The Issue Whether DOL should accept either the bid Red Enterprises submitted for T- shirts, in response to invitation to bid No. 89- 026-LOT/Ten/A, or the bid submitted by Party Time, or neither?
Findings Of Fact By invitation to bid No. 89-026-LOT/TEN/A (the ITB), petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, the DOL originally solicited bids from suppliers of beach towels, men's caps ("golf style, sewed back") and canvas sport bags. By an addendum dated March 24, 1989, the invitation was expanded to include 10,000 men's T- shirts. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Three bidders responded: Party Time, Red Enterprises and Bagley Advertising. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Only Party Time and Red Enterprises bid on the T-Shirts, Respondent's Exhibit No. 3; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and Party Time's bid was low. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. Red Enterprises's bid was responsive to the ITB. With the required paperwork, Red Enterprises submitted a sample T-shirt, along with samples of the other items. Although Party Time submitted samples of caps and towels, it did not submit a sample T-shirt. DOL rejected Party Time's bid on T-shirts for this reason, and announced its intention to award the T- shirt contract to Red Enterprises. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. ITB Provisions In paragraph 2.1, the ITB states, under the heading "Samples of Products to be submitted with Bid": SECTION 2: ITEMS REQUESTED 2.1 Samples of Products to be Submitted with Bid. Each bidder shall submit with its bid a sample of the product for each item bid. The samples shall be made of the materials to be used in the final product, if the bidder is successful, and shall be product identified. The samples shall be inspected to determine whether they meet the minimum specifications required. Samples of items, when called for, must be furnished free of expense on or before bid opening time and date, and if not destroyed may, upon request, be returned at the bidder's expense. Each individual sample must be labeled with bidder's name, manufacturer's brand name and number, bid number and item reference. The Department reserves the sole right to determine whether the sample meets or exceeds the quality requirements of the specifications. All such determinations made by the Department are final. (emphasis supplied) Later on the ITB lists all items which comprise the bid, without mentioning samples: 3.1.5 Bids should be presented in the following sequence: Identification of Respondent per Section 3.2 of ITB. Authorized representative of Respondent per Section 3.3 of ITB. Bidder's Affidavit (Attachment A) and Registration Form (Attachment B), if applicable, or notation that said Form is already on file with the Department. Price Sheet per Section 3.5 of ITB. (Attachment C). Florida-licensed per Section 3.6 of ITB. Minority Certification per Section 3.9 of ITB. But still later the ITB explicates the importance of complying with requirements which use "shall . . . except to indicate simple futurity": SECTION 4. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The Department has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any submitted bid. The use of "shall", "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this ITB indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a bid.... Finally, the ITB specifies DOL's intentions, in the event of a bidder's noncompliance with mandatory requirements: Proposal Submission Only bids submitted in the time frame stated herein and with the content required above will be reviewed and considered by the Department. Review Criteria If Respondent's bid does not meet all the mandatory requirements the bid may be rejected by the Department as nonresponsive. The Department seeks to contract for the items described herein with the responding firm who submits the lowest and best bid. Responsive bids will be evaluated and judged by the Department based on cost. In Section 5.3, the ITB refers to "the lowest and best responsive bid," and Attachment C states, "Bid [e]valuation and award of contract will be based solely on the unit price." The ITB put reasonable bidders on notice that DOL expected bidders to furnish samples of items on which they bid. Except for T- shirts, Party Time did submit samples of everything on which it bid.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOL award the contract for 10,000 men's T-shirts to Red Enterprises. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 15 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, and to the extent they are more than mere argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence did not establish that Party Time did not have a sample. COPIES FURNISHED: Rebecca Paul, Secretary Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, FL 32399-4002 Nan Mancha Red Enterprises 1308 High Road Tallahassee, FL 32304 Linda Bagley Wiggs Bagley Advertising 4406 South Florida Avenue Suite 17 Lakeland, FL 33813 Louisa E Hargrett, Esquire Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, FL 32399-4002 John E Fuller Party Time Specialties, Inc. 12-14 East Bay Street, Suite 2101 Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent, through its Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 123-395-98-C Rebid, seeks to award a 12-month contract for, the purchase of electronic data processing cards. Bids were opened on November 10, 1981, at which time Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. However, Respondent disqualified Petitioner's bid because Data Specialties Mart did not have a corporate charter number and had no manufacturing capability on the bid opening date. S. F. Holdings, Inc., is a Florida corporation, Charter No. 637983. Data Specialties Mart is a division of this corporation and has been assigned Vendor No. 00417 by Respondent. Confusion over Petitioner's identity arose from the section on Respondent's ITB where the vendor name is to be entered. Petitioner placed the name "Data Specialties Mart, Inc.," (non-existent as a corporation) in this block. Petitioner did, however, enter the S. F. Holdings, Inc., charter number and the Data Specialties Mart vendor number in adjacent blocks. A letter attached to the bid describes Data Specialties Mart as a marketing division of S. F. Holdings, Inc. Although this letter did not have as its purpose correction of the above error, it did provide the clarification Respondent should have sought. Furthermore, this relatively minor discrepancy could have been resolved through contact with the Petitioner. Petitioner stated by letter dated November 9, 1981, (attached to its bid) that "The cards will be produced through our Lakeland, Florida manufacturing facilities (formally [sic] known as National Electronics Computing Supplies, Inc.)." Respondent investigated the claimed ownership and determined that Petitioner did not possess the manufacturing facility on the bid opening date, November 10, 1981, as represented. Petitioner's president, who signed the letter, believed he would acquire the facility at a November 16, 1981, bankruptcy proceeding and thus claimed the facility for bid purposes. Although Petitioner did acquire the factory as anticipated, it possessed no manufacturing capability on the bid opening date.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 11th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom and Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William P. Beck, Esquire Department of General Services 457 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas R. Brown, Executive Director Department of General Services Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received on a contract to deliver food and supplies to the public school cafeterias in Broward County.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Invitation to Bid On September 28, 2000, the Board issued ITB 21-076B for procurement of “Mainline Foods and Supplies for Cafeterias.” Through this solicitation the Board sought to let a four-year contract, renewable for two additional one- year periods, pursuant to which the successful bidder would deliver food and supplies to the approximately 192 public school cafeterias in Broward County, Florida. Sysco is the incumbent supplier of foods and supplies for the Board’s cafeterias. The ITB listed and described the desired foods and supplies in two separate sections, Section 5.09 and Section 6.02. Bidders were required to bid on each of the 186 individual items listed in the Product Bid Sheets that comprise Section 5.09. In contrast, bidders were instructed not to quote prices for the 130 items listed in Section 6.02; rather, the ITB provided that “[t]he awardee, once selected, shall submit to the [Board] product costs and selling prices for items in Section 6.02.” This protest focuses on particular specifications of the Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 and is not concerned with Section 6.02. The Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 were composed of tables consisting of eight columns and, in total, 189 rows — one row for each item and three empty or "open" rows requiring no response. The first three columns, from left to right, set forth information that identified each item sought. At each row, Column 1 contained the “Sequence Number” that the Board had assigned to each product “for tracking purposes.” Column 2 in each row contained a description of the product to be purchased. So-called “approved brands” for each item were listed in Column 3. The ITB identified “approved brands” in several ways. The most specific identification was by brand name and product code or number, for example “Tony’s 78642.” This form of identification designated a particular manufacturer’s particular product. The term “approved branded product” will be used herein to refer to this type of specific product identification in Column 3. For many items, an approved brand was identified by manufacturer’s name only, without an accompanying product code, e.g. “Lykes ________.” The ITB instructed bidders that “[i]f a code number, name, or color is not listed by [the Board] along with an approved brand[,] the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided.” (ITB, Section 5.03.) In this Recommended Order, the term “brand-only approval” will denote a brand approval that lacked a specific product code. Finally, the ITB identified a large number of approved brands in Column 3 of Section 5.09 by the term “Distributor’s Choice,” meaning the distributor’s brand of choice. Bidders were instructed to “enter, in the space provided, the brand and code” when quoting a Distributor’s Choice. (ITB, Section 5.03.) For 84 of the 186 items listed in the Product Bid Sheets, the approved brands in Column 3 were identified exclusively as Distributor’s Choice.1 Thus, for nearly half of the Section 5.09 items, the bidder needed to select a brand and product that fit the specifications set forth in Column 2. For another 15 items, Column 3 contained brand-only approvals, meaning that the bidder was required to select an appropriate product from the approved manufacturer’s line. Brand-only approvals were combined with a Distributor’s Choice option in Column 3 for ten additional items. Consequently, there were 109 items — 59% of the total — on which the bidders were not given the option of bidding an approved branded product. Conversely, for 23 items Column 3 listed just one approved branded product, leaving the bidders no alternative but to bid on a particular manufacturer's particular product. Similarly, for 26 additional items, at least two approved branded products were listed, giving bidders a choice but not requiring them to compare the specifically designated brand- name products with the product descriptions in Column 2. In sum, bidders were obligated (and entitled) to bid an approved branded product on at least 49 items. There were 28 items for which Column 3 combined an approved branded product (or products) with either a brand- only approval (or approvals) or a Distributor’s Choice option.2 Accordingly, a bidder could, in theory, have quoted prices on as many as 77 approved branded products. At the other extreme, a bidder could have bid 137 items for which it had selected brand, product code, or both. Of the 186 items listed in Section 5.09, four are at the heart of the instant dispute. Ignoring for present purposes the sequences above and below the at-issue items, these four were described as follows in the first three columns of the Product Bid Sheets:3 1 SEQ NO. 2 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 3 APPROVED BRANDS 1009 Breakfast Pizza (F). Crust topped with cheese, gravy, scrambled eggs and bacon. Minimum size 3 oz. to meet 1 meat/meat alternate plus 1 bread serving. CN Label. Tony’s 63564 Nardone’s 80MSA-100 Size of portion oz. 1036 Pizza, French Bread, Southland Bagel Pepperoni (F): 50-50 8953S Mozzarella blend. Minimum Prestige 30215 5.45 oz. to meet 2 oz. Nordone’s _________ meat/meat alternative and 2 KT Kitchen ________ bread servings. CN label. Size portion oz. 1037 Pizza, Mexican Style (F). Tony’s 63669 Minimum 5 ounces to meet 2 Nordone’s 100MA oz. meat/meat alternate and 1 KT Kitchens 01476 ½ bread serving. With or w/o VPP. CN label. Size portion oz. 2010 Pancake and Sausage (F) Pancake batter around a link sausage on a stick. 2.5 oz. State Fair 70601 Leon’s 28002 Foster Farms 96113 Minimum weight to meet 1 oz. meat/meat alternative and 1 bread serving. CN Label. Size of portion: oz. Other provisions of the ITB are relevant to this protest as well. Section 7 of the General Conditions of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any items or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets shall be noted “BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY.” All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Section 1.03 of the ITB’s Special Conditions stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARD: A contract shall be awarded IN ITS ENTIRETY to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder (See Section 4.01) with the lowest initial product cost plus fixed fee and meeting all specifications terms and conditions of the bid. It is necessary to bid on every item on the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09) in order to have your bid considered for award. Product costs shall be stated in the spaces provided in the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09). All items shall have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item shall result in disqualification of bid submitted. Bidder shall carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. Any item that does not meet the specifications shall be disqualified. Section 1.10 of the ITB stated as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning any condition or requirement of this bid shall be received in the Purchasing Department in writing on or before October 11, 2000. Submit all questions to the attention of the individual stated in Section 1.37 [sic] of this Bid. If necessary, an Addendum shall be issued. Any verbal or written information which is obtained other than by information in this bid document or by Addenda shall not be binding on the School Board. Section 1.12 of the ITB stated as follows: BRAND STANDARDIZATION: The specified brands and product numbers listed on the Product Bid Sheets have been approved by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department and bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where “Distributor’s Choice” is indicated. If a bidder wishes to have an item placed on this approved list for future bidding, the bidder shall furnish Food and Nutrition Services Department samples of the item for testing purposes. If approved, the Food and Nutrition Services Department shall include the new item on the future list of approved items. In the event that any approved item supplied under this bid does not prove satisfactory, that item shall be removed from the approved list until such time as correction is made to the satisfaction of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. Section 1.13 of the ITB stated as follows: PRODUCT NUMBER CORRECTIONS: If the product number for the brand specified on the Product Bid Sheets is: a) no longer available and has been replaced with a new updated number with new specifications, the bidder should submit complete descriptive literature on the new product number; or b) incorrect, the corrected product number should be noted on the Product Bid Sheets, in the space provided. Section 1.35 of the ITB stated as follows: INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mr. Charles High, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (954) 765-6107 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mr. High nor any employee of [the Board] is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with Special Condition 1.10. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. Section 2.03 of the ITB stated as follows: ADDING AND DELETING ITEMS: Food and non- food items utilized by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department may be subsequently added, deleted or transferred from or to the lists in Sections 5.09 and 6.0, individually or in groups, at the discretion of SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department Section 5.02 of the ITB provided in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 2: (Product Description) This column provides bidder with descriptions of the products to be purchased, including portion or serving sizes or grades and standards, as may be applicable. Bidders should fill in the information wherever indicated on portion, serving size, etc., and provide manufacturers’ certificates of grades or compliance whenever “CR” is shown. If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. [W]hen evaluating bids, [staff] may request that a bidder furnish, within three days of request, further confirmations of grades and standards, copies of specification sheets, and other product data, as may be required. (Underlining supplied). For ease of reference, the underlined sentence above — which will prove pivotal — will be called the "Reconciliation Clause" in this Recommended Order. Section 5.03 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 3: (Approved Brands*) Prior to acceptance of a bid, all bid brands are subject to review by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department for compliance with the bid product requirements. If a code number, name, or color is not listed by SBBC along with an approved brand; the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided. Whenever quoting a “Distributor’s Choice”, a bidder shall enter, in the space provided, the brand and code. Whenever an approved brand, other than “Distributor’s Choice”, is listed, the bidder should indicate in Column 3 the brand bidding, (circle the brand). IMPORTANT: Some of the codes listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the bidder is to enter the correct code. After award, SBBC may request the awardee to obtain prices and samples for brands and codes not listed. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the requirements of Column 2 is at the discretion of SBBC. A bidder may be requested, prior to bid award, to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Section 5.11 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: CN Label: When a product is CN (Child Nutrition) labeled, it is “certified” by the packer to conform to the nutritional requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The label shows the contribution made by a given amount of product toward meal requirements. When CN label is noted in Column 2 of the Product Bid Sheets, it is understood that the CN label must be in place for the product to be bid. Particular Responses to the Invitation to Bid A. Sequence No. 1009 – Breakfast Pizza At Sequence No. 1009, Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheet contained two approved branded products: Tony’s 63904 and Nardone’s 80MSA-100. School Food quoted a price of $28,500 on the specifically approved Nardone’s product. In preparing its bid, Sysco obtained a product description from Nardone Bros. Baking Co. Inc. ("Nardone") for its 80MSA-100 product. Sysco believed that Nardone’s 80MSA- 100 failed to meet the product description set forth in Column 2 and therefore offered the other approved branded product, Tony’s 63564, at a price of $33,000. A third bidder, Mutual Wholesale Co. ("Mutual Wholesale"), offered to provide the approved Tony’s product at a price of $33,012.00. Sequence No. 1036 – French Bread Pepperoni Pizza The product description in Column 2 of the item listed at Sequence No. 1036 required that a CN label be in place for a product to be bid. A CN label signifies compliance with certain U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. The Board must obey these guidelines to obtain reimbursement for its food services program from federal funding sources. School Food offered the Prestige 30215 approved branded product in its response to Sequence No. 1036 at a price of $30,750. In preparing its response to the ITB, Sysco learned that the Prestige 30215 approved branded product had been submitted for CN label approval but lacked that approval at the time of bidding. Perceiving a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved branded product in Column 3, Sysco concluded that it could not quote a price for Prestige 30215. Instead, Sysco offered to provide another approved brand, KT Kitchen’s 01093, at a cost to the Board of $36,397.50. Like School Food, Mutual Wholesale bid on the Prestige 30215 brand name product, quoting a price of $30,000. As of November 29, 2000, the approved branded product, Prestige 30215, had obtained CN approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sequence No. 1037 – Mexican-Style Pizza In its response to Sequence No. 1037, School Food offered an approved branded product, Nardone's 100MA, quoting a price of $206,620. During its bid preparation, Sysco learned that Nardone used another code for this product — namely, "96MCSA." Sysco believed that it could not bid on "Nardone’s 100MA," even though it was an approved branded product. Thus, in its bid Sysco offered to provide another approved branded product, Tony's 63669, at a price to the Board of $229,800. In its response to Sequence No. 1037, Mutual Wholesale quoted a price of $214,020 for yet another approved branded product, KT Kitchen’s 01476. "Nardone's 100MA" is an actual product code used internally by Nardone to denote an actual, available product that is referred to externally (or "on the street") as "Nardone's 96MCSA." In other words, "Nardone's 100MA" and "Nardone's 96MCSA" refer to the same product. Sequence No. 2010 – Pancake and Sausage In response to Sequence No. 2010, School Food offered to provide an approved branded product, Leon’s 28002, at a cost to the Board of $14,858. Sysco discovered through its bid preparation research that there might be a conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product, which was unambiguously designated in Column 3, because Leon’s 28002 consisted of a "frankfurter" wrapped in a pancake, and Sysco did not consider a "frankfurter" to be a "link sausage."4 As the Board has conceded, unless a bidder knew the products well or made a comparison of the approved branded products to the product description in Column 2, it would not have perceived the possible conflict between that description and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product listed in Column 3. Around October 20, 2000, Sysco notified the Board of its concern regarding Sequence No. 2010. In so doing, however, Sysco failed to comply with Section 1.10 of the ITB, which required that questions about the bid specifications be submitted in writing on or before October 11, 2000. In violation of Section 1.10, a Sysco employee named Elaine Blaine, who was responsible for preparing Sysco's bid, left a telephone message with the Board's Purchasing Agent, Charles High, inquiring about Leon's 28002 and letting him know that, in Sysco's opinion, this approved branded product did not match the description in Column 2 of Sequence No. 2010. Mr. High returned Ms. Blaine's phone call on or around October 24, 2000, leaving a message on her voice mail to the effect that Leon's 28002 was not the correct item and advising that another brand name product, Leon's 28012, should be bid in its place. As Section 1.35 of the ITB made plain, however, Mr. High had no authority whatsoever to render an opinion such as this. Although Mr. High's communication with Ms. Blaine was improper, it had no effect on the competitive process. Clearly, Sysco could not reasonably have relied on Mr. High's unauthorized opinion, and anyway it did not do so. Thus, in short, while Mr. High's irregular contact with Ms. Blaine cannot be condoned, his ex parte advice to Sysco fortunately conferred no competitive advantage on any bidder and hence was immaterial. In the end, Sysco offered another approved branded product, State Fair 70601, in lieu of Leon's 28002, quoting a price of $20,111. Mutual Wholesale also bid on State Fair 70601, quoting a price of $20,119.50. Issuance of Addenda and Submission of Bids The Board issued two addenda to the ITB. Addendum No. 1, among other things, inserted the code number for the approved KT Kitchen’s brand name product listed in Column 3 for Sequence No. 1036, and it also changed the approved Foster Farms branded product listed in Sequence No. 2010. The addenda made no other changes to either Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, or 2010. On October 31, 2000, the Board opened the four bids that it had received in response to the ITB. Bids were submitted by Big Bamboo, Inc., Mutual Wholesale, Sysco, and School Food. Big Bamboo, Inc. failed to submit a complete proposal and thus its bid was disqualified as non-responsive. The remaining bids, which were determined to be responsive, offered, respectively, the following total annual contract prices: Mutual Wholesale $9,757,284.86 Sysco $9,656,770.21 School Food $9,263,170.42 Accordingly, School Food was the lowest bidder, its bottom line beating the closest competitor by nearly $400,000 per year. On November 9, 2000, the Board's Purchasing Department posted its recommendation that the contract be awarded to School Food. The Sysco Protest of the Recommended Award On November 13, 2000, Sysco timely filed a notice of intent to protest the recommended award to School Food. Sysco timely filed its formal written protest with the Board on November 22, 2000. Pursuant to rule, a Bid Protest Committee comprised of three administrators is required to meet with a bid protester in accordance with Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to attempt a resolution of the protest by mutual agreement. By rule, the Bid Protest Committee has been delegated the agency’s authority to perform this function. Consequently, pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, a Bid Protest Committee convened on December 1, 2000, in an attempt to mutually resolve any disputed issues arising out of Sysco's protest. Despite the fact that the thrust of Sysco's protest was an attack on the responsiveness of School Food's bid, School Food was not invited to attend the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, which apparently was not conducted as a public meeting. A court reporter was present, however, and the transcript of the committee's December 1, 2000, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee restricted its review of the procurement to consideration of whether the ITB suffered from defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, even though Sysco’s protest had raised broader issues concerning the responsiveness of School Food's bid. At the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, a Board employee named Raymond Papa, whose title is Supervisor of Field Services for Food and Nutrition Service, made the following representations concerning the sequence numbers in question: 1009 (Breakfast Pizza). Mr. Papa claimed to have erred by listing Nardone's 80MSA-100 in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1009. This approved branded product, Mr. Papa told the committee, should have been identified in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1008, which is also a breakfast pizza but has a different product description. 1036 (French Bread Pepperoni Pizza). Mr. Papa informed the committee that Prestige 30215 was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but did not have a CN label "at this time." 1037 (Mexican Style Pizza). Mr. Papa advised the committee that there seemed to be some confusion arising from the ITB's use, in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1037, of the Nardone's product code 100MA, which was the manufacturer's internal code for the approved branded product, instead of the more common "street number" (96MCSA) used in the company's literature. Mr. Papa further explained: "Apparently that code [referring to 100MA] would have given me the right product" — in fact, it would have, see Paragraph 33 above — "but it needs more clarification on my part." 2010 (Pancake and Sausage). Mr. Papa pointed out the purported conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon's 28002 brand name product identified in Column 3. He claimed to have been seeking a pancake with a sausage inside, not a frankfurter, asserting that the two meat products were substantially different. The Board’s counsel informed the committee that the specifications for Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 had created sufficient confusion to adversely affect the competition. He urged the committee to remedy this purported confusion by voting to reject all bids so that the contract could be re-advertised with revised specifications. The committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. The three members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee paid no attention to the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation to reject all bids. With little discussion, the three-member Bid Protest Committee voted unanimously to rescind the recommendation to award School Food the contract and to reject all bids on the ground that the specifications were defective and hence that revisions were needed to "level the playing field." A revised recommendation to reject all bids was posted on December 12, 2000. School Food's Protest of the Rejection of All Bids On December 15, 2000, School Food timely filed its notice of intent to protest the Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids. This was timely followed by a formal written protest, which was filed with the Board on December 22, 2000. The revised recommendation posted on December 12, 2000, accurately announced the Board's intention to reject all bids. As noted in School Food's formal bid protest, however, the revised recommendation erroneously stated that the action was taken because “no acceptable bids were received.” To remedy this problem, a corrected revised recommendation was posted by the Board on January 12, 2001. It stated that the rejection of all bids was “due to inaccuracies within the bid specifications.” On January 16, 2001, School Food timely notified the Board of its intent to protest the corrected revised recommendation. Thereafter, on January 24, 2001, School Food timely filed its formal protest of the corrected revised recommendation to reject all bids. School Food posted a bid protest bond in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with School Board Policy 3320. This bond is conditioned upon School Food's payment of the Board's litigation costs should the Board prevail. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the Board's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with School Food on February 9, 2001, in an attempt to mutually resolve any matters in dispute. The Bid Protest Committee was composed of two persons who had participated in the December 1, 2000, meeting and a third member who had not attended that earlier meeting. Sysco received advance notice of the February 9, 2001, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, and its lawyer was permitted to attend as a witness. These courtesies, tellingly, had not been extended to School Food in connection with the committee meeting that had been held on December 1, 2000, to discuss the original Sysco bid protest. As before, a court reporter was present, and the transcript of the February 9, 2001, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee was again informed of staff's opinion that the ITB contained defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037 and 2010. At the February 9, 2001 meeting, the Board's counsel argued vigorously in support of the decision to reject all bids. For the most part, his argument was an expanded version of that which had been advanced in favor of rejection at the December 1, 2000, meeting. More emphasis was placed, the second time around, on the concern that the supposedly defective specifications would or might, in some cases, result in the Board not receiving the food items that it had desired. Once again, the committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. And once more, the committee members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee failed to take account of the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation that the previous decision to reject all bids be adhered to. By a vote of two to one, the Bid Protest Committee upheld the recommendation to reject all bids. The contemporaneous comments from the members in the majority, together with other evidence introduced at hearing, reveal that the committee was persuaded that the field of play had been tilted by the purportedly defective bid specifications; its decision clearly was based on a desire to “level the playing field.” Ultimate Factual Determinations All of the purported deficiencies in the bid specifications fall squarely within the operation of the ITB’s plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause which, to repeat for emphasis, provided as follows: If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. (ITB, Section 5.02.)5 There is no evidence that the Reconciliation Clause misrepresented the Board's true intent or was the product of a mistake. The administrative law judge has determined as a matter of law that the Reconciliation Clause is clear and unambiguous; therefore, as a matter of fact, it manifests the Board's intent that a Column 2 description must yield to the identification of an approved branded product in Column 3 in the event of conflict between them. By providing in clear terms a straightforward, easily applied, bright-line rule for resolving the very type of conflict that the Board now urges justifies a rejection of all bids, the ITB reasonably ensured that no such ambiguity or uncertainty would imperil the competitive process. No reasonable bidder could possibly have been confused by the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause. All bidders, of course, were entitled to protest the Reconciliation Clause, and any other bid specifications, within 72 hours after receiving the ITB. See Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; see also ITB, Section 1.21. None did. If Sysco believed, as Ms. Blaine testified, that it could not bid on certain approved branded products listed in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, then its belief was unreasonable. Confusion that is objectively unreasonable in fact, as Sysco's was, is not evidence of deficiencies in the bid specifications or of a breach in the integrity of the competitive process. In sum, the purported "deficiencies" upon which the Board based its intended decision to reject all bids are not deficiencies in fact. Thus, the Board's professed reason for starting over — that flaws in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 put bidders to the Hobson's choice of either risking disqualification by bidding on an approved branded product that did not strictly conform to the description in Column 2 or offering a higher-priced product meeting the Column 2 description — is factually unfounded and illogical.6 It should be observed, also, that, in view of the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause, the approved branded products upon which School Food bid in response to Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 are conforming goods in every respect. That is, School Food did not "mis-bid" these items. Indeed, the Board having identified specific approved branded products; having instructed bidders that "bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where ‘Distributor's Choice’ is indicated," see ITB, Section 1.12; and having made clear, in the Reconciliation Clause, that any conflict between an approved branded product and a product description shall be resolved in favor of the approved branded product, it would be arbitrary and capricious to disqualify School Food's bid for non-responsiveness in connection with these items. See Footnote 6, supra. The evidence regarding which particular products the Board truly wanted to purchase in connection with the sequences at issue is in conflict. On the one hand, there is the ITB itself, which is strong evidence of the Board's desires. As a written expression of the Board's intent, the ITB gives voice not merely to the opinions of one person, but rather speaks for the whole Board as an organization. (The latter point is underscored by Section 1.35, which plainly stated that no single employee of the Board was authorized unilaterally to interpret the ITB.) The ITB's reliability is further enhanced by the fact that it was prepared before the bids were opened, before it was known that the incumbent vendor was not the apparent low bidder, before the first protest was filed, and before this administrative litigation commenced. On the other hand, there is Mr. Papa's testimony that he made mistakes in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, listing approved branded products that, in hindsight, he claimed should not have been listed. Casting doubt on Mr. Papa's credibility, however, is the fact that he did not discover these so-called mistakes until after the Sysco protest helpfully brought the matters to his attention. Also, in deciding how much weight to give Mr. Papa’s testimony, the trier paid particular attention to the picayune nature of the purported conflicts in the specifications. Indeed, it is seriously debatable whether there really were any conflicts in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010.7 Additionally, having observed Mr. Papa’s demeanor and having given thoughtful consideration to the substance of his testimony, the trier of fact formed the distinct impression that this witness was a bit too anxious to grasp at a plausible excuse — even these hyper-technical “conflicts” — to scuttle the process and do it over. In weighing Mr. Papa's testimony, the trier has factored in a discount for reasonably inferred bias. Further, Mr. Papa's testimony was premised on the view that Column 2 expressed the Board's true intent, taking priority over Column 3 in cases of conflict. To fully credit Mr. Papa's testimony would require that the Reconciliation Clause be turned on its head — which, incidentally, would constitute an impermissible material change in the bid specifications.8 There is absolutely no basis in this record for doing that. In resolving the conflict in the evidence regarding which goods the Board really wanted, the trier of fact has considered the totality of circumstances and has chosen to give the greatest weight to the plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause in the ITB which, when read in conjunction with the clear designations of approved branded products in Column 3 at the sequences in question, makes manifest the Board's intent. This clear provision speaks for itself and proves that the Board, as an entity, made a reasoned and conscious decision to deem approved branded products in Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheets to be the goods intended for purchase in those instances where a Column 2 product description might suggest a different desire. Neither Mr. Papa's testimony nor any other evidence persuasively calls into question the reliability and credibility of the Reconciliation Clause as an accurate expression of the Board's intent. Thus, under the evidence presented, the following items are approved branded products that, as a matter of fact, the Board wanted to purchase: Nardone's 80MSA-100, Prestige 30215, Nardone's 100MA, and Leon's 28002. Moreover, if the Board decides that one or more of these approved branded products are not what it wants after all, it has the right, pursuant to Section 2.03 of the ITB (see Paragraph 17, supra), to arrange for the purchase and delivery of different products. The argument of the Board and Sysco that the Board's exercise of its right to add and delete items would constitute an impermissible material alteration of the bid specifications is, in the context of the present circumstances, plainly wrong in fact and illogical. To explain why this is so, let us stipulate that it would be arbitrary for the Board, say, to delete several items from each bidder's proposal because, for example, one or more bidders had mis-bid those items, and then to re-tabulate the bids to determine which bidder would now be the low bidder.9 Similarly, it would be arbitrary for the Board, under the guise of adding items, to designate as approved branded products certain non-conforming goods offered by a bidder as Distributor's Choices, thereby allowing a bid that otherwise would be disqualified to be considered responsive. As a final example, it would be arbitrary for the Board to delete an approved branded product from the product list and use such deletion as the basis for disqualifying a bidder that had quoted the now-deleted item. Each of these hypothetical situations involves a material change to the specifications on which the bidders based their proposals, which is not allowed, for good reason. It is a different kettle of fish, however, for the Board to add or delete items after making an award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. When the bids are judged pursuant to the rules clearly spelled out in advance in the ITB — which would not be the case in the examples set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph — there is simply no change in the specifications, material or otherwise. In the instant case, therefore, if the Board awards the contract to School Food and decides that it does not want a hot dog pancake for Sequence No. 2010, then all it need do is delete Leon's 28002 from the product list and add the desired Leon's product or require the distributor to deliver one of the remaining approved branded products.10 Nothing about that course of action requires or effects a change in the bid specifications. To the contrary, all of the bidders were notified, upon entering this competition, that such post- award additions and deletions of product were possible. All of the bidders, moreover, could have quoted a price for the hot dog pancake, which was unambiguously designated as a conforming product. If the hot dog pancake were a less expensive item, then Sysco could have and should have bid on it. Put another way, if School Food secured a competitive advantage by bidding on the lower-priced approved branded product, it was a legitimate advantage under the plain rules of the contest — rules that applied equally to all. In a nutshell, the Board is in no reasonable danger of receiving a food product that it does not desire to purchase. The Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids is not supported by facts or logic. Indeed, the Board's analysis of the situation failed to account for the Reconciliation Clause — a clearly relevant factor. When the Reconciliation Clause is considered, together with the rest of the evidence in the record, the following become clear: The ITB's specifications were clear and unambiguous. The competitive playing field was level. The Board will obtain the goods that it intended to purchase. At bottom, the Board's decision here cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is arbitrary.11
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board award the contract advertised in the subject ITB to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. It is further recommended that the Board, pursuant to its own rules, return School Food’s protest bond and, in the Final Order, award School Food the costs Petitioner has incurred in prosecuting this matter. If a dispute arises concerning the amount of such costs, the matter may be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation's determination that Heavy Civil, Inc., was a nonresponsive bidder was contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the award was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact To be considered responsive, the paper bid proposal guaranty submitted for Contract T4557 must have been received by the CAO at 605 Suwannee Street, MS 55, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, on or before 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2020. This is based on section 337.17, Florida Statutes; the Notice and the ITB specifications; the Department's 2020 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; and the CAO website referenced in the Notice. It was insufficient to send the paper bid bond without a reference to the CAO or "MS 55" and, instead, simply send it to the Department at 605 Suwannee Street in Tallahassee, Florida. The CAO did not receive Heavy Civil's paper bid bond on or before 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2020. This was caused in part by Heavy Civil's failure to review or follow the instructions in the Notice. Heavy Civil's bid bond was nonresponsive. Russell Engineering was the lowest responsive bidder for Contract T4557. The Department's decision to award Contract T4557 to Russell Engineering was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order: (a) rejecting Heavy Civil, Inc.'s proposal as nonresponsive; and (b) awarding Contract T4557 to Russell Engineering Inc., as the lowest responsive bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2021. Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire Vezina Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Spears Reynolds, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Tropin, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Joseph W. Lawrence, Esquire Vezina Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended rejection of all bids submitted in response to Respondent's solicitation of bids for two separate painting projects (the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School and the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School) is "arbitrary," as alleged by Petitioner, and if so, what alternative action should Respondent take with respect to these two projects.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a district school board responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida (including, among others, Greenacres Elementary School, South Olive Elementary School, and Belvedere Elementary School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. In or around August 2009, Respondent, through its Construction Purchasing Department (Purchasing Department), issued a single Invitation to Bid (ITB) soliciting separate bids for three different painting projects: the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School; the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School; and the painting of the exterior of Belvedere Elementary School. The bid package contained the following: an Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form (PBSD 1186, Rev 2/2001); Special Conditions; Specifications; and Addenda, including a Bid Summary Sheet, a Drug-Free Workplace Certification (PBSD 0580, New 3/91), a Statement of No Bid, Inspection forms, and a Beneficial Interest and Disclosure of Ownership Affidavit. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form contained the following provision entitled, "Awards": AWARDS: In the best interest of the District, the Purchasing Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity or minor technicalities in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." All awards made as result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form also included "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" (General Conditions), among which were the following: SEALED BIDS: One copy of this executed Invitation to Bid page and Bid Summary page(s) must be returned with the bid in order to be considered for award. All bids are subject to all the conditions specified herein; all General Conditions, Special Conditions on the attached bid documents; and any addenda issued thereto. Any failure on the part of the bidder to comply with the specifications, terms and conditions of this Invitation to Bid shall be reason for termination of contract. EXECUTION OF BID: Bid must contain a manual signature of an authorized representative in the space provided above. Failure to properly sign proposal shall invalidate same, and it shall not be considered for award. All bids must be completed in ink or typewritten. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The original bid conditions and specifications cannot be changed or altered in any way. Altered bids may not be considered. Clarification of bids submitted shall be in letter form, signed by the bidders and attached to the bid. * * * 20. SIGNED BID CONSIDERED AN OFFER: This signed bid shall be considered an offer on the part of the bidder, which offer shall be deemed accepted upon approval by the Board. In case of a default on the part of the bidder after such acceptance, the District may take such action as it deems appropriate including legal action for damages or specific performance. * * * 25. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Among the "Special Conditions" were the following: SCOPE: The purpose and intent of this invitation to bid is to secure firm pricing for Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools. The rate shall include all materials and labor for preparation, sealing and painting. AWARD: Time of completion is of the essence. Contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder(s) for each item as listed on the Bid Summary Sheet. The District reserves the right to use the next lowest bidder(s) in the event the original awardee of the bid cannot fulfill their contract. The next lowest bidder's price must remain the same as originally bid and must remain firm for the duration of the contract. The anticipated award will be approved by the superintendent designee. B. MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION: ALL BIDDERS MUST ATTEND PRE-BID WORKSITE WALK-THROUGH. THE WORK DETAILS ARE OUTLINED IN THIS BID AND ANY QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED AT EACH WORKSITE INSPECTION. BIDS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM ANY BIDDERS THAT HAVE NOT ATTENDED THE SITE INSPECTION FOR THAT PARTICULAR WORKSITE. THIS MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL PAINT MANUFACTURERS AND/OR PAINT DISTRIBUTORS. * * * BIDDERS RESPONSIBILITY: Before submitting their bid, each bidder is required to carefully examine the invitation to bid specifications and to completely familiarize themselves with all of the terms and conditions that are contained within this bid. Ignorance on the part of the bidder will in no way relieve them of any of the obligations and responsibilities that are part of this bid. SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "INVITATION TO BID" bidder's acknowledgment sheet must be completed, signed, and returned. In addition, the Bid Summary Sheet page(s) on which the bidder actually submits a bid, needs to be executed and submitted with this bid. Bids received that fail to comply with these requirements shall not be considered for award.[2] CONTRACT: The submission of your bid constitutes an offer by the bidder. . . . * * * Q. USE OF OTHER CONTRACTS: The District reserves the right . . . to directly negotiate/purchase per School Board policy and/or State Board Rule 6A-1.012(6) in lieu of any offer received or award made as a result of this bid, if it is in its best interest to do so. The District also reserves the right to separately bid any single order or to purchase any item on this bid if it is in its best interest to do so. * * * HH. POSTING OF BID AND SPECIFICATIONS: Invitation to bid with specifications will be posted for review by interested parties in the Construction Purchasing Department on the date of bid electronic mailing and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. II. POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATION/ TABULATIONS: Bid recommendations and tabulations will be posted in the Construction Purchasing Department, within 10 days of the opening date, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. If the bid tabulation with recommended awards is not posted by said date and time, [a] "Notice of Delay of Posting" will be posted to inform all proposers of the new posting date and time. Any person adversely affected by the decision or intended decision must file a notice of protest, in writing, within 72 hours after the posting. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. OO. BID PROTEST: If a bidder wishes to protest a bid, they must do so in strict accordance with the procedures outlined in F.S. 120.57(3), and Section FF., Lobbying Paragraph 3, of this proposal and School Board Policy 6.14. Any person who files an action protesting bid specifications, a decision or intended decision pertaining to this bid pursuant to F.S. 120.57(3)(b), shall post with the Purchasing Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond secured by an acceptable surety company in Florida payable to the School District of Palm Beach County in an amount equal to 1 percent (1%) of the total estimated contract value, but not less than $500 nor more than $5,000. Bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs that may adjudged against the protester in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond, a cashier's check, certified bank check, bank certified company check or money order will be acceptable form of security. If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the District prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges included in the final order of judgment, including charges by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protester, the protest security shall be returned. If the protest prevails, he or she shall recover from the District all costs and charges, which shall be included in the final order of judgment. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. * * * PP. INFORMATION: Any questions by the prospective bidders concerning this invitation to bid should be addressed to Helen R. Stokes, Purchasing Agent, Construction Purchasing . . . , who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Stokes nor any employee of the District is authorized to interpret any portion of the bid or give information as the requirements of the bid in addition to that contained in the written bid document. Interpretations of the bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, will be communicated to bidders by written addendum. Site visits to the three schools to be painted were made by prospective bidders on August 13, 2009, following which a First and Final Addendum, dated August 25, 2009, was issued by the School Board. This First and Final Addendum included the following Revised Bid Summary Sheet: REVISED BID SUMMARY SHEET THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Ph: 561-882-1952 Fax: 561-434-8655 EXTERIOR PAINTING OF GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SEALED BIDS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 27, 2009 NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. TO: Helen Stokes, Construction Purchasing Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Bids will only be accepted from those contractors in attendance at the Mandatory Site Visit and who are registered with the School District of Palm Beach County as a Small Business Enterprise. The rate shall include paint, preparation, sealing and painting per the attached specifications and detailed scope of work. EXTERIOR PAINTING AT GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ITEM 1: GREENACRES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 2: SOUTH OLIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 3: BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) RE-TEXTURING TEXCOAT $ (Per Sq. Ft.) ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUMS CONTRACTOR: Name Date Address Current License # City, State, Email Address Zip Phone Fax There were no instructions on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet itself directing that an authorized representative sign the document, nor was there any signature line for such purpose. Bids were submitted by Austro Construction, Inc. (Austro); Dynamic Painting, Inc. (Dynamic); Fleischer's, Inc. (Fleischer's); JIJ Construction Corporation (JIJ); and Petitioner. Austro bid $83,900.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $87,500.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $105,500.00 and $3.50 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Dynamic bid $55,955.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $74,800.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $82,900.00 and $3.00 per square foot for re- texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Fleischer's bid only on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School).3 Its bid was $73,000.00 and $1.25 for re-texturing. JIJ bid $80,000.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $95,000.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $95,000.00 and $1.15 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Petitioner bid $89,349.00 (or $33,394.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $93,885.00 (or $19,085.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $94,306.00 and $3.95 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets that were submitted in response to the ITB (one each by Austro, Dynamic, Fleischer's, JIJ, and Petitioner), only two, those submitted by Fleischer's and Petitioner, contained the signature of an authorized representative of the bidder. The other three had no signatures on them. All of the "blanks" on each of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets submitted, including the three sheets without signatures, were filled in and completed, however.4 Furthermore, each Revised Bid Summary Sheet was accompanied by an appropriately signed Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form. Bids were opened on August 27, 2009. As announced on the Bid Tabulation Form that was posted on August 28, 2009, the Purchasing Department recommended that Items 1 and 2 be awarded to Dynamic and Item 3 be awarded to Fleischer's. Petitioner, on or about September 8, 2009, protested the award of Items 1 and 2 to Dynamic on the ground that Dynamic's bids on these items were non-responsive because its Revised Bid Summary Sheet had not been signed by an authorized representative of the company. The award of Item 3 to Fleischer's was not protested by Petitioner or any other bidder. By letter dated September 15, 2009, Sharon Swan, Respondent's Director of Purchasing (and head of the Purchasing Department), advised Petitioner of the following: We have completed the review of your protest of Bid for "Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools," specifically your protest of the recommendation for award for Greenacres and South Olive Elementary Schools, Items 1 & 2 of this bid. A revised recommendation will be posted later today reflecting a change in our recommendation for Items 1 & 2. The revised recommendation will be to reject all bids on these two items[5] and re-bid with revised bid documents which will clarify the ambiguity relating to the requirement to execute the Bid Summary Sheet when no signature line was indicated. Therefore, I am returning your bank check and closing the file on this protest. You are invited and welcome to compete on the re-bid of these projects. As promised, a second, revised bid tabulation form was posted that same day (September 15, 2009) containing the following "revised recommendation": Item[s] 1 & 2: Reject bid Item[] 1 (one) and Item 2 (two) due to an ambiguity in the bid language, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, paragraph E, Sealed Bid Requirements. Item 3: Fleischer's, Inc. The belatedly perceived "ambiguity" referred to in the Purchasing Department's revised bid tabulation form concerned the intended meaning of the term "executed" in Special Condition E. of the ITB. It had been the Purchasing Department's intent, in using this term in Special Condition E., to require that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet be signed by an authorized representative of the bidder; however, the Purchasing Department had not included a signature line on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet (such as the one appearing on the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form), nor had it specified anywhere in the ITB that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet had to be "signed" (in contrast to the instructions, given in the first sentence of Special Condition E., regarding the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form). Upon its consideration of Petitioner's protest, the Purchasing Department had come to the realization that it had not clearly communicated to prospective bidders its intent concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to bear an authorized representative's signature. Believing that its failure to have done so effected the outcome of the competitive bidding process in the case of both Item 1 and Item 2 (in that, with respect to each of these items, the lowest bidder, as well as all other bidders bidding on these two items with the exception of Petitioner, submitted an unsigned Revised Bid Summary Sheet, making these bidders, in the School Board's view, ineligible for an award), the Purchasing Department decided "to reject all bids [with respect to these two items] and rebid so [the Purchasing Department] could correct this ambiguity" concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to be signed.6 It is this intended action which is the subject of Petitioner's instant protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board take the action described in numbered paragraph 51 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intended decision to award contract T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements (Project) and other incidental construction on State Road 9A, in Duval County, to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. (ALS), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:1/ The contract being protested is T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements and other incidental construction for State Road 9A, in Duval County. The Department advertised the bid solicitation notice for the Project on July 27, 2012. The bid solicitation notice included a list of all of the pay items and estimated quantities for the project. DOT also posted all of the pay items online in two formats. One format was a downloadable file that could be used in software, and the other was similar to an Excel spreadsheet file. These formats could be used to formulate a bid. Changes to pay items are issued in an Addendum, and while two addendums were issued for this project, neither affected the pay items for the project. For several years, DOT has mandated that prospective bidders use an automated, online bidding process, by which prospective bidders request bid documents and submit their bids using the DOT's website. The letting date established as the deadline for submission of bids via electronic submission was September 26, 2012, and was set forth in the bid solicitation notice. In order to be considered, all bids were due by 10:30 a.m. on that day. Letting is the term used to indicate the date that the bids are due. The bid solicitation notice included a requirement that bidders for the Project attend a mandatory pre-bid meeting to be held on August 20, 2012. Hinson Electrical is a licensed electrical contracting company based in Jacksonville, Florida. The company has completed "hundreds" of projects for the State of Florida, including DOT, and is pre-qualified to bid on jobs with DOT. The mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 20, 2012, as scheduled. G. Christopher Ginn, Project Manager for Hinson Electrical, attended the pre-bid meeting, signed his name, and identified the company he represented (Hinson Electrical) on the sign-in sheet. Section 337.168(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) A document revealing the identity of persons who have requested or obtained bid packages, plans, or specifications pertaining to any project to be let by the department is confidential and exempt from the provisions of section 119.07(1) for the period which begins two working days prior to the deadline for obtaining bid packages, plans, or specifications and ends with the letting of the bid. As a business strategy, Hinson Electrical routinely orders bid documents within the two-day blackout period mandated by section 337.168(2), during which time DOT is required to take down its list of contractors who have requested bid documents concerning a particular project. Ordering bid documents within the blackout period prevents competitors from discovering whether Hinson Electrical is bidding for a particular project. The blackout period for the Project began at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2012. The deadline to order the bid documents for the Project was 10:30 a.m. on September 25, 2012. There is no requirement that contractors request bid documents prior to the pre-bid meeting (if one is required for a particular project), or at any time prior to the order deadline, which is 24 hours before the bid deadline. DOT acknowledged at hearing that it is Hinson Electrical's prerogative to order the bid documents within the blackout period during which the identities of bidders are kept confidential. Hinson Electrical ordered the bid documents for the Project at approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2012. The computerized system immediately provided access for Hinson Electrical to download the plans and specifications for the project at issue. However, four minutes later, at approximately 1:04 p.m., Hinson Electrical simultaneously received an email with a "Prequalification Failure Notice," and a second email stating that the bid document request for the Project was "pending." The Prequalification Failure Notice indicated that the bid document was not provided because Hinson Electrical had not attended the required pre-bid meeting for the Project.2/ Failure to attend the pre-bid meeting was the only basis stated in the Prequalification Failure Notice for DOT refusing to provide the bid document. As noted, Hinson Electrical's representative did in fact attend the pre-bid meeting for the Project, and he signed the sign-in sheet, attesting to his presence at the meeting. The sign-in sheet had been transmitted to DOT on August 21, 2012, the day after the pre-bid meeting was held. Thus, DOT's basis for sending Hinson Electrical a Prequalification Failure Notice was in error. The Prequalification Failure Notice also stated, "[Y]ou will be contacted by email or phone as soon as possible during business hours regarding requirements for obtaining the bid documents." However, DOT did not send an email or call Hinson Electrical after 1:04 p.m. on September 24, 2012, or at any time on September 25, 2012. Phillip Davis, a DOT employee in the Contracts Administration Office, was "blind copied" on the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice email, with a "high importance" tag. Mr. Davis' job responsibilities include following up on these types of notices, though he is not supervised to ensure this occurs. Mr. Davis' responsibilities also include checking sign-in sheets from pre-bid meetings to authorize release of bid documents to contractors. DOT admits that Mr. Davis did not read the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice; did not check the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid meeting; and made no attempt to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the notice. From September 20 through 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson and Chris Ginn obtained quotes from suppliers and subcontractors to prepare a bid for the Project. Hinson Electrical also secured a bid bond for the Project, and had everything necessary to submit a bid, except for the actual bid document. In the afternoon or early evening of September 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson sat down at his computer with the price lists and quotes he had obtained to prepare a bid for the Project. It was then that Mr. Hinson discovered DOT had not granted him access to the bid document for this Project, and that the failure notice he had received pertained to this Project, and was in error. Hinson Electrical was bidding on a total of eight contracts at that time, some of which did not have a mandatory pre-bid meeting. As of the close of business on September 25, 2012, DOT had still not made any effort to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the failure notice. At 7:55 p.m. on September 25, 2012, Hinson Electrical sent an email to the Contracts Administration general email address, stating that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting and asking why Hinson Electrical was being excluded from the bidding. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. the following morning (September 26, 2012, the bid deadline), Chris Ginn called the project inspector, Thomas Woods of HNTB Corporation, on Hinson Electrical's behalf, and requested that HNTB confirm that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting. At 7:32 a.m. that same morning, Mr. Woods sent an email to Juanita Moore notifying her of the error and confirming that Hinson Electrical's representative had indeed attended the pre-bid meeting. The Contracts Administration Office opened at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the bidding deadline. Within 36 minutes (by 8:36 a.m.), Ms. Moore reviewed Mr. Woods' email; checked the sign-in sheet; and instructed a subordinate, Colette Jackson, to send the bid document to Hinson Electrical. Ms. Jackson immediately sent the bid document to Hinson Electrical under a cover email. Ms. Moore testified that Phillip Davis could have easily gone through these same steps on September 24, 2012 (two days before the bid deadline), and timely transmitted the bid document to Hinson Electrical, if he had only read the Prequalification Failure Notice on which he was copied. Ms. Moore agreed that 24 hours would have been sufficient time for Mr. Davis to check the sign-in sheet and release the bid document. When DOT finally provided the bid document to Hinson Electrical, it was 1 hour, 54 minutes before the bid submission deadline. At 8:40 a.m. on September 26, 2012, (four minutes after receiving the bid document) Daniel Hinson spoke by telephone with Colette Jackson about needing additional time to complete Hinson Electrical's electronic bid submission. Colette Jackson testified that one of her responsibilities at DOT is to move bid deadlines, and that she can do so quickly upon receiving instructions from Ms. Moore to do so. However, Ms. Jackson did not have authority to provide the requested relief, so she transferred the call to Ms. Moore. Upon being transferred to Ms. Moore, Mr. Hinson asked for additional time to complete the Hinson Electrical bid for the Project. That request was refused by Ms. Moore. In her view, the fact that the pay items and estimated quantities for the project had previously been provided should have enabled Hinson Electrical to submit a bid within the two hours remaining prior to the deadline. In addition, Ms. Moore felt Hinson Electrical should have taken it upon itself to contact DOT immediately upon receiving the disqualification notification if it believed it had complied with all prerequisites. Contrary to Ms. Moore's opinion, Mr. Hinson testified that it would have taken him about four hours to go through the various steps to submit Hinson Electrical's online bid for the Project. DOT's position that Hinson Electrical could have completed and submitted its bid with less than two hours remaining is rejected as not credible. However, even if that were possible, it would have put Hinson Electrical at a disadvantage because every other bidder was able to download the bid document immediately upon request after the pre-bid meeting. Daniel Hinson has submitted bids for hundreds of DOT projects (including "dozens" using the current online system) and he reasonably believed there was insufficient time remaining before the deadline to prepare a competent bid and ensure its accuracy. Mr. Hinson's testimony regarding the amount of time necessary to prepare a complete and competent bid for the Project is more credible than the testimony of Ms. Moore. Considering the potential cost to Hinson Electrical of a mistake made in haste, it was entirely reasonable for Hinson Electrical to decline to submit a bid, and instead request a bid extension. Likewise, it was unreasonable for DOT to decline the extension request, given that it was DOT's mistake that necessitated the extension. DOT extends bid deadlines dozens of times each year, for various reasons, including computer issues, mistakes in the bid documents, or bad weather. Ms. Moore testified about bid deadlines that had been moved, three or four times in some cases, for reasons including computer glitches, website issues, and "technical problems." In one such instance, contractors could not obtain their bid documents on the Monday before a Wednesday letting (which is what happened to Hinson Electrical in this case), and DOT postponed the bid deadline. In another instance, a bid deadline was postponed for a third time "because the vendors couldn't download what they needed to bid." And in another example, the bid deadline was postponed with notice provided just 92 minutes before the deadline due to "server issues at the Department." In this final example, once the malfunction was identified, DOT promptly sent the notice of postponement to the bidders and later completed the other necessary steps to move the bid deadline. A postponement notice can be sent to bidders in less than ten minutes after the decision to postpone a bid is made. All other steps required to move a bid deadline are typically accomplished by DOT personnel in about an hour. DOT knows of no harm that would have come to the other bidders had DOT agreed to move the bid deadline to allow Hinson sufficient time to submit its online bid. At 9:22 a.m. on September 26, 2012, Daniel Hinson sent an email to Colette Jackson in response to her email, stating there was insufficient time for Hinson Electrical to prepare its bid for the Project and that a protest would be filed if DOT posted its intent to award the contract to one of the other bidders. The letting of the project occurred as scheduled at 10:30 a.m. on September 26, 2012. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 24, 2012, DOT posted notice of its intent to award the contract to ALS. This was the second posting date for the September 26, 2012 letting date. Thereafter, Hinson Electrical timely served its notice of protest, formal protest pleading, and the required bond. The advertisement for the Project reads, in part, "Bidders are hereby notified that all bids on any of the following projects are likely to be rejected if the lowest responsive bid received exceeds the engineer's estimate by more than ten percent (10%)." DOT does reject all bids for being too high in some cases. The bid submitted by ALS for the Project exceeded the proposal budget estimate of $4,183,958 by 19.9 percent (ALS' winning bid was $5,016,501.73). The Contract Award Committee (Committee) is the DOT body with discretion to reject all bids for a project. However, Ms. Moore never informed the Committee of Hinson Electrical's situation so that it could determine whether the Project should be rebid. Even after posting notice of intent to award the Project to ALS, DOT retained discretion to reject all bids, but Ms. Moore was unaware of that discretion and never discussed the matter with the Committee. Hinson Electrical credibly established that it would have submitted a bid of $4,973,361.99 for the Project had DOT provided the online bid document when Hinson Electrical first requested it. Thus, Hinson Electrical would have been the low bidder, and presumably awarded the contract. DOT had at least three opportunities to correct its mistake and allow Hinson Electrical an opportunity to bid. DOT could have (l) extended the bid deadline, as it has in many other cases; (2) rejected all bids and rebid the Project, before posting notice of intent to award the contract; or (3) rejected all bids even after posting notice of intent. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following: DOT has no policy statements, handbook provisions, internal memoranda, guidelines, or other documents regarding the following subjects: How a failure to timely transmit bid documents in response to a prospective bidder's request, whether due to a transmission error or otherwise, should be handled or what relief may be provided to the bidder; Acceptable grounds for extending a bid submission deadline; How an erroneous determination that a prospective bidder for a project was not qualified to bid should be handled, either before or after the bid deadline has expired; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some irregularity in the bidding process; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some error made by FDOT (including its computer system); and How to handle a situation in which all received bids exceed the budget for the project by more than 10%. (Prehearing Stipulation, pgs. 11-12)
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation that rescinds the Notice of Intent to award Contract T2442 to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 21st day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Department's Office of Overpayment, Fraud and Recoupment collects welfare overpayments which consist of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps and Medicaid monies. Under pertinent Federal Regulations, the Department has the responsibility to collect these overpayments through a series of demand letters. It has been the practice of the Department in the past, and continues to be as evidenced by the Invitation To Bid at issue, for the Department to obtain a commodity/service vendor who will use individual's names supplied by the Department to mail out on a regular basis demand letters or billing statements as well as delinquent notices. These letters, statements, and notices are accompanied with a return envelope for the client to remit his or her payment. The pertinent provision of the subject Invitation To Bid is section 30-700. The Invitation To Bid for 1989 and 1990, which is under protest in this proceeding, is essentially identical to the same bid specifications in the 1988-1989 Invitation To Bid procurement process, which was the first year that the Department procured these services. That section of the Invitation To Bid at issue states: 30.700 Proposed Self-Mailer Packages or Envelopes for Notices This section shall contain the bidder's proposed self- mailer packages or envelopes for the specified notices. * * * Section 50 of the Invitation To Bid contains the various phases of the evaluation process by which the agency will evaluate the vendor's proposals and select a contractor. Section 50.300, Phase I contains a requirement that any proposal that is incomplete or non-responsive or in which there is significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies may be rejected by the Department. Three bids were received for the 88-89 procurement and for the 89-90 procurement at issue herein. Moore bid the Petitioner bid in each of those years. Moore was the only bidder in each of the two years who did not submit an example or sample of its proposed self mailer. There was a bidder's conference provided by the Department prior to the submission to bids in the 1988 procurement. The bidders then were specifically instructed during that conference "the bid will be award to the bidder with the lowest bid price that provides a product sample and bid scores well in the evaluation process." Mr. Holland of Moore Business Forms, the petitioner was present at that 1988 bidders conference and later received the questions and answers resulting from that conference in written form from the agency. The 1988 bidding effort and circumstances surrounding are not directly relevant to the questions of specification in the 1989 invitation to bid, the vendors responses thereto and the evaluation and interpretation of the specification and responses conducted by the agency as to the 1989 invitation to bid and result in responses since the specification at issue was the same as it was in the 1988 invitation to bid, and since Mr. Holland was present at the 1988 Bidders Conference at which that specification was interpreted as requiring the provisions of an actual product sample with in response to that specification it must be found that Mr. Holland and therefore the Petitioner was on notice that the agency policy was to interpret that specification as requiring submission of a product sample. The other vendors uniformly submitted product samples in response to the 1989 invitation to bid at issue, and submitted them in response to the 1988 invitation to bid as well. Thus it has not been established by the Petitioner that the specification at issue cause any confusion or ambiguity which resulted in the Petitioner legitimately being misled in making its response to this specification in which occasion any undo competitive disadvantage to the Petitioner in formulating its response to this specification. Although the Petitioner objects to the fact that no bidders conference was convene prior to submittal of bids in the 1989 procurement effort, that bidders conference was not mandatory but was scheduled in 1988 at the request of the proposed vendor. No vendor requested the bidders conference as to the 1989 procurement, and so none was held. No vendor including the Petitioner inquired of the agency before submission of the bids in 1989, as to whether a sample was required. The evidence reveal that all the other bidders understood that a sample was required and submitted one. The agency personnel Mr. Bartlett and Ms. Meyers, in charge of evaluating the responses to the invitation to bid established that it was consistent agency policy and there own interpretation of that specification that a product sample be submitted as part of the bid response. That interpretation of the specification and the resulting evaluation of the bid responses to the invitation to bid at issue was not shown to be unreasonable. A fair reading of that specification dictates the finding that product sample submission was a requirement of the specification and failure to comply would vendor the bid submittal unresponsive in this regard. Further, it was demonstrated by the Respondents evidence that it is normal custom and usage in the business form production industry to produce samples for prospective customers to evaluate, and thus this also demonstrates the lack of ambiguity and the adequate clarity of the specification at issue. In view of the opportunity it had to ascertain the clear meaning of this specification in both annual procurement efforts in which it was employed, the Petitioner did not demonstrate any basic for being confused as to what the specification meant or any legitimate basic for its failure to comply with it by submitting a product sample, that is the proposed "self mailer package" it propose to provide the Department. Moreover, and most pointedly, to the extent that the Petitioner is seeking to attack this specification as being ambiguous or unclear or otherwise not revealing the type of response the agency wanted, the attack is untimely. The Petitioner should have challenged this specification, if it chose to do so, within 72 hours of receipt of the invitation to bid. If fact no challenge was raised until after the award when the instant Petitioner was filed. In any event the agency personnel charged with evaluating the responces to the Invitation to BID assigned the various vendor response the three evaluators assigned the following points for the proposed self mailer package response to the specification at issue: the response by the Petitioner was given a scoring 0, -40, and 0 by the three members of the evaluation team. The UARCO proposal, which was initially announced winner, was sccorded a score of 100, 90, 100, and the response by Direct Mail Inc., was recorded a score of 100, 90, 70. The was because Moore merely submitted a sample list of specifications for it proposed self mailer, rather than complying with the specification and providing an actual sample of how the product would look. The scoring method used was that notice to all vendors by invitation to bid. The evaluation team followed the evaluation criteria in waiting, which the agency published in the invitation to bid. There was no showing that the scoring was arbitrarily, unreasonably, or illogically performed. If the specification indeed requires submission of a product sample, then the evaluation team members correctly scored the Petitioner's response, and correctly found it the least responsive to the three bids in this particular. In fact the evidence of record establish that the specification clearly require the submission of the actual product sample of the "self mailer package" as a proper response to that specification to the invitation to bid. Since the Petitioner fail to submit one and the other vendors did so, then Moore should be rated the least responsive of the three. There was no showing that this scoring and ranking was unreasonable, inappropriate, or constitute a departure from a clear reading interpretation of the bids specification. The Respondent agency has moved to tax costs against the Petitioner in accordance with Section 287.042.(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1989), with regard to the costs attributable to the time spent by agency staff members in preparing for and conducting their efforts in this proceeding, as well as document copy costs. Ms. Meyer spend two hours preparing for hearing as well as time spent in the hearing, which lasted approximately two and one-half hours. Jim Payne and Harry Greenwood, for the Department, also attended the Hearing; and the costs should be assessed corresponding to the two and one-half hours of hearing time. Since the agency has prevailed herein, the costs contained in Respondent's Exhibit 10, which totaled $516.05, should be assessed against the bond posted by the Petitioner.
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 petition filed by the Petitioner be denied, and that the subject contract be awarded to UARCO Business Forms, Inc. It is further recommended that costs be taxed and awaraded to the Respondent in the amount of $516.05 and that the bond posted by the Petitioner be estreated in that amount. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of February 1990. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February 1990. Copies furnished: Robert W. Hollan Account Executive Moore Business Form 1535 Killearn Center Boulevard Suite B-1 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4287 Robert L. Powell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 UARCO Inc. Attn: Robert Pruitt 401 North Office Plaza Post Office Box 989 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Direct Mail Specialists Inc. Attn. Shirley H. Fleetwood 1801-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an invitation to bid on March 13, 1992. Bid number SB 92-244I involved the disassembly and removal of an existing walk-in freezer and the furnishing and installation of a new walk-in freezer at Coral Sunset Elementary School. The invitations to bid provided in paragraph Y of the Special Conditions: Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in Florida Statutes 120.53 3.(b) shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (sic) Bid specifications were included in the invitations to bid issued on March 13, 1992. Twenty-three bids were solicited. There were five responses. One of the responses was submitted by Choice Restaurant Equipment, Inc. ("Choice"). Choice is a vendor for equipment manufactured by Petitioner, Nor-Lake, Inc. ("Nor-Lake"). Nor-Lake is an out-of-state corporation with manufacturer's representatives in numerous states including Florida. 4, Petitioner, CHD Marketing Group ("CHD"), is the manufacturer's representative for Nor-Lake in Florida. CHD represents no other manufacturer of the product included in the bid response. Choice is a sales agent for CHD and other manufacturer's representatives in Florida. Choice sells the products of a variety of manufacturers but is the exclusive sales agent for CHD pursuant to a verbal agency agreement. Choice timely submitted a bid for bid number SB 92-244I on April 8, 1992, prior to the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. on the same day. The successful bidder submitted its bid by Federal Express at 4:51 p.m on April 8, 1992. Respondent's Department of Purchasing and Stores (the "Department") had stated on March 13, 1992, when the invitations to bid were issued, that bid responses must be received by the Department no later than 2:00 p.m. on April 8, 1992, at the Department's address at 3980 RCA Boulevard/Suite 8044, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410-4276. Prior to April 8, 1992, the Department relocated to a new facility at 3326 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. The new address was posted at the old location and Department representatives were present at the old address to accept walk-in bids. Federal Express first attempted to deliver the successful bid at the Department's old address at 10:30 a.m. on April 8, 1992. Federal Express delivered the successful bid to the Department's new address at 4:51 p.m. At 2:00 p.m. on the same day, The Department announced that all bids were in and opened the bids that had been delivered. The successful bid and one other bid were delivered on April 8, 1992, after the public opening conducted at 2:00 p.m. on the same day. Bids were tabulated on April 9, 1992. Bid tabulations were posted on April 13, 1992, and the successful bid was announced. The successful bid was for $8,174.00. Three bids were lower than the successful bid. Choice's bid was for $7,742.56. The other two lower bids were for $8,020.00 and $6,620.00. All three lower bids were rejected as non- responsive. Choice's bid was rejected because it did not meet bid specifications for 22 gauge steel, thermostatically controlled door heaters, and reinforced steel door panels. CHD filed a Notice of Protest on April 14, 1992, and a Formal Written Protest on April 24, 1992. CHD's protest alleges that: Choice's bid was lower than that of the successful bidder; the successful bid was not timely made; the bids were not opened publicly in violation of bidding procedure requirements; and the bid specifications were arbitrary and capricious, favored one bidder, and that Choice's bid was responsive. Neither a notice of protest nor a formal written protest was submitted by Choice or Nor-Lake. Neither Choice nor Nor-Lake attended the informal protest conference conducted on April 30, 1992. On May 7, 1992, Respondent's Office of General Counsel issued its written notice of proposed agency action. The written notice recommended that the bid be awarded to the successful bidder and that CHD's protest be dismissed for lack of standing. CHD requested a formal hearing on May 14, 1992, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer on May 15, 1992. The bid submitted by Choice was prepared by CHD but signed by the president of Choice. Neither Nor-Lake nor CHD signed a bid or were otherwise bidders of record for bid number SB 92-244I. Neither Choice, CHD, nor Nor-Lake, filed a notice of protest concerning the bid specifications within 72 hours after Choice received the notice of the project plans and specifications on March 13, 1992. The sole basis upon which CHD claims it is substantially affected is the adverse economic impact caused to it by the proposed agency action. The proposed agency action will result in lost sales from this and future transactions. CHD will lose commissions from this and future transactions. The dealer relationship between CHD and Choice will be damaged because Choice will not want to sell a freezer that is not acceptable to Respondent. The marketing strategy developed between CHD and Nor-Lake will be damaged because it is conditioned upon the award of public contracts.
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid specifications, together with other applicable authority, require that a bid, in order to be responsive, contain any written list of subcontractors.
Findings Of Fact On September 26, 1989, Respondent issued a document entitled, Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, West Orange High School, Winter Garden, Florida, Engineers Project No. 89-016. As amended by three addenda, the above-described specifications shall be referred to as the "ITB." Respondent duly advertised for bids ore September 26, October 3, and October 10, 1989. The advertisement did not state that Respondent reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. In response to the ITB, Florida Mechanical, Inc. ("FMI") and B & I Contractors, Inc. ("B & I") timely submitted bids. For the base work and alternate 1, which Respondent ultimately decided to select, FMI bid $1,439,000, B & I bid $1,438,000, and a third bidder, S. I. Goldman, Company bid $1,621,000. These bids are recorded on a Bid Tabulation Sheet prepared by the engineer retained by Respondent for the project. The Bid Tabulation Sheet contains eight columns. Four columns record bid amounts for the base work and various alternates. The remaining columns are entitled, "Bidder," "Bid Bond," "Addenda," and "Subs." Each of the three bidders were named in one of the rows beneath the "Bidder," column. Each bidder had one "X" in its "Bid Bond" column and three "X"s in its "Addenda" column. However, only FMI and S. I. Goldman Company had "X"'s in their "Subs" columns. By resolution adopted on November 29, 1989, Respondent directed that all bids were rejected and that the Superintendent would correct any ambiguities and uncertainties in the ITB and solicit new bids. The resolution noted that Respondents staff had recommended that, if any bid were accepted, it should be that of B & I. However, [FMI] submitted with its bid a list of Major Sub-contractors of the form displayed in the [ITB], and B & I did not submit wish its aid a list of Major Sub-contractors[.] The resolution concluded that Respondent based on advice of staff and counsel, found that the [ITB is) ambiguous and/or uncertain as to whether or not a bidder must submit along with his bid a list of Major Sub-contractors, (b) that because of such ambiguity and/or uncertainty, it would be unfair and/or improper for [Respondent] to accept either of the bids received by it, and (c) that as a result thereof [Respondent] should reject all bids received by it for ,the Project and should solicit new bids for the Project as soon as is reasonably feasible after correction by [Respondents] staff of any ambiguity and uncertainty as aforesaid in the [ITB]. FMI and B & I each timely filed a notice of intent to protest and formal written protest of Respondent's decision to reject each company's respective bid. S. I. Goldman did not protest the decision and is not a party to the subject case. At a meeting on December 12, 1989, Respondent elected to refer the bid protests to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing., At the beginning of the hearing, the parties filed a written stipulation, which stated that the only issue for determination was which Petitioner should be awarded the contract and not whether Respondent should seek further bids or award the contract to another bidder. The stipulation also stated that the Petitioners and Respondent agreed to abide by the recommendation of the hearing officer. At the hearing, the parties further stipulated that the sole issue for determination is whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. In addition, the parties stipulated that both Petitioners had standing and the protests were timely and sufficient. The ITB requires that each bidder familiarize itself with all federal, state, and "Local Laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the work." Under the section entitled, "Preparation and Submission of Bids," the ITB states: "Each bidder shall use the Bid Form that is inserted herein, and may copy or reproduce the form on this own letterhead." Among other requirements, the ITB requires two bonds. The first is a "bid guarantee" of at, least five percent of the amount of the bid. The form of this guarantee may be cash or a Bid Bond." The other bond described in the ITB a 100% public construction bond. The surety on this bond must have been admitted to do business in Florida, must have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operation for at least five years, and must have at least a Bests Financial Rating of "Class VI" and a Bests Policyholder Ration of "A." The Bid Form contained in the ITB is two pages. Among other things, the Bid Form requires that the bidder receiving written notice of acceptance of its bid must provide the prescribed payment and performance bond and execute the contract within ten days after notification. The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "Form of Bid Bond." The provisions on this page identify the A.I.A. document to use and state that the Bid Bond "shall be submitted with the Bid Proposal Form." The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "List of Major Subcontractors." The List of Major Subcontractors states: Bidders shall list all major subcontractors that will be used if a contract is awarded. Additionally, bidders shall identify in the appropriate box whether or not that trade specialty is minority owned. Another paragraph defines minority ownership. The remainder of the form consists of ten rows for the "bidder" and nine major subcontractors, such as concrete, electrical, HVAC, and controls, and blanks where the bidder can indicate which of these entities are minority owned. The next document in the ITB is the Owner-Contractor Agreement, which is followed by tie Form of Construction Bond, General Conditions, and Supplementary General Conditions. Section 7.11 of the Supplementary General Conditions establishes certain requirements to be performed after the submission of bids. This section provides: Pre-Award Submittals: Before the Contract is awarded the apparent low bidder shall provide the following information to the owner. A copy of the Contractors current State of Florida General Contractor's or Mechanical Contractors License. Pre-Construction Meeting. After the Notice to Proceed and within eight (8) business days of the Owner [sic], the Contractor shall meet with the Owner, Engineer and Subcontractors that the Owner may designate... The Contractor shall provide the following to the Owner. * * * 2. A written list of all Subcontractors, material men and suppliers with such information as requested by the Owner or Engineer. * * * The remaining documents in the ITB are the technical specifications for the job. The three addenda supply additional technical information not relevant to this case. Respondent has promulgated rules with respect to the bidding process ("Rules"). The ITB does not refer to the Rules, which define and use many terms that are found in the ITB. For instance, Rule 1.1.25 defines the phrases, "Performance and Payment Bond," which is the same phrase used in the Bid Form in the ITB. The Rules define several other capitalized terms that are also used in the ITB, such as Bid Bond, Bid Guarantee, Bidder, and Contractor. Rule 4.1 similarly states that the bidder is familiar with federal, state, and "Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations that in any manner affect the Work." Rule 6.1 describes the process by which a bidder is to prepare and submit bids and the Bid Guarantee in language similar to that contained in the ITB. Rule 6.2 discusses the listing of subcontractors. Rules 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 state: General Contractor shall include as an integral part of his bid a List of Subcontractors he proposes to use. The Bidder shall enclose this list in a 4" x 9" envelope, sealed and marked "List of Subcontractors" and identified ... The Bidder shall enclose said envelope with his bid proposal in the mailing envelope. The List of Subcontractors enclosed with tee Proposal of each Bidder will be examined by the ... Engineer before the Proposal is opened and read. In the event that the form is not properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened... Rule 6.3 requires a Statement of Surety as another "integral part" of each bid. Rule 6.3.3 states: The Statement of Surety will be opened examined by the ... Engineer prior to the opening of the Proposal.... Although similar to Rule 6.2, Rule 6.3 lacks the warming that if the Statement of Surety is not "properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened." Rule 19.1 sets forth the requirements, for the surety. These requirements are different than those set forth in the ITB. Rules 19.1.1 and 19.1.2 require, as does the ITB, that the surety be admitted to do business in the State of Florida and shall have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operations for at least five years. However, Rule 19.1.1 requires that the surety be represented by a reputable and responsible surety bond agency licensed to do, business in the State of Florida and have a local representative in the Orlando area. Rule 19.1.3 requires minimum Bests ratings of "A" in "management," and, as to "strength and surplus," "AAA+" in financial rating and $12,500,000 minimum surplus. Rule 19.1.3.3 also requires that the surety be listed on the U.S. Treasury Departments Circular 570. The bids of FMI and S. I. Goldman Company contained a completed List of Major Subcontractors. The bid of B & I did not. No bidder included a Statement of Surety with its bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order awarding the subject contract to Florida Mechanical, Inc. ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of FMI All of FMI's proposed findings have been adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of B & I 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: adopted, except that the staff recommended that, if the bid was to be awarded, that it be awarded to B & I. 6: adopted in substance. 7: rejected as conclusion of law and, to the extent fact, subordinate. 8-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as unsupported by the greater height of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as subordinate. 22: rejected as beyond the scope of the issues and irrelevant in view of the stipulation. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the issue to be addressed would not be whether the intended agency action of Respondent was lawful (i.e., not arbitrary, fraudulent, dishonest, or otherwise improper), but rather whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Schott, Superintendent The School Board of Orange County, Florida P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802 Charles Robinson Fawsett, P. A. Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 James F. Butler, III Smith, Currie & Hancock 2600 Peachtree Center Harris Tower 233 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30043-6601 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esq. Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue P.O. Box 305 Orlando, FL 32803
