Findings Of Fact The Petitioners own and operate a farm in St. Johns County, Florida. During the 1991 potato-growing season, they grew atlantic chipping potatoes on their 400-acre farm, as well as on approximately 30 acres leased from another party by their daughter and son-in-law. The Petitioners' business is known as Pacetti Farms. Rubin is an Illinois corporation licensed to do business in Florida as a broker or dealer in agricultural products. Rubin customarily purchases potatoes from growers throughout the country at the appropriate season for resale, typically to various potato chip manufacturing companies. Mr. Rubin appeared at the hearing and testified on behalf of Rubin and as an adverse witness on behalf of the Petitioners. Rubin is licensed and bonded with a surety bond from Continental in accordance with the statutory authority cited below, enforced and regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("Department"). On December 22, 1990, the Petitioners and Rubin entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of 50,000 CWT of Florida atlantic chipping potatoes. That contract is in evidence as Exhibit 3 and is also known as the "set price contract". The contract called for shipment of the potatoes at a stated price of $6.35 per CWT, although the parties have stipulated and agreed that the actual contract price was intended as $6.00 per CWT. That figure is not in dispute in this proceeding. Shipment was to be made during the harvesting season between the dates of April 27, 1991 and June 15, 1991. The contract contained an escape clause or exception for "acts of God", with an explanatory parenthetic clause indicating that that was intended to mean circumstances beyond the control of the parties, such as flood, freeze, hail, etc. On or about February 15, 1991, severe cold weather struck the potato- growing area of St. Johns County, Florida. Temperatures ranged from 25 degrees to 19 degrees on that day, with a high wind blowing and very dry conditions. This resulted in soil being blown away from the newly-set potatoes under very cold temperatures. Because of this, the Petitioners had to work with tractors and cultivators far into the night to turn the blown-away soil back into the potato "sets". The Petitioners feared that this would cause some "dry eyes" and, therefore, lowered potato plant and potato production. In fact, however, upon observing the maturing plants during April of 1991, it appeared that the Petitioners would have a healthy, normal crop. The prior year the Petitioners had grown 133,000 CWT of potatoes on their 400 acres (excluding the Kirkers' 30 acres). With this background of an apparently-healthy crop in mind, the Petitioners were approached by Rubin on April 25, 1991 and negotiations ensued which resulted in the sale and purchase from Petitioners to Rubin of six additional loads of potatoes at the open market price of $19.50 per CWT. The six additional loads were in addition to the 50,000 CWT of potatoes agreed upon in the main contract entered into on December 22, 1990. This separate oral agreement for the six loads of potatoes at the market price of $19.50 per CWT was entered into prior to the Petitioners initiating delivery under the terms of the written contract of December 22, 1990. The parties thus agreed for the sale and purchase of six loads of potatoes at that market price to be delivered on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the following week, April 29th, April 30th, and May 1, 1991. Part of the consideration for that oral contract was the Petitioners' ability to furnish the six truckloads of potatoes on short notice, on the dates that Rubin required them. In other words, Rubin needed them in a hurry; and it was apparently worth $19.50 per CWT for him to get the potatoes delivered immediately on the dates requested. In the process of negotiating this oral contract, the Petitioners assured Rubin that he would have sufficient potatoes to meet his 50,000 CWT obligation under the written contract of December 22, 1990. This was not a misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioners, at this time, because the Petitioners, in good faith, believed they would be able to meet the 50,000 CWT set price contract and the oral contract for six additional truckloads, because of their belief concerning their crop estimate. This belief was based upon their observance of an apparently healthy crop and their knowledge that on their 400 acres, the year before, they had grown 133,000 CWT, as well as upon their knowledge that a normal crop estimate for the entire 430 acres at this location, under all of the prevailing circumstances, was 120,400 CWT. In fact, the Petitioners only contracted for 116,650 CWT of potatoes which, based upon a reasonable and appropriate crop estimate for this site and circumstances, would have allowed them to meet all their contracts, including the 50,000 CWT contract between the Petitioners and Rubin, although not all of the market sales for the Kirkers. After having thus assured Mr. Rubin that they could meet the contract of December 22, 1990 and still perform the oral contract for the six truckloads at market price, the Petitioners proceeded to carry out that oral agreement. It was a separate and distinct contract from the written contract dated December 22, 1990. Under the separate oral contract, they delivered the six truckloads of potatoes requested by Rubin. Rubin received them and paid $19.50 per CWT for them. On May 2, 1990, the Petitioners began delivering potatoes to Rubin under the terms and conditions of the written contract of December 22, 1990 and continued the deliveries throughout the remainder of the harvesting season. The first was shipped from Pacetti Farms on May 2, 1991 and the last load delivered to Rubin on that contract was shipped on June 1, 1991. During the 1991 growing and harvesting season, the area, including St. Johns County, experienced substantial crop damage due to excessive frost, rain, hail, and wind, which occurred during February of 1991 and then after April 25, 1991, with particular regard to excessive rainfall in May of 1991. This resulted in the area being declared an agricultural disaster area by the United States Department of Agriculture for that growing season. The Petitioners suffered damage to their crop as a result of these elements in February of 1991, as described above, and by excessive rainfall during May of 1991. Excessive rainfall caused root damage to their crop, which resulted in a lowered yield even though the plants viewed above ground appeared to be normal. This was aggravated by the fact that the Petitioners and other growers were legally unable to use the pesticide "Temik", for control of nematodes, during that growing season. Because of the nature of the crop involved, which grows underground, the potato yield is difficult to estimate at any given point in harvesting. The exact nature and extent of damage caused by weather conditions to a single crop is hard to estimate in advance. This difficulty is further compounded by differing soil types and climate conditions present within a particular growing area, especially with regard to farmers such as the Petitioners, who have their crops spread over multiple fields and farms. In mid-May of 1991, the Petitioners realized that there would be a crop shortage. The crop was damaged due to the weather-related factors mentioned above. The Petitioners notified Rubin that they expected their potato crop to fall short of expectations and that they would probably be unable to completely fill the contract with Rubin for the entire 50,000 CWT contracted for on December 22, 1990. In the meantime, before the 1991 planting season began, the Petitioners and Renee and Keith Kirker had entered into an agreement, whereby the Kirkers initiated their own farming operation on 30 acres of potato-growing land. The Kirkers leased that acreage from Diane Ross and received operating assistance from the Petitioners in the form of advances of all their operating costs, pursuant to an agreement between the Petitioners and the Kirkers, whereby the Petitioners would be repaid the estimated production costs for that 30-acre crop in the amount of $1,776.85 per acre, upon the sale of those 30 acres of potatoes. Potatoes are planted and harvested in the same sequence. Since the Petitioners assisted the Kirkers in planting their potatoes prior to the planting and completion of their own fields, the Petitioners borrowed some of the Kirkers' potatoes to fill their own contracts because those potatoes matured earlier, with the understanding that the Kirkers would be repaid in kind from the Petitioners' own fields during the remainder of the harvesting season. This is a common practice according to Ronald Brown, who testified for the Petitioners as an expert witness on farming practices. However, after the heavy rains in May of 1991, the Petitioners discovered that it would be necessary, in their view, to retain a portion of their last acreage in order to have potatoes to pay back the Kirkers for the potatoes borrowed. These potatoes would be sold by the Petitioners at market price, as agreed with the Kirkers. Upon discovering that their crop would not meet their contract obligations, the Petitioners attempted to prorate their remaining potatoes between their remaining contract customers in what they considered a fair and reasonable manner. On behalf of the Kirkers, the potatoes allocated for repayment to them were offered to Rubin, who, through its President, Mr. Rubin, declined to purchase them at the market price at which they were offered (higher than the contract price). The Petitioners' expert, Ronald Brown, established that, based upon accepted growers practices and his experience in the Hastings area, the Petitioners should have anticipated the yield for their 1991 crop at no more than 280 CWT per acre for the Petitioners' 430 acres (30 acres of which was the Kirkers' land). It is customary farming practice in the area, according to Brown, to enter into contracts for no more than 80% of the maximum anticipated yield of potatoes. The anticipated yield on the entire 430 acres of the Petitioners' and the Kirkers' land was, therefore, 120,400 CWT of potatoes. The principle of contracting no more than 80% of a maximum anticipated yield is designed to protect contracting parties in the event a smaller than anticipated yield occurs. A 280 CWT per acre yield is the generally-accepted yield amount under good growing conditions, according to Mr. Brown. The year before, the Petitioners had produced a total yield of 133,000 CWT on only 400 acres. The Petitioners entered into a total of six separate contracts for delivery of a total of 116,650 CWT of potatoes out of a reasonably anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres of only 120,400 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners contracted 97% of the customary, accepted, anticipated maximum yield for the 430 acres for 1991. Thirty (30) of those acres, however, represent the potatoes which the Petitioners were obligated to the Kirkers to sell on their behalf at market price, rather than contract price. In spite of the fact that the Petitioners contracted 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield for 430 acres, the Petitioners, in fact, produced 117,000 CWT (approximate) on those 430 acres. Therefore, had they not diverted a certain amount of the crop to open market sales, they could have met their 116,650 CWT contractual obligations to the six contracting parties, including Rubin. It is also true, however, that that 117,000 CWT actual yield included the 30 acres of potatoes which the Petitioners were separately obligated to sell at open market price to repay the Kirkers. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners had contracted 97% of the commonly-accepted, projected maximum yield, the Petitioners diverted 10,301.6 CWT of the 1991 crop on the entire 430 acres from contract sales to open market sales at much higher prices. Of those open market sales, 2,789.5 CWT were sold at market price after the last contract sales were made to Rubin. Had the Petitioners sold the entire 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes on contract, instead of at open market, all of the Petitioners' contractual requirements could have been met, including the contract with Rubin, although they would not then have been able to meet their obligations to the Kirkers. Based upon the above Findings of Fact supported by competent evidence, it is found that the preponderant evidence in this case does not support the Petitioners' contention that the Petitioners were unable to fulfill their contract obligation to Rubin due to an act of God. Although it is true that the Petitioners established that poor weather conditions, coupled with the absence of the ability to use the pesticide "Temik", had a deleterious effect on their crop production. The record shows that in spite of this, the Petitioners had the ability to fulfill their contract with Rubin if only approximately 5,000 CWT of the 10,301.6 CWT of potatoes sold on the open market had instead been allocated to the Petitioners' contract with Rubin to fill out the difference between the approximately 45,000 CWT honored under the contract and the contractual obligation to supply 50,000 CWT. The Petitioners produced on their own 400 acres 108,000 CWT. The remainder of the 117,582.5 CWT of potatoes from the total crop represented the potatoes grown on the Kirkers' 30 acres. Thus, the Kirkers' land produced approximately 8,600 CWT. The Petitioners supplied approximately 3,000 CWT under the separate, oral contract at market price and which were delivered to Rubin on April 29th, 30th, and May 1st (six loads at approximately 500 CWT per load). Then, the Petitioners sold the remainder of the total of 10,301.6 CWT of the entire Pacetti/Kirker crop or approximately 7,301.6 CWT on open market sales to others. The remainder of the 108,000 CWT grown on the Petitioners' own 400 acres, not sold to Rubin under the contract of December 22, 1990 or under the oral contract of April 25, 1991 (the six loads at market), were contracted out to other buyers. The ultimate effect of these contracts was that the Petitioners had contracted for 116,650 CWT. Thus, the Petitioners had imprudently contracted approximately 97% of the accepted, projected crop yield of 120,400 CWT, knowing that they were obligated to sell the Kirkers 8,600 or so CWT at market price and not on contract. Thus, the Petitioners clearly over- contracted the crop yield which they reasonably should have expected on the total 430 acres under the generally-accepted method of calculation of crop yield, under good growing conditions, of 280 CWT per acre, established by expert witness, Brown. This over-contracting practice, together with selling an excess amount of potatoes at market price (over and above those sold at market by the separate, oral contract with Rubin at the initial part of the harvesting season), is what actually prevented the Petitioners from fulfilling Rubin's contract of 50,000 CWT, rather than an act of God, predetermined condition for claiming impossibility of performance on that contract due to the above- described weather conditions. Even though the Petitioners were obligated to sell the Kirkers' entire 30 acres of yield, approximately 8,600 CWT, at market price, the Petitioners would still have had enough potatoes, even with their less-than-expected yield of 108,000 CWT represented by their own 400 acres, to have filled out the Rubin contract if they had not contracted out so many potatoes to other contracting buyers and had not sold as many potatoes at market price off contract as, indeed, they sold. Since the act of God condition is not what prevented the Petitioners from filling the written contract with Rubin for 50,000 CWT, it is clear that the Petitioners thus breached that contract. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the written contract with Rubin was entered into before any of the other contracts for the potato crop in question. The two contracts with Rubin are, however, separate contracts. The Petitioners established that there was a separate oral agreement entered into on April 25th between the Petitioners and Rubin and that the consideration flowing from the Petitioners to Mr. Rubin was that he needed the six loads of potatoes on short notice delivered on specific dates, April 29th, 30th, and May 1st, for which he was willing, therefore, to pay the $19.50 market price, knowing that it was for other potatoes that he contracted at $6.00. The Petitioners performed by providing the loads of potatoes when he wanted them and he paid for them in full. Thus, that contract was executed by consideration passing from each party to the other, and the contract was completed. The written contract with Rubin dated December 22, 1990 for the 50,000 CWT was the contract which the Petitioners breached for the above-found reasons. Rubin would, therefore, be entitled to damages for that breach based upon the facts proven in this case. There is no counterclaim or other action pending in this forum by Rubin against the Petitioners, however. Consequently, any damages proven by the breach of the written contract can only, at best, be applied against the amount due and owing the Petitioners for the billed, but unpaid, loads; that is, against the amount in controversy of $40,015.20. Rubin, however, has not produced any evidence to show what his damages might be. The record establishes, as found above, that, of the 48,361 CWT of potatoes delivered to Rubin, approximately 3,000 of which were delivered under the separate oral contract for six loads, Rubin only received approximately 45,000 CWT under the 50,000 CWT written contract. Thus, Rubin would appear to be entitled to damages caused by failing to get the last approximately 5,000 CWT of potatoes. The record, however, does not establish what those damages might be because it is not established whether Rubin had to purchase potatoes from another source at a higher price to meet the remainder of the 50,000 CWT amount, or, conversely, whether Rubin was able to purchase them from another source at a lower price than the $6.00 per CWT contract price, so that Rubin would actually benefit by the Petitioners' breach of that contract. Neither does the record reflect another possible scenario whereby Rubin might have simply accepted the approximate 5,000 CWT shortage and simply lost customers and potential profits represented by that amount of potatoes, or, finally, whether he simply did not purchase the shortage of 5,000 CWT from another source and had no missed sales for that amount of potatoes anyway and, therefore, no loss and no damage. The record simply does not reflect what Rubin's damages might have been because of the shortage under the written contract deliveries. In any event, the record evidence establishes that the oral contract was fully performed, with consideration flowing to each of the parties and that those potatoes were fully paid for at the market price. Then, the Petitioners delivered the written contract loads at $6.00 per CWT to Rubin represented by the claimed $40,015.00. That remains unpaid by Rubin. Rubin is obligated to pay that amount because Rubin was obligated to, and received those potatoes at the $6.00 contract price. Rubin would then appear to be entitled to claim damages if, indeed, any were suffered, for the breach of that written contract by the Petitioners' failure to supply the last (approximate) 5,000 CWT due Rubin under that contract. That resolution of their dispute, however, cannot be performed in this forum because of insufficient evidence, as delineated above, and remains to be resolved by another action by Rubin in another forum.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondents, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc. and Continental Casualty Co., Inc. be found jointly and severally liable for payment of $40,015.20 to the Petitioners for potatoes delivered to the Respondent, Jack Rubin & Son, Inc., for which payment has not yet been made. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-548A Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted, in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter because the evidence establishes that 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers even though Pacetti Farms was responsible for all operations with regard to planting and harvesting those 30 acres, furnishing costs, operational expertise, equipment and labor as an advance against the Kirkers' crop sale. 2-5. Accepted, except that it is not found that the entire 430 acres of potatoes were the Petitioners' potatoes. 30 acres of potatoes belonged to the Kirkers. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence, to the extent that the 97% of the accepted projected crop yield contracted for by the Petitioners represents an inclusion of the 30 acres of the Kirkers' potatoes in that percentage of crop yield projection. This is erroneous because the 30 acres were the Kirkers' potatoes which the Petitioners were handling for them. Accepted in concept, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 John Michael Traynor, Esquire Charles E. Pellicer, Esquire 28 Cordova Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 C. Holt Smith, III, Esquire 3100 University Boulevard So. Suite 101 Jacksonville, FL 32016
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent pay petitioner $12,057.68 for the 2,324 bushels of soybeans purchased on January 6 and 7, 1983. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul M. Hendrick, Esquire P. O. Drawer 151 Jasper, Florida 32052 Terry R. McDavid, Esquire P. O. Box 1328 Lake City, Florida 32055 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Reggie Pennington Crawford and Company P. O. Box 1113 Lake City, Florida 32055
Findings Of Fact As project architect under contract to HRS, Greenleaf/Telesca Planners, Engineers, Architects, Inc. (Greenleaf) prepared a project manual (manual). The manual invited contractors to bid on a contract for construction of the forensic services building at the South Florida State Hospital in Pembroke Pines, Florida, project No. HRS-0278. The manual contained specifications for a base contract covering construction of the building itself, and for four alternate additive bids, covering various equipment and furnishings. The first alternate called for installation of mess hall tables and seats. For the first alternate, the manual specified tables and seats manufactured by Folger Adam Company, their model number 522, or "upon prior approval" the equivalent. From the floor plan it is clear that 24 tables and corresponding seats would be required. The language of the manual describing alternate No. 1 presents no particular ambiguity or difficulty. The Folger Adam Company is well known in the construction business. Harold Wayne Blackwell, petitioner's president, used the manual in preparing Blackwell's bid for the contract. Blackwell bid on the base contract and on each of the four alternates. There are seven or eight contract hardware suppliers in Dade and Broward Counties, all of whom have access to Folger Adam Company products. Folger Adam Company does not have exclusive distributors. To determine the price of the tables, Mr. Blackwell telephoned several contract hardware suppliers, including Christensen Hardware Services, Inc. (Christensen). Christensen quoted Blackwell a price of ten thousand eight hundred dollars ($10,800.00) for twenty-four sets of Folger Adam model number 522 tables and seats. Blackwell submitted a bid of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00) on alternate No. 1. Forsythe bid on the base bid but did not bid on alternate No. 1, because Forsythe failed to obtain a quote on the tables and seats, before preparing its bid. Richard B. Solomon, Greenleaf's project manager for the forensic services building, opened the bids on March 20, 1979. As tabulated by Greenleaf, the bids were: Base Bid Alt. No. 1 Alt. No. 2 Alt. No. 3 Alt. No. 4 M.D. Forsythe Construction Co. $375,000 $ --- $50,842 $27,220 $33,020 Porfiri Construction Co. 406,200 7,000 45,534 25,315 44,130 Wayne Blackwell and Co., Inc. 397,735 11,000 47,000 25,000 35,000 Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc. 405,000 14,900 52,000 28,300 47,650 McKee Construction Co. 407,000 --- 45,000 28,000 --- L.G.H. Construction Corp. 524,176 18,014 43,464 24,712 35,048 Creswell Construction Co. 394,000 41,000 43,000 23,000 33,000 Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. On the base bid, Forsythe was lowest, Creswell Construction Company next lowest, and Blackwell third lowest. Among contractors who bid on the base bid and all alternates, Blackwell's combined bids were lowest for the base bid plus alternate No. 1, the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1 and 2, the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the base bid plus alternates Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Solomon was aware of two telephone calls received by Greenleaf during the time for preparation of the bids, inquiring about the price of the tables and seats. In examining the bids, he noticed that two contractors had not bid on alternate No. 1, and that the base bids as well as the bids on alternates Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were "pretty tight" as compared to the range of bids on alternate No. 1. From looking at the bids on alternate No. 1, it was hard for Mr. Solomon to tell what a reasonable price for the tables and seats was. Mr. Solomon recommended to HRS that the bids on alternate No. 1 be thrown out. Charles Robert Yates, an architect employed by HRS, concurred in Mr. Solomon's recommendation. He was under the impression that funding for the project would not be available unless the contract was let before April 1, 1979. Mr. Yates could not recall such diversity among bids in his thirty-year career, yet he had no difficulty learning what the tables and chairs cost when he called architectural firms to find out. After the bids were opened, Blackwell promptly protested Forsythe's bid. Under the heading of alternates, the manual states: If the Base Bid is within the amount of funds available to finance the construction contract and the Owner wishes to accept alternate additive bids, then contract award will be made to that responsible Bidder submitting the low combined bid, consisting of the Base Bid plus alternate additive bids (applied in the numerical order in which they are listed in the Bid Form). Petitioner's exhibit No. 1, Paragraph B-9, Alternates. HRS wrote Blackwell on April 3, 1979, denying Blackwell's protest and stating, as reasons: M.D. Forsythe Construction Co., Inc. did not ignore Alternate No. 1, but completed that section of their bid by stating "No bids received on this item." Proposals for Alternate No. 1 ran the gamut for "No Bid" to prices extending from $7,000 to $41,000. The Department holds, as concurred in by the attached letter from our consultants, that there was confusion in the marketplace regarding the intent of Alternate No. 1, as attested to by the disparity among the proposals, and therefore we choose not to consider Alternate No. 1. Provisions for this deletion include Sections B-17, B-22 and B-24 of the Contract Documents. Petitioner's exhibit No. 3. HRS then awarded the base contract and additive alternates Nos. 2 and 3 to Forsythe, and gave orders to proceed with construction on May 7, 1979. After construction began, Mr. Solomon wrote Forsythe to inquire what Forsythe would charge to install the tables and seats called for by additive alternate No. 1. Forsythe eventually agreed to do it for eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00), after first quoting a higher price. On August 1, 1979, Greenleaf prepared a change order at HRS' behest, directing Forsythe to install the tables and seats originally called for by additive alternate No. 1, at a price of eleven thousand dollars ($11,000.00). Other provisions of the manual relied on by the parties include the following: B-17 PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF BIDS Each Bidder shall copy the Proposal Form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for alternates on which he bids. Any erasure or other correction in the proposal may be explained or noted over the signature of the Bidder. Proposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternations, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDS Any or all proposals will be rejected if there is reason to believe that collusion exists among the Bidders and no participants in such collusion will be considered in future proposals for the same work. Proposals in which the prices obviously are unbalanced will be rejected. Falsification of any entry made on the Contractor's bid proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds, at the Owner's option, for rejection. REJECTION OF BIDS The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the proposal of a Bidder who is not in position to perform the contract. AWARD OF CONTRACT The contract will be awarded as soon as possible to the lowest qualified Bidder provided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The lowest bidder will be determined by adding to the Base Bid such alternates, in numerical order, as available capital funds will allow. The Agreement will only be entered into with responsible contractors, found to be satisfactory by the Owner, qualified by experience, and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each Bidder shall, if so requested by the Owner, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications, and ability to carry out the terms of the contract, including a financial statement. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. At no time did Forsythe attempt to influence the award of the contract improperly. At the time of the final hearing, the project was approximately 95 percent complete.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That, in the future, HRS adhere to the letter of language like that contained in paragraph B-9 of the manual whenever such language is used in an invitation for bids. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis L. LaFontisee, Jr., Esquire 200 South East First Street, Suite 802 Miami, Florida 33131 Leonard Helfand, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Richard Morgentaler, Esquire 1600 North East Miami Gardens Drive North Miami Beach, Florida 33179 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On March 15, 1988, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) number DOF-ADM-48. The Invitation to Bid's purpose was to secure a contractor to service and install water filters on private drinking water wells located in eight counties within the State of Florida. The filters were required to be installed by the Department for the removal of ethylene dibromide (EDB) from contaminated drinking water obtained from private wells. EDB is a constituent of pesticides and is a suspected carcinogen. The filter systems operate by running the water through a tank containing a pleated paper filter similar to a coffee filter. The pleated paper filter contains granular activated carbon (GAC). The GAC absorbs impurities such as EDB. The water is also passed through a sterilizer unit. The sterilizer unit disinfects the water by bombarding it with ultraviolet light. For instances of heavy pollution the water may be filtered through a double tank system or require pretreatment with another media filter in order to remove more concentrated impurities from the water. The Department sent its ITB to a number of vendors. The ITB invited the submittal of bids and set a bid ending date of April 27, 1989. The bid included the standard State of Florida Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgment form, number PUR 7028, also referred to as a "yellow sheet." The acknowledgment form provides spaces for the vendor to list identify information and to sign the bid. It also sets forth, general conditions applicable to the bidding process. Among the General Conditions contained on the yellow sheet is General Condition 4(d) which states:,, It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be a new, current standard production model available at she time of the bid. ... Further, General Condition 7 provides: Any Manufacturers' names, trade names brand names, information and or catalog numbers listed in a specification are for information and not intended to limit competition. The bidder may offer any brand for which he is an authorized representative which meets or exceeds the specifications for any items(s). If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer's name and number. ... The ITB also contained a number of terms, specifications and special conditions geared towards the specific purpose of the contract. These included the following Additional Bid Conditions: PROOF OF EQUIVALENCY: Vendor shall provide written, documented proof of equivalency for their equipment where it differs from the named brands and equipment specified in the bid specifications. EQUIPMENT, COMPONENTS, SPECIFICA- TIONS AND DOCUMENTATION: Vendor shall provide full documentation and specifications on all equipment and components to be used in providing the GAC filter systems and maintenance as specified in the bid. In this case, proof of equivalency of equipment is important to maintain the integrity of the water filter systems, and to insure cost-effectiveness in servicing the system. The bid specification also contained civic requirements for the GAC. The GAC specifications governed such items as moisture content, particle size and distribution absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity was measured by an iodine number. An "iodine number" reflects the milligrams of iodine absorbed per gram of carbon. The higher thin iodine number, the more absorptive the carbon. In this case, the GAC requirements ware as follows: Granular activated carbon, with thee exception of the standards below, shall comply with the "American Water Works Association Standard for Granular Activated Carbon" (AWWAC B604-54). The GAC standards are as follows: Impurities - No soluble compounds should be present that are capable of causing adverse effects on the health of the consumer. Moisture - Shall not exceed two (2) percent by weight of listed container contents. Apparent Density - Shall be 28.5 - 31.0 pounds/cubic foot. Particle size distribution - should range between U.S. standard sieve size NO. 8 and NO. 30. A maximum of 15% of the particles can exceed 8 in size and a maximum of 4% can, be less than NO. 30 in size. Abrasion Resistance - Retention of average particle size shall not be less than 75 percent as determined by either the stirring abrasion or the RO-Tap abrasion test. Adsorptive Capacity - The "iodine number shall not be less than 950 or equivalent adsorptive capacity. The GAC must be packed and rinsed at the successful vendor's facilities not at the well site. Virgin GAC must be stored in facilities that will protect it from weather and vandalism. The Department had used a GAC manufactured by Ceca Division of Atochem, Inc. The carbon was known as Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. GAC 30WE had consistently met the Department's requirements. Atochem labelled or named the carbon, "GAC 30WE," because it met certain product quality standards and in order to differentiate the carbon from other types of GACs it manufactures, such as GAC 830WE. GAC 830WE is the same size carbon particle as GAC 30WE, but it has a lower adsorptive capacity, i.e., iodine, than 30WE. About two years prior to this bid, Atochem quit intentionally manufacturing she carbon it labelled Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. At that time the current contractor, Continental, unilaterally, and without informing the Department, substituted another GAC for Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. The Department therefore has been using a GAC of unknown manufacture for the past two years without complaint. Section II of the ITB indicated that the UVL disinfectant light source "must be an Aquafine Model NO. DW-400 or its equivalent." It further stated that the water flow meter required as apart of the filter system must be "a badger Model 15 The ITB required that specifications for the individual equipment components "MUST BE PROVIDED WITH YOUR BID OR THE BID WILL BE DECLARED INCOMPLETE AND INELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION." Section III of the ITB, concerning the "Type II" systems (those consisting of two filter tanks), contained the same provisions as to UVL sterilizer units, water meters and component specifications as Section II. The Aquafine DW-400 was the UVL system currently being used by the Department's contractor. The ITB also contained a pricing sheen for vendors to list unit prices on 20 different components of the filter system. By multiplying the unit price by the Department's estimate of the respective numbers needed of each limited component, a total bid price was arrived at by the bidder. On April 17, 1989, the Department issued the first addendum to the ITB. Addendum number 1 changed the estimated number of pleated paper filters on the pricing sheet from 6500 to 10,200. A new bid opening date of May 23, 1989 was bet. On May 23 1989, the Department issued the second addendum to the ITB. In addition to establishing a new bid opening date of June 21, 1989, the second addendum made several substantive changes. It required bidders to submit with their bid an EDB isotherm for the GAC medium being bid by each bidder. An isotherm is a graph showing the adsorptive capability of the GAC. Since the Department would have no knowledge of the performance capabilities of a previously unused carbon, the EDB isotherm was "critical" where the carbon proposed for use had not been used on a Department contract before. For a known GAC, i.e. one the Department had used before, the isotherm was not material. The second addendum also changed the "designated model number for the water meter from the Badger Model 15 or equivalent to the Badger Model 25L or equivalent. The water meter model number was changed because the Badger model 15 was no longer being produced. Additionally, the model number of the freeze housing was changed from the "AMTEK big blue filter" to the "AMTEK NO. 20 or equivalent." The freeze housing was made an optional component of the bid. The third addendum, dated June 13, 1989, reinstated the freeze housing as a required component of the budget but provided that the housing could be of either fiberglass or aluminum construction. It also clarified the testing required to justify installation of a media filter on a system, and clarified that upgrades of systems from Type I to Type II. A new bid opening date of June 28, 1989 was set. Due to the entry of a temporary restraining order by a circuit court judge, the June 28, 1989, bid opening did not transpire. When the restraining order was later lifted, the Department issued Addendum IV, which set a bid opening date of September 28, 1989, and which gave bidders who had submitted bid prior to the June entry of the restraining order the opportunity to submit a new bid. Petitioner, Continental Water Systems, Inc., (Continental) a Florida corporation, timely submitted a bid of $895,877.50 to the Department in response to the Department's Invitation to Bid. Intervenor, Global Marketing, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, timely submitted a bid of $784,431.50 to the Department in response to the Department's Invitation to Bid Number DOF-ADN- 48. Petitioner and Intervenor were the only two bids submitted. The Department made a preliminary determination that both bids were responsive, and posted its bid tabulation on October 30, 1989. Global was the apparent low bidder and was awarded the contract by the Department. In its bid, Global indicated that it would use the Aquafine DW-400 UVL sterilizer unit and the Badger Model 15 water meter. It also indicated that it would use Cecarbon GAC 30WE. Global did not include an EDB isotherm with its bid. Continental's bid included specifications for both the Aquafine DW-400 and a UVL system manufactured by "Ultra Dynamics Corporation known as Model Number DW-15. For the GAC, Continental bid Alamo ABG-CWF a GAC medium manufactured by Calgon as Filtrasorb 300 GAC. The bid contained an EDB isotherm for the GAC product. It also included specification sheets showing its intent to use a Badger Model 25L water meter. Unknown to the Department, the Aquafine Corporation no longer produces the DW-400 UVL sterilizer unit as a standard production model. It ceased production of this model in June or July of 1989. It has enough materials on hand to produce another 45 to 50 units. Aquafine is under contract to sell those units to Continental. If requested to produce more DW-400's, Aquafine might again manufacture the DW-400. However, Aquafine would not begin such production unless ban order for at least 1000 units was made. At present, Aquafine manufactures only one model for drinking water systems. The model is the DW-8. No specifications were included in Global's bid for the DW-8 or any other potentially equivalent sterilizer unit from another manufacturer. In this case, the bid specifications clearly list the DW-400 as an acceptable submission. The evidence did not show that the DW-400 was no longer available, even though the model was no longer being produced. There is no newer prototype of the DW-400. A contract, which an ITB constitutes the offer portion of, must be interpreted to give effect to all of its language and clauses. Therefore, the specific reference to the DW-400 as an acceptable submission must be given effect as an exception to the general requirement that "any item offered or shipped . . . be a new, current, standard production model . . . Since Continental did not challenge the bid specifications in regard to the UVL system, the complaint of non-responsiveness. . . cannot be heard now. Global therefore was responsive to the Department's ITB on the UVL component of its bid. When the Department learned that the Badger Model 15 water meter was no longer being manufactured it decided to change its specifications due to the change in production. The specifications were changed from the "Badger Model 15 or equivalent" to the "Badger Model 25 or equivalent." Global's bid did not list the Badger Model 25, but listed she Badger Model 15. However, Continental did not preserve the issue regarding the responsiveness of Global's bid on the water meter in its Formal Written Protest. Therefore, no findings are made regarding the responsiveness of Global's bid on the water meter component. The heart of the whole filter system is the GAC. The carbon proposed to be used by Global, Cecarbon GAC 30 WE, is no longer produced by the manufacturer. It has not been in production since 1987. Global and the Department did Introduce into evidence a faxed copy of a letter from an Atochem sales representative indicating that an amount of GAC 830 carbon would be available "until the end of 1989" to meet the Department's bid specifications. However, GAC 830 is not the same product as that bid by Global and does not have the same manufacturing standards as the GAC 30WE bid by Global. Neither does Atochem now intentionally produce a carbon that meets the specifications for DOF-ADM-48. Specifically, Atochem does not produce a carbon with an 8 x 30 mesh size that has a minimum iodine number of 950. The 8 x 30 mesh size carbon that Atochem produces, GAC 30, has an iodine number of 900 to 920. Due to variation in the capabilities of different lots of GAC 830, some lots may have a 950 iodine number. The evidence did not show whether the company tests its GAC 830 beyond its manufacturing standards. Nor did the evidence show whether a higher adsorpting GAC 830 lot is available. A letter from a sales representative that such a lot is available does not rise to the level of competent evidence which would support the conclusion that Global had materially meet the Department's ITB on the GAC element. At a minimum the Department or Intervenor would have had to bring the Company's documentation, including an isotherm, for that particular GAC lot to demonstrate responsiveness for a product labelled with a name which carries a lower adsorptive standard. The only carbon manufactured by Atochem which has a minimum iodine number exceeding 950 is a different size carbon. This carbon has a mesh size of 12 x 40, and thus does not meet the DOF-ADN-48 specifications. Both the Aquafine sterilizer unit and the Ultra Dynamics units, bid by Continental, meet the specifications for this ITB. The GAC bid by Continental meets the specifications for this ITB. This particular carbon has also been accepted by the Department for use by continental on a previous Department contract in January 1988, where the specifications for the carbon were identical to those applicable here. Continental did submit an EDB isotherm. Global's bid was not responsive to the ITB. It offered a carbon element which is no longer in production. It will have to substitute another GAC not identified in its bid in order to perform under the contract. Global provided no technical literature with its bid to establish the equivalency of any other GAC. Additionally Global did not provide an EDB isotherm for the carbon it planned on using from Atochem. These omissions were material. Global's bid therefore cannot be said to be responsive to the Department's ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding the bid to Petitioner as the lowest and best bid. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE 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 this 17th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NUMBER 89-6372BID The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraph 27 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the parts pertaining to the UVL systems unresponsiveness. The facts contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 to Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 8 and 9 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, and Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Clinton Coulter, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James C. Barth, Esquire Callahan, Barth & Dobbins 5374 Highway 98 East, Suite C-1 Destin, Florida 32541 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioner approximately $591 for a quantity of watermelons provided by Petitioner; secondarily, resolution of this issue 1 Correction of obvious error has been made to the style of this case, adding the name of Co-Respondent U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., and eliminating the Department of Agriculture and Consumer requires a determination of whether Respondents acted as an agent for Petitioner as opposed to a direct purchase of Petitioner's melons by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a farmer who produces agricultural products, including watermelons. Petitioner also has trucks in which he hauls agricultural products, including watermelons. When all his trucks are in use, he frequently calls a friend, Freddy Bell, to provide some of Bell’s trucks to haul his products. Petitioner, in turn, helps Bell when Bell’s trucks are all in use. Respondent Wilson is a dealer of such products in the course of normal business activity. Respondent Wilson acts as a broker in these arrangements, receives the gross sales receipts from buyers and from that sum deducts costs of labor, freight, inspections, any other associated costs and his commission. The net balance of the gross sales receipts are paid to the melon producers. Respondent U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company is the bonding agent for Respondent pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioner had not discussed any arrangement for the sale of his melons with Respondent Wilson. Instead, Petitioner discussed the sales price of his melons with Freddy Bell. Petitioner testified that Bell represented to Petitioner that he could get a price of $4.00 per hundred weight for Petitioner’s melons. Petitioner relied on Bell to provide transport his melons and obtain the promised price. While Bell did not testify at the final hearing, the parties are in agreement that Bell arranged for sale and shipment of Petitioner’s melons through Wilson. Wilson’s President, Robert M. Wilson, testified at hearing that Bell was not empowered by him to represent a guaranteed price for melons to anyone and that he could not affirm that Bell operated as his agent. He added that Melons were plentiful this past season and no melons were brokered on a guaranteed price basis. Testimony of Robert M. Wilson at the final hearing establishes that the arrangement between Respondent Wilson and Freddy Bell on Petitioner’s behalf was a brokerage arrangement and that the sale of the melons was subject to conditions and demands of the market place, i.e., that the melons would sell for the best possible price which Wilson could obtain for them. Testimony of Petitioner is uncorroborated and fails to establish that the agreement between the parties contemplated a direct sale of the melons to Respondent Wilson or a guaranteed price by Wilson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's complaint.DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bo Bass 2829 Southwest SR 45 Newberry, FL 32669 John M. Martirano, Esquire US Fidelity and Guaranty Co Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203-1138 Robert M. Wilson, President Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. 2811 Airport Road Plant City, FL 33567 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol - Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Petitioner's bid for Lot III of Bid NO. J88A-924C was responsive to the Invitation to Bid?
Findings Of Fact On June 8, 1988, Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for BID NO. J88A-GLYC (ITB). The ITB was for the purchase of Indefinite quantities of animal feed for animals used in research. The ITB called for vendors to quote prices for estimated quantities of forty different items. In the past, Respondent had evaluated the bids received in response to similar ITBs based on the total cost for all the items in the ITB. Prior to issuing the ITB, Respondent decided to allow bidders to bid in lots. Therefore, the ITB divided the forty items into three lots. Lot I consisted of eight items; Lot II of two items; and Lot III of thirty items. The ITB contained the following language: GENERAL CONDITIONS * * * 9. AWARDS: As the best interest of the University of Florida may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none, or any combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received.... SPECIAL CONDITIONS * * * Items included in this bid may be bid in LOTS as follows: Joint exhibit 1 at pp. 2 and 11. In response to the ITB, Respondent received four bids. The bidders and the totals (rounded to the nearest dollar) of their bids for the items in each lot were as follows: Bidder Lot I Lot II Lot III Boyer's (Petitioner) $53,179 $49,238 $68,018 Brownlee (Intervenor) 53,190 47,880 68,730 Teklad 51,104 47,393 No Bid Jonesville 74,908 69,978 79,247 Petitioner's bid contained a unit price and a total (determined by multiplying the unit price by the ITB's estimated amount of units needed) for thirty-nine of the items. The space where the unit price and total for item 25 of Lot III was blank. Petitioner made a mistake in leaving the space blank; the blank was not left intentionally, and Petitioner's President, who signed the bid, did not know the blank was there until after the bids were opened by Respondent. The evaluation of the bids was done by Ms. Whitley, Respondent's Associate Director of the Purchasing Division, and Dr. Moreland, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine employed by Respondent. Ms. Whitley and Dr. Moreland determined that the blank for item 25 of Lot III meant that Petitioner could not deliver Item 25 and decided that the contract for Lot III should be awarded to Intervenor, the second lowest bidder for Lot III. On July 5, 1988, after meeting with Dr. Moreland, Ms. Whitley notified the bidders that Teklad would be awarded the contract for Lots I and II, and that Intervenor would be awarded the contract for Lot III. The bid tabulation sheet showing the awards was posted on July 6, 1988. The bid tabulation sheet contained the following language: Notice of Intended Award to: Teklad, Boyer. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Also on July 6, 1988, Mr. Boyer, Petitioner's President, came to see Ms. Whitley. Mr. Boyer stated that he intended for the space on Item 25 to be left blank and that he would give Item 25 to Petitioner for free. Based on the statement by Mr. Boyer, Ms. Whitley decided that the contract for Lot III should be awarded to Petitioner, since she felt her duty was to get the best price for Respondent. Therefore, the notice of intent to award was changed in the afternoon of July 6, 1988, and posted on July 7, 1988. On July 7, 1988, Intervenor, Brownlee, filed a protest to the proposed award of Lot III to Petitioner. Ms. Whitley forwarded Brownlee's protest to James Thereoux, Respondent's Director of Purchasing. Mr. Thereoux requested that Joseph T. Barron, Jr., Respondent's Associate General Counsel, review the protest. By memorandum dated September 15, 1988, Mr. Barron advised Mr. Thereoux that the bid should be awarded to Brownlee, as was originally done. Mr. Barron considered the blank space on Petitioner's bid to be the equivalent of Petitioner not bidding on that item. Therefore, Petitioner would be unable to deliver an item in Lot III, in violation of the bid document which required the winning bidder to be able to supply all the items requested. Also, Mr. Barron considered the blank space to give Petitioner an advantage over other bidders, since by not pricing an item, Petitioner's total price for Lot III would be lower than if all items were priced. Mr. Barron did not consider the blank space to be a minor irregularity which could be waived. Based on Mr. Barron's memorandum, Respondent determined that the bid should be awarded to Brownlee. On September 16, 1988, the bidders were advised of this decision and a notice of intended award was posted on September 19, 1988. By letter dated September 19, 1988, Petitioner notified Respondent that it intended to protest the disqualification of its bid. On October 3, 1988, Petitioner filed its formal protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order awarding the contract for Lot III of Invitation to Bid for Bid No. J88A-924C to Intervenor, Brownlee Feed and Seed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 3rd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5953BID Petitioner's Findings of Fact Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order which contains unnumbered paragraphs and does not separate findings of fact from conclusions of law. The findings of fact set forth in the proposed order are supported by the evidence. However, the facts that are not set forth in this Recommended Order are irrelevant or subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Findings of Fact 1-3. Irrelevant. 4. Accepted. 5-10. Subordinate to facts found. 11. Accepted. 12-13. Irrelevant. Whether the bid could be awarded by lots is not at issue in this case. See Conclusions of Law section of this RO. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. 17-18. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. 24-25. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. 30-31. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Irrelevant. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Intervenor's Finding of Fact 1. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph T. Barron, Jr., Esquire University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Tyrie A. Boyer, Esquire Boyer, Tanzler & Boyer Independent Life Building Suite 3030 Jacksonville, Florida 32602 John P. O'Neal, Esquire Post Office Drawer O Gainesville, Florida 32602 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Triple M Packing, Inc. (Triple M) is in the business of selling produce, particularly tomatoes from its principal business address of Post Office Box 1358, Quincy, Florida. The Respondent, Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. (Fair Chester), is primarily engaged in the business of packaging, distributing and brokering tomatoes in the New York City metropolitan area. It purchases produce from various sellers around the country in tomato-producing areas for resale at markets in the New York City area. Since it is a licensed agricultural dealer, the Respondent is required under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 604, Florida Statutes, to file a surety bond with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), designed to guarantee payment of any indebtedness to persons selling agricultural products to the bonded dealer to whom the dealer fails to make accounting and payment. Fair Chester has thus obtained a 50,000 surety bond which is underwritten by its Co-Respondent, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (Hartford). During the 1984 growing season, the Petitioner sold certain shipments of tomatoes to the Respondent for a price of $12,276. Thereafter, curing middle-to-late 1984, the Respondent Fair Chester, found itself in straitened financial circumstances such that it was unable to pay its various trade creditors, including the Petitioner. In view of this, various creditors at the behest of a lawyer retained by Fair Chester, eventually entered into a composition agreement, whereby the unsecured trade creditors agreed to settle, release and discharge in full their claims against Fair Chester on the condition that each creditor signing that agreement be paid thirty-three and one-third percent of its claim. It was determined that the composition agreement would be operative if the trade creditors representing 95 percent or more in dollar amount of all unsecured debts accepted the terms and provisions of that composition agreement on or before November 13, 1984. All the Respondent's unsecured trade creditors were contacted and ultimately those representing more than 95 percent of the outstanding creditor claims against Respondent accepted the terms and provisions of the composition agreement by the deadline. A document indicating acceptance by the Petitioner was signed by one Robert Elliott, purportedly on behalf of the Petitioner, Triple M Packing, Inc. In this connection, by letter of November 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit 4) Attorney Howard of the firm of Glass and Howard, representing the Respondent, wrote each trade creditor advising them that the required acceptance by 95 percent of the creditors had been achieved, including the acceptance of the agreement signed and stamped "received November 8, 1984" by Robert Elliott, sales manager of Triple M. In conjunction with its letter of November 13, 1984, Glass and Howard transmitted Fair Chester's check for one-third of the indebtedness due Triple M or $4,092. The Petitioner's principal officer, its president, Kent Manley, who testified at hearing, acknowledged that he received that letter and check, but he retained it without depositing it or otherwise negotiating it. In the meantime, on October 29, 1984 a complaint was executed and filed by Triple M Packing, Inc. by its president, Kent Manley, alleging that $12,276 worth of tomatoes had been sold to Respondent on June 13, 1984 and that payment had not been received. The purported acceptance of the composition agreement executed by Robert Elliott, sales manager, was not executed until November 8, 1984 and the check for $4,092 in partial payment of the Triple M claim was not posted until November 13, 1984. Mr. Manley's testimony was unrefuted and established that indeed Mr. Elliott was a commissioned salesman for Triple M, was not an officer or director of the company and had no authority to bind the company by his execution of the composition of creditors agreement. Mr. Manley acted in a manner consistent with Elliott's status as a commissioned salesman without authority to bind the Petitioner corporation since, upon his receipt of the "one- third settlement" check with its accompanying letter, he did not negotiate it, but rather pursued his complaint before the Department. In fact, in response to the Department's letter of December 20, 1984 inquiring why the complaint was being prosecuted in view of the purported settlement agreement, Mr. Manley on behalf of Triple M Packing, Inc. by letter of December 28, 1984, responded to Mr. Bissett, of the Department, that he continued to hold the check and was not accepting it as a final settlement. Thus, in view of the fact that the complaint was filed and served before notice that 95 percent of the creditors had entered into the composition agreement and never withdrawn, in view of the fact that on the face of the complaint Robert C. Elliott is represented as a salesman indeed, for an entity known as "Garguilo, Inc.," and in view of the fact that Mr. Manley as president of Triple M, retained the check without negotiating it and availing himself of its proceeds, rather indicating to the Department his wish to pursue the complaint without accepting the check as settlement, it has not been established that the Respondent, Fair Chester, was ever the recipient of any representation by Manley, or any other officer or director of the Petitioner corporation, that it would accept and enter into the above-referenced composition of creditors agreement. It was not proven that Triple M Packing, Inc. nor Mr. Manley or any other officer and director either signed or executed the composition agreement or authorized its execution by Robert C. Elliott. Respondent's position that Mr. Manley and Triple M acquiesced in the execution of the settlement agreement by Elliott and the payment of the one-third settlement amount by the subject check has not been established, especially in view of the fact that the complaint was filed after Attorney Howard notified Triple M of Respondent's settlement offer and prior to notice to Triple M that the settlement agreement had been consummated by 95 percent of the creditors and prior to the sending of the subject check to Triple M. Mr. Manley then within a reasonable time thereafter, on December 28, 1984, affirmed his earlier position that the entire indebtedness was due and that the settlement had not been accepted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That Fair Chester Tomato Packers, Inc. pay Triple M Packing Company, Inc. $12,276. In the event that principal fails to or is unable to pay that indebtedness, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company should pay that amount out of the surety bond posted with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Kent Manley, Jr. Post Office Box 1358 Quincy, Florida 32351 P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 16th day of September, Arthur Slavin, Esquire BLUM, HAIMOFF, GERSEN, LIPSON, GARLEY & NIEDERGANG 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =========================================================== ======
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent lawfully awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and, if not, whether Respondent is required by law to award the contract to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Background This case arises out of Respondent's award of contracts for main-line food and snack foods and beverages. Through these contracts, Respondent obtains the delivery of 334 different items--297 items of main-line food and 37 items of snack foods and beverages--to over 160 sites for preparation and service to Respondent's students, teachers, and noninstructional staff. During the school year, Respondent serves over 150,000 meals daily, and the Director of Respondent's Food Service Operations manages an annual budget of $55 million. The two relevant bidders in this case are Petitioner and Mutual Distributors, Inc. (Mutual). These are the only bidders that submitted nondisqualified bids for the main-line food contract. Petitioner and Mutual also submitted bids for the snack foods and beverages contract. A third bidder, Magic Vending, also submitted a bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. Mutual has held Respondent's main-line food contract in the past. However, for at least the past seven years, Petitioner has held the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Petitioner was the only bidder for the main-line food contract for the 1996-97 school year, and, pursuant to a provision of that contract, Respondent renewed this contract for the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner presently supplies school food for the school districts in Dade, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Indian River, Martin, St. Lucie, Hardee, Hendry, DeSoto, and Glades counties. The size of the Hillsborough school district limits the number of vendors capable of handling the main-line food contract, although nothing in the record suggests that either Petitioner or Mutual lacks the resources to provide the specified food in a timely fashion. Invitation to Bid By Invitation to Bid dated April 30, 1998, concerning Bid Number 3743-HM (ITB), Respondent solicited bids for two product groups: main-line food, which consists of frozen entrees, frozen foods, canned goods, and staples, and snack foods and beverages. The cover sheets to the ITB advise all interested parties that Respondent would accept sealed bids until 3:00 P.M. on May 26, 1998. The cover sheets state that, on or about June 16, 1998, Respondent would award the contract, which would be in effect August 6, 1998, to August 5, 1999. The cover sheets state that Respondent would make its decision "in the best interest of the District " The cover sheets require that all bids incorporate the following language: POSTING OF RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS Recommendations and Tabulations will be posted at the Hillsborough County School District, Purchasing Department, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602 at 10:30 A.M. on 06/11/98 for seventy-two (72) hours. Actions against the specifications or recommendations for award shall follow F.S. 120.53. Procedures are available and on file in the Purchasing Office at the address listed above. The cover sheets identify the schedule of bidding events. The month of April would be for testing new products and evaluating the nutritional information of approved brands. April 30 would be the date of mailing draft copies of the ITB to all interested persons. May 8 would be the date of the pre-bid conference, at which interested persons could bring product information forms for possible approval of other products than those tentatively specified in the ITB. The cover sheets reserved a couple of days immediately after the pre-bid conference for testing any additional new products. The schedule listed May 13 as the date on which Respondent would mail the final copy of the ITB to interested persons. The schedule states that Respondent would review bids and conduct a "pre-award audit," if necessary, from May 26 through June 3. Part I of the ITB contains "general terms and conditions." Part I states: When an item appearing in this bid document is listed by a registered trade name and the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" is indicated, only that trade-named item will be considered. The District reserves the right to reject products that are listed as approved and wa[i]ve formalities. Should a vendor wish to have products evaluated for future bid consideration, please contact, in writing, the buyer listed on the 2nd page of this bid. If the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" does not appear with the trade name, bidders may submit prices on their trade-named item, providing they attach a descriptive label of their product to this proposal. Sample merchandise bid hereunder as "offered equal" may be required to be submitted to purchase in advance of bid award. Substitutions of other brands for items bid, awarded and ordered is prohibited except as may be approved by the supervisor of purchasing. Part I of the ITB includes a number of "stipulations" that are deemed a part of all bids. The stipulations provide: Tabulations of this bid will be based only on items that meet or exceed the specifications given in Part III. All other lesser items will not be considered. Failure to submit, at time of bid opening, complete information as stated in Part III can and may be used as justification for rejection of a bid item. The bidders will not be allowed to offer more than one product/price/service on each item even though the vendor feels that they have two or more types or styles that will meet specifications. If said bidder should submit more than one product/price on any item, all prices for that item will be rejected. . . . The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and to request a re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid, which in all other respects complies with the invitation to bid and the bid document, provided that, in the sole judgement and discretion of the District, the item offered at the higher bid price has additional value or function, including, but not limited to: life cycle costing, product performance, quality of workmanship, or suitability for a particular purpose. . . . All bids shall be evaluated on all factors involved, including the foregoing, price, quality, delivery schedules and the like. Purchase orders or contracts shall be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be advantageous to the District, taking into consideration the factors set forth above and all other factors set forth in the request for bid as "lowest or lowest and best bid." The information called for on the item must be on the line with the item. When omitting a quotation on an item, please insert the words: no quotation, no bid or n/b. to eliminate any confusion about the item(s) being bid. . . . Any requirement by the bidder that certain quantities, weights, or other criteria must be met, in order to qualify for bid prices, will result in disqualification of the bid. Likewise, expiration dates or other constraints, which are in conflict with bid requirements, will result in disqualification. Bids may not be changed after the bid closing time. The exception would be if there was a misinterpretation of the unit for which the bid was requested. In which case, no dollar amount change would be allowed, and only a clarification as to the unit your bid represents will be considered. This must be done in writing 24 hours after notification to the bidder from the supervisor of purchasing. The submittal of a bid proposal shall constitute an irrevocable offer to contract with the District in accordance with the terms of said bid. The offer may not be withdrawn until or unless rejected or not accepted by the District. . . . 13. The District shall be the sole judge as to the acceptability of any and all bids and the terms and conditions thereof, without qualifications o[r] explanation to bidders. 27. This bid and the purchase orders issued hereunder constitute the entire agreement between the School District and the vendor awarded the bid. No modification of this bid shall be binding on the District or the bidders. 30. Variance in condition--Any and all special conditions and specifications attached hereto which vary from general conditions shall have precedence. Part II of the ITB contains "special terms and conditions." Section A of Part II explains that the purpose of the ITB is to establish a "'cost plus fixed fee per carton' annual contract for the delivery of main-line food and snack and beverages . . .." Section A projects that the annual value of Group A and Group B will be $8.5 million. Section A explains that the "product cost" is the vendor's actual cost, including delivery to its warehouse. The "fixed fee" is the difference between the vendor's cost and its selling price to Respondent. Section A notes that, while Respondent’s cost price may vary during the term of the contract, the fixed fee shall remain unchanged. However, Section K fixes the cost prices until December 31, 1998. As used in this order, "total cost" refers either to the total costs per item (i.e., the unit costs times the projected number of units to be purchased) or the total costs of all items, and the "bottom-line cost" is the total of the total costs of all items plus the fixed fee. The fixed fee includes the bidder's profit and is calculated by multiplying the fixed fee per carton, as stated in the bid, times the number of cartons actually delivered. Section B states: Bids will be awarded on the total bottom line cost and fixed fee for each group. To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for the bid award. A distributor may choose to bid on both groups, or on only one group. In the event of default or non- availability of product, the School District reserves the right to utilize the next rated low bidder and their stated bid prices as needed. Sections C and D explain that the term of the contract is one year, ending August 5, 1999, but the parties may extend the term, in one-year increments, through August 5, 2001. Section G provides that potential bidders "may attend a pre-bid conference," but attendance is not mandatory. Section G identifies the time, date, and place of the pre-bid conference. Section G adds: If you wish to submit additional brands within a current product description for approval, you must bring from the appropriate broker/rep, a District product information form with all requested attachments to the conference. Do not bring samples. We will evaluate the product information forms and determine if testing an additional brand is necessary at this time. Submitting a product information form does not guarantee that the product will be tested. Samples must be made immediately for any product information forms submitted. Section H states: To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for that group bid award. Section I provides: After the opening of the bids, school officials will review the line-by-line prices. Accuracy of additions and extensions, brands, and compliance with all instructions will be reviewed in order to ascertain that the offer is made in accordance with the terms of the request for bid proposal. School officials who find any error(s) in calculations will adjust the bottom line figure accordingly. However, if errors are found which either disqualify the bidder, or will raise the bottom line offer to the point where the vendor may no longer be the apparent low bidder, school officials will review the line-item prices of the next lowest bidder. This procedure will continue until a suitable offer is selected. During the review of the low bid, school officials may audit invoices or quotations on selected items for the accuracy of cost prices quoted. The extent of this audit will be at the discretion of school officials. In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system. Section O states that vendors must deliver "the brand that is quoted on the bid sheet." If vendors are "temporarily out-of-stock of a particular item, they must deliver an equal or superior product at an equal or lower price with prior approval of the District Food Service Department." Section O warns that "[e]xcessive occurrences of out-of-stock items is cause for contract cancellation." Part III of the ITB contains "instructions for completing bid sheets," followed by 65 pages of bid specifications for main-line food and nine pages of bid specifications for snack foods and beverages. Each page of specifications contains several rows, with each row devoted to a separate item, and seven columns, with the columns labeled as item number, product descriptions, approved brands, bid unit, unit cost, estimated annual usage, and total cost. Part III provides detailed instructions for describing the items bid and listing the costs for each item. Detailed specifications describe each of the items to be bid. Under "product descriptions," the two paragraphs of Section B address the issue of domestic versus imported products. The first paragraph describes products that the winning bidder may purchase, but the second paragraph limits items than can be bid. The two paragraphs state: Except for items normally not produced in the United States commercially, the contractor should make every effort to purchase domestic products. Products may be allowed from outside the United States provided specifications are met and there is a significant price differential between imported products and those produced within the States. Written documentation of these price differentials must be provided in writing to the School District by the distributor prior to the approval of such purchases. Please note: for purposes of awarding the bid, all distributors shall bid domestic products (pineapple exempt). Under "product descriptions," Section C provides: The contractor must bid on the approved brands (Column 3), packer label or house label for all items. If Column 3 is blank, the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. For example, if bidding on a distributor's choice of pasta, the contractor would enter the following: Brand: Prince Product Code: 5115 If bidding on a distributor group label for green beans, the distributor must stipulate the code designation which may be a color or label, that denotes a product as being a particular grade. For example, Brand: North American/Larson Product Code: Blue If bidding a packer label the bidder must stipulate the name of the packer and the grade label designation, for example: Brand: Larsen Product Code: Lake Region For all packer label products Hillsborough County School Food Service Form "Private Label Chart for Fruits and Vegetables" (see Attachment D) must be completed and returned with the bid. Under "product descriptions," Section D states: "Bidder shall enter the grade of the brand offered only for those line items where grade is specified. " Under "approved brands," Part III provides: The bidder must bid on the approved brand and product code that is listed. If the column states "house brand," the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. Some of the code numbers listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the contractor may enter the correct code and submit written documentation provided by the manufacturer, verifying the correct code number. If any inconsistency exists between the approved brands and/or code numbers and the product description, the approved brand/code number will prevail. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the description provided in column 2 is at the discretion of the School District. A bidder may be requested to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Whenever approved brands are listed with house brands, the distributor's choice brand should be of equal or better quality than the approved brands listed. Buying group brands and codes are acceptable on frozen and canned fruits, vegetables, and juices, however, on further processed and manufactured foods the contractor shall quote a packer's brand. For example, a contractor may quote "Ore-Ida #1234, packed under the 'Code Red Label.'" Pre-Bid Conference Hank Morbach, Principal Buyer of Respondent's Purchasing Department, conducted the pre-bid conference on May 8. Also representing Respondent at the conference were Mr. Morbach's immediate supervisor, William Borrer, who is the Supervisor of Purchasing; Sherry Ebner, who is a Supervisor of Food Service Operations and a registered dietitian; and Mary Kate Harrison, who is Director of Food Service Operations, a registered dietitian, and Ms. Ebner's immediate supervisor. Minutes of the pre-bid conference reveal that Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner told the persons in attendance that they did not have to bid both groups, but must bid all items within the group for which they were submitting a bid. In response to a question from Mutual's representative, Mr. Morbach said that the bottom-line cost, not the fixed fee, would be the "deciding factor." In response to a question from Petitioner's representative, Mr. Morbach stated that, where code numbers were omitted for any item, specifications would prevail. The minutes disclose a discussion regarding imported versus domestic products. Although Respondent's representatives were initially ambivalent, Mr. Morbach "clarified by stating all products must be domestic." Likely, everyone understood that pineapples could still be imported. Following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued a revised ITB on May 13. Presumably, the ITB identified as Joint Exhibit 1 is the revised ITB, so all references in this order to the ITB are to the ITB as it was finally revised. Adverse Publicity Toward the end of the pre-bid conference, a representative of the Weekly Planet appeared. The Weekly Planet is a free weekly Tampa newspaper, and the representative was a reporter, who, since October 1997, had written several articles asserting, at least by implication, that Respondent's food program suffered from excessive costs, favoritism, and possibly even wrongdoing. Part of the adverse publicity concerned Ms. Harrison's husband, who represented several manufacturers from which Petitioner had purchased food for resale to Respondent while Petitioner had the main-line food contract. The Weekly Planet published an article asserting that the husband of Ms. Harrison had lost a civil action brought by his employer for diverted commissions. By the time of the subject procurement, an internal audit had disclosed no conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Harrison, but had suggested that Respondent add personnel in Food Service Operations to monitor vendor compliance and seek more competition in awarding the food contracts. To Ms. Harrison's credit, since her employment with Respondent in 1990, she has converted a food service program that was losing $2.5 million annually into a profitable operation. The record suggests, though, Respondent's staff was extremely sensitive during this bidding process to the adverse publicity surrounding Respondent's business relationship with Petitioner. The Bids Four bidders timely submitted sealed bids for the main-line food contract. However, Respondent promptly disqualified two of the bidders because they did not submit complete bids. One disqualified bidder submitted a bid that was incomplete, unsigned, and omitted five items in the main- line food group. The other disqualified bidder submitted an incomplete bid with only six items in the main-line food group. After submitting their bids, Petitioner and Mutual each sent Respondent letters stating that each bidder did not want the snacks and beverages contract unless it also received the main-line food contract. Respondent did not object to these late-attached conditions to the two bids and did not consider either bidder for only the snack foods and beverages contract. As provided in the ITB, Respondent's staff contacted bidders, after bid opening, to confirm that certain bid items complied with the specifications. By letter dated June 3, Respondent asked Mutual for documentation that 41 listed items met the specifications, that the Fineline/Paris brand that Mutual had bid is Grade A quality, and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 5. By letter dated June 10, Respondent asked Petitioner for documentation that thirty-seven listed items met the specifications and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 12. Respondent wrote each bidder follow-up letters. In a letter dated June 12, Respondent asked Petitioner to document that five items met the specifications, and, in a letter dated June 15, Respondent asked Mutual to document that the same five items met the specifications. The deadlines in both letters were June 16. Mutual and Petitioner responded to these requests for additional information. By letter dated June 5, Mutual disclosed that Items 202 (broccoli), 300 (apple slices), and 366 (raisins) were imported. After receipt of the responses from the bidders, Respondent's employees further reviewed the bids. Early in this review, Respondent's employees realized that neither bid had complied entirely with the specifications. Among the deficiencies of Mutual's bid was the failure to quote a cost for Item 114, which is chicken wings. Mutual's bid identifies only a product, but no cost. Mutual's bid includes a cost for each of the other 296 items and a total cost, presumably for all 297 items. The ITB projects annual purchases for each of the 297 items. The ITB projects the purchase of 283,044 chicken wings. Petitioner bid 12.5 cents per chicken wing for a total cost of $35,309.50. Mr. Morbach justifiably tried to deduce Mutual's quote for chicken wings from the information contained in its bid. He logically assumed that the cost for Item 114 would be the difference between the total cost shown on Mutual's bid, which is shown on the bid, and the total cost for the other 296 items, which must be calculated separately. The details of Mr. Morbach's calculations did not emerge at the hearing, but it is possible to perform these calculations. Mutual's bid shows a total cost for all 297 items of $8,131,470.29. The total costs of each of the quoted 296 items comes to $6,785,080.14. The difference is $1,346,390.15. This figure clearly does not represent Mutual's bid for chicken wings, which would be thirty-eight times greater than Petitioner's bid and would representative the extraordinary cost of $4.75 per chicken wing. The calculations in the preceding paragraph are taken from Mutual's bid, including all changes shown on the bid, as it was submitted, that were made by Mutual. Mutual's representative initialed these changes. The calculations exclude all adjustments made by Respondent's staff because these calculations, which were made after bid opening, logically have no relevance in determining what, if anything, Mutual quoted for chicken wings. These adjustments can play no role in trying to determine, on the face of Mutual's bid, what it intended to bid for chicken wings. In addition to omitting the cost of one item, Mutual failed to bid numerous other items according to the specifications. Petitioner also failed to bid certain items according to the specifications, although Petitioner's bidding errors are fewer in number and less serious than Mutual's bidding errors. Incorporating the information charted by Food Service Operations staff, the following 25 paragraphs identify the errors in both bids. Item 121 is frozen Grade A turkey roasts with a 60/40 ratio of light to dark meat. Mutual's bid does not reveal the extent of white meat or whether the turkey roast is Grade A meat. Petitioner's bid does not reveal whether its turkey roast is Grade A meat. Item 128 is frozen corn dogs. Mutual bid an unapproved code number for an approved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $160,000 in each of the bids. Item 146 is natural swiss cheese. Mutual bid processed cheese. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 202 is Grade A cut broccoli in bulk. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 220 is shoestring French-fried potatoes. Mutual bid a shorter French-fried potato than specified. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 223 is shredded triangle potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same products, but Mutual's bid did not contain required information regarding grade, oil, and region grown. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $140,000 in each of the bids. Item 232 is soft eight-inch tortillas weighing 1.39 ounces per serving. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same product, which weighs only 1.29 ounces per serving. Item 300 is canned sliced apples. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 328 is light, 26-percent concentration tomato paste. Mutual bid a product that does not meet the minimum- concentration specification. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 335 is boneless chicken meat that is predominantly white meat. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same brand, but different product code numbers. Mutual's bid is not predominantly white meat. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 366 is seedless raisins. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 399 is 100 percent semolina, spiral macaroni. Mutual's bid complied with the specifications. Petitioner bid a twisted egg noodle, instead of eggless spiral pasta. Item 431 is sugar sprinkles from one of five approved brands. Mutual bid an unapproved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 448 is instant yeast. Mutual's bid includes information on a product that it did not bid. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 474 is Grade A Fancy apple jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids, and Item 475 is Grade A Fancy grape jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids. Neither bid provides sufficient information to determine if it met the specifications on either of these items. Item 480 is Dijon mustard. Mutual bid Dijon-style mustard. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 484 is whole pitted medium, ripe olives. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's complied with the specifications. Item 492 is whole, kosher pickles of approximately 95 in number per five gallon pail. Mutual and Petitioner bid larger pickles than specified. Item 505 is 50-grain white vinegar. Neither Mutual nor Petitioner provided the information necessary to determine if its bid complied with the specifications. Items 301, 308, 309, 323, and 331 are, respectively, unsweetened canned applesauce, crushed canned pineapple, sliced canned pineapple, canned pumpkin, and whole canned tomatoes. For each of these items, Mutual's bid did not provide the label to prove quality. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 325 is Grade A canned sweet potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner both bid Grade B. Item 212 is yellow frozen squash. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Respondent's staff also noted on the chart that the yellow frozen squash was the second item manufactured by Fineline that was imported (the other was Item 202), and staff noted that it was "unable to determine if other frozen vegetables bid by this manufacturer are domestic as grading certificates were not provided." Mutual bid Fineline products for Items 201 (lima beans), 205 (corn), 208 (okra), 209 (peas), 211 (spinach), 214 (Italian-style vegetable blend), and 215 (Oriental-style vegetable blend). Cumulatively, the Fineline frozen vegetables represent a moderately large part of the overall cost, in excess of $53,000 of Mutual's bid. Coupled with the fact that two Fineline products were imported, Mutual's failure to demonstrate affirmatively that these produce are domestic constitutes additional failures to comply with the specifications and supports the inference that the products are imported. In an earlier version of their chart showing bidding errors, Respondent's staff identified problems with Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224. These are potatoes that the ITB specifies must be from the Pacific Northwest and processed in 100 percent canola oil. Respondent's staff determined that it was impossible to identify the source of these potatoes. However, Petitioner was able to document that some, but not all, of the potatoes that it bid for these six items were from the Pacific Northwest. In addition to failing to bid a cost for Item 114 and misbidding the numerous items charted by Respondent's staff, Mutual's bid failed to comply with the specifications for four other items. Item 229 is a frozen Gyro Wrap. Mutual bid a pita- fold bread product, even though a more expensive Gyro Wrap is available from the same manufacturer. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications Item 378 is pure almond extract flavoring. Mutual bid an imitation flavoring. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 402 is thin spaghetti of .062-.066 thickness in diameter. Mutual bid a thin-spaghetti product of 1.6 thickness in diameter. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 456 is pancake syrup. Mutual bid an invalid code number. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. The parties devoted some attention during the hearing to Item 483, which is green olives. Mutual and Petitioner bid imported green olives, but domestic green olives are not available, at least in institutional quantities, so compliance with the specification of domestic green olives was impossible. Bid Evaluation and Award When Ms. Ebner informed Mr. Morbach of the errors that she had found in both bids, he suggested that they should eliminate the same item from both bidder's bids, if one bidder improperly bid the item. For example, if Mutual misbid fruit cocktail and Petitioner properly bid fruit cocktail, Respondent would delete the cost of fruit cocktail from both bids. The purpose of this adjustment, which reportedly is not atypical in school food procurements, is to avoid the unfair result of lowering the noncompliant bidder's bid, by reducing it for the cost of the misbid fruit cocktail, and leaving the compliant bidder's bid higher by the amount of the properly bid fruit cocktail. Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison agreed with this suggestion, and Respondent tabulated the bid costs accordingly. Mr. Morbach also suggested that they consider the bid of one of the disqualified bidders. Ms. Ebner disagreed with this suggestion. She rightly believed that they should not reconsider a bid that did not contain all of the specified items, and Mr. Morbach did not press the matter further. Although Ms. Ebner spoke daily with Ms. Harrison and Mr. Morbach, there were three larger meetings in late June and early July concerning the bids. The first meeting was during the week of June 22, the second meeting was early in the week of June 29, and the third meeting was on the Friday of that week, July 3. The only participants at the first of the three meetings were Ms. Ebner, Ms. Harrison, Mr. Morbach, and Mr. Borrer. For the second meeting, these four persons were joined by Dr. Michael Bookman, the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Research, which includes overall responsibility for the Purchasing Department; Michelle Crouse, of the Auditing Department; and Lee Chistiansen, another of Respondent's staff. The persons present at the third and final meeting were the same as at the second meeting, except that Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few, replaced Ms. Crouse. At the first meeting, Ms. Ebner expressed her belief that Petitioner's bid was better than Mutual's bid because Petitioner's bid complied with more of the specifications. She also expressed concern about the ability of Magic Vending to service the snack foods and beverages. Ms. Ebner's preference for Petitioner's bid was partly the result of her misplaced emphasis on awarding both contracts to the same bidder. It is likely that, at the first meeting, Mr. Morbach or Mr. Borrer informed Ms. Ebner that nothing in the ITB required that Respondent award both contracts to the same bidder. At the first meeting, everyone confirmed their agreement to adopt Mr. Morbach's suggestion to discard the cost of any misbid item in both bids, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Everyone agreed that this approach would facilitate a better comparison of bottom-line prices. Respondent's decision to eliminate the cost of any misbid item from both bids, even if one bid correctly bid the item, encourages bidding abuses. A bidder knowing that a competitor can quote lower prices for a wide range, for instance, of chicken items can neutralize this advantage by misbidding each of the chicken items, forcing Respondent to award the bid without regard to the lesser costs quoted by the competitor for the chicken items. The potential destructive impact on competitive bidding is incalculable where, as here, this kind of bid-tabulation method is unaccompanied by a provision in the ITB rejecting a bid in its entirety if it misbids more than a specified number or value of items. The ITB does not authorize Respondent's method of tabulating misbid items. As already noted, Stipulation 2 allows Respondent to tabulate bids based only on items that meet the specifications, but nothing in Stipulation 2 or anywhere else in the ITB authorizes the deletion of quotes for items bid in compliance with the specifications. Part I of the ITB allows Respondent to reject approved products, but this provision is part of a discussion of items approved for bidding and does not authorized the rejection of a cost quoted for an approved product. Nor do Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner rely on Stipulation 2 to justify tabulating bid costs by eliminating the costs of any misbid items, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner believe that the 1998 ITB permitted this approach, but the 1996 invitation to bid for school food did not. However, both invitations to bid contain Stipulation 2. Respondent has not cited the difference between the 1996 and 1998 invitations to bid to justify the tabulation method adopted by Respondent in this procurement. Respondent's staff have relied on ITB provisions allowing Respondent to waive formalities or reject all bids for support of their tabulation method. However, even if these provisions were not in the 1996 invitation to bid, they do not authorize Respondent's tabulation method. Mr. Borrer may have implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy of the claimed authority in the ITB for Respondent's tabulation method when he sensibly deleted the following language from a draft memorandum dated June 25 and bearing his name, but drafted for his revision by another employee: Products that were inconclusive or failed to meet specification were eliminated from all bids for the purpose of data analysis. Purchasing is given this authority to eliminate products by bid specifications, statutory guidelines and Board policy. Item 4, Page 3 of the bid specifications states, "The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and request re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid. . ." In addition, Item I, Page 11 of the bid specifications states, "In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system." Also Board Policy H-5.6 states, ". . ., in accepting bids the School Board shall accept the lowest and best bid". (Legal Reference Florida Statutes 230.23, 237.02) The most succinct description of Respondent's tabulation method lacks much of a justification for its use. This description occurs in a typewritten question and answer that appears at the end of Petitioner Exhibit 36, but probably does not belong with that exhibit, which is a fax from Mr. Borrer to Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few. The question is, "Why did you choose to award the contract rather than re-bid after you determined that each vendor had made errors?" The answer states: Bids may not be rejected arbitrarily, but may be rejected and re-bid when it is in the best interest of the public (School District) to do so. . . . To re-bid without changing the bid would be unfair because the vendors had exposed their competitive price structure in public. Through the efforts of our skilled Food Service staff "errors" were discovered in products bid by Mutual and [Petitioner]. Since all vendors bid products that did not meet specifications, we determined that it would be proper to build a mathematical model in which we removed all identified items that did not meet specifications from both vendors. Our analysis based the award criteria on the same set of specifications and conditions for each vendor. Achieving comparability of food products was a complex time- consuming task. The award was recommended to go to the low vendor who would agree and be held to meeting our bid specifications at the price bid. Probably not more than one or two days after the date of the first meeting, Ms. Ebner prepared a draft memorandum, dated June 25, to Mr. Borrer, through Ms. Harrison. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 14 items not meeting specifications, and Petitioner bid three such items. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 11 items for which compliance was inconclusive, and Petitioner bid five such items. The draft memorandum also states that Mutual bid five imported items, despite the "discussion at the pre-bid conference that only domestic products were allowed." In the draft memorandum, Ms. Ebner recalculated the bottom-line costs of the bids of Petitioner and Mutual after discarding all costs for items that either bidder had misbid. She determined that Petitioner had the lowest snack foods and beverages bid. She also determined that Petitioner had the lower total bid for the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Still preferring an award of both contracts to a single bidder, Ms. Ebner concluded in the draft memorandum that Respondent should award both contracts to Petitioner, and Ms. Harrison concurred with Ms. Ebner's recommendation. At the same time, Mr. Morbach and Mr. Borrer were headed in the opposite direction from Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison. At the direction of Mr. Borrer, Mr. Morbach elicited a letter dated June 24 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, in which Magic Vending stated: "As a follow up to our conversation and subsequent to our bid submission, we are prepared to offer you a reduction in our overall bid of $15,000." The letter concludes: "The purpose of this reduction is to make the overall award process run more smoothly and to remove any potential complications." Although Petitioner had already written Respondent expressing no interest in only the snack foods and beverages contract, Respondent obtained this cost concession, which made Magic Vending's bid lower than Petitioner's bid, in case Petitioner changed its mind. By letter dated June 26 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, Magic Vending assured that it would "abide by all the rules and specifications in addition to giving a $15,000.00 discount . . .." The letter concludes with a well- earned expression of gratitude by Magic Vending for Mr. Morbach's "consideration in this matter." As for the main-line food contract, Mr. Borrer obtained from Mutual a one-line letter dated June 26 from Mutual stating: "This letter is to assure you that all products quoted by [Mutual] on bid #3743-HM will meet the specifications as required." At the second meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, which evidently took place after the Purchasing Department had received the correspondence from Mutual and Magic Vending, Food Service Operations staff continued to recommend that the contracts be awarded to Petitioner. Everyone discussed the errors in Mutual's bid and the fact that the Magic Vending bid was $5000 more than Petitioner's bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. It is unclear if Ms. Ebner or Ms. Harrison yet knew of the price concession of Magic Vending, but everyone discussed that it would be controversial to award the contracts to a bidder that was not the lowest bidder. Apparently in anticipation of the award ultimately made, Petitioner served Respondent, on July 1, with a Notice of Intent to Protest the award of both contracts. By letter dated the same date, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would not stop the procurement process due to the "critical importance of this bid and the serious danger to the health of our children." In fact, Mutual and Magic Vending have been supplying main-line food and snack foods and beverages, respectively, since early August 1998. At the third meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, everyone agreed to recommend that the School Board award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending. The discussion at this last major staff meeting largely involved the matters that they had previously discussed. Unfortunately, no one ever discussed at these or other meetings involving Ms. Ebner how many errors a bid could contain before it should be disqualified. Likewise, no one ever discussed with her the distinction between awarding a contract on the basis of the lowest bid and on the basis of the lowest and best bid. However, Ms. Harrison discussed with Ms. Ebner the safety issues presented by imported, rather than domestic, foods. On the day prior to the July 7 School Board meeting now designated for the School Board to vote on the awards, Ms. Harrison advised Mutual by letter that Respondent's staff would recommend Mutual, "provided that any and all products found not to meet specifications will be replaced with products meeting specifications at the original bid cost." Petitioner Exhibit 13, which is a copy of this letter, lacks the attachment listing the noncompliant items. At the bottom of the July 6 letter is a signature space for Mutual's representative, indicating assent to the following sentence: "Indicate, by signing below, that you are in agreement to provide all products meeting specifications, including USDA Grade A products, at the original bid price." Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains the signature of Mutual's representative. On July 7, the School Board met and gave Petitioner's counsel and corporate representative brief opportunities to explain why Respondent should not award the main-line food contract to Mutual. However, the Board did not give Petitioner's representatives sufficient time to convey much meaningful or detailed information. Mr. Few, Dr. Bookman, and Ms. Harrison supplied the Board with more information, but unfortunately never disclosed that Mutual's bid contained more errors than did Petitioner's bid and that Mutual's bid contained more errors involving more substantive matters than did Petitioner's bid, as discussed below. Contradicting the advice given by Mr. Morbach at the pre-bid conference and ignoring the contrary provision in the ITB and ignoring the distinction in the ITB between items that the winning bidder may purchase additional items that may be bid, Mr. Few advised the Board that the ITB expressed only a preference toward domestic products and cited the unique example of olives as support for this interpretation. Dr. Bookman advised the Board that Mutual had assured them that all items bid were Grade A. He was evidently unaware that, as explained below, Mutual had still not obtained Grade A turkey roast, even though Grade A turkey roast is available. As late as the final hearing, Ms. Ebner admitted that Mutual had still not corrected one or two noncompliant items, although it is unclear if one of them is the turkey roast. Notwithstanding staff's assurances, several Board members expressed misgivings at having to absorb a lot of detailed information in a short period of time. Ms. Harrison informed the Board that they did not have time to defer action, implicitly and correctly informing them that they did not have time to rebid the main-line food contract. One Board member replied that she wanted all of the food to be USDA approved and that parents had enough to be concerned about without being concerned about what Respondent was feeding their children. A motion to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending failed by a 3-4 vote. A second motion to delay awarding these contracts passed 5-2, so that, individually, Board members could talk to staff to learn more about the bids and Petitioner's claim of bidding improprieties. The record does not reveal what staff told individual Board members. After a recess during which Board members, individually, met with staff, one of the Board members who had previously voted not to award the contracts moved to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending, saying that Mutual had agreed to replace noncomplying products with products meeting the specifications. Relying on Mutual's promise to deliver conforming food items, as opposed to the noncomplying items that it had bid, this Board member reasoned that it was one thing to make a mistake with a bid, but another thing to make a mistake with the schoolchildren. The School Board unanimously approved the motion, and the meeting ended. By letter dated July 9 from Mutual to Mr. Borrer, Mutual addressed each of the 25 items charted by Respondent's staff, acknowledging that Mutual's bid had not complied with the specifications for nearly every charted item, but promising that Mutual would supply a product meeting the specifications for all of these items. However, concerning the moderately large component of the bid represented by Item 121 (turkey roasts, which represented over $62,000 in Mutual's bid), the letter states only: "Currently trying to locate an item to meet specifications." Bid Protest On July 10, Petitioner served Respondent with a Protest. The Protest asserts that Mutual's bid did not contain prices on all items, did not propose all domestic products, contained unapproved brands, bid unapproved product codes, and bid products different from those specified in the ITB. The Protest asserts that Respondent allowed Mutual to provide a letter after the deadline for receiving bids assuring that it would provide all Grade A product, as specified in the ITB. The Protest did not mention the snack foods and beverages contract awarded to Magic Vending. The Protest does not allege that Petitioner's bid is responsive. Respondent has not filed any responsive pleading raising the question of the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid. Respondent's Bid Policies Following receipt of Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Protest, Mr. Borrer sent a letter dated July 1 to Petitioner that contained Respondent's rules governing bids. This document, which is part of Petitioner Exhibit 37, is the source of Respondent's bidding rules set forth in the following two paragraphs. Respondent's rules provide for the protest of specifications as follows: Specifications—Any bidder that feels that their firm is adversely affected by an specification contained in a Sealed Bid or Request for Proposal issued by the Purchasing Department may file a written notice of protest with the Supervisor of Purchasing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the bid documents. . . . A formal written protest shall be filed by the bidder within ten (10) days of the written notice of protest. . . . These rules also provide for the awarding of costs, but not attorneys' fees, as follows: If, after the completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings[,] the School District prevails, then the School District shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings, but excluding attorney's fees. . . . If the protestor prevails then the protestor shall recover from the School District, all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, excluding attorney's fees. Another source of Respondent's rules in the record is Chapter 7 of a compilation of Board policy that was applicable to the present procurement. This document requires that Respondent award bids "on the basis of the lowest and best bid which meets specifications with consideration being given to the specific quality of the product, conformity to the specifications, suitability to school needs, delivery terms and service and past performance of the vendor." Lastly, Mr. Borrer, by memorandum to the file dated July 9, noted that the two disqualified vendors were disqualified under Board Policy H-5.10, which states: "Bids received which do not meet specifications shall not be considered valid and shall not be tabulated." Ultimate Findings of Fact Bid Tabulation Method Is Clearly Erroneous, Contrary to Competition, and Arbitrary It is irrelevant whether the standard of proof governing a protest of specifications is a preponderance of the evidence or the more deferential standard, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner has proved that Respondent's tabulation method is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Respondent's tabulation method potentially penalizes compliant bidders by eliminating their compliant items from the tabulation when a noncompliant bidder misbids the same item. The anti-competitive, arbitrary effect of this tabulation method may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that the ITB is for a cost-plus contract. However, the ITB fails to impose any minimum requirement or threshold for compliant items, in terms of number or dollar volume--e.g., if a bid contains noncompliant items totaling more than one percent of the total cost bid, then the entire bid is rejected. This means that Respondent's tabulation method can destroy the competitiveness of the procurement by allowing a bidder purposefully or unintentionally to misbid a large number of items, resulting in the effective elimination of these items from the tabulation of bids submitted by bidders with superior access to these items. Under these circumstances, Respondent's selection of this tabulation method was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Is Nonresponsive The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid was responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As already noted, it is impossible to deduce Mutual's quote for Item 114 from the face of Mutual's bid. A failure to quote a cost for an item is little different from a failure to bid the item. In the case of a complete omission, Respondent knows nothing of the item bid; in the case of the omission of only a quote, Respondent knows what item the bidder has bid, but not the cost of the item. The omission of the cost of a single item adequately described in the bid may be a minor irregularity, if the cost can be deduced by subtracting from the total cost of all items the total cost of all but the omitted item. Here, though, the difference between these amounts is clearly wrong, so that, if Respondent overlooks the omission, it leaves open the possibility of a later dispute over the cost of Item 114. Under the present circumstances, including the disqualification of two other bidders for omitting items, Respondent's failure to disqualify Mutual's bid was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Contains Material Variances The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid did not contain material variances from the ITB is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Food Service Operations staff identified numerous deficiencies in Mutual's bid. For Mutual's bid, Ms. Ebner's June 25 memorandum counts 14 items not meeting specifications and 11 items for which compliance is inconclusive due to Mutual's failure to submit the required documentation. Treating the misbidding of green olives and the potatoes specified in Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224 as minor irregularities due to the impossibility of compliance with the specifications concerning the origin of these items, Mutual's bid still reveals consequential deviations from the specifications. Using only the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Mutual's consequential deviations from the specifications include five imported foods, two meat products that fail to contain the required ratio of light to dark meat (one of the meat products and another product also failing to demonstrate the proper Grade), a lower Grade of canned sweet potatoes, shorter French Fries, excessively diluted tomato concentrate and inadequate documentation of the dilution of two jelly products, processed instead of natural cheese, and a missing ingredient from Dijon mustard. Of all the witnesses, Ms. Ebner was most capable, by training, experience, and job assignment, of understanding the significance of the deviations in Mutual's bid. For instance, addressing the seemingly inconsequential matter of excessively diluted jelly, Ms. Ebner noted that Respondent had had problems with runny jelly not remaining on peanut-butter- and-jelly sandwiches. The nutritional consequences of this seemingly harmless deviation are students discarding peanut- butter-and-jelly sandwiches that have lost their jelly. In each of these consequential deviations from the specifications, Mutual bid a cheaper product than specified, which conferred upon it an unearned competitive advantage, and a product of lower quality than specified, which jeopardized the primary purpose of the specifications to ensure that Respondent obtained food of high nutrition, safety, and taste for students and staff. Any implicit or explicit determination by Respondent dismissing the charted findings of deviations by Food Service Operations staff or treating them as minor irregularities rather than material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Besides the findings contained in the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff, Mutual misbid several other items. The consequential deviations from the specifications included seven imported items, a cheaper pita- fold than the specified Gyro wrap, and a cheaper imitation almond flavoring for pure almond flavoring. Any express or implied finding by Respondent discrediting these deviations would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Although an express or implied determination by Respondent that these deviations, standing alone, are minor irregularities would not be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, such a finding concerning these deviations, together with the previously discussed deviations charted by Food Service Operations staff, would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. The standard of proof governing the determination that Mutual submitted written assurances, after bid opening, that it would supply product in compliance with the specifications, is the preponderance of the evidence. However, the standard of proof governing findings of the significance of the submittal of these assurances is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Any implied or express determination by Respondent that Mutual's written assurances were not an attempt to change its bid after bid opening would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Petitioner has already proved, by this deferential standard, that Mutual's bid contained material variances from the specifications. The purpose of Mutual's written assurances was to eliminate these material variances, which, in fact, were still not entirely eliminated by the time of the final hearing. Petitioner's Bid Contains Material Variances Consistent with its determination that Mutual's bid is responsive and suffers no material variances, Respondent claims in its proposed recommended order that Petitioner's bid is responsive and contains no material variances. Respondent awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual because it submitted the lower bid. However, Petitioner demands the award of the main- line food contract, so it is necessary to consider whether its bid, which is clearly responsive, contains any material variances. Because of the resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to consider whether Petitioner's bid contains any minor irregularities, for which Respondent's implied or express refusal to waive would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Using the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Petitioner misbid only seven items. In fact, the record reveals no other misbid items by Petitioner. Several of Petitioner's misbid items are relatively inconsequential. These are a tortilla slightly lighter than specified, larger pickles than specified, and omitted documentation showing the grain of vinegar. Mutual misbid these items also. However, three of Petitioner's misbid items are consequential. Although Petitioner's bid reflects the specified ratio of light and dark meat, unlike Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid of turkey roast fails, as does Mutual's bid, to provide sufficient documentation to show that it is Grade A. Like Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid is for Grade B canned sweet potato and fails to provide documentation that the two jelly products are not excessively diluted. The only consequential deviation in Petitioner's bid not found in Mutual's bid is Petitioner's failure to bid an eggless pasta. However, the standard of reference for determining whether Petitioner's bid contains material variances is not Mutual's bid, but the ITB. Although considerably more compliant than Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid, when measured against the ITB and the importance of obtaining nutritious, safe, and tasty food for Respondent's schoolchildren, also falls impermissibly short of the mark. Petitioner's consequential deviations from the specifications also mean cheaper items than specified, through which Petitioner would have obtained an unearned competitive advantage, and products of lower quality than specified, which would have jeopardized the primary purpose of the ITB to ensure that Respondent obtained high-quality food. Impossible specifications, like domestic green olives or six potato items from the Northwest, or the failure to comply in some minor respect, such as sugar sprinkles from an unapproved manufacturer or excessively large pickles, may constitute minor irregularities. But the failure to ensure that each of the 297 items bid complies substantially in quality is not. Thus, an implied or expressed determination by Respondent that Petitioner's bid contains no material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees. There is no direct proof of any factual basis to award fees. Perhaps Petitioner infers an improper purpose from the fact that, despite the benefit of highly deferential standards of proof, Respondent has not prevailed. Obviously, Respondent's failure to prevail is due to several express or implied determinations that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. If this fact alone warranted a fee award, all agencies would be liable for fees in every bid case that they lost. The absence of such a statutory provision reveals the Legislative intent not to make agencies strictly liable for attorneys' fees in bid cases. The better approach is to permit an inference of improper purpose, but only if the agency were aware or reasonably should have been aware that its handling of the award was not merely clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, but was so egregiously so as to support an inference of improper purpose. Such is not the case here. There is no evidence of Petitioner's costs, and Petitioner did not request the administrative law judge to reserve jurisdiction or leave the record open for a later determination of costs.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hillsborough County enter a final order setting aside the award of the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and rebidding the contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Earl Lennard Superintendent School Board of Hillsborough County Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, Florida 33601-3408 Robert W. Rasch 129 Live Oak Lane Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 W. Crosby Few Few & Ayala, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 22nd day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact On May 3, 1996, the DEPARTMENT issued an Invitation to Bid, Bid Number 9596-RDC-011, titled "Bagged Snacks and Snack Crackers." The snacks were to be resold in the inmate canteens located throughout the DEPARTMENT's Region 2 facilities. The effective date of the awarded contract was from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. Inmate canteens are small grocery stores located in prison facilities that are operated for the convenience of the general prison population. The Invitation to Bid (ITB) contained eighteen different bagged snacks and snack crackers including, BBQ corn chips, pork rinds, potato chips, pretzels, tortilla chips, beef jerky products, peanuts, popcorn, and crackers. While the ITB was not brand name specific, it did contain specific size and flavor requirements. In addition, the ITB required price quotations and samples for each of the eighteen products. Except for Item 7, the ITB stated a weight that each product bid must meet or exceed. The product bid may weigh more than the amount stated in the ITB, but a product that weighs less is deemed non-responsive. Bid packages were sent to 28 vendors, and the DEPARTMENT received four bids. Bids were submitted by WISE, JOE WALKER, MAGIC, AND STEWART DISTRIBUTION. The remaining 24 vendors did not respond to the ITB. No protest challenging the terms and conditions of the ITB were filed. On May 29, 1996, the bids were opened, and MAGIC submitted the lowest bid at $673,564.97. WISE submitted the second lowest bid at $757,608.98. WALKER submitted a bid of $1,146,196.81 and STEWART submitted a bid of $1,417,208.42. Subsequently, on June 3, 1996, the DEPARTMENT disqualified MAGIC as unresponsive because it did not bid items as specified and because it did not provide samples for all the items that were bid. As a result of MAGIC's non-responsive bid, the DEPARTMENT issued an intent to award the bid to WISE. On June 14, 1996, MAGIC timely filed a protest to the award of the contract, asserting (1) that it submitted the lowest bid, (2) that it complied with the material requirements of the bid, (3) that any deviation was minor, and (4) that the award of the bid to WISE was arbitrary, capricious or illegal. The DEPARTMENT and WISE raised a series of arguments countering the allegations raised by MAGIC. Specifically, the DEPARTMENT and WISE asserted that MAGIC violated the terms of the ITB by not providing and marking samples, by failing to bid on certain products contained in the ITB, and by failing to meet the weight and size specifications of the ITB. In short, the DEPARTMENT and WISE asserted that MAGIC's bid was nonresponsive. The first issue raised by the DEPARTMENT and WISE related to samples of snacks provided by MAGIC. The DEPARTMENT and WISE asserted that the MAGIC proposal was unresponsive to the ITB because it did not provide a sample of every snack included within the ITB and that it failed to label the samples provided to the DEPARTMENT. On this issue, section 12 of the Special Conditions of the ITB provides that: On or before the scheduled bid opening date, the bidder shall forward, and/or otherwise cause to be delivered one (1) sample of each item to be considered to Regional Distribution Center, Region.... The section further provides: All samples must be marked with bidder's name, group number, item number, and bid number. Items not so marked may be disqualified. [Failure to submit all required samples shall be grounds for disqualification.] [emphasis provided]. MAGIC failed to meet the first requirement of section 12 of the Special Conditions of the ITB by failing to provide samples of each item bid. The testimony of DEPARTMENT personnel indicated that WISE presented its samples in an unsealed box. The testimony further indicated that the box was placed in a secure facility prior the opening and evaluation of the contents of the box. 4/ While MAGIC offered testimony that it did provide samples for all the snack products, the testimony was inconsistent and did not have the same reliability as the testimony of the DEPARTMENT'S personnel. Specifically, DEPARTMENT personnel Jesse Mosley and Carla Harris offered credible testimony that supports the finding that they properly reviewed samples from MAGIC, that they inventoried the samples, and that they discovered that some of the samples were missing. Failure to provide samples, alone, was grounds for the DEPARTMENT's disqualification of MAGIC. In addition to failing to provide adequate samples, MAGIC violated the second requirement of section 12 of the ITB by failing to properly mark its samples. A review of the samples submitted by MAGIC indicates that MAGIC failed to label any of its samples. 5/ Because MAGIC did not label its products, the DEPARTMENT was forced to guess as to which products corresponded with the list of products contained in the ITB. 6/ The absence of labels on the MAGIC samples also serves as grounds to disqualify each unmarked product. The other responsive bidders (WISE, WALKER, and STEWART) all complied with the requirements of Section 12 by providing and marking samples of each product bid. The second and third issues raised by the DEPARTMENT and WISE were that MAGIC's bid was nonresponsive because it failed to bid all the items contained in the ITB and the samples provided did not adequately comply with the size requirements of the ITB. As stated above, because MAGIC failed to mark its samples, it was difficult for the DEPARTMENT to match the samples provided with the item list. In some instances the DEPARTMENT, by a process of elimination, was forced to guess which MAGIC sample corresponded with an item on the item list. For example, the first item on the ITB list was "cheese flavored crackers" with a net weight of not less than 1-1/4 ounces. (Identified as Item 1-1). 7/ MAGIC specified in its bid that the product offered for the "cheese flavored crackers" weighed 1.5 ounces. Unfortunately, because the MAGIC samples were not marked, it was difficult to determine if MAGIC had complied with the bid size requirements relating to "cheese flavored crackers." It appears that MAGIC's bid was non-responsive as it relates to "cheese flavored crackers" because the product bid and found in the sample box, "Cheetos Cheesey Checkers," weighed only 1.0 ounce, less than the required 1-1/4 ounces provided by the ITB. In contrast to the MAGIC bid, WISE, STEWART, and WALKER all supplied samples that met or exceeded the requirements for "Cheese Flavored Crackers." A second example of non-compliance relates to Item 1-10, Pretzels. MAGIC failed to provide any samples for review by the DEPARTMENT in violation of section 12 of the Special Conditions of the ITB. A third example of non-compliance with the ITB relates to Item 2, "Beef Jerky." The ITB requires beef jerky with a specified weight of 1/4 ounce. A review of the sample submitted by MAGIC indicates that MAGIC was non- responsive to this item. Specifically, MAGIC provided samples for "Double Salami" (Exhibit 9-k). "Double Salami" is not beef jerky and it does not comply with the requirements of the ITB. A fourth example of non-compliance relates to Item 3, beef jerky in a single-serving size not less that .52 ounces in weight. MAGIC submitted "Beef and Cheese Sticks" (Exhibit 9-l). While the product exceeds the weight requirement of the ITB, "Beef and Cheese Sticks" are not beef jerky and do not comply with the requirements of the ITB. A fifth example of non-compliance related to Item 7, "saltine crackers." MAGIC is in non-compliance because it failed to provide a sample of the cracker. In addition, MAGIC failed to inform the DEPARTMENT of the size of the saltines being bid and therefore it was impossible for the DEPARTMENT to determine if MAGIC could comply with the minimum weight requirements contained in the bid. WISE bid on each of the eighteen items. Each product bid by WISE, and the corresponding sample that WISE submitted, equalled or exceeded the minimum requirements set forth in the ITB for that item. 8/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered accepting the proposal filed by WISE, in response to ITB No. 9596-RDC-011. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT, 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 30th day of September, 1996.
