did not reject all proposals and start over or seek to obtain its system through an exempt process. Respondent paid public funds for Omnicom's expert advice. Respondent paid Omnicom to evaluate Respondent's technical needs, formulate criteria, develop an evaluation procedure, prepare an RFP, evaluate proposals, and recommend the proposal that was in Respondent's best interest. Respondent approved the RFP prepared by Omnicom, including the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent then deviated from the fixed rule or standard. Respondent added points to change the relative importance of the technical and cost criteria fixed in the RFP. Respondent awarded up to 200 points in addition to the 1,000 points fixed in the RFP. The members neither disclosed the criteria they used to award additional points nor disclosed the number of points awarded. The members did not reveal, explain, or define either the weight assigned to each fixed criteria or any other fixed rule or standard used to evaluate the oral presentations made by the proposers. Respondent did not conduct an independent evaluation of the proposals and substitute its own judgment for that of Omnicom. None of Respondent's members read any of the proposals. Omnicom evaluated the proposals fairly, objectively, and reasonably. Omnicom's evaluation and recommendation was an honest exercise of agency discretion by the agency's own expert. 12/ Respondent neither rejected Omnicom's evaluation of the proposals nor rejected the proposals. Respondent did not request that Omnicom re-evaluate the proposals and did not request that Omnicom start over with a new RFP, an ITB, or pursue a system through an exempt process. Respondent neither explained its exercise of agency discretion on the record in this proceeding nor disclosed a fixed rule or standard Respondent used to govern its action. Respondent made an arbitrary decision. Illegal Respondent made an emergency award of a portion of the contract to Intervenor during the pendency of this proceeding. The award is limited to a purchase order for one switch out of 52 switches that will comprise the complete system. The single switch is necessary for Respondent to occupy its new administrative offices. Occupancy of the new administrative offices has always been a critical element in procurement of the entire system. Respondent is currently engaged in accomplishing this critical element. Respondent's award of part of the contract is not required by an immediate and serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondent awarded part of the contract to Intervenor for public convenience. Installation of the system at the new administrative offices is necessary to occupy the new building. Occupancy is necessary so that various administrative offices of the School District can be consolidated. The School District has incurred costs since October, 1995, for utilities and maintenance associated with the unoccupied building. The reasons evidenced by Respondent constitute neither an immediate nor serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. It is not necessary to award any portion of the contract prior to final agency action in this proceeding. Minor Irregularities Omnicom conditioned its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal on resolution of four concerns. Petitioner's alternate proposal failed to include detailed price information for one of the elementary schools in the new system ("Elementary School D"). Petitioner failed to separate its installation price from the price for hardware and software. Petitioner conditioned the mandatory commitment to discounted pricing beyond July, 1997, on a requirement that Respondent accept Petitioner's full contract. Finally, Petitioner failed to base its cost on required response times. Elementary School D Petitioner failed to include information for Elementary School D on the individual system detail price sheet. Petitioner's failure does not affect the contract price, does not result in a palpable economic benefit to Petitioner, and does not adversely affect Respondent's interest. Omnicom sent out approximately six addenda to the RFP before completing its evaluation. One of the addenda failed to include Elementary School D. Omnicom discovered the error and evaluated the cost of all proposals with Elementary School D excluded. The omission of Elementary School D was an honest exercise of agency discretion by Omnicom and did not result in disqualification of the low proposal for technical reasons. Combined Pricing The detailed price sheets for each school and support office includes a space for the price of hardware and software. A separate space is provided for the price of installation. Petitioner did not provide separate prices but provided one price for hardware, software, and installation. The purpose of the separate pricing requirement is twofold. Separate pricing allows Omnicom to determine if individual prices are out of line with industry standards. It also provides information needed for additional purchases of separate items. Petitioner's deviation from separate pricing requirement did not violate the strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical reasons. Omnicom awarded Petitioner the highest number of points and recommended Petitioner for the contract. Petitioner's deviation did not result in a competitive advantage for Petitioner. The purpose of the separate pricing requirements was informational. Petitioner's deviation did not adversely impact the interests of Respondent. It did not impact the lowest price posed or the technical capability of the proposal. Discounted Pricing The RFP instructs proposers to base their pricing on the assumption that the proposer would install the entire system. Petitioner's conditional commitment to discount pricing through July, 1997, merely restates the assumption mandated in the RFP. The RFP instructs all proposers to assume they will be awarded the contract for the entire system in preparing their proposals. Even if Petitioner's conditional commitment were a deviation from the RFP, it would not be a major variation. It does not violate the strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical reasons. It does not result in a competitive advantage for Petitioner. It does not adversely impact the interests of Respondent. Response Time The RFP requires an emergency service response time of two hours. It mandates damages for violation of the response time of $250 per hour up to $2,500 a month. Petitioner's alternate proposal does not conform with this requirement. It proposes a four hour response time. Petitioner took exception to the liquidated damages provision and proposed a maximum damage of $500. Petitioner's deviation is a minor irregularity. Omnicom adequately addressed the deviation in the evaluation report so that the deviation will not affect contract price, afford Petitioner a palpable economic benefit, or adversely impact Respondent's interest. Honest Exercise Of Agency Discretion Omnicom's response to the deviation's in Petitioner's proposal is an honest exercise of agency discretion by Omnicom. Omnicom applied the same methodology in a consistent manner for all of the proposals. Omnicom's decision is a reasonable exercise of its expertise in telecommunications based on independent knowledge and experience. Respondent did not reject Omnicom's evaluation of the proposals or reject the proposals. Respondent did not request that Omnicom re-evaluate the proposals. Respondent stated in its notice of intent to award the contract to Intervenor that its decision is based on the presentations at the September 20 meeting and on Omnicom's evaluation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's protest of the selection of Intervenor. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 29th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, The Middlesex Corporation and Affiliates (Middlesex) or Intevenor, J. B. Coxwell Contracting, Inc. (J. B. Coxwell), submitted the lowest and best responsive bid for State Project No. 55040-3521 let by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation issued an invitation to bid (ITB) for a contract to construct road improvements on State Road 363 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida; Project No. 55040-3521. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway improvements. The specifications stated in pertinent part: Article 1-3. . . . for the purpose of award, after the proposals are opened and read, the correct summation of the products of the approximate quantities shown in the proposal, by the unit prices, will be considered the bid. . . . . Until the actual award of the contract, however, the right will be reserved to reject any or all proposals and to waive technical errors as may be deemed in the best interest of the State. . . . .(emphasis supplied) Article 2-6. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable costs analysis values. In addition to the specifications, a part of the plans for the project required the successful bidder to perform substantial excavation work on the project site. The excavation work would more likely than not yield enough fill material to complete any fill or embankments required in the project. Therefore, the plans contemplated that the soils obtained from the excavation work would be used for the construction of an estimated 44,000 cubic yards of embankment in the project. In order to achieve this goal, page seven of the plans entitled "The Summary of Quantities" indicated that embankment was to be a "no-pay item". However, the bid proposal, the form which constitutes the actual bid of the contractor, contained a line item for a price quotation for embankment/fill, Item No. 120-6. By including such a line item in the bid proposal, bidders were required to submit some figure for this item or risk their bid being declared irregular under the specifications for this project. There was no timely objection filed by any bidder indicating that the bidder would be prejudiced by treatment of the embankment/fill item as a no-pay or as a pay item. Likewise, there was no timely challenge to the apparently conflicting plans and pay item sheet or that the conflicting plans and pay item sheet created a stiutaion which prohibited a bidder from submitting a responsive bid. Seven bids for the contract were submitted and opened on May 27, 1992. The three apparent lowest bids at the opening were: Anderson-Columbia at $4,251,147.89; J. B. Coxwell at $4,964,327.81; and Middlesex at $4,977,371.48. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by FDOT's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced, contained all appropriate signatures, contained all appropriate documents and otherwise met the technical requirements of the ITB. In essence, the TRC reviews each bid to determine whether it is responsive to the bid proposal and, if not responsive whether the bid's lack of responsiveness is immaterial and waivable by FDOT. After its review of all the bids, the TRC then makes a recommendation to FDOT's Contract Awards Committee on whether a bid should be rejected for material nonresponsiveness to the ITB. In this case, the TRC recommended to the Contract Awards Committee that Anderson-Columbia's bid be rejected as nonresponsive to the ITB. On June 16, 1992, FDOT's Contract Awards Committee adopted the recommendation of the Technical Review Committee and declared Anderson-Columbia's bid nonresponsive. The awards committee also voted to award the bid to J. B. Coxwell as the second responsive low bidder and on July 6, 1992, FDOT posted a notice of intent to award the contract to J. B. Coxwell. In making the award, FDOT looked at the impact of the conflict between the plans and the bid proposal sheet. FDOT's practice is to add all the unit prices listed on the bid proposal sheet to determine the total amount of the bid. FDOT has never deleted an item from the unit price list to determine the amount of a bid. Following these policies and Consistent with Article 3-1 of the specifications, FDOT determined that a bidder's price quote for the enbankment/fill item would be included as a pay item in the total bid despite the plan's indication that embankment/fill would be a no-pay item and despite the fact that the embankment item probably will not be paid as long as the fill required is less than the excavation. However, at the time of bidding, no bidder could be certain that FDOT would choose to pay or not pay item 120-6. In this case, a review of the bids demonstrates that bidders were not uniform in their application of the conflict between the plans and bid proposal sheet in developing their specific bids. Some bidder's, like J. B. Coxwell, bid very low prices for the embankment/fill in their bid. Some bidder's, like Middlesex, bid prices for the embankment/fill item closer to the average unit price for embankment/fill. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the conflicting designation of the embankment/fill item and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the conflict. In short, all bidders received the same plans and bid proposal, reacted to them in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. The evidence did not demonstrate that the conflict between the plans and bid proposal sheet or FDOT's handling of the conflict was so unfair or confusing that the conflict completely impeded or subverted the purpose or fairness of the competitive bidding process. J. B. Coxwell. Finally, as indicated, the TRC reviews bids to determine whether they are materially unbalanced. In general, unbalanced bids are discouraged by the Department because an unbalanced bid has the potential to allow the contractor to recoup or receive a larger portion of the contract price at the beginning of the contract term thereby making it less disadvantageous for the contractor to walk away from the contract and making agency control over the contractor more difficult. However, not all unbalanced bids will be rejected by FDOT because mathematically unbalanced bids often will have no material impact on the order of the bidders or the interests of the state in the timely and orderly performance of a given road project. Additionally, because of the nature of a given project, there may be a very good reason for a contractor to submit a mathematicallly unbalanced bid. In fact, approximately 80% of all the bids submitted to FDOT contain some form of mathematical unbalancing. Given these facts, FDOT will only reject an unbalanced bid if the unbalancing is material to the project and its award. In evaluating unbalanced bids, FDOT follows the guidance in a May, 1988, memorandum from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price (or mathematically unbalanced), the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is "materially unbalanced" such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, FDOT compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, FDOT's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by FDOT to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. FDOT also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in FDOT's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the State for the project. In this case, J. B. Coxwell and Middlesex submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. J. B. Coxwell's unit price for the embankment/fill item was $.10 per cubic yard of fill. FDOT's average price for the embankment/fill item was $3.20. The Middlesex quotation for embankment/fill was $2.25 per cubic yard of fill. FDOT's computer analysis of J. B. Coxwell's bid flagged the embankment/fill item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Middlesex for the embankment/fill item was not unbalanced and therefore was not flagged for furhter review by FDOT. However, the Middlesex bid was flagged as unbalanced for other line item quotations contained in its bid proposal. FDOT then made a more in-depth review of the bid of J. B. Coxwell and determined that although the bid was mathematically unbalanced, it was not materially unbalanced and did not result in a change in the bidding order. This determination was primarily based on the fact that the excavation portion of the project would yield enough fill to perform the embankment portion of the contract. Thus, a lower than average price in that item was not detrimental to the state, but, in fact, was in its best interest since a quote closer to FDOT's average would cause the state to be double billed for the fill FDOT's site would supply. There is no question that this was a reasonable analysis of the project in this case. Similarly, FDOT, utilizing the same analysis for unbalanced bids, also determined that the mathematically unbalanced unit prices submitted in the Middlesex bid were not materially unbalanced. Given the fact that Middlesex also had a mathematically unbalanced bid, which received the same analysis, Petitioner's argument that Coxwell's mathematically unbalanced bid should be rejected for such imbalance is rejected. Therefore, Middlesex has failed to demonstrate that it submitted the best responsive bid for State Project No. 55040-3521 and its protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the bid to J. B. Coxwell and dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 thes 8th day of December, 1992
The Issue Whether the Department’s action to reject all bids submitted in response to DOT-RFP-20-5003-DAA, relating to asbestos abatement, demolition, and removal services, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the services for Districtwide Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for Right of Way property under the Department’s supervision by law. The Department published a bid solicitation for DOT-RFP-20-5003- DAA, seeking bids to provide District Five Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for FDOT. The RFP included specifications, qualification requirements, instructions on what would be required of responders, a bid price proposal sheet, and the award criteria. Cross Construction and Cross Environmental submitted bids in response to the RFP. Cross Construction’s and Cross Environmental’s bids were evaluated by the Department. There is no debate, challenge, or disagreement raised in the Petitions with regard to the Technical Scores submitted by the responding firms to the RFP, only disagreement on three pay items. On June 15, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee reviewed and discussed the information presented as to the Technical and Pricing scores of the Responding firms, asked for an additional bid item analysis, and indicated that it would reconvene at a future date for a decision. On June 22, 2020, the Selection Committee reviewed, discussed, and confirmed the recommendation presented by the results of the Technical Review Committee scorings and the Project Manager’s Bid Price analysis and selected Cross Construction and Cross Environmental as Intended Awardees. The Selection committee also found that Johnson’s Excavation and Services Inc., [Johnson] and Simpson Environmental LLC [Simpson] were deemed non-responsive due to irregular, and unbalanced pay items prices. On August 24, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee decided to cancel the Procurement with the intent to readvertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing Structure and decided to reject all proposals. Additional Findings of Fact The “three pay items” referenced in paragraph six of the stipulated facts are the items that ultimately caused the Department to reject all bids in the instant dispute. The three pay items are collectively referred to as mobilization pay items. The RFP directs that bids are to contain two parts. Part I is the technical proposal, and Part II is the price proposal. Section 30.3 of the RFP provides that proposers “shall complete the Bid Price Proposal Form No. 2 and submit [the form] as part of the Price Proposal Package … [and that] [t]he Procurement Office and/or the Project Manager/TRC will review and evaluate the price proposals and prepare a summary of its price evaluation.” Five bidders submitted proposals in response to the RFP. One bidder did not advance beyond the initial review phase because its technical proposal did not meet minimum bid standards. The remaining bidders were CCS, CES, Simpson, and Johnson. Price proposals submitted by each of the remaining bidders were evaluated by the Department. Section 3 of the RFP provides a general outline of the process associated with awarding the contract. The steps are: “Pre-Proposal Conference; Public Opening (Technical Proposals); Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting; and, Selection Committee Meeting Summarizing Evaluations and Determining Anticipated Award.” The agenda for the “Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting,” as established by the RFP, provides as follows: Opening remarks of approx. 2 minutes by Department Procurement Office personnel. Public input period – To allow a reasonable amount of time for public input related to the RFP solicitation. At conclusion of public period, the Technical evaluation scores will be summarized. Announce the firms that did not achieve the minimum technical score. Announce the firms that achieved the minimum technical score and their price(s) as price proposals are opened. Calculate price scores and add to technical scores to arrive at total scores. Announce Proposer with highest Total Score as Intended Award. Announce time and date the decision will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS). Adjourn. Section 30.4 b. of the RFP provides that a proposer can be awarded a maximum of 30 points for its price proposal. This section also provides that “[p]rice evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider.” On June 15, 2020, the selection review committee met publicly for the purpose of opening price proposals and announcing an intended award. Price proposals were opened, and the eligible bidders received the following price scores: CCS - 11.09; CES - 13.22; Johnson - 19.76; and Simpson - 30. In terms of total score, which combined both the technical and price scores, Simpson received a score of 113.00, which was the highest score, followed by CES (107.55), CCS (103.76), and Johnson (101.76). After opening and considering the price proposals of the respective bidders, the selection committee did not announce an intended award at the meeting on June 15, 2020, but instead requested that the project manager “do further analysis on the pay items for any potential imbalance.” The project manager, through a staff member, performed the additional analysis and determined that Johnson and Simpson submitted “irregular, unbalanced pay items” which resulted in their respective bids being deemed non- responsive and thus not eligible for award. The “irregular, unbalanced pay items” are the three mobilization pay items at issue in the instant matter, and are identified on the bid price proposal sheet as items AB200, AB201, and AB202. Simpson bid $400 for item AB200, $100 for item AB201, and $50 for item AB202. Johnson bid $250 for item AB200, $250 for item AB201, and $100 for item AB202. CCS bid $1 for item AB200, $1 for item AB201, and $1 for item AB202. CES bid $1 for item AB200, 75 cents for item AB201, and 50 cents for item AB202. The Department, in evaluating the bidders’ mobilization pay items, considered costs associated with abatement two structures, a 1,500 and 2,250 square feet structure respectively. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $2,250. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CES’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CES’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $1,687.50. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $375,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $562,500. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $600,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $225,000. On June 22, 2020, the selection committee reconvened and announced CCS and CES as intended awardees of the contract. The Department also announced at this meeting that Johnson and Simpson were “deemed non- responsive due to irregular, unbalanced pay item prices.” On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed a Notice of Protest wherein the company informed the Department of its intent to formally protest the intended award of contracts to CCS and CES. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed with the Department its “formal written petition of protest.” Although Simpson’s formal protest is dated July 6, 2020, CCS and CES contend that Simpson’s protest was actually filed on July 7, 2020, thereby making the protest untimely by a day. The Department did not refer Simpson’s formal protest to DOAH for final hearing, but instead considered the issues presented by Simpson in its protest and then attempted to negotiate a resolution with Simpson, CCS, and CES. Those efforts were unsuccessful. The question of the timeliness of the formal bid protest filed by Simpson is not before the undersigned. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts as to Simpson’s protest, as demonstrated by the record herein, are as follows. On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed notice of its intent to protest the RFP. On June 29, 2020, CCS received notice that a bid protest was filed with respect to the RFP. On July 1, 2020, CES filed a public records request “for public records related to the bid protest made to the” RFP. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed its formal written protest with respect to the RFP, and although the evidence is not clear as to the date, it is undisputed that the Department received affidavits from Simpson explaining the factual circumstances surrounding the filing of the company’s formal written protest. On July 15, 2020, the Department notified CCS and CES that “in response to the Formal Written Protest filed by Simpson Environmental Services, the Department will hold a settlement conference” on Friday, July 17, 2020. On July 21, 2020, Simpson, CES, and CCS notified the Department that they “reached an agreed upon settlement proposal.” On August 11, 2020, the Department, after considering the settlement proposal for several weeks, notified Simpson, CES, and CCS that the Department would discuss the RFP at a public meeting to be held on August 24, 2020. As previously noted, it was during the meeting on August 24, 2020, when the Department announced that all proposals received in response to RFP were rejected. CES, on or about July 1, 2020, submitted to the Department a public records request wherein the company sought a copy of documents related to Simpson’s protest. In response to the request, the Department provided CES a copy of the formal written protest filed by Simpson. It is undisputed that the initial copy provided to CES by the Department did not show either the date or time of receipt of the document filed by Simpson. At some point after the settlement conference, the Department provided to CES a date and time stamped copy of Simpson’s formal written protest. There was no evidence presented explaining the circumstances or the process which resulted in the Department providing different copies of Simpson’s formal written protest to CES, and the remaining evidence does not provide a sufficient foundation to reasonably infer that the Department acted with nefarious motives when providing different versions of the documents to CES. Simpson’s formal protest contains the following statement with respect to the price proposal that the company submitted in response to the RFP: Petitioner’s individual bid price items were based in fact, were reasonable and were in conformity with standard industry rates for similar asbestos abatement and demolition and removal projects. Petitioner’s bid price items were also patently similar to bid price items that Petitioner has previously submitted in response to past FDOT proposal requests that ultimately resulted in the corresponding contracts having been awarded to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner has a longstanding relationship with the FDOT as Petitioner has previously contracted with FDOT as a vendor performing asbestos abatement services on numerous projects over the course of the past eight years. Petitioner’s price items for bid proposals have remained consistent for each of its past projects with FDOT. Petitioner’s price items for the instant bid proposal did not differ or vary in any material aspect from those proposed by Petitioner for previous projects that FDOT has deemed reasonable. Michelle Sloan works for the Department as a district procurement manager, and was assigned to manage the instant RFP. Ms. Sloan testified that because Simpson protested the Department’s intended decision to award the contracts to CCS and CES, and specifically referenced in its protest “that their bid for mobilization was in conformance with industry standards, as well as previous bids submitted to the agency that were deemed responsive,” she conducted additional review of the Simpson and Johnson bids. Ms. Sloan testified that after reviewing the RFP, the price sheets related thereto, Simpson’s protest, and the additional analysis of the pay items conducted following the June 15, 2020, selection committee meeting, she concluded that material ambiguities existed in the RFP’s mobilization pay items and recommended to the district secretary that the Department “reject all [bids] and re-advertise with a revised pricing sheet and instructions.” On August 24, 2020, the selection committee, following public notice, accepted Ms. Sloan’s recommendation, rejected all proposals, and canceled the procurement with the “intent to re-advertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing structure.” A review of the credible evidence demonstrates a rational basis for the conclusions reached by Ms. Sloan and members of the selection committee. Exhibit C of the RFP is titled “Price Proposal/Detailed and Contractual Price Sheet.” The first page of this document provides a general description of the asbestos removal and abatement pay items. The general pay items are as follows: AB100 Fees [as] determined from the Department of Environmental Protection based upon regulated material. AB200 One-time fee necessary to mobilize for full isolation, per parcel, when abatement with isolation is required. AB300 Fees to be charged by square feet for preparation [of] structure before abatement can commence. AB400 Fees to be charged by square feet, to abate asbestos from various surfacing material such as ceiling, walls, beams, plaster, sheetrock and fireproofing using conventional containment methods. AB500 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks ducts, fittings, pipes, flutes and flanges. AB600 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks, ducts, pipe, fittings and jackets which involve the use of a Glove bag. AB700 Fees to be charged by square foot, to abate asbestos from various roofing materials such as cement roof shingles, flashing, rolled roof, felts, wood shingles and mobile home coating. AB800 Fees to be charged by square foot or piece to abate asbestos from various materials such as floor tile, mastic adhesive, sheet vinyl, carpet, wood sub- floor, concrete sub-floor, vibrator dampers, wallboard, metal ductwork and sinks with insulation and heat shields (light fixture). AB900 Fees to be charge[d] by landfill for asbestos disposal. The bid price proposal sheet, which is form number 2 of the RFP, provides a listing of specific pay items related to the general “AB ---” items listed in Exhibit C to the RFP. Below is an example of some of the specific pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet: [See table on next page] Item Number Description (A) Estimat ed Quantit y Unit (B) Unit Pric e Total Bid Amount (A x B) ASBESTOS REMOVAL ABATEMENT AB200 Mobilization for structures less than 2,000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB201 Mobilization for structures [from] 2001 – 5000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB202 Mobilization for structures over 5001 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB300 Mask and Seal 1 SQ. FT. AB401 Remove ACM plaster/lathe including all surface materials 1 SQ. FT. AB501 Remove insulation from fittings 1 LF. AB603 Remove insulation from boilers, stacks or ducts piping 1 LF. AB703 Remove roofing cement 1 SQ. FT. AB810 Remove carpet and mastic adhesive 1 SQ. FT. AB820 Remove sinks with insulation 1 SQ. FT. AB901 Non-Friable 1 SQ. FT. General pay item category AB200, as described on Exhibit C, does not reference a “unit of measurement,” but instead notes that items within this category are to be determined on a “one-time – per parcel” basis. When the AB200 general pay item category is compared to the specific pay items for this category enumerated on the bid price proposal sheet (i.e., AB200, AB201, and AB202), it is evident that the unit of measurement “square feet” is listed as the basis for calculating the bid amount for this item when no such unit of measurement is stated for this item on Exhibit C. Comparatively, general pay item categories AB300 through AB800 each expressly references a specific unit of measurement (i.e., square foot, linear foot, or by the “piece”), and these units of measurement carry over to and are consistently reflected on the bid price proposal sheet for the specific pay items enumerated therein. By inserting a unit of measurement (i.e., square feet) in the mobilization pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet, when the general description on Exhibit C instructs that they are “one-time, per parcel” pay items, the Department created a material ambiguity in the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in Case Nos. 20-4214 and 20-4216 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-20-5003-DAA was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing the two petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brian A. Leung, Esquire Holcomb & Leung, P.A. 3203 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Diane E. H. Watson, Esquire Cross Environmental Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1299 Crystal Springs, Florida 33524-1299 (eServed) Kevin J. Tibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's or Department's) proposed action to award a contract to Couch Construction, L.P., is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (Department) issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for road resurfacing on State Road 10/US 90 in Columbia County, Florida; Financial Project No. 208406-1-52-01 (The Project). Four companies submitted responses to the ITB. Couch was low bidder at $2,271,354.81, and Petitioner was second low at $2,278,263.07. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway resurfacing. The price proposal specifications stated in pertinent part: Item Number 2102-10. . .Approximate Quantity. . . 4,320.00 hours Item Number 2102-74-1 . Approximate Quantity . . .75,780.00 each day Item Number 2102-99 . . Approximate Quantity . . . 720.00 each day None of the bidders filed a timely objection to the price proposal specifications. Article 2-6, of the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction states: A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alternations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by the Department to determine whether the bid was mathematically and/or materially unbalanced. The Department's Preliminary Estimates Engineer conducts an unbalanced review of the bids to determine if the bids are mathematically unbalanced. A bid is considered to be mathematically unbalanced if the prices quoted are significantly different from the approximate cost of the item to the contractor. It is very common for bids on construction projects to contain some item prices that are mathematically unbalanced. Bid prices that are mathematically unbalanced are considered by the Department to be non-material irregularities if they do not affect the order of the bidders. In determining whether a mathematically unbalanced price is material, the Department follows a policy set out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Department has been following the same policy since at least 1992. The FHWA does not allow for materially unbalanced bids to be accepted by the Department on projects that are federally funded. A materially unbalanced bid is one in which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the ultimately lowest cost to the Department. The Department has developed an Unbalanced Program Logic for its computer analysis of the bids. The program flags the items that are mathematically unbalanced. It flags the item with an "A" for those items that are above the tolerance window, "U" for under the tolerance window, and "F" as front-loaded items. The flagged items which are short-listed by the computer program are sent to the designer of record to verify the quantities and to verify whether the correct pay item was used. The designer of record verified that the quantities were correct for this Project. As part of the bid review, the Department does a statistical average or mean average for each of the bid items. A standard and a-half deviation either side of the mean is established. The bid items outside that standard and a-half deviation, positive or minus, are discarded. The remaining bid items are re-averaged and this second average is referred to as the "serious average." A front-end loaded item is an item for which work is performed early in the contract. Mobilization is considered a front-end loaded item. Couch's Mobilization item 2101-1B was flagged by the computer analysis. The Department did an analysis of the Mobilization item. The Department started with the difference between Couch's bid and the Petitioner's bid on this item, $18,0000.00. That amount was multiplied by the current interest rate, 10 per cent, and then multiplied by a factor of .5, which spread it over half the contract, times 180-day contract period divided by 365, one calendar year. The result was $434.84, which represents the potential advantage that could result from paying the $18,000.00 amount early in the contract. That amount, $434.84, did not materially unbalance Couch's bid. The three items identified by Petitioner as unbalanced (paragraph 3, above) were low and did not present any detriment to the Department. If those three items overran at the rate established, it would be an advantage to the Department. In evaluating unbalanced bids, the Department follows the guidance in a May 1988 memorandum from the FHWA, which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price, the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is materially unbalanced such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, the Department compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, the Department's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by the Department to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. The Department also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in the Department's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the Department for the project. In this case, Couch and Anderson submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. Couch's unit price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $0.25/hour. The Department's average price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $25.22/hour. The Petitioner's quotation for off-duty law enforcement was $26.00/hour. The Department's computer analysis of Couch's bid flagged the off-duty law enforcement item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Petitioner for the off-duty law enforcement item was not unbalanced, and therefore was not flagged for further review by the Department. The same analysis was applied to the barricades and variable message sign items, with similar results. The Department also did an in-depth review of item 2101-B, Mobilization, for front-end loading. The result of that analysis was that, as a result of front-end loading, there was the probability of increased cost to the Department of $443.84. This small increase in the cost to the Department was not large enough to change the order of the bidders. Therefore, it was not a materially unbalanced item. The Department then made a more in-depth review of the three mathematically unbalanced items in Couch's bid and determined that none of those items were materially unbalanced, because none of them had the potential to increase the cost to the Department and none of them had the potential to change the order of the bids. In sum, the Couch bid was not materially unbalanced. The evidence in this case is insufficient to support a basis for rejecting the Couch bid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation issue a final order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's Formal Protest and Request for Hearing; denying all relief requested by the Petitioner; and awarding the subject contract to the Intervenor, Couch Construction, L.P. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended award of the contract arising out of Request for Proposal No. 09L04FP4 to Intervenor is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts In accordance with a 2001 legislative mandate, the Developmental Disabilities Program, formerly part of the Department of Children and Family Services and now within the Agency, established a requirement for prior service authorization (PSA) reviews for individuals enrolled in the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Services waiver (waiver). Following a competitive procurement process, Maximus, Petitioner herein, was awarded a contract to provide PSA reviews for persons satisfying certain selection criteria, and related services. These PSA reviews ensure that services for which reimbursement is provided under the waiver are based on medical necessity. Currently only those cost plans that meet certain selection criteria are reviewed. A 2004 legislative mandate required the Developmental Disabilities program to expand the PSA program to review all support and cost plans for the waiver, including those that do not meet the selection criteria that trigger a PSA review under the Agency's existing contract with Maximus. On or about October 13, 2004, the Agency issued Request for Proposal No. 09L04FP4- Agency for Persons With Disabilities Prior Service Authorization Reviews (the APSAR contract). The RFP sought a vendor to serve as the contracted provider to conduct the additional reviews required by the 2004 legislative mandate (the ASPAR Contractor). The RFP proposals were to include responses to inquiries concerning the qualifications and capabilities of each proposer, as well as the proposed's vendor's proposal for providing the requested services (the technical proposal) and a separate proposal setting forth the proposed vendor's costs for providing such services (the cost proposal). Pursuant to the provisions of the RFP, the ASPAR Contractor will be responsible for reviewing these additional support plans and cost plans in order to ensure that individuals receiving waiver services receive medically necessary services to meet their identified needs. Pursuant to the provisions of the RFP, the ASPAR Contractor will be responsible for determining whether the Developmental Disabilities program is the appropriate funding source for the service(s) identified and shall recommend alternative funding mechanisms. The RFP set forth evaluation criteria and a scoring process in which a proposal could receive a maximum of 100 points, 25 of which are attributable to the cost proposal. The RFP states that "[t]he agency will attempt to contract with the prospective vendor attaining the highest total price." The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the RFP was November 2, 2004. The Agency received proposals from three prospective vendors: APS, Maximus, and First Health Services. On November 12, 2004, the Agency posted its Notice of Intended Award of the APSAR contract to APS. The Notice of Intended Award reflected the prospective vendors' scores as follows: APS, 86.45; Maximus, 82.06; and First Health, 71.52. Of its total score of 86.75, APS received 25 points for its cost proposal as the prospective vendor with the lowest total price. On November 16, 2004, Maximus timely filed a notice of intent to protest the Agency's intent to award the ASPAR contract to APS. Maximus timely filed its formal written protest, a Petition for Administrative Proceedings, with an accompanying bond which satisfied the applicable statutory and RFP requirements. Findings of Fact Based on the Evidence of the Record APS has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The APSAR contract being procured through the RFP is a fixed price contract. Lorena Fulcher is the Agency's procurement manager for the RFP. When the proposals were received, the Agency screened each of them for compliance with a list of fatal criteria set forth in Section 6.3.1 of the RFP. According to Ms. Fulcher, the purpose of the initial screening was to determine whether the proposals should go to a formal evaluation process. No scoring or points were associated with whether a vendor met the fatal criteria. The Agency determined that all three vendors met the fatal criteria. Therefore, the three proposals were sent to an evaluation committee which was responsible for evaluating the technical aspects of the proposals. Fatal Criteria Petitioner asserts that Intervenor did not satisfy one of the mandatory requirements of the RFP and, therefore, its proposal should not have been forwarded for further review and scoring by the evaluation committee. Section 5.4 of the RFP states that the mandatory requirements are described as "Fatal Criteria" on the RFP rating sheet and that failure to comply with all mandatory requirements will render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. Section 6.3.1 of the RFP is entitled, "Fatal Criteria." One criterion reads as follows: "Did the proposal document and describe at least one year of experience in the developmental disabilities field and with Home and Community Based Services waivers?" According to Ms. Fulcher, the Agency looked at each proposal in its entirety to determine that there was prior experience with the sort of review that the Agency was trying to procure with the RFP. Ms. Fulcher referenced several pages of Intervenor's proposal relating to this criterion that the Agency reviewed in making its determination to send Intervenor's proposal to the evaluation committee. One such reference is contained on page 9 of Intervenor's proposal. That page references Intervenor's experience with Georgia Medicaid since 1999. On page 84 of Intervenor's proposal, that experience is further described as "Prior authorization and Concurrent Review for all Medicaid services under the Rehabilitation Option to individuals with mental health disorders and/or developmental disabilities. Specialized projects include technical assistance to HCBS Waiver providers." Intervenor was formed in the early 1990's and was acquired by APS Healthcare in 2002. Intervenor's proposal explains: "APS Midwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of APS Healthcare Bethesda, Inc. APS Midwest, formerly known as Innovative Resource Group, was acquired by APS in 2002." Petitioner argues that the Georgia experience should not have been counted because it was experience acquired prior to the 2002 acquisition of Intervenor. Specifically, Petitioner argues that since the Georgia project has been ongoing since 1999 and since Intervenor was not acquired by the APS parent company until 2002, that Intervenor could not have been the provider. APS Healthcare, and its subsidiaries, including Intervenor, are managed as a single entity and many of their services and resources are integrated. The evidence established that the resources of the APS family of companies are available in the performance of the contract. Moreover, the undersigned is not persuaded that Intervenor was prohibited in any way by the language of the RFP or otherwise, from referencing experience obtained by a parent or related corporate entity prior to the 2002 acquisition. Intervenor's proposal contained references to other experience which the Agency considered in determining that Intervenor's proposal met the one-year experience fatal criterion at issue. These included experience obtained in Pennsylvania, Idaho, and other states in the developmental disabilities field and with home and community based services waivers. The Agency's determination that Intervenor met the "one-year" experience fatal criterion is supported by the evidence of record. The Agency's decision to forward Intervenor's proposal to the evaluation committee was appropriate. Any evaluation or scoring of the content of Intervenor's representations was left to the evaluation committee. The Cost Proposals Section 4.4 of the RFP reads in pertinent part as follows: The prospective vendor shall clearly present in the cost proposal the total cost for each deliverable as described in Section 3.6, Task List. A pricing schedule must be presented that indicates a unit cost for each task to be performed, with all task amounts added for a grand total cost for each deliverable. The total cost of all deliverables will be presented as the proposed total contract amount. The cost proposal must be bound separately. The vendor must submit as supporting documentation, a detailed line-item budget that delineates and constitutes all costs contained in the proposed total contract amount. The line-item budget shall delineate the number and type of positions that will be required to complete the work identified for each major task, and discrete associated expenses. Further, Section 4.4 included a grid described as an "Example Format of the Pricing Schedule." The RFP does not state that a proposer must use the grid format provided in this section. The grid includes columns marked "Unit Cost," "Number of Units," "Amount for Year 1," "Amount for Year 2" and "Amount for Year 3." At the bottom of the grid, there is a line for a "Total per year" and there is a line for the "Grand Total." APS used the grid format as shown in Section 4.4 of the RFP. Below the grid, APS included a notation that reads: "Please note that costs are adjusted for years two and three accordingly." Following this notation are four "bullets" one of which reads: "Unit cost for PSA reviews slightly increase to reflect a 1-2% growth rate in years two and three. However, if the number of reviews significantly increase more than this amount, pricing would have to be adjusted accordingly." Petitioner argues that the language of the above referenced "bullet" constitutes a contingent price, as opposed to a fixed price as required by the RFP, and, therefore, Intervenor should have received a score of zero for its cost proposal. Section 6.3.3. of the RFP provides in pertinent part: "Evaluating Cost Proposals--The prospective vendor with the lowest total price shall be awarded 25 points or 25% of the maximum total score." Section 6.3.3 further provides that the other prospective vendors would be awarded points by dividing the lowest price by the prospective vendor's price and then dividing the resulting percentage by four. The Agency scored the cost proposal by the grand total stated in each proposal. That is, the points assigned for the cost proposals were based solely on the total price proposed. According to Ms. Fulcher, the Agency ignored the bullets for purposes of scoring the cost proposals because the RFP was for a fixed price contract. Petitioner Maximus submitted a total cost proposal in the amount of $10,259,131. Intervenor APS submitted a total cost proposal in the amount of $7,460,615. Accordingly, the Agency awarded Intervenor 25 points for submitting the proposal with the lowest grand total cost of the three vendors, and awarded Petitioner 18 points for its grand total cost. There is nothing in the referenced "bullet" in APS' proposal that implies that the grand total might increase. The "bullet" clearly references "unit costs" only. Moreover, Section 4.3 of the RFP states that payment method and pricing will be determined during negotiations. According to Ms. Fulcher, the cost information requested other than the total cost was to be used only for purposes of negotiating and drafting the contract. Petitioner argues that Intervenor's cost proposal contained mathematical errors that, if corrected, would increase the total cost proposed. The difference between the two proposals was $2,798,516. The evidence does not establish that if the mathematical errors were corrected, Intervenor's actual cost would have been higher than Petitioner's proposed total cost. Further, Petitioner offered testimony speculating how Intervenor's actual costs might be higher than those reflected in Intervenor's proposal. Petitioner's speculation in this regard is of no consequence. Moreover, the contract is clearly a fixed fee contract. The proposers, including Intervenor, are bound by the fixed total cost reflected in the respective proposals.2/ The Technical Proposals Petitioner asserts that the Agency erroneously scored its technical proposal, thereby depriving Petitioner of points that would have resulted in an award of the contract to Petitioner. The RFP required the vendors to submit sealed technical proposals separate from the cost proposals. In contrast to the cost proposals, the scoring formula for the technical proposals was not based on a ratio comparison of the best proposal to the other proposals. Rather, the formula for scoring the technical proposals provided that the total score of each technical proposal would be divided by 48 to arrive at a total percentage of 100 that was then converted into points. Thus the formula for scoring technical proposals is not based on a comparison of one vendor's proposal to the others, but is based on how well each vendor did within a possible score of 36. Section 6.3.4 of the RFP sets forth the formula for scoring the technical proposals: The prospective vendor with the highest rating in this section (36 points) shall be awarded 75% (75 points) of the maximum possible score. Other prospective vendors are awarded points using the following formula: The rating is divided by 48 to determine the points awarded (36/48=75%). Section 6.3.4 of the RFP also provided three examples applying the formula for awarding points to technical proposals, with each example showing a vendor's points divided by 48. The numerator of the above formula was derived by taking the average of the total points assigned by each of the four evaluators, which was then divided by 48. The average of the evaluators' scores for Petitioner's technical proposal was 30.75. The average of the evaluators' scores for the APS technical proposal was 29.5. Accordingly, when the formula was applied, Petitioner's technical proposal score was 64.06 (30.75/48=64.06%) and Intervenor's technical proposal score was 61.45 (29.5/48=61.45%). Petitioner argues that because it received the highest technical score of 30.75, it was entitled to 75 points for its technical proposal. Petitioner, nor any other vendor, received a score of 36, the highest possible score for the technical proposal. Because no vendor received the maximum possible technical rating of 36 points, no vendor was awarded the maximum possible score of 75 points for the technical proposals. The agency applied the formula to the three vendors in a consistent manner. While the wording of Section 6.3.4 is awkward, the Agency's interpretation of that section is a reasonable one that was applied equally to all vendors. Petitioner's Proposal Finally, Intervenor asserts that Petitioner's proposal was non-responsive because it is dependant upon Petitioner continuing to provide services under its existing contract with the Agency. Petitioner's proposal was prepared using a methodology that contemplated allocating some costs to its existing contract and some costs to the contract solicited by the RFP because Petitioner already has certain resources that can be employed to provide services in the solicited contract. There is no dispute that Petitioner holds a current related contract. The Agency's determination that Petitioner's proposal was responsive in this regard was reasonable. How the costs are to be allocated was subject to evaluation and scoring by the evaluation committee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway The DeSoto Building 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 15th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether the intended award of a contract for title search and examination services by Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation, is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with coordinating a safe, viable, and balanced transportation system serving all regions of the state. § 334.044(1), Fla. Stat. The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill this duty. §§ 20.23(6), 334.044(1), and 335.02, Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement seeking a contract to provide title search and examination services (the "Title Services Contract"). The procurement's objective is to contract with a private vendor to provide title research services and reports to Department District 4. The solicitation at the center of this protest is Request for Proposal for Districtwide Title Search and Examination Services, DOT-RFP-21-4002-JR (the "RFP"). 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order is waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). The initial term of the Title Services Contract is 60 months (five years). The Title Services Contract offers a maximum award of $1,150,000.00 for the length of the contract. The contract may be extended for up to five years upon mutual agreement. The Department issued the RFP on August 7, 2020.3 The Department received proposals from three vendors, including Guaranteed, AGS, and Entrust Abstrax, LLC ("Entrust"). Joe Ricardo served as the Department's Procurement Agent for the RFP, as well as drafted and prepared the RFP documents and forms. Mr. Ricardo expressed that the RFP's goal is to award the Title Services Contract to "the responsive and responsible Proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department." See RFP, Sections 1 and 7. Upon the Department's receipt of the three proposals, Mr. Ricardo reviewed the responses to ensure that each complied with the solicitation documents and contained all the required information and mandatory materials. The RFP required each vendor to include with their submission both a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. After his review, Mr. Ricardo determined that all three proposals were "responsive" to the RFP, and each 3 No vendor challenged the specifications in the RFP within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation. vendor was qualified to perform the services for which the Department was seeking to contract.4 The Department opened the three Technical Proposals from Guaranteed, AGS, and Entrust on September 3, 2020. The Technical Proposals were to include responses explaining the vendor's "approach, capabilities, and means" to accomplish the tasks described in RFP, Exhibit "A," entitled "Scope of Services." See RFP, Sections 6 and 22.2. The Department awarded separate points for the Technical Proposals and the Price Proposals. To score the Technical Proposals, the Department appointed three individuals to serve on a Technical Review Committee (the "Review Committee"). The Review Committee consisted of District 4 employees Erika Ventura, Amelia Rodriguez-Alers, and Susanna Rowland. Ms. Ventura, who also served as the Project Manager for the Title Services Contract solicitation, selected the Review Committee members (including herself). After Mr. Ricardo opened the vendors' Technical Proposals, Ms. Ventura distributed them to the Review Committee members for their individual evaluation and scoring. The Review Committee members were to independently review the Technical Proposals and assess the vendors' capabilities, experience, and qualifications to provide both the desired services, as well as a quality product. 4 RFP, Section 21.1, stated that: A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. RFP, Section 21.1, further warned that: Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. Under the RFP's evaluation process, the vendors' Technical Proposals were awarded up to 100 points. The Review Committee graded the Technical Proposals on three criteria, with varying point values, as follows: Prior Relevant Experience and Qualification of Firm and Employees (40 total points). This criteria was subdivided into three parts, consisting of: Technical Staff Experience (25 points); Organization and Management Plan (5 points); Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points); Proposer's Technical Plan (Point Value – 40 total points); Quality Control Plan (Point Value – 20 total points). The Review Committee members scored the Technical Proposals of AGS and Guaranteed as follows: Ms. Ventura: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 24 points Guaranteed: 23 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 4 points Guaranteed: 4 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 9 points Guaranteed: 9 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 38 points Guaranteed: 35 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 17 points Guaranteed: 15 points Ms. Ventura's Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 92 points Guaranteed: 86 points Ms. Rodriguez-Alers: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 25 points Guaranteed: 25 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 5 points Guaranteed: 5 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 10 points Guaranteed: 8 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 38 points Guaranteed: 35 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 20 points Guaranteed: 18 points Ms. Rodriguez-Alers' Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 98 points Guaranteed: 91 points Ms. Rowland: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 25 points Guaranteed: 23 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 5 points Guaranteed: 4 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 10 points Guaranteed: 10 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 40 points Guaranteed: 39 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 20 points Guaranteed: 19 points Ms. Rowland's Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 100 points Guaranteed: 95 points All three Review Committee members testified at the final hearing. In describing how they approached the review process, the members uniformly stated that they did not receive any formal oral or written instructions or training on how to evaluate or score the vendors' Technical Proposals. Neither did they communicate or consult with each other after Ms. Ventura distributed the proposals. At the final hearing, each member described how they awarded points, as follows: Erika Ventura: Ms. Ventura works in the Survey and Mapping section for District 4. As Project Manager for the solicitation, Ms. Ventura assisted in drafting the RFP and the Scope of Services. She also helped coordinate the RFP timelines and how the solicitation was issued. Ms. Ventura explained that District 4 initiated the procurement to obtain outside support for when it acquires property for Department use. District 4 was looking for vendors who could: 1) identify property through legal descriptions and understanding the same, 2) use available programs and systems to conduct title searches, and 3) map property using legal descriptions. District 4 wanted to contract with a vendor who had the ability to search property records and provide abstract and title reports at the Department's request. In selecting the Review Committee members, Ms. Ventura chose Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland based on their experience with the services for which the Department was looking to contract. Ms. Ventura described Ms. Rodriguez-Alers as an "end user" who receives and uses title reports. Ms. Ventura conveyed that Ms. Rowland works in the District 4 document and title section and reviews documents produced using District 4's "eTitle" program. When awarding points to the Technical Proposals, Ms. Ventura testified that she used the same analysis and evaluation process for each proposal. She read each Technical Proposal independently, and determined whether she believed the vendor could provide the services District 4 might request. She then awarded points as appropriate. Ms. Ventura formulated her scores based on the services described in the Scope of Services. For additional guidance, she referred to RFP, Section 30.4, which listed the criteria she was to evaluate. Ms. Ventura stated that she reached her scores based only on the information contained in each proposal. She did not compare proposals. Neither did she rely upon any outside information or prior knowledge of the vendors. Ms. Ventura denied that she preferred one vendor over another or gave any vendor a scoring advantage. At the final hearing, Ms. Ventura relayed that she could not recall the exact reasons why she awarded more points to AGS's Technical Proposal versus Guaranteed's Technical Proposal. However, generally, she commented that AGS provided an excellent organizational chart that clearly set forth the names, experience, and qualifications of the staff members AGS selected to manage the Title Services Contract. Ms. Ventura also appreciated how AGS described how its "well balanced team" would "tackle" the title search and examination tasks, as well as AGS's "Work Flow" flowchart that presented a checklist for how AGS would approach its work. Summing up her score for AGS, Ms. Ventura voiced that AGS showed that it possessed the technical knowledge and "vast" experience to provide the services needed. Ms. Ventura added that AGS's Technical Proposal demonstrated that it could manage and perform all the services assigned sought through the RFP. Amelia Rodriguez-Alers: Ms. Rodriguez-Alers is a certified surveyor and mapper for District 4. She believed that she was selected for the Review Committee based on her familiarity with mapping services. Ms. Rodriguez- Alers explained that she will be an "end user" of the title reports and abstract services sought through the RFP. When scoring the proposals, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers stated that she independently evaluated each vendor's proposal. Further, to assess the vendors' abilities to perform the services requested, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers assigned the scores using only the information contained in the proposal. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers described her scoring process as "comparative." First, she read through the RFP and the Scope of Services to familiarize herself with the terms of the solicitation. Next, she read each proposal individually. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers then assigned the maximum points she believed appropriate based on the information contained within each proposal. Once she had completed that step, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers then compared all the proposals with each other, and adjust her scores accordingly. If she determined that one vendor's Technical Proposal was not as comprehensive as another's, or did not satisfactorily provide the requested information, she discounted points. Addressing why she awarded AGS a higher score after comparing it to Guaranteed's Technical Proposal, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers stated that both AGS and Guaranteed demonstrated that they were capable of performing the services requested. However, generally, she found that the manner in which AGS presented information was better, and more complete, than what Guaranteed provided. For instance, AGS's Technical Proposal clearly identified each "team member" who would support the Title Services Contract, as well as the specific service he or she would perform for the contract. AGS also laid out the percentage of available time each team member would dedicate to District 4 service requests. Guaranteed's Technical Proposal, on the other hand, did not sufficiently explain how much time each staff member would actually dedicate to District 4 projects and responsibilities. AGS's Technical Proposal also recorded much more experience for each team member as opposed to that described in Guaranteed's Technical Proposal. Further, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers commented that Guaranteed's Technical Proposal indicated that several of its employees were attorneys who also worked for Myron E. Siegel, P.A. Guaranteed, however, did not describe how each joint employee would divide their time between the two employers. Consequently, she reduced her score for Guaranteed's Technical Staff Experience. Finally, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers appreciated how AGS's Technical Proposal featured a chart tracking its "Work Flow," as well as included a more complete explanation of its Quality Control Plan and the innovative concepts AGS might employ to accomplish District 4 tasks. Susanna Rowland: Ms. Rowland works as a Title Examiner for District In her job, Ms. Rowland performs a variety of tasks including bookkeeping, researching properties and roadways, and general office support. To prepare to score the Technical Proposals, Ms. Rowland read through the RFP and the Scope of Services to understand the criteria she was to consider. When scoring, Ms. Rowland testified that she read each proposal independently, then reviewed whether she believed the vendor could meet and provide the services requested in the Scope of Services. She did not compare the Technical Proposals directly to each other, but relied solely on the information contained within each submission. Ms. Rowland further expressed that she used the same standards to evaluate every proposal, and scored all proposals using the same method. Ms. Rowland awarded AGS's Technical Proposal a perfect score (100 points). In describing why she assigned AGS this score, Ms. Rowland commented that she did not find AGS's Technical proposal "deficient in any way." She explained that AGS's Technical Proposal amply demonstrated its ability to provide all services sought through the RFP. Testifying why she awarded AGS a higher score than Guaranteed, Ms. Rowland expressed that, generally, AGS showed that it possessed more experience in the services District 4 needed. For instance, AGS's Technical Proposal revealed that AGS's staff had "long-term" experience working on government projects. In addition, AGS had worked on a number of other contracts for government agencies handling right-of-way property issues. Conversely, Guaranteed's Technical Proposal only generally described its staff members' experience, and reported that Guaranteed had worked on fewer government contracts. Similarly, AGS outlined a "comprehensive" management plan, whereas Guaranteed's management plan was basic and contained less detail. Further, Ms. Rowland found that AGS's Technical Proposal provided a very thorough description of its Quality Control Plan. She was particularly impressed that AGS intended to conduct periodic audits of its examinations. Conversely, Petitioner's Technical Proposal proposed a minimal amount of internal audits. Once the Review Committee members independently calculated the points they awarded to each Technical Proposal, they returned their scores to Mr. Ricardo in the Procurement Office. Mr. Ricardo then averaged the scores into one composite score for each vendor. AGS received the most points with an average score of 96.68. Guaranteed came in second with an average score of 90.66. On September 28, 2020, the Review Committee met at a public opening to announce their scores for the Technical Proposals. After scores for the Technical Proposals were read at the public meeting, the Price Proposals were opened. At that point, Mr. Ricardo, in his role as the Procurement Agent, calculated and assigned points for the Price Proposals. Mr. Ricardo used the price evaluation procedure set forth in RFP Section 30.4.b. Each Price Proposal could receive up to 43 points based on a comparison of the vendors' respective prices. Mr. Ricardo explained that the low bidder would be awarded the maximum points for price (43 points). Thereafter, the Department calculated each score based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) x Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. Mr. Ricardo recounted that the Department designed the price formula to establish a base line with which to compare all proposals. Based on the formula, AGS's proposed price ($7,143,250.00) was the second highest price submitted of the three bidders and received 39.48 points. Guarantee's price ($8,000,250.00) was the highest price submitted and, correspondingly, received the lowest points awarded (35.25 points). Regarding AGS's Price Proposal, at the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo testified that, while reviewing and verifying AGS's prices, he discovered a discrepancy in the number AGS wrote as its subtotal price to electronically process title information. However, as more fully discussed below, Mr. Ricardo determined that the figure was actually a transcription error by AGS when it transferred a price calculation from a previous page. Consequently, because AGS's oversight did not require Mr. Ricardo to change either AGS's total price or the final points awarded to AGS's Price Proposal, Mr. Ricardo deemed the mistake a "minor irregularity." Consequently, he did not disqualify AGS's proposal and allowed it to be considered for award of the Title Services Contract.5 At that point, Mr. Ricardo combined the total points for the Technical Proposals and the Price Proposals for each vendor. AGS received the highest 5 Mr. Ricardo testified that Guaranteed's Price Proposal did not contain any errors. However, Entrust's Price Proposal did include several calculation errors, which Mr. Ricardo also adjusted to determine its final price score. As with AGS's Price Proposal, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that changes he made to Entrust's prices provided Entrust's proposal a competitive advantage or were unfair. ranking with a total score of 136.16. Guaranteed received the second highest ranking with a score of 125.91. On October 12, 2020, the District 4 Selection Committee met to review the total scores and to make the final award of the Title Services Contract. AGS's proposal was determined to hold the highest combined score. Thereafter, the Selection Committee awarded the RFP to AGS. That same day, Mr. Ricardo posted the Proposal Tabulation which served as notice of the Department's intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS. He asserted that, in selecting AGS, the Department determined that AGS's proposal was the most advantageous to the Department and the State of Florida. Guaranteed's Protest: Guaranteed contends that the methodology, processes, and procedures the Department followed in accepting and evaluating AGS's proposal were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Guaranteed asserts that the Department should have rejected AGS's proposal as nonresponsive. Alternatively, Guaranteed contends that the Review Committee members awarded AGS's Technical Proposal points to which it was not entitled, and as a result, AGS improperly received the highest cumulative point total and was undeservedly awarded the Title Services Contract. Myron Siegel testified on behalf of Guaranteed. Mr. Siegel is Guaranteed's President and sole owner. He is also a licensed Florida attorney, as well as a licensed Florida real estate broker and title agent. Mr. Seigel oversaw his staff's preparation and submission of Guaranteed's response to the RFP. Mr. Siegel relayed that he started Guaranteed in 2013 in Hollywood, Florida. Guaranteed operates across the State of Florida offering "full services" in abstract, mapping, and title search and examination services. Mr. Siegel represented that Guaranteed currently provides these services to the state through contracts with Department District 4 and District 6. Guaranteed (through Mr. Siegel) presented a number of arguments contesting the Department's award to AGS. Each specific challenge, along with the Department's response, is discussed below. AGS's Price Proposal Included a Material Mathematical Error: Guaranteed asserts that the Department should have disqualified AGS's proposal based on a material mathematical error in AGS's Price Proposal. Specifically, Guaranteed argues that when Mr. Ricardo "reformed" AGS's Price Proposal to remedy a math error, he provided AGS an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, by correcting AGS's mistake, then proceeding to score its Price Proposal, the Department acted "contrary to competition." Department Response: As referenced above, Mr. Ricardo explained that, in its Price Proposal, AGS itemized its anticipated prices for twelve different title search and examination services. One of these services was "Electronic Processing of Title Information." On this price page, AGS recorded the unit price for eight "types of services" associated with this category.6 At the bottom of the price page, AGS calculated the subtotal for all the services related to Electronic Processing of Title Information as $39,125.00. Following the 12 price pages for the separate title search and examination services, AGS completed the final page entitled "Summary of Bid Totals." The Summary page listed the subtotal prices for each of the 12 categories, then calculated a "Grand Total/Proposer's Price Amount." According to AGS's Summary page, the Grand Total for all its services equaled $7,143,250.00. 6 Blank forms for the 12 price pages each vendor was to use to prepare its Price Proposal were provided as part of RFP Exhibit "C." On the Summary page, however, in the block reflecting the subtotal for Electronic Processing of Title Information services, AGS incorrectly wrote the figure "$11,725.00" instead of "$39,125.00."7 Despite this mistake, in calculated its Grand Total/Proposer's Price Amount, AGS correctly used the number $39,125.00 to reach the total sum of $7,143.250.00, which was the official price AGS proposed to perform the Title Services Contract. Mr. Ricardo, in reviewing and assigning the price score to AGS's Price Proposal, reached the conclusion that the "$11,725.00" subtotal AGS wrote on the Summary page for Electronic Processing of Title Information was a transcription error. To confirm his suspicion, Mr. Ricardo added all 12 subtotals together, including the correct amount for Electronic Processing of Title Information from the price page ($39,125.00), and confirmed that the Grand Total of AGS's Price Proposal equaled $7,143,250.00, just as AGS ascribed at the bottom of its Summary page. Therefore, in preparing AGS's proposal for reviewed by the Selection Committee, Mr. Ricardo amended AGS's Price Proposal to reflect the correct number ($39,125.00). Mr. Ricardo testified that, in correcting this error, he did not modify or recalculate AGS's Price Proposal. Instead, he simply replaced an incorrect number with the number that AGS "obviously" intended to use and did, in fact use in adding up the subtotal to reach the Grand Total. Mr. Ricardo called the mistake in AGS's proposal a "minor irregularity." Mr. Ricardo testified that a "minor irregularity" is any error or omission that does not affect competition or impact the outcome of the solicitation. Mr. Ricardo conveyed that the "math mistake" in AGS's proposal did not change its total price, or relieve AGS (as the winning vendor) from 7 In the Summary, the subtotals for the five services directly above "Electronic Processing of Title Information" are listed as "$11,725.00." It appears that the individual who transferred the subtotals from the 12 separate pricing spreadsheets to the Summary page in AGS's price proposal inadvertently inserted the number from the wrong category and overlooked the correct number ($39,125.00) from the previous page. any responsibilities under the Scope of Services. Neither did it adversely prejudice the other vendors. Therefore, because he was simply inserting the correct number that was previously listed in AGS's submission, his corrective action did not alter AGS's ultimate price to perform the Title Services Contract. Consequently, the modification did not provide AGS's proposal a competitive advantage, nor did it affect the overall outcome of the solicitation. AGS still received the highest total score for the RFP based on the proposal it submitted in response to the solicitation. Mr. Ricardo further testified that he did not consider the mistake in AGS's proposal "material." If he or the Department had determined that the discrepancy was "material," the Procurement Office would have disqualified AGS's proposal, and it would not have been eligible for award. In response to questioning, Mr. Ricardo conceded that the term "minor irregularity" is not defined in the solicitation documents. Neither is he aware of any Department written instructions or policies for handling math errors in proposals. However, for authority to exercise the option to waive AGS's "minor irregularity," Mr. Ricardo pointed to State of Florida purchasing form PUR 1001 entitled "General Instructions to Respondents," which the RFP references in Sections 35.2 and 36. (The RFP also contained a hyperlink which enabled vendors to directly access the PUR 1001 through the internet.) PUR 1001 states at paragraph 16: Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. (emphasis added). PUR 1001 defines "buyer" as "the entity that has released the solicitation," i.e., the Department in this procurement. The initial advertisement for the RFP also stated that, "The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids or accept minor irregularities in the best interest of the State of Florida." Based on the testimony at the final hearing, the Department witnesses credibly attested that the transcription mistake in AGS's Price Proposal was a "harmless error" that did not confer AGS a competitive advantage, either in competition or price. Neither was the mistake a "material" error that should have rendered AGS's proposal nonresponsive. Accordingly, the Department persuasively argued that it should not have disqualified AGS's proposal due to its transcription error. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Fails to Include or Reference a Real Estate Attorney: Guaranteed contends that certain services described in the RFP and the Scope of Services may only be performed by a licensed real estate attorney. AGS's Technical Proposal, however, does not identify a real estate attorney on its staff. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that the Department should have disqualified AGS's proposal because AGS cannot perform all the services required under the RFP. Supporting its position, Guaranteed pointed to RFP Sections 9.1.2 and 22.2, and Scope of Services, Section 2.1, which required each vendor to: Identify an active Florida licensed attorney practicing in real property or an active Florida licensed title (real property) agent. Guaranteed advanced that the document preparation services described in Scope of Services, Section 4.1.8, which specifically included "conveyances, releases, satisfactions or any other document(s)," can only be legally prepared by a licensed real estate attorney, not a title agent. Consequently, because AGS's Technical Proposal did not identify a licensed real estate attorney on its staff, AGS could not fulfill the Scope of Services. Department Response: In responding to this point, Mr. Ricardo, as well as every Review Committee member, commented that neither the RFP nor the Scope of Services required any vendor to identify a real estate attorney on its staff to perform any specific task as part of the Title Services Contract. Mr. Ricardo (and each Review Committee member) was quick to point out that the language found in RFP Sections 9.1.2 and 22.2 states that each vendor must employ a real property attorney "or" a licensed title agent. AGS's Technical Proposal lists three licensed title agents on its staff, which made it compliant with the RFP requirements. Consequently, Mr. Ricardo testified that no legal or procedural basis exists for the Department to find AGS's Technical Proposal ineligible for award due to its failure to include a real estate attorney. During her testimony, Ms. Ventura further explained that, as part of the Title Services Contract, District 4 might request the vendor's assistance to prepare title documents in the event District 4 is shorthanded. However, if District 4 should need document support, Ms. Ventura anticipated that the vendor would be provided templates of the pertinent forms, which it could complete. For her part, Ms. Rowland added that, while AGS may not have a real estate attorney on its staff, AGS's proposal indicated that it did have access to outside legal support, if necessary. Accordingly, based on the evidence testimony adduced at the final hearing, the Department persuasively countered Guaranteed's argument that AGS's Technical Proposal should have been deemed nonresponsive or its score reduced based on AGS's failure to identify a licensed real property attorney on its staff. AGS's decision to identify three Florida licensed title agents clearly meets the terms of the RFP. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Fails to Describe its eTitle capability: Guaranteed contends that AGS's Technical Proposal was deficient in that it did not address AGS's technological capability to use District 4's electronic title report database software known as "eTitle." Scope of Services Section 4.1.7 obliged each vendor to have the ability to utilize the "eTitle" software, stating: The Department has designed the electronic title report database software known as eTitle. … The Department requires that the Vendor have the appropriate staff and technological capability to process information and reports through said eTitle. Section 4.1.9.5 adds that services a vendor may provide included, "Scanning and indexing hard copy title reports into eTitle." Guaranteed complains that AGS's Technical Proposal is completely bereft of any information regarding its technological capability to use eTitle. Therefore, AGS's score should reflect this omission. Guaranteed alleges that the Review Committee members, however, did not deduct any points from AGS's proposal due to its failure to show its eTitle capability. Guaranteed further claims that two of the Review Committee members (Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland) went outside the four corners of the AGS's Technical Proposal and assumed critical capabilities that AGS did not state it had. Consequently, the Review Committee acted arbitrarily and/or gave AGS a competitive advantage on this factor. Department Response: Commenting on the RFP conditions regarding eTitle, Ms. Ventura explained that eTitle is a computer program that District 4 specifically developed to help process property title information. For the Title Services Contract, the vendor would be required to input a title report into the eTitle data base, which District 4 personnel could then access. Ms. Rowland added that eTitle is a program that captures information contained in a title report, such as encumbrances. Therefore, to comply with the Title Services Contract, each vender must be familiar with and have the ability to use eTitle. At the final hearing, Ms. Ventura could not recall how she scored AGS's eTitle capability. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, on the other hand, explained that AGS's Technical Proposal referenced eTitle in its "Work Flow" chart, which provided "a summary of the specific procedures outlined … and will be used in our quality control section to illustrate the comprehensive checkpoint process we have identified." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers specifically pointed to the sixth step of the Work Flow that stated that, "Completed research is input into eTitles database." In addition, AGS's "Quality Control" flowchart relayed that "FDOT Research Form allows for quick input into eTitle database." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers also observed that the biographical information AGS included for staff member Kimberly Haddix stated that Ms. Haddix had worked on a prior contract with District 4 as the "the lead abstractor for this contract since its inception in 2010." Therefore, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers surmised that Ms. Haddix was personally familiar with eTitle based on the fact that District 4 uses eTitle in all of its title report contracts. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers conceded that AGS's Technical Proposal did not describe, in detail, the actual technological resources it would rely upon to process eTitle reports. However, she remarked that Section 4.1.7 did not require vendors to describe the specific office equipment they had available. The Scope of Services only instructed each vendor to represent whether it had "the appropriate staff and technological capability" to produce eTitle reports, which she believed that AGS did. Consequently, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers did not deduct points from AGS's Technical Proposal for not detailing the specific technological resources AGS would use to process eTitle reports. Ms. Rowland, in awarding her (perfect) score, also acknowledged that AGS's Technical Proposal contained limited information discussing eTitle. However, she stated that she personally knew that AGS had eTitle experience based on her knowledge of a prior contract AGS worked on for District 4 from 2010 through 2017. Therefore, she assumed that AGS had the present technological capability and resources to use eTitle for the Title Services Contract. Ms. Rowland subsequently clarified her testimony attesting that, like Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, she remembered that "there was a mention of [eTitle] in [AGS's] proposal somewhere." The Department witnesses cogently testified that AGS presented sufficient information within its Technical Proposal regarding its eTitle staffing and technological capabilities to demonstrate that it could meet the performance requirements of the Scope of Services, as well as to be evaluated on the same. The Review Committee members satisfactorily established that the scores they awarded to AGS were based on information contained within the "four corners" of its Technical Proposal. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland effectively articulated that the RFP did not require a vendor to provide more information on eTitle other than to show that it was familiar with and had the ability to use the program. Further, regarding their testimony that they were familiar with AGS's work on a prior contract, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland identified provisions within AGS's Technical Proposal upon which they based their evaluation, and credibly relayed that they did not pull from extraneous information when formulating their scores. Significantly, they both pointed to the fact that AGS's Technical Proposal referenced eTitle in its "Work Flow" charts, as well as mentioned AGS's previous work with District 4, which sufficiently enabled them to evaluate AGS's eTitle aptitude when scoring its proposal. Accordingly, the Department persuasively negated Guaranteed's argument that the AGS's Technical Proposal lacked the requisite information regarding its eTitle capability in order to be effectively evaluated by the Review Committee. AGS's Proposal should be Disqualified Because AGS Did Not Return the "Questions and Answers No. 1" Form to the Department Prior to the Award of the RFP: On August 20, 2020, the Department issued a page entitled "Questions and Answers No. 1" (the "Q&A") to be added as part of the RFP. The Q&A notified vendors of a Department response to a question regarding the Scope of Services. The Q&A specifically announced that a prospective bidder inquired whether the Department would provide any waivers or flexibility in reporting Code Enforcement Liens filed against other property by industrial lenders. The Department answered: In accordance with item Exhibit A, page A-3, Section 4.1, the Department may allow flexibility to follow title industry standards regarding Code Enforcement Liens and those type of lenders, however, the Vendor will be required to conform to the accepted standards of care in the title industry in compliance with the Florida Statutes, Florida Bar, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Uniform Title Standards, Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Procedures Manual Land Title Section 7.15 …, the District Four Title Search and Examination Guidelines (dated November 2013 – see Exhibit D attached) and any applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. The Q&A then stated: Proposers must acknowledge receipt of this document by completing and returning to the Procurement Office with their proposal, by no later than the time and date of the proposal opening. Failure to do so may subject the bidder/proposer to disqualification. AGS did not return the Q&A to the Department. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that AGS's proposal should be disqualified. (Guaranteed timely returned a signed Q&A.) Department Response: At the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo explained that the Department issued the Q&A to ensure that vendors fully understood the Scope of Services. Mr. Ricardo testified that he was aware that AGS did not return the Q&A with its proposal. However, he did not disqualify AGS based on two reasons. First, Mr. Ricardo was quick to point out that, according to the language in the Q&A, failure to return the document only "may" subject the vendor to disqualification. No conditions or terms in the solicitation documents required the Department to reject an otherwise responsive proposal based on the vendor's failure to submit a signed Q&A. Second, Mr. Ricardo considered AGS's failure to return the Q&A form a "minor irregularity," which did not require him to disqualify its proposal. Mr. Ricardo explained that the Q&A's purpose was simply to have vendors acknowledge receipt of the Department's answer to a question about the Scope of Services. Whether they returned the Q&A or not, the vendors were not supplementing their Technical or Price Proposals or changing the services to be provided under the RFP. Neither did AGS's failure to return the Q&A relieve it of any requirements of the RFP or materially affect either the Review Committee's final scores or the Selection Committee's determination that AGS's proposal presented the most advantageous terms for the Department. Accordingly, because, in his judgment, AGS's failure to submit a signed Q&A did not modify any information that was to be evaluated or scored, the Department was not required to declare AGS's proposal nonresponsive or subject to disqualification. Mr. Ricardo's explanation of the Department's decision to treat AGS's failure to sign and return the Q&A as a "minor irregularity" was supported by the testimony of Jessica Rubio, the District 4 Procurement Officer. Ms. Rubio described the Q&A as a "clarifying question" that had no impact on either AGS's total score or the final ranking of the vendors' proposals. Based on this testimony, Mr. Ricardo's decision not to disqualify AGS's proposal for neglecting to submit the Q&A is credible and is credited. No evidence shows that the Department's decision to waive AGS's failure to return the Q&A conferred upon it any advantage over other vendors, either in competition or price. Neither did it render AGS's proposal nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. AGS's Proposal Should be Disqualified Because AGS Did Not Return Addendum No. 1 to the Department Prior to the Award of the RFP: On September 24, 2020, the Department issued Addendum No. 1 (the "Addendum") to the three vendors who submitted proposals. The Addendum notified the vendors of a change to the RFP, stating: Request for Proposal, page 4 (containing the Timeline) is hereby replaced with the attached, revised page 4 with a revised timeline. The changes are highlighted in yellow. The Addendum further directed that: Proposers must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by completing and returning to the Procurement Office with their Proposal via email at D4.Purch@dot.state.fl.us, by no later than the time and date of the proposal opening. Failure to do so may subject the Proposer to disqualification. AGS did not return the Addendum to the Department. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that AGS's proposal should be disqualified. (Guaranteed did timely return a signed Addendum.) Department Response: At the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo explained that the original Timeline included in the RFP recorded the "critical dates and actions" for the solicitation process. Mr. Ricardo relayed that, prior to issuing the RFP on August 7, 2020, the Procurement Office felt comfortable calendaring certain key dates, such as when proposals were due (September 3, 2020), when the Department would hold the public opening (September 28, 2020), and when the Department would post the intended award (October 12, 2020). For the two entries describing how vendors could attend the Public Selection Meetings on September 28, 2020, and October 12, 2020, however, the Procurement Office wrote on the Timeline "Location or GoToMeeting: TBD." Mr. Ricardo recounted that, at the time the RFP was publicized, he was still considering whether vendors would be allowed to attend in person, or should call in. Consequently, to clarify the "TBD" entries, the Department issued the Addendum informing vendors of the updated "Location or GoToMeeting" information. Attached to the Addendum was a "revised page 4," which modified (and highlighted in yellow) the two TBD entries to read, respectively, "GoToMeeting Call-in: 1 (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 163-488- 789," and "GoToMeeting Call-in: 1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 230-006-965." Mr. Ricardo explained that the sole purpose of the Addendum was to inform the vendors how to remotely access two public meetings on the procurement schedule. Mr. Ricardo testified that he was aware that AGS did not produce a signed Addendum to be included in its proposal. However, as with the Q&A form, he did not disqualify AGS based on two reasons. First, the Addendum contained the same qualifying language as the Q&A stating that the failure to return a signed Addendum only "may" subject the vendor to disqualification. No conditions or terms in the solicitation documents required the Department to automatically reject an otherwise responsive proposal if the vendor failed to submit the Addendum. Second, like the Q&A, Mr. Ricardo considered AGS's lapse to be a "minor irregularity." Mr. Ricardo explained that the Addendum's purpose was simply to have vendors acknowledge how they could access two procurement events. By returning the Addendum (or not), the vendors were not supplementing their Technical or Price Proposals. Neither did AGS's failure to return the Addendum impact the Review Committee's final scores or the Selection Committee's determination that AGS's proposal represented the most advantageous to the state. Mr. Ricardo characterized the Addendum as a "minor … informational posting." Accordingly, because (in his judgment) the Department had the ability to waive AGS's failure to submit a signed Addendum as a "minor irregularity," Mr. Ricardo believed that he was not required to disqualify AGS's proposal. Ms. Rubio also supported Mr. Ricardo's decision to treat AGS's failure to return the Addendum as a "minor irregularity." Ms. Rubio expressed that the Addendum's purpose was to notify vendors of two changes to the solicitation Timeline. The Addendum, however, did not affect the services the vendors would provide through the Title Services Contract or a proposal's final score. Based on this testimony, Mr. Ricardo's decision not to disqualify AGS's proposal for failure to submit the Addendum is credible and is credited. No evidence shows that the Department's decision to waive AGS's neglect to return the Addendum conferred upon it any advantage over other vendors, either in competition or price. Neither did it render AGS's proposal nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Failed to Include a Licensed Mapper: Guaranteed asserts that certain services identified in the RFP may only be accomplished by a licensed "mapper." Specifically, Scope of Services Section 3.2, states that "[t]he Vendor must have the ability to follow out and map/plot complex legal descriptions and determine whether an instrument of record impacts the property under search." Guaranteed contends that only someone licensed as a surveyor and mapper by the State of Florida may legally perform these tasks. AGS's Technical Proposal, however, does not identify a licensed surveyor and mapper on its staff. Consequently, AGS's staff does not include persons qualified to provide all the services required under the RFP, and its Technical Proposal should have been evaluated accordingly. Guaranteed further pointed to the fact that, in its Technical Proposal, AGS held out one of its employees, Kimberly Haddix, as a "mapping specialist." However, AGS's Technical Proposal did not contain any information showing that Ms. Haddix holds a license as a professional surveyor and mapper or is otherwise capable of providing mapping services. In awarding AGS points for its mapping services, Guaranteed argues that the Review Committee members made assumptions outside the four corners of AGS's proposal. Department Response: Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, calling on her familiarity with mapping services, described "mapping" as "sketching the property." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers explained that title reports contain the written description of property boundaries. A "mapper" puts property descriptions into a detailed, color-coded sketch or map. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers added that if the Department encounters a property dispute, mapping helps the Department verify its ownership rights to the property. Accordingly, District 4 desired the winning vendor to be able to prepare sketches of the property at issue. Mr. Ricardo testified that the RFP only required vendors to have someone on their staff who is proficient in mapping. The RFP did not require vendors to employ someone who actually holds a surveyor and mapper license. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers agreed that the RFP does not require the vendor's "mapper" to hold a state license. Instead, District 4 simply needs someone who is able to create a drawing of the property using the appropriate software. Further, in evaluating how AGS would provide mapping services requested through the Title Services Contract, every Review Committee member pointed to information within Ms. Haddix's resume that conveyed that AGS considered her to be its "mapping specialist." AGS's Technical Proposal further represented that Ms. Haddix is familiar with certain tools used to identify properties such as IcoMap and Deed Plotter. During her testimony, Ms. Ventura also commented that the RFP did not require the vendor to have a professional mapper or surveyor on its staff. When she evaluated AGS's Technical Proposal, Ms. Ventura believed that Ms. Haddix appeared fully capable of providing the mapping services necessary under the RFP's Scope of Services. Ms. Rowland agreed with Ms. Ventura's statement that AGS's Technical Proposal indicated that Ms. Haddix had mapping experience. Based on this testimony, the Department's witnesses persuasively refuted Guaranteed's argument that AGS's proposal should be disqualified due to the fact that AGS does not employ a "licensed" mapper on its staff. Guaranteed did not prove that AGS is unable to meet the terms of the Scope of Services with the staff members it identified in its Technical Proposal. The Review Committee members credibly testified that, based on representations within AGS's Technical Proposal, AGS (through Ms. Haddix) is capable of providing any necessary mapping services to support the Title Services Contract. AGS's Technical Proposal Failed to Identify Subcontractors: Guaranteed asserts that the Review Committee members should have deducted points from AGS's Technical Proposal based on AGS's failure to identify subcontractors. See RFP Section 22.2. Guaranteed argues that the personnel listed in AGS's Technical Proposal were not qualified to perform all the tasks set forth in the Scope of Services. Consequently, AGS would be compelled to hire outside help to support the Title Services Contract. Therefore, when scoring AGS's Technical Proposal, the Review Committee members should have taken into account the fact that AGS omitted subcontractors. Department Response: The Review Committee members uniformly rejected this challenge by pointing out that AGS's Technical Proposal clearly states that "AGS does not anticipate using subcontractors or sub-consultants to provide any services set forth herein." Instead, based on AGS's representations, all work required under the contract could and would be performed by the AGS employees identified in its Technical Proposal. The Department's witnesses convincingly confutes Guaranteed's argument on this point. The Review Committee members credibly testified that the information in AGS's Technical Proposal indicated that AGS could perform all the desired services without requiring support from subcontractors, and Guaranteed did not sufficiently show otherwise. Accordingly, the Department persuasively rejected Guaranteed's argument that the Department should devalue AGS's Technical Proposal based on AGS's failure to identify subcontractors. AGS's Technical Proposal Contains Misleading Statements on its "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" ("DBE") Participating Statement: At the final hearing, Guaranteed called attention to the fact that AGS submitted an Anticipated DBE Participation Statement (the "DBE Statement") with its Technical Proposal, which represented that it intended "to subcontract *100 % of the contract dollars to DBE(s)." As with the previous challenge, Guaranteed raised the point that the RFP required every vendor to identify services which the vendor anticipated to be subcontracted, as well as include resumes of all subcontractors. See RFP Section 22.2. Guaranteed argued that AGS's DBE Statement is either false or misleading because AGS also stated that it will not use any subcontractors for the Title Services Contract. Consequently, the Department should have either scored AGS's Technical Proposal accordingly or disqualified AGS's proposal as nonresponsive. Guaranteed's allegation on this point, however, is easily reconcilable and discounted. The DBE Statement, after instructing the vendor to record the percentage of work that would be subcontracted, asks the vendor to list its proposed subcontractors. AGS, after reporting its intent on its DBE Statement to subcontract "*100%," then lists itself stating, "*AGS is a certified DBE, so 100% of the work completed will be handled by a DBE." The logical conclusion is that AGS intended to report that 100% of the Title Services Contract will be performed by itself, as the "DBE." And, it does not anticipate using any other subcontractors who are DBEs. Accordingly, the Department's treatment of AGS's reference to subcontractors in its DBE Statement (i.e., not finding AGS's proposal nonresponsive) was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Guaranteed's assertion that AGS's DBE Statement contains false or misleading information or inappropriately refers to unidentified subcontractors is unsupported by the record. I. AGS Used an Improper Font Size in Its Technical Proposal: Guaranteed asserted that AGS used an improper font on some of its Technical Proposal entries. To support this challenge, Guaranteed referred to the explicit requirement in RFP Section 22.4 that "[t]ype size shall not be less than 11-point font." RFP Section 22.4 further restricted Technical Proposals to a maximum of 25 pages, excluding resumes, certificates, licenses, organization charts, and indexes. Guaranteed maintained that some of the passages in AGS's Technical Proposal appeared to be written in 10-point font. Guaranteed speculated that AGS used the smaller font in order to fit its Technical Proposal within the 25-page limit. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that the Department failed to provide a level playing field when it, either knowingly or negligently, allowed AGS's proposal to be scored despite the presence of less than 11-point font type in its Technical Proposal. Such action gave AGS an unfair competitive advantage. Department Response: During his testimony, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that the font size was a "material" deficiency that should disqualify AGS's proposal. Upon visual inspection of AGS's Technical Proposal, Mr. Ricardo observed that AGS apparently copied the questions/requests for information directly from the RFP document, then pasted the relevant verbiage onto its submission. AGS then inserted its response beneath each question. In preparing its submission, AGS appears to have used an appropriately sized font for its responses. Only the RFP sections that were copied/pasted were ascribed in font smaller than 11 point. Mr. Ricardo asserted that, as presented, AGS's Technical Proposal totaled 23 pages (excluding resumes, certificates, licenses, organization charts, and indexes). Consequently, he believed that even if AGS used 11-point font for all of its Technical Proposal passages, AGS's proposal would still have fit within the RFP's 25-page limit. Therefore, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that AGS's use of a smaller-than-authorized font type compelled the Department to disqualify its proposal. The Department persuasively refutes Guaranteed's complaint on this issue. Mr. Ricardo credibly testified that AGS did not receive a competitive advantage by inserting some language into its Technical Proposal that was written in smaller than 11-point font. To summarize the findings in this matter, Guaranteed did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department's decision to award the Title Services Contract to AGS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that AGS received a competitive advantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Guaranteed's Cone of Silence Violation: Notwithstanding the above findings, at the final hearing, the Department broached the issue of Guaranteed's violation of the "cone-of- silence" provision in section 287.057(23), which prohibits responding vendors in a bid solicitation from contacting government employees or officers within 72 hours following notice of the award. The implication is that, as a result of Guaranteed's actions, the Department may now dismiss Guaranteed's bid protest because Guaranteed lacks standing to initiate this action due to the fact that it cannot participate in a re-bid proceeding for the Title Services Contract. The undersigned has not included a recommendation on Guaranteed's "cone-of-silence" violation in this Recommended Order based on the conclusion that Guaranteed's protest fails on the merits. However, the undersigned observes that the facts found in this matter would support such action by the Department. See AHF MCO of Fla., Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 308 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Section 287.057(23) states: Each solicitation for the procurement of commodities or contractual services shall include the following provision: "Respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72-hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response." The Department included the required quoted language in Special Conditions, Section 3, of the RFP. The Department "released" this solicitation on August 7, 2020. The Department posted the notice of intended award on October 12, 2020. Accordingly, the 72-hour period following the posting of the intended award ended on October 15, 2020. However, on October 12, 2020, at 2:57 p.m., after the Department announced its intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS, but well within the 72-hour period following the posting, Mr. Siegel sent an email to Ms. Ventura with the subject line "DOR-RFP-21-4002-JR." The email stated: Erika, Now that the award on the DOT-RFP-21-4002-JR has been officially posted, I need to ask you some questions. I have consistently asked how we are doing and what we need to do to improve. I have also asked that you alert me to any performance issues. I have heard nothing. So, you can imagine I was quite surprised to see how you rated us for this RFP, and how we ended up scoring below America [sic] Government which I understood to be a source of substandard work product. I am concerned that if we are rated so low, it makes no sense for us to continue to bid on RFP's from FDOT4 because I am not sure what we can do to improve. Can you please explain the rating you gave us and what it was that you found to be less than perfect. Mr. Siegel sent an identical email, also dated October 12, 2020, at 2:57 p.m., to Ms. Rowland (addressed to "Susie"). Both emails were transmitted from Mr. Siegel's work email address (Myron.Siegel@gftitle.com) and were written over his signature block as President of Guaranteed. Consequently, the evidence clearly establishes that Guaranteed committed a cone-of-silence violation, to wit: Guaranteed (or a person acting on its behalf) contacted (via email) two employees of the Department; Guaranteed's emails were sent prior to the end of the 72-hour period following the Department's posting of the notice of its intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS; Guaranteed's emails concerned "any aspect of this solicitation" in that Mr. Seigel specifically commented about, 1) the ratings Ms. Ventura and Ms. Rowland gave to Guaranteed's Technical Proposal; 2) how AGS's Technical Proposal received a higher score; 3) how AGS received a higher score despite "substandard work product;" 4) that Guaranteed is considering not bidding on future District 4 contracts based on its rating in this RFP; and 5) what part of Guaranteed's proposal the evaluators found "to be less than perfect;" and Mr. Ricardo is the Procurement Officer for the RFP. The RFP does not set forth any additional representatives (such as Ms. Ventura or Ms. Rowland) to contact regarding "any aspect" of the solicitation. At the final hearing, Mr. Siegel argued that his emails did not concern "any aspect of this solicitation" for the Title Services Contract. Instead, he was only asking Ms. Ventura and Ms. Rowland, the two individuals with the Department with whom he regularly communicated, to comment on Guaranteed's performance in its current work for District 4. Mr. Siegel asserted that he used language regarding Guaranteed's rating in this RFP simply as a frame of reference for his question. Mr. Siegel's attestation that his two emails did not raise issues regarding the RFP or this solicitation for the Title Services Contract is not credited. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the facts establish a "cone-of- silence violation," under section 287.057(23), which would support a Department determination that Guaranteed is a non-responsive bidder. Thereafter, the Department, in its discretion, may issue a Final Order dismissing Guaranteed's formal bid protest for lack of standing because Guaranteed has no chance of obtaining the Title Services Contract in a re-bid proceeding. See AHF MCO, 308 So. 3d at 1139.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the protest of Guaranteed. It is further recommended that the Department of Transportation award Request for Proposal DOT-RFP-21- 4002-JR as set forth in the Proposal Tabulation issued on October 12, 2020. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John Ashley Peacock, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 606 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sean Gellis, General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Myron E. Siegel, Esquire Guaranteed Florida Title & Abstract, Inc. 1055 South Federal Highway Hollywood, Florida 33020 Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
