Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the Department issued an Advertisement for Bids (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (Department Project No. NV-30A, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving the expansion of the water treatment facility at the Martin Correctional Institution. The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a two-volume Specifications Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") that was made available for public inspection. Section B of the Manual's first volume contained the Instructions. Section B-2 2.A.(11) thereof provided that "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications must be submitted and the qualifications listed therein must be satisfactory to the Owner and the Engineer. " "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications" was a "Bidder's Qualification Form, Reverse Osmosis Treatment System Component" (hereinafter referred to as the "R.O. Form"), on which the bidder was to provide "R.O. [Reverse Osmosis] System Supplier" information. The R.O. Form repeated the directive that the bidder was to "[r]eturn [the] [c]ompleted [R.O.] Form [w]ith [its] proposal." Section B-14 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "preparation and submission of bids" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Bidder shall copy the proposal form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the Base Bid and for alternates on which he bids. . . . Proposals containing . . . . items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Section B-16 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "disqualification of bidders" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that a Bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the same work will cause the rejection of all proposals in which such Bidders are believed to be interested. The subject of "contract award" was addressed in Section B-21 of the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The qualified bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that bidder who has submitted the lowest price for the base bid, or the base bid plus additive alternates or less deductive alternates, taken in the numerical order listed in the bid documents in an amount to be determined by the Owner. The Order of the alternates may be accepted by the Owner in any sequence so long as such acceptance does not alter the designation of the low bidder. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. Section C of Volume I of the Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use to indicate their bid prices. The following statement appeared at the bottom of the second page of the Proposal Form: There is enclosed: A certified check, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or Bid Bond in the amount of not less than five (5) percent of the Base Bid payable to the Department of Corrections, as a guarantee. An executed Trench Excavation Safety Certification, Section F-13. An executed Experience Questionnaire and Contractor's Financial Statement and Public Entity Criminal Conviction Form, Section L. An executed Bidder's Qualifications Form (Reverse Osmosis), Technical Specification Section 01420. While one completed R.O. Form had to accompany each bid, there was no provision in any of the bid documents issued by the Department requiring a bidder to submit only one such completed form and no more. Petitioner, McMahan and R.J. Sullivan Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sullivan") were among the contractors that timely submitted bids in response to the Advertisement. McMahan's and Sullivan's bids were each accompanied by more than one completed R.O. Form. Petitioner, on the other hand, provided the Department with only one completed R.O. Form along with its bid. Of the bids submitted, McMahan's was the lowest, Sullivan's was the second lowest and Petitioner's was the third lowest. McMahan's base bid price was $857,000.00. Petitioner's was $905,000.00. McMahan's total price, including the nine additive alternates accepted by the Department, was $948,000.00. Petitioner's was $1,032,600.00, $84,600.00 more than McMahan's. By letter dated July 1, 1993, the Department advised McMahan of its intent "to award the contract [for Department Project No. NV-30A] to [McMahan] as the lowest responsive bidder." On July 9, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the preliminary determination to award the contract to McMahan alleging that McMahan was not a responsive bidder inasmuch as McMahan "submitted Reverse Osmosis ("R.O.") Qualifications Forms for more tha[n] one vendor." According to Petitioner, "[t]his [was] not in conformance with the Bid Documents and gave [McMahan] an unfair advantage."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order finding Petitioner's bid protest to be without merit and awarding McMahan, as the lowest responsive and qualified bidder, the contract for Department Project No. NV-30A. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's bid protest should be dismissed for failure to state with specificity the underlying facts of the protest or facts sufficient to form a basis for a bid protest.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed a bid protest of Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 13- 550-002-A for raised pavement markers. Petitioner was disqualified from award of the bid due to the failure to meet the requirement that the products bid must be on the Florida Department of Transportation Qualified Products List at the time of the bid opening. Petitioner's Formal Protest contains no specific allegations of fact and as such is not in conformance with Rule 60Q-2.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. On December 20, 1995, the Hearing Officer, sua sponte, entered an order requiring Petitioner to file an amended Formal Protest stating with specificity the facts and law which form the basis for its protest. The document filed by Petitioner in response to the order in essence: States there are on-going discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation, ("FDOT") District V Secretary and the Florida Department of Transportation Secretary that should preempt any further litigation. Complains that Section 316.0745(4), of the Florida Statutes is being improperly interpreted by FDOT so that the State is being forced to purchase a highway safety product at a cost far in excess of prudent purchasing practices. Alleges that the Petitioner meets all the qualifications of laboratory and field testing required by the Florida Department of Transportation Materials Laboratory . . . The formal protest filed in this case by Pac-Tec does not provide such notice to the Department of Management Services. Therefore the Department of Management Services cannot prepare an adequate defense to the protest. The response does not cure the deficiencies in the formal protest.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order dismissing the Formal Protest filed by Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy Horne, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David H. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 279 Astor, Florida 32101 Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 23,871 square feet of office space to house some of its social services for indigents in Northern Escambia County. Since HRS desired more than 2,000 square feet of office space, it was required to bid lease number 590:1987 competitively. To that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety public access, ingress and egress availability of public transportation. The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 1000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period during each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the in flux of people. Additionally, many of Respondent's clients utilize public transportation since they do not own or have access to personal vehicles. Because of servicing so many people the above factors received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Additionally, in order to submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor was required to meet one of the following qualifications at the time the bid was submitted: (a) be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas; (b) be the lessee of the space being proposed and present with the bid a copy of the lease with documentation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas; (c) submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas; or (d) submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to, in turn, sublease. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process. On July 21, 1988, HRS received five bids on the lease. Intervenors submitted the apparent low bid which Northside consisted of one building located at the Brentwood Shopping Center in Pensacola, Florida. At the time that the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had a contract to purchase the subject facility; they have since closed on that transaction. This bid package did not include the four acres adjacent to the Brentwood Shopping Center property and no contract to purchase or other documentation was submitted as to the four acre parcel of property. Petitioner submitted the apparent second lowest bid which consisted of one building located at Fairfield Plaza in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's interest in Fairfield Plaza is that of a lessee under a Master Lease with rights to sublet the property. All appropriate documentation was submitted with the bid. This property was the subject of a semi-friendly foreclosure action at the time that the Petitioner's bid was submitted. Petitioner was still in possession and control of the property. Both Petitioner's and Intervenors' property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The other three bids which were submitted by HRS are not in contention The committee members personally inspected the sites offered by the Petitioner and the Intervenors. While at the Intervenors' site, the committee's concern over the property's minimal parking (as compared to Fairfield) and limited safe public access, ingress and egress were raised. The only access to Intervenor's property was from a very busy multi-lane highway. Certain turns onto and off the property were extremely dangerous. In order to make its bid package more acceptable, Intervenors' representative orally amended the bid package to include the southerly four acres contiguous to the Brentwood property. The Inclusion of the southerly four acres would adequately increase Intervenors' parking. The amendment would also create additional and safer public ingress and egress since the four acres abutted on Murray Lane which intersects Highway 29. This amendment substantially worked to Intervenors' advantage and was a material change to the previously submitted bid. The improper amendment cannot be considered here. Following the on-site inspections, the committee members met and rated the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenors according to a Bid Synopsis evaluation sheet which they had been previously provided. The committee members' review of the Intervenors' property included the improper bid amendment. Even with the improper amendment, the unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was to award the lease to the Petitioner and Fairfield Plaza. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Intervenors presented greater problems for ingress and egress due to the congested nature the area. The other consideration was that service to Fairfield Plaza from public transportation was both more frequent and direct. The property offered by the Intervenors had less public transportation service. The stops were less frequent and a significant number of clients would be required to transfer buses to reach Brentwood when utilizing such public transportation. All bus passengers would be required to walk from the bus stop close to Brentwood and attempt at their peril to cross a very busy, dangerous and congested highway. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Petitioner's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Petitioner's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. The District Administrator initially adopted the committee's recommendation and reported that recommendation to King Davis, the Director of General Services for HRS. The Director of General Services later informed the District Administrator that he and his staff were concerned with the fact that the recommendation was to award the lease to the second lowest bidder. The staff's review considered the improper amendment as part of the Intervenors' bid. Over a ten year period the Petitioner's rental cost was $62,381.00 more than the Intervenors'. In addition, the estimated energy consumption for the first year for the Petitioner's property was approximately $4800 more than for Intervenors. King Davis and his staff did not believe that the justifications cited in the recommendation letter would be considered crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder, should the agency get involved in a bid protest over the award. He and his staff did not disagree that the reasons assigned by the committee and Ms. Schembera were legitimate considerations. Their ultimate concern was that the reasons given by the committee and Ms. Schembera would not be given as great a weight by a Division of Administrative Hearings' hearing officer; and therefore, fail to withstand a potential bid challenge. But the conclusion that the lack of ingress and egress and public transportation could not outweigh the cost differences assumed that Intervenors' bid included the four acres. Without the four acres, the problems with ingress and egress, congestion and public transportation become even more important and can outweigh minor price differences in rent and energy. This is especially true when one considers the impact that the influx of at least 1000 people would have on an already congested and unsafe area. Put simply, the conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. Instead of reconvening the committee after receiving the recommendation from King Davis and discussing the same with him, the District Administrator made the determination that the lease should be awarded to the Intervenors. The District Administrator, acquiesced in Mr. Davis' assessment that HRS could not succeed in a bid challenge. She did not like his advice. In fact, even at the hearing Ms. Schembera still believed Petitioner's property was the lowest and best for HRS purposes. However, through circular reasoning she also concluded that Intervenors' property was the lowest and best bid because she chose it. The agency's ability to succeed in a bid challenge which may or may not happen is not covered by any of the weighted bid evaluation criteria contained in the bid package and is not an appropriate reason to prefer one bid over another. The foregoing is particularly true when the reason given (surviving a bid protest) is based on the occurrence of a future event which may not occur. To reject a bid for a reason outside the bid criteria and one based on an unknowable future event is an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of Respondent. A court-appointed receiver was ordered to take control of the property belonging to the Petitioner on September 28, 1988, after the bid award was announced. Petitioner still retains its right of redemption of the property, and such an interest is sufficient to confer standing on Petitioner to maintain this action. Moreover, the evidence was clear that Petitioner had both the ability and wherewithal to perform the lease should it receive the bid award. Perfected ownership or control is not required. With Petitioner's apparent ability to perform, the fact of the foreclosure action and the receiver should not work against the Petitioner in this bid protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:1987 to Eccelston Properties, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1989.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is the lowest responsive bidder with regard to an invitation to bid for Project Number KD-05/NG-05 (The ITB). Specifically the issues involve whether the Petitioner adequately complied with specifications regarding submission of a check list with the bid and whether the site plan submitted by the Petitioner was sufficient in accordance with the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Koblar Constructors and Engineers (Koblar) is a sole proprietorship owned by Andrew Koblar of Gainesville, Florida. The Respondent (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the operation of the Florida prison system including the installation and maintenance of sanitation systems for Florida Prisons. The Intervenor is Elkins Constructors, Incorporated, a Florida corporation, (Elkins) which in the initial intended agency action was recommended to be awarded the contract involved in this proceeding. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Order on November 26, 1990 finding that the Waste Water Treatment Facility at the Starke Prison operated by the Department violated Section 301(a) of the so called "Clean Water Act" as amended at 33 U.S.C. Subsection 1311(a). The violation allegedly related to the system's failure to meet final effluent limitations concerning BOD, suspended solids and nutrients, as stipulated in the NPDES permit Number FL0038245 issued by the EPA to the Department with regard to that Waste Water System at the Starke Prison. Being aware of the EPA Order and the need for corrective action in order to avoid severe civil penalties, the Department issued Invitation to Bid Project Number KD-05/NG-05 (ITB) on September 30, 1990, in order to install a facility and equipment which would correct the violation of the sewage effluent limitations as stipulated in the Department's NPDES Permit. The upgrading of the Waste Water Plant involved in the ITB included installation of new aeration tanks, final clarifiers, final filters, and appurtenant equipment and facilities. In order to prepare the ITB and then to evaluate the bid responses to it, the Department selected William M. Bishop, Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Bishop) as the consulting engineer on this project. Bishop's duties included the drafting of the ITB specifications and conditions, evaluating the proposals submitted in response to it and recommending the award of the contract. At various times after the preparation of the initial ITB Bishop also prepared four addendums to it. The ITB stated that the contract would be awarded to the lowest, responsive bidder. The proposals were to include bid quotations, used to determine lowest price and other documents and data to determine the responsiveness of the proposals. Koblar timely submitted a base bid of $1,390,000.00 with additional costs for Alternative No. 1 involving a "Traveling Bridge Filter" for $328,400.00; for additive Alternative No. 2: "Emergency Generator" for $65,223; and additive Alternative No. 3: "Communinutor" for $38,584.00. Elkins submitted a base bid of $1,520,000.00, with additional costs for additive Alternative No. 1: The Traveling Bridge Filter, for $375,000.00; additive Alternative No. 2: The Emergency Generator, for $53,000.00; and additive Alternative No. 3: The Communinutor for $20,000.00. Five bids were received by the Department, including Koblar's and Elkins' Bids. The bids were evaluated by Mr. Murphy of Bishop Engineering. The Bishop representative found Koblar's bid nonresponsive and rejected it. It was deemed nonresponsive because it allegedly failed to include the required information on the submittal check list as well as an adequate site plan. Mr. Michael Murphy, the Engineer evaluating the bids maintained he was unable to evaluate Koblar's bid because it lacked that information. After evaluation of the bids, Bishop recommended awarding the bid to Elkins as the lowest responsive bidder. On December 5, 1990, the bid results were posted with Elkins as the announced winner. The ITB consisted of a package containing instructions to prospective bidders and specifications for the construction of the project which primarily consisted of a Waste Water Treatment Plant. The ITB required a pre-engineered package Waste Water Treatment Plant which would meet the Performance Criteria set out in the Specifications. Bidders were required to submit a base bid for the plant itself and prices for three additive alternatives as delineated above. After the Department issued the ITB on September 30, 1990, the engineer met with representatives of Smith and Lovelace, Inc., a Wastewater Treatment Plant Manufacturer. These representatives provided to the Engineer, Mr. Murphy, calculations for the performance of the Waste Water Treatment Plant it wished to make available for bidders. As a result of that meeting, the Engineer approved Smith and Lovelace's Plant as a manufacturer of the Waste Water Treatment Plant sought. The Engineer then issued an addendum to the ITB notifying bidders that the Smith and Lovelace plant was approved for the project. The Engineer issued the addendum because he determined that the Smith and Lovelace equipment and materials could meet the project specifications. Section 11395 paragraph 1.5.1 provided that bidders submit the following materials: Site plan showing arrangement of treatment units and yard piping and any modifications required to match the piping arrangements shown on the plans. The performance and operating characteristics for the plant including the electrical load requirements and the oxygen transfer efficiency of the diffusers proposed for the aeration tanks. A listing of tank volumes and surface areas. A list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least five (5) owners of plants using the proposed treatment arrangement and equipment for verification of operation and maintenance considerations. The calculations submitted to the consulting engineer by the Smith and Lovelace firm and the proposal provided him contained all the information requested by paragraph 1.5.1. Addendum 2 to the ITB included a "submittal check list" form. The submittal check list form listed the categories of technical information and provided a space for inserting the results of calculations which were requested by paragraph 1.5.1. In response to this, Koblar wrote the following notation on its check list form: "See enclosure or prequalification on file with engineer." The enclosure consisted of a technical scale drawing of the Smith and Lovelace plant reflecting a directional north arrow. This was Koblar's site plan pursuant to Item 1 on the submittal check list. The prequalification information referred to by Koblar consisted of the design and calculations submitted by Smith and Lovelace which had induced the consulting engineer, Mr. Murphy, to approve that company as a manufacturer and issue the addendum to Paragraph 1.4.4. Engineer Murphy knew that the notation on the check list form referred to that same information, accordingly to his testimony. Nothing in the instructions to bidders with the ITB precluded bidders from referencing information already in the consulting engineer and bid evaluator's possession, which was done by Koblar in this case. On December 5, 1990, the Department posted the bid results which reflected that the Respondent rejected Koblar's bid as nonresponsive. That posting announced the intent to award the contract to Elkins. Koblar timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest pursuant to Section 120.53 of the Florida Statutes and the case was ultimately transferred to the undersigned hearing officer and tried on January 18 and 22, 1991. The Department's position was that the Koblar bid contained certain omissions which constituted material major irregularities such that they could not be cured or waived in the view of the Department. The two objections to Koblar's bid involved Koblar's failure to fill in all blank spaces on the submittal check list with the calculations contained in the Smith and Lovelace presubmitted information and its position that the Koblar's site plan submitted was insufficient to comply with its view of the bid specification. Mr. Michael Murphy of Bishop Consulting Engineers, the Engineer assigned to prepare the Invitation to Bid, evaluate bids and recommend selection of a bidder, acknowledged in his testimony that the information previously submitted by Smith and Lovelace of the Department contained all of the information required by the checklist and that that information met the specifications contained in the ITB. Mr. Murphy had notified Smith and Lovelace that its design calculation's meet the specifications prior to the date bids were submitted. He was of the opinion, however, that he could not properly refer to the Smith and Lovelace information to which his attention had been directed by Koblar in its bid submittal. According to the Department that would have provided Koblar a competitive advantage over other bidders. The evidence showed that if Koblar had transcribed the information onto the check list from the Smith and Lovelace data and provided a site plan which precisely met the consulting engineer's view of what the site plan should depict, particularly with regard to location of and connection of yard piping and relationship to existing infrastructure (buried pipes), the Department would have found its bid responsive and awarded the contract to Koblar since it was the lowest bidder by a significant amount (approximately $146,000). There were certain irregularities in the bid of Elkins as well, as shown by the testimony of Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy opined that these irregularities were not material because they were obvious ones and easily correctable. There was evidence that certain information provided by Elkins on its check list did not meet the minimum specifications for the contract but that those deficiencies could be corrected by adjusting certain calculations. Because Mr. Murphy concluded that Elkins' bid could meet specifications, depending on how the calculations were done, Elkins' bid was considered to be responsive. There was also testimony that perhaps one of the criteria on the check list, Item 2b, was not met by the calculations submitted by Smith and Lovelace. This testimony is inconsistent with the extensive testimony and evidence to the contrary and is rejected. However, if any such deficiency had existed, it could be cured or eliminated by applying the same standards or differing calculation procedures which the engineer applied to make Elkins' submittals acceptable. The Elkins' bid did not meet the minimal standard for the aerobic digester. The minimal requirement was a 207,000 gallon capacity tank. Elkins' bid reflected a 180,000 gallon tank. This also rendered its bid proposal more than $18,000 cheaper than the Koblar bid as to this particular item. During the first day of the hearing, Engineer Murphy testified that he considered this to be a minor error and that Elkins could be required to provide a 207,000 tank and would not be entitled to a change order and (more money) for doing so. Four days later in his testimony, the Engineer testified that the bid was not necessarily in error at all because the minimum design criteria were flexible. According to Mr. Murphy, the specifications minimums as originally issued were firm ones, but as a result of changes of Addendum 2, the minimum requirements were only guidelines. Therefore, if Elkins' 180,000 gallon tank proposed was based on calculations using an industry standard, rather than the minimum requirement called for in the specification its calculation for the tank capacity would have been acceptable. In other words, with a smaller capacity tank, if Elkins proposal made provision for enhancing the oxygen feed rate, then the same performance standard could be achieved possibly even with the smaller capacity tank. Similarly, on the first day of the hearing Mr. Murphy testified that he rejected Koblar's bid because he did not feel it was appropriate to incorporate by reference the design calculations previously submitted by Smith and Lovelace, but that those calculations did meet the specifications. On the second day of the hearing, he indicated that Koblar's calculations did not meet the specification for oxygen transfer with regard to the aerobic digester. However, if the calculations testified to by the engineer as establishing acceptability of the Elkins' Bid were applied to Koblar's Bid, Koblar's bid would also be acceptable. Under Elkins' calculations using 20 MG/L effluent BOD (instead of the 5 MG/L specified), the minimum required oxygen rate would be 361 pounds. Koblar's bid provided for 398 pounds oxygen feed rate per hour and therefore would exceed the minimum requirements. In summary, if the justification for allowing Elkins to disregard the specifications in arriving at the tank capacity requirement held true, then the specifications relating to the requirements on the check list were not rigid requirements were performance related and were nothing more than guide lines and therefore cannot serve as a basis for rejecting either bid. The testimony of Mr. Murphy taken in its totality establishes that Koblar's bid would have been accepted as responsive if it had transferred the calculations from the Smith and Lovelace pre-submitted information onto its actual physical check list and if Koblar had submitted a site plan which the engineer felt met his own expectations. The engineer testified that Koblar site plan was nonresponsive and unacceptable because he himself contemplated a plan which would show precisely where the plant would be located, oriented and how its piping would connect or relate exactly to the piping of the existing facility. Koblar's site plan indeed provided a directional arrow showing how the plant would be placed on the site, direction-wise, and the specification plans themselves in the ITB provided only a limited area for its location so it could not be placed in any other location. Therefore, because of the directional arrow, it was clear how the plant would be placed and connect to the existing facility, in reality. The plant could only be moved a few feet in any direction within the geographically limited area or location contained in the ITB plan depiction part of the specifications. Because the limited area for location provided in the specification plans precludes placement of the plant at any other location on the entire site, and because the directional arrow provided in Koblar's site plan shows how the plant would be oriented, it becomes obvious how the connections to existing piping and the existing facility would be made. The fact that the site plan submitted by Koblar does not show the final precise location or the actual "foot print" of the plant to be installed is, at most, a minor irregularity. It is obvious how the connections would be made. They could only be made one way. In fact, the engineer testified that if Koblar had submitted a drawing showing the precise location anywhere in the specified area in the ITB plans it would have been acceptable. Yet the engineer also testified that he felt the site plan was insufficient because he feared Koblar would request a "change order." He feared Koblar would request a change order if he ordered Koblar to place the plant somewhere different in the specification area from where originally contemplated, possibly because of additional piping, etc. The engineer's stated fear that a change order might result in additional costs under these circumstances is not acceptable. The same result would occur if Koblar had submitted a drawing showing the location of the plant closer than that which the engineer ultimately ordered. Yet he acknowledged that if Koblar had done so its submittal would have been acceptable. The Department's own engineer, Mr. Scott, testified that it was clear how Koblar intended to connect the two facilities, that is, the existing one and the new one proposed and that the arrangement would work. Therefore, the supposed fear of a change order was not shown to well-founded. The asserted fear of a change order request from Koblar is inconsistent with the engineer's own discussion and evaluation of Elkins' Bid. The Elkins' submittal showed an intent to use a 180,000 gallon aerobic digester. The engineer intended to require Elkins to provide a 207,000 gallon aerobic digester (the so called "muffin monster"). When a bidder places the owner or his engineer on notice that he has based his bid on a specific assumption and the engineer demands something different, it is logical to anticipate a change order dispute. It is not logical to anticipate a change order dispute when the bid order provides that the project will be constructed within the limitations provided in the plans. Therefore, the asserted fear that Koblar would request a change order does not justify rejection of its bid when considered in the light of the engineer's rationale regarding the Elkins' Bid. If the possibility of a change order dispute could be considered in determining irregularity of a bid, it would be considerably more of a factor in the Elkins' Bid Evaluation, which was actually deemed responsive by the engineer, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy's rejection of the Koblar's site plan was based on a subjective expectation of what the site plans should look like rather than what the specifications actually required. The specifications in fact included a drawing showing the limits in which the new plant would be located. Both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Scott, the Department's own engineer acknowledged that Koblar's drawing of the new plant which was submitted with the bid could be fitted into the limits shown on the specification drawings and the north directional arrow showed the manner in which the plant would be oriented, at which point the manner in which the piping had to be connected became obvious. That was what was required by Paragraph 1.3.1 of the specifications and Koblar's submittal complied with that. Further, Koblar's testimony shows that the he has bound himself to submit no additional costs as change orders based on the final precise placement of the plant in the relation to existing infrastructure and the ultimate connection to the existing facilities. The Department did not present evidence or explanation to justify its assertion that Koblar had actually gained unfair competitive advantage by the manner in which it submitted its bid. Both engineers testifying for the Department were repeatedly asked to explain the advantage which Koblar received. Initially Mr. Murphy responded that Koblar would have been advantaged if the bid had been accepted because the other bidders did not incorporate by reference the pre-submitted information. Mr. Scott, the Department's own engineer, acknowledged that there would have been no economic advantage to Koblar by incorporating the pre-submitted information by reference in its bid, although, conceivably, time savings to Koblar in bid preparation might have been helpful. On the last day of the hearing, however Mr. Murphy elaborated on Mr. Scott's theme in testifying that he felt that there might be a certain amount of time involved in filling out the bid form which could have been saved by Koblar by relying on the pre-submitted information, which might have allowed Koblar to take advantage of a last minute, lowest price from his supplier before making the bid submittal. This conjectural, competitive, economic advantage has not been established however and has been shown to be incorrect. Even Mr. McMurray, the President of Elkins, acknowledged in his testimony that any bidder can change its bid up to the very last minute as to any item. His testimony about the ability to change a bid or a bid item up to the last minute before bid opening shows that ability to make last minute changes in bids is not affected by the amount of time the contractor had already put in the bid preparation prior to bid opening. There was no showing that Koblar gained any last minute price knowledge from any manufacturer or other source or any other advantage which he could put in his bid at the last minute and make use of any purported time gained by submitting a bid which incorporated pre-submitted information by reference rather than a more time consuming preparation of the bid "from scratch." Moreover, any bidder involved could have referred to the pre- submitted information on file with the consulting engineer in lieu of preparation, from "scratch," of all the calculations and other information referenced in the above bid specification paragraphs at issue, including the fact that any bidder could have submitted a site plan similar to the one submitted by Koblar because that was all the specifications required. In summary, it was not established that Koblar received any unfair economic advantage over other bidders by merely incorporating by reference design calculations which had been pre-approved and were in the possession of the engineer. The information was such that any engineer could look at it and insert the numbers and calculations onto the submittal list at issue with no room for variation in the result. The numbers say what the numbers say and there is no opportunity for a variation such that Koblar would gain a competitive advantage over other bidders thereby. The same consideration is true of the site plan controversy. The information required by the relevant specification regarding the location of the new plant and its connection to the old plant could be derived from the drawings submitted by Koblar. There was no opportunity for Koblar to change the results of that information. Therefore, the assertions by the Respondent's witnesses that allowing Koblar to rely on the pre-submitted Smith and Lovelace information, and accepting its drawing as responsive to the site plan specification somehow provided Koblar an extra opportunity at responsiveness and "lowest best bid," to the competitive disadvantage of the other bidders, is simply inaccurate and not supported by the evidence of record.
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 a Final Order be entered awarding the contract for construction of Project No. KD/5-ND/5 to Koblar Constructors and Engineers. ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-28 Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-10 Accepted. 11 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 12-19 Accepted. Rejected as immaterial to the dispositive material issues presented and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted generally speaking, but subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter as to the specific dispositive material issues presented. Accepted. 24-29 Accepted. 30-34 Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected for the same reason as number 35. 37-38 Accepted. 39-43 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. 44-48 Rejected (same reason). Accepted only to the extent that it demonstrates the Department's position in this proceeding and not accepted for the truth of the reason for the initial award decision. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 52-54 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 54 is rejected addi- tionally as being not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 55-57 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 12-13 Accepted, except as to paragraph (b) which is rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 14-15 Accepted, but not necessarily dispositive of material issues presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Drew Koblar 2009 Northwest 67th Place Gainesville, Florida 32606 Deanna Eftoda, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 B. Thomas Whitefield, Esquire Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Taylor 1600 First Union Building Post Office Box 479 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's intended award of a lease for office space to Intervenor, Anthony Abraham Enterprise, is arbitrary and capricious and whether the proposal of the Petitioner, Adlee Developers, the current lessor, is responsive.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that on April 7, 1991, the Department issued an Invitation to Bid entitled, "Invitation To Bid For Existing Facilities State Of Florida Lease Number 590:2286, Dade County" This procurement was for the provision of 30,086 net rentable square feet to be used for office space in Dade County. A 3% variance was permitted. The facility was to house the District's Aging and Adult Services office which has been a tenant in Petitioner's building for several years and remained there during the pendancy of this protest process. According to the published advertisement, a pre-proposal conference was to be held on April 22, 1991, with all bids due by the bid opening to be held at 10:00 AM on May 30, 1991. The pre-bid conference was conducted by Philip A. Davis, then the District's facilities service manager and included not only a written agenda but also a review of the evaluation process by which each responsive bid would be examined. Petitioner asserts that the potential bidders were told, at that conference, that annual rental increases for the ten year lease period could not exceed five per cent (5%) and claims that Abraham's bid exceeded those guidelines. Thorough examination of the documentary evidence presented and the transcript of the proceedings, including a search for the reference thereto in Petitioner's counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact, fails to reveal any support for that assertion as to an increase limitation. The ITB for this procurement, in the section related to the evaluation of bids, indicated that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5-3 and 5-11 of HRSM 70-1, dealing with the procurement of leased space, the responsive bids would be reviewed by an evaluation committee which would visit each proposed facility and apply the evaluation criteria to it in order to determine the lowest and best bidder. The evaluation criteria award factors listed in the ITB defined a successful bid as that one determined to be the lowest and best. That listing of evaluation criteria outlined among its categories associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. As to the first, the committee was to look at rental rates for both the basic term of the lease and the optional renewal period. The rates were to be evaluated using present value methodology applying the present value discount rate of 8.08% and rates proposed were to be within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. The total weight for the rental rate category was to be no more than 40 points with 35 points being the maximum for the basic term and 5 points for the option. Evaluation of the location was to be based on the effect of environmental factors including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it on the efficient and economical conduct of the operations planned therefor. This included the proximity of the facility to a preferred area such as a co-location, a courthouse, or main traffic areas. This item carried a maximum weight of 10 points. Also included in location were the frequency and availability of public transportation, (5 points); the proximity of the facility to the clients to be served, (5 points); the aesthetics of not only the building but the surrounding neighborhood, (10 points); and security issues, (10 points). The third major factor for evaluation was the facility itself and here the committee was to examine the susceptibility of the offered space to efficient layout and good utilization, (15 points), and the susceptibility of the building, parking area and property as a whole to possible future expansion, (5 points). In that regard, the Bid Submittal Form attached to the ITB called for the successful bidder whose property did not have appropriate zoning at the time of award to promptly seek zoning appropriate to the use classification of the property so that it might be used for the purposes contemplated by the department within 30 days. In the event that could not be done, the award could be rescinded by the department without liability. The committee could award up to 100 points. The basic philosophy of this procurement was found in paragraph 1 of the Bid Award section of the ITB which provided: The department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the department and the state. After the bid opening, three of the four bids received, excluding Petitioner's which was initially determined to be non-responsive, were evaluated by the Department's bid evaluation committee according to the above point system which allowed no discretion or deviation from the formula in comparing rental rates between bidders. Once Petitioner's bid was thereafter determined to be responsive, it, too was evaluated by the committee. At this second evaluation session, relating to Adlee's bid only, the committee scored the bid and added its scores to the original score sheets upon which the other three bidders' scores had been placed. Abraham had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease and received the maximum award of 35 points for that category while Adlee received points. Abraham received an additional 2.29 points for the optional period rates while Adlee got 0. In the other categories, "location" and "facility", which comprised 60% of the points, Adlee's facility was routinely rated superior to Abraham's except for the area related to susceptibility for future expansion in which Abraham was rated higher by a small amount. Overall, however, Adlee was awarded 620.41 points and Abraham 571.03 points and as a result, Adlee was rated by the committee to be the lowest and best bidder. RCL, another bidder, was rated second, with Abraham third and DCIC fourth. Thereafter, the committee chairman, Mr. VanWerne, forwarded the new (and complete) evaluation results to the District Administrator on June 14, 1991 by an addendum dated June 27, 1991 which recommended award of the bid to Petitioner, Adlee Developers. No award was made at the time. Several factors not pertinent to the issues here caused that delay. Among the major of these was pending legislation which would have transferred the operation needing this space to another agency. This transfer was never consummated, however. On or before March 20, 1992, the new District Administrator, Mr. Towey, who had been appointed to his office in December, 1991, and who was made aware that this procurement had not been finalized, requested all available material on it so that he could study it and make his decision based on his own review of the submission. As a part of his determination process, he visited and inspected both the Adlee and the Abraham sites. One of the factors he considered was what appeared to be the significant monetary discrepancy between the two pertinent bids. Initial calculations indicated that Abraham's bid was approximately $835,000.00 lower than Adlee's over the ten year basic term of the lease. This amount was subsequently determined to be somewhat lower but the discrepancy is still significant. Nonetheless, because of that difference, Mr. Towey called a meeting with the members of the evaluation committee which had evaluated the bidders and had recommended Adlee. His stated reason for calling that meeting was to allow him to hear their reasons for rating the submissions as they had done and to take that information into consideration when he made his final decision. None of the committee members who testified at the hearing at Petitioner's behest indicated any feelings of pressure or intimidation by Mr. Towey. During his meeting with the committee members, Mr. Towey went over several of the evaluation criteria award factors to determine the committee's rationale. Of major importance was the issue of cost, of the availability of the facility to transportation to and from the building, employee security and the ability to control access to the facility, and the availability of on-site parking without cost to both employees and clients. It appears the Adlee facility is a multistory building with some parking available on site and would be easier to control. In addition, it is closer to public transportation access points. There is, however, some indication that on-site parking for clients would not be free and the closest free parking is some distance away. According to Adlee's representative, this matter would not be a problem, however, as adequate, free on site parking, which apparently was not initially identified as a problem, could be provided in any new lease. The Abraham facility is a one story building surrounded by on-site parking. In that regard, however, at hearing, Petitioner raised the claim that the Abraham site did not, in actuality, provide adequate parking because the zoning requirements of the City of South Miami, the municipality in which the facility is located, did not permit the required number of parking spaces to accommodate the prospective need. Petitioner sought and received permission to depose the Building and Zoning Director for the city, Sonia Lama, who ultimately indicated that the Abraham site was grandfathered in under the old zoning rule and, thereby, had adequate parking available. In any case, had this not been true, under the terms of the ITB, any zoning deficiencies could have been corrected after award, or the award rescinded without penalty to the Department. After the meeting with the committee, Mr. Towey indicated he would probably go against the committee's recommendation. One of his reasons for doing so, as he indicated to them, was the appearance certain amenities in the facility would give. In the period between the time the committee met and Mr. Towey was ready to decide, there were several newspaper articles published in the Miami area which were negative in their approach to Department leasing policies and this publicity had an effect on him. In his response to a reporter's question, in fact, Mr. Towey indicated he would not permit the lease of any property which contained such amenities while he was District Director. There is some evidence that the wet bar referred to here was a sink and counter used by agency employees to make coffee. However, before making his decision, Mr. Towey also met with Herbert Adler of Adlee. Mr. Towey advised him he was concerned about the fact that the Adlee property provided a wet bar, a private bathroom and some other amenities in that suite of offices occupied by the Department. Mr. Towey was adamant in his public and private pronouncements on the subject that there would be no such amenities in HRS offices in his District while he was in charge. At the meeting in issue, Mr. Adler made it very clear he was willing to remove all the offending amenities to bring the space into conformity with Mr. Towey's standards. Mr. Towey obviously took Adler at his word as he did not consider this matter to be an issue when he evaluated the bids. Based on his independent evaluation of the proposals, and considering all the pertinent factors, Mr. Towey decided not to concur with the committee's recommendation and instead recommended to the Department's Office of General Services that the bid be awarded to Abraham. Because his recommendation differed from that of the evaluation committee, under the provisions of Section 5-13, HRS Manual 70-1, he was required to forward additional justification for his position. In his forwarding memorandum dated March 20, 1992 to Mr. King Davis of the Department's Office of General Services, Mr. Towey listed as his reasons for disagreement with the committee's recommendation, (1) the lower term cost of Abraham's bid, (2) his opinion that the one story floor plan of Abraham was more convenient and accessible to clients, and (3) the provision for ample free parking at the Abraham site as opposed to the limited parking at the Adlee building. Petitioner claims that Mr. Towey's justification for disagreement was improper because, (a) the rental difference he cited was not based on the ITB formula and did not consider the difference in square footage offered; (b) the rental rate comparison compared a proposed lease with an existing lease, not with a proposal; and (c) the reference to on-site parking referred to the situation under the existing lease with Adlee and not to what could occur under a new lease. The major factor in Mr. Towey's decision was the price differential between the two offerings. While the difference may not have been as great as presented initially by the department staff, even taken in its most conservative light of about half that amount, and considering the appropriate figures, the difference was still considerable and significant. In the continuing period of budgetary austerity under which state operations have been and must continue to be conducted, the financial consideration loomed large in his thinking. As for the parking situation, no change for the better was provided for in Adlee's proposal and even if it were, it was but one of several factors. When Mr. Towey's March 20, 1992 memorandum in justification of his disagreement was evaluated at the Office of General services, it was determined that his decision was rational and objectively justified. Thereafter, by letter dated April 2, 1992, the Office of General Services authorized District 11 to award the lease to Abraham and this decision was transmitted to all responsive bidders by letter dated April 7, 1992. It was this action which prompted Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the protest by Adlee Developers, Inc., of the award of procurement No. 590:2286 to Anthony Abraham Enterprises. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 10th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2798 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted that the pre-bid conference was held but reject the finding that a 5% limit was mentioned. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted except for the next to last sentence which is rejected. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 30. Rejected. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell 200 East Broward Blvd. P.O. Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Paul J. Martin, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Suite 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Peter W. Homer, Esquire Greer, Homer & Bonner, P.A. 3400 International Place 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In July, 1989 the District published its request for bids (number 8980) for an atomic absorption spetrophotometer in local newspapers and to prospective interested parties, as shown in joint Exhibit 1 in evidence. The specifications for the instrument were included in the bid package and were authored by Mark Rials, the District's Laboratory Supervisor. The District received two bids for the instrument in response to the request for bids, one from Varian for approximately $57,000 and one from Perkin-Elmer for approximately $59,900. Mark Rials evaluated the bids. Upon evaluation it was determined that the Varian instrument proposal did not meet bid specifications in three major areas. The specifications required a system capacity of 40 megabytes, hard drive capability. The capacity offered by Varian in its bid was for 20 megabytes. The specifications required a combination of a 5 1/4 inch disk drive for its computer system as well as a 3 1/2 inch disk drive. Varian only bid the 3 1/2 inch diskdrive. It did not offer the 5 1/4 inch disk drive which was required. Additionally, at item IX of the specifications, the District required that a list be submitted with the bid which stated, on an item-by-item basis, how the instrument met or exceeded the specifications. Each item in the specifications had been carefully selected to insure optimum performance for the laboratory so that exceptions to the specifications were required to be noted and attached in the bid response. Varian failed to conform to this item of the specifications. This item allowed a vendor to describe in its bid response how it could differently meet the specifications in a better manner or even exceed the specifications, but Varian failed to provide this itemized list. It was also determined that the Varian bid did not conform with the specifications of item IV page 4 of the invitation to bid document concerning the provision of service manuals, system and application software documentation, methods, manuals, parts catalogs, supplies, accessories, catalog, and training manuals. Conversely, it was determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was responsive in all respects, met the bid specification in these major categories and was the most responsive bidder. After witness Rials conducted the evaluation of the bids, in terms of compliance with the specifications, he and the District determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the lowest, responsive bidder which met all specifications. It duly published the intended award and notified all bidders of the bid results. In this evaluation and award process it was demonstrated that the District followed all applicable procedures in its rules and policies concerning evaluation and award. Varian timely filed an objection to the award of the bid; and in accordance with its normal bid protest procedures, the District scheduled a conference between representatives of Varian and District representatives to review Varian's bid. Varian made several statements at that meeting which constituted a substantial deviation from the bid package it had earlier submitted and amounted to an attempted restructuring of its bid in an effort to meet bid specifications. The District declined to countenance this effort and adhered to its initial intent to reject the bid which was submitted by Varian and to not allow the attempted material deviations to be ascribed to Varian's bid, after the point of bid opening and announcement of award. In summary, based upon the bid specifications issued by the District the evaluator's determination concerning the specifications that the evaluator drafted was that the Varian instrument failed to meet bid specifications because of the major deficiencies in the areas found above, regarding systems capacity, computer disk drive availability, and specification response. It has clearly been demonstrated by competent substantial evidence that the District's decision to reject Varian's bid was a reasonable one. It was based solely on a fair comparison of the response of the two bids to the specifications contained in the invitation to bid and notice to all potential vendors. In consideration of the facts established by the evidence in this record, it is found that the bid by Perkin-Elmer substantially met all bid requirements or specifications, even though the Perkin-Elmer bid was the second low bidder in terms of dollar cost. Since the low-cost bidder, Varian, failed to meet major bid specifications, the facts demonstrate that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the most responsive of the two bids at issue and is, therefore, the best bid. Consequently, award should be given to the Perkin-Elmer bid for the instrument in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order denying the petition filed by Varian Instrument Group and awarding bid number 8980 to Perkin-Elmer Corporation, as the lowest, responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9 are accepted. Petitioner Filed No Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Mickey McAllister District Sales Manager Varian Instrument Group 505 Julie Rivers Road, Suite 150 Sugar Land, TX 77478 A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's action of disqualifying the bid submitted by Petitioner was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner submitted a bid in response to ITB No. 695-100-(01 or 04)-03-7. The Department received four bids in response to the ITB. The two lowest bidders, Weil Publishing and Municipal Code Corporation, were disqualified due to lack of compliance with the references requirement set forth in the ITB. Petitioner has standing as the third lowest bidder given the disqualification of the two lowest bidders. Petitioner timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest. Findings of Fact Based on the Evidence of the Record The ITB contained a requirement that each bidder provide three references for similar printing contracts, including a brief description of the work performed, a reference contact person, telephone number, and address. The Department disqualified the two lowest bidders for failure to meet the reference requirement. When it was determined that Petitioner was the resulting lowest bidder, Liz Cloud, Bureau Chief for the Bureau of Administrative Code, wrote a letter to Leigh Trippe, Vice President for Government Relations and Contracts for Petitioner, to inform her that Matthew Bender was the apparent low bidder. The letter was sent to Ms. Trippe along with a package of materials on May 27, 2003. In addition to sending the letter and accompanying materials, Ms. Cloud called Ms. Trippe on May 28, 2003, to inquire if the letter and package had been received. While Ms. Trippe had not yet received the letter and package at the time of the phone call, it was received by Petitioner on May 28, 2003. The language of the ITB is clear in informing potential bidders that the apparent low bidder will be required to show ability to perform by participating in a test run of the Florida Administrative Code. Page 11 of the ITB provides in pertinent part: EVALUATION AND AWARD Award will be made to the bidder meeting all requirements of the bid offering the lowest aggregate pricing using the formula on the price sheet. Prior to posting the intended award, the apparent low bidder will be required to show ability to perform by participating in a test run of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department will provide the bidder with the material necessary (a hard copy of rule text for the Code) to print the test run of the Code. The apparent low bidder shall provide the Department with one 25 page sample volume of the Code, containing pages from rule text, statutory cross reference tables, tables of repealed rules and subject matter indexes. The 8 1/2 X 11 inch sample Code shall include at least two (2) sample three and one-half inch, three ring swing hinge binders of the type that will be used for all subscriptions. The Department will chose from the binder samples submitted by the apparent low bidder. The sample binders submitted must be of equal or higher quality as compared to the ones currently used for publication of the Code. The bidder will be expected to provide copies to the Department within two days of receipt of the sample work. All samples shall be next day mail or courier service, to the Division of Elections for approval. If the apparent low bidder fails to perform as required, the Department shall proceed to the next low bidder and so on, until either a responsive bidder is found or the Department decides to post for no award. [emphasis added] The May 27, 2003, letter from Ms. Cloud to Ms. Trippe reads as follows: Pursuant to the requirements of Invitation to Bid No. 695-100-01-03-7, enclosed is a copy of the documents necessary to print a test run of the Florida Administrative Code, including a disk containing the rule text in ascii format; and a disk containing amendments to the rule text in Adobe FrameMaker 7.0. More specifically, the documents enclosed are a copy of Chapter 62-782, Florida Administrative Code, as filed with the Department of State, with editorial changes marked, and a copy of this chapter as currently printed in the Florida Administrative Code for your information and review. The text provided in ascii format includes Rules 62-782.100 thru 62- 782.790. The text provided in Adobe Framemaker 7.0 as amendments to Chapter 62- 782 consists of Rules 62-782.800 and 62- 782.900. In accordance with the "Evaluation and Awards" section on page 11 of 25 of the aforementioned bid, this office must receive the finalized sample publication no later than noon Monday, June 2, 2003. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (850) 245-6270. The materials provided to Petitioner by the Department did not contain any repealed rules or information regarding a subject matter index or a cross-reference table. The cover letter from Ms. Cloud did not reference repealed rules, a subject matter index, or cross-reference tables or any instruction regarding these items. Petitioner prepared the test run of the publication which was timely delivered to the Department on June 2, 2003. The sample submitted by Petitioner to the Department did not include a table of repealed rules, a subject matter index, or a cross-reference table. Along with the sample publication, Petitioner enclosed three binders which were described in a cover letter: "The binders provided are representative of our available selections. Any of these selections may be customized to your desired color, size, stamping, etc." Ms. Cloud was not in the office on June 2, 2003, when Petitioner's sample publication was received by the Department. Her assistant and Kathleen Hutchins, Purchasing Director for the Department, opened the box containing the submission submitted by Petitioner. The following day, Ms. Cloud examined the box and its contents. She determined that the test run of the publication did not include a table of repealed rules, a subject matter index, or a cross-reference table. Moreover, she determined that only one of the three sample binders was compliant with the type and size requirement of the binders referenced in the Evaluation and Award Section of the ITB. The Department determined that Petitioner's submission of one compliant binder and two non-compliant binders constituted a minor irregularity. But it was decided to disqualify Petitioner based on Petitioner's test run publication which the Department deemed to be materially noncompliant with the ITB for failure to include statutory cross references tables, tables of repealed rules, and subject matter indexes. When asked under cross examination about the materials sent to Petitioner to perform the test run, Ms. Cloud responded in part: Q Do you know whether there were any repealed rules in the material you provided? A There was not. Q How were they supposed to create a table of repealed rules? A They could have taken some of the rules and did the table as if they were repealed, or they could have provided a table saying no rules were repealed in this rule. Ms. Cloud informed Ms. Hutchins that she determined the sample publication submitted by Petitioner to be lacking required elements and was, therefore, non-responsive. She instructed Ms. Hutchins to prepare a cover letter and send the same test run to the next apparent low bidder which was also the only remaining bidder and the current publisher of the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Hutchins did so.2/ On June 6, 2003, the Department posted its Notice of Intent to Award a contract to the remaining bidder, Darby Publishing. The Notice of Intent stated that Petitioner was disqualified because the test run required by the Evaluation and Award section of the ITB was returned incomplete.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of State enter a final order reversing its decision that Petitioner's test run submission was incomplete, and, therefore, non-responsive. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 15th day of September, 2003.
