The Issue The issues are whether the bids submitted by Daffin and Gulf Coast were responsive, and whether the failure by the Department of Corrections to evaluate each proposal at the time the proposals were opened to determine if the proposal was responsive is fatal to consideration of the bids under the terms of the ITB.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued Invitation to Bid No. 94-DC-6279 (the ITB) on May 27, 1994. The ITB requested bidders to submit proposals to provide receipt, storage and delivery of frozen and non-frozen food products. The bid was separated into five distinct regions and vendors could bid on any or all of the regions. Proposals had to be filed with the Department by July 20, 1994, and were opened on that date. The bid was divided into two parts for purposes of point distribution. Sixty (60) points were allotted for price criteria, and forty (40) points were allotted for additional, non-price criteria. [Joint Exhibit A.] The Additional Criteria, which related to non-costs issues and were not mandatory criteria, were listed in Section 4.8.2. of the ITB as follows: Additional Criteria 40 Points Prior experience and history of timely deliveries Condition of equipment/type - # (number of) trucks-conditions Location of contractor's facilities Personnel/staffing [Joint Exhibit A.] Addendum 2 to the ITB further provided that: 4. Direct your attention to the additional criteria used for evaluation. The low bid will be 60 points (Note: 4.3 states erroneously 50 percent; 60 is correct). Forty [40.] will be for additional criteria listed in the ITB. We suggest that you list the information in additional criteria for consideration and evaluation. Jim Morris, Bureau Chief of General Services for the Department of Corrections, was the individual responsible for monitoring the ITB. [R. pg. 66, line 14-16; pg. 75, line 5-12.] Bill Bowers, Chief of Food Services for the Department of Corrections, participated in defining the scope of the contract, and assembled the criteria for the ITB. [R. pg. 108, lines 10-25; pg. 117, lines 18-21.] The Department's evaluations were conducted by Howell L. Winfree, III, J.L. (Joe) Murphy; Fred J. Boyd; Robert Sandal and Chris Dennard. [Joint Exhibit M and N.] The criteria used by the Department's evaluator were as follows: Prior experience and history of timely deliveries (15) (Length of time in distribution business and any known complaints by customers) Condition of Equipment/type (10) Task- related experience (Age of trucks/with freezer) Location of Contractor's facilities (10) (Location of distribution points in relation to regions being served) Personnel/Staffing (5) (Is sufficient staff available) [Joint Exhibit L.] The criteria scoring sheet used by the Department in evaluating the bids submitted, specifically Joint Exhibit L, was not included in the ITB. [Joint Exhibit A.] Six vendors submitted bids on the Department's five regions. Pride submitted a bid for all five (5) regions requested by the Department's ITB. [Joint Exhibit D.] After the evaluation of the bids was conducted by the Department, the following awards were made: Region I - Daffin Region II - C & W Region III and V - Gulf Coast Region IV - Pride [Joint Exhibit F.] COMPETITIVE BID PROCEDURE At the time the bids were publicly opened the Department did not make a determination that the bids were responsive. [R. pg. 73, lines 4-8.] No one in the legal office made a determination that the bids were responsive to the ITB. [R. pg. 77, lines 2-6; pg. 85, lines 2-17.] No one made a determination, written or otherwise, that the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 94-DC-6279 were responsive to the ITB. [R. pg. 76, lines 6-10; pg. 97, lines 13 The Department transmitted the bids and evaluation materials to the evaluators after the bids were opened. There is no evidence that any of the bids failed to meet technical qualifications. [R. pg. 78, lines 4-8; pg. 79, line 17 through pg. 80 line 2; pg. 83, lines 18-25; pg. 85, lines 2-17.] Paragraph 4.11 of the ITB permitted the Department to obtain from a vendor information by questioning the vendors if necessary to resolve questions which might arise about the vendors' responses. None of the vendors controverted this provision in the ITB. The Department did seek and consider such additional information from Daffin during a site visit. [R. pg. 141, line 21 through 147.] Daffin's bid response included the following documents: Signed Invitation to Bid Cover Sheet Signed Public Entity Crimes Form One page memo re: Requested Criteria Signed Addendum #1-4 to the Invitation to Bid Signed Price Quote Sheet [Joint Exhibit C.] Daffin Supply Company (Daffin) and Pride were the only vendors that submitted bids for Region I in response to the ITB. [Joint Exhibit F and H.] Daffin's price was $1.389 per case for receipt, storage and delivery of the food items, and Pride's price was $2.5296 per case for receipt, storage, and delivery of the food items. Daffin received a total of 69.26 on its evaluation, and Pride received 46.49 on its evaluation for Region I. Daffin received the highest point score for its bid for Region I, and Pride received the second highest point score for its bid for Region I. [Joint Exhibit H.] In response to the Additional Criteria requirements, Daffin included only the following information: As additional criteria, we have been in the Supply and Distribution business for over twenty Drive in Panama City, Fla. The warehouse has three receiving docks and a large enclosed staging area. [Joint Exhibit C.] Howell L. Winfree, III, indicated regarding Daffin's bid that no information was available regarding the condition or type of Daffin's equipment or its personnel. J.L. Murphy's evaluation of Daffin's bid states, "Insufficient detail to evaluate properly." Chris Dennard's evaluation of Daffin's bid states, "This bidder did not provide sufficient information about their experience, equipment, personnel to give this evaluator an indication they could handle this bid if awarded." Fred Boyd's evaluation of Daffins bid states, "This vendor did not supply information which shows qualification for this bid." [Joint Composite Exhibit L.] Only one of the five evaluators gave Daffin points for these criteria, and Daffin received only 9.26 points of the 40 available non-costs criteria points. Pride received a significant number of the total points awarded for the non-costs criteria. However, Pride trailed Daffin by 23 points overall because Pride's cost was almost a dollar more per case. Subsequent to the bid evaluations, Mr. Morris and Mr. Bowers made a site visit to Daffin Supply Company. The purpose of the visit was to become familiar with the vendor, and to determine the company's capacity to store and transport the food items. R. pg. 75-76, lines 22-25; 1-2; pg. 85, line 18 through pg. 86, line 7; pg. 118, lines 4-14.] Until Mr. Morris and Mr. Bowers spoke to Mr. Daffin, the Department was not certain whether Daffin had facilities, truck and staff to carry out the bid. [R. pg. 114, lines 19-23.] After the site visit, the Department determined that Daffin could provide the services required by the bid for Region I. [R. pg. 118, lines 4- 18.] On September 1, 1994, subsequent to the bid opening, the Department received a letter from Daffin evidencing that they had an agreement with Ryder Truck Leasing company to lease trucks to carry out the services requested in the ITB; the letter is dated September 1, 1994. The Department did not conduct a site visit of Pride or any other bidder's facilities. Pride had been providing the services being bid upon to the Department prior to the ITB. The Department awarded Gulf Coast Food Service (Gulf Coast) the highest point score for its bid for Regions III (90.60 points) and V (90.60), and awarded Pride the second highest point score for its bid for Regions III (59.56 points) and V (59.56 points). Gulf Coast bid $1.63 per case and Pride bid $2.5296 per case to receive, store, and deliver the food items in both Regions III and V. [Joint Exhibit H.] Gulf Coast's bid response included the following documents: Signed Invitation to Bid Cover Sheet Signed Public Entity Crimes Form One page Letter re: Company Criteria Signed Addendum #1-4 to the Invitation to Bid Signed Price Quote Sheet Annual Report - Suncoast [Joint Exhibit B.] Gulf Coast's bid included the following information relating to the non-cost criteria: The Condition of the Equipment. The Bid stated "15 fully equipped [sic] temperature controlled trucks." [Joint Exhibit B; R. pg. 129, lines 1-3.] Prior Experience/Timeliness of Deliveries. The bid stated "8 years of excellent service to Foodservice Industry." [Joint Exhibit B; R. pg. 59, lines 9-13; pg. 129, lines 7-21.] Personnel/staffing attributed to the bid. The bid stated "Fully trained delivery staff with 5 years no accident safety record," and "Fully trained senior staff of buyers with over 90 years combined experience." [Joint Exhibit B; R. pg. 129, lines 7-21.] Pride's bid response included the following documents: Signed Invitation to Bid Cover Sheet. Unsigned Public Entity Crimes Form (Pride exempt.) Signed Addendum #1-4 to the Invitation to Bid. Signed Price Quote Sheet 29 page attachment covering the requirements of the bid and the additional criteria listed in Section 4.8.2 of the ITB. [Joint Exhibit D.] Pride listed the type of equipment by model name, size, and the quantity, as well as the condition of such equipment utilized for transportation and for the other requirements of the project [Joint Exhibit D; R. pg. 59, lines 18-21]; listed information regarding its shipping and receiving procedures; customer surveys to indicate prior experience and history of timely deliveries [Joint Exhibit D]; the staff positions that would be dedicated to the project for each location, and the location of all its facilities. [Joint Exhibit D; R. pg. 59, line 25 through pg. 60, line 5.] Pride submitted information relating to each of the criteria listed in the ITB. The total savings on the award of these three contracts to Daffin and Gulf Coast as opposed to Pride is $228,548.09. Pride filed a timely challenge to the award of the contracts for Regions I, III and V.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, That the Petition of Pride be dismissed, and the bids be awarded to Gulf Coast and Daffin. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1995. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 8th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of those facts were adopted and which were rejected and why: PETITIONER'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraphs 2,3 Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Rejected as contrary to facts Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraphs 5,6 Paragraphs 6,9 Subsumed in 5,6 Paragraphs 10-19 Paragraphs 9-17 Paragraphs 20,21,22 Conclusions of Law Paragraphs 23-26 Paragraphs 18-21 Paragraph 27 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 28 Subsumed in 22 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 30 Irrelevant, and subsumed in 15 Paragraphs 31,32,34 Paragraph 23 Paragraph 33 Irrelevant. Although information may have been provided about staff, the evaluations had already been completed and there is no evidence that this added information changed the already completed evaluations. Paragraphs 35-37,39-41 Paragraphs 24-29 Paragraph 38,42 Contrary to facts. Paragraph 43-47 Paragraphs 30-33 RESPONDENT'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 4,5 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in 12 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 19 Paragraph 8 Subsumed in 35 Paragraph 9 Paragraph 20 Paragraph 10 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 11 Paragraph 35 Paragraphs 12,13 Paragraph 27 Paragraph 14 Subsumed in 35 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 27 Paragraphs 16,17 Paragraphs 34,35 Paragraph 18,19 Respondent's order deleted 18,19 Paragraph 20 The evaluation was proper; however, the Department did not follow Rule 60A-1.001, F.A.C. Paragraph 21 There was no evidence of fraud or dishonesty. See comments to Paragraph 20, above, and Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 22 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 23 Subsumed in 22 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 23 Paragraphs 25,26 Paragraph 22 Paragraph 27 Subsumed in 22 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 33 Paragraph 29 Subsumed in 22 and 27 Paragraph 30 Conclusions of Law Paragraph 31 Paragraph 12 Paragraphs 32,33 Conclusions of Law Paragraphs 34,35 Paragraph 23 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 37 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 38 Argument Paragraph 39 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 40 Paragraph 23 Paragraph 41 Conclusion of Law COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire I. Ed Pantaleon, Esquire 225 South Adams Street, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Steven Ferst, Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The Issue in this case is whether the subject bid protest should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1991, Respondent issued Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, Apopka School, Apopka, Florida. The specifications were contained in a spiral-bound book, which contained bidding and contract requirements and technical descriptions of mechanical systems and electrical systems. A set of drawings dated January 22, 1991, accompanied the spiral-bound book. Collectively, these documents constitute the invitation to bid (ITB). 1/ The ITB announced that Respondent would receive bids for the replacement of air conditioning and related systems until February 11, 1991, which evidently was later extended to February 19. The ITB scheduled a pre-bid conference on January 31, 1991. Section A-3.6 of the ITB provides: For clarity of description and as a of comparison, certain equipment, materials, etc., have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base his Proposal on the particular system, equipment or material specified. After the contract is let, other equipment, materials, etc., as manufactured by other manufacturers may be accepted only if, in the opinion of the Engineer, same is equivalent in quality and workmanship and will perform satisfactorily in its intended purpose. Section A-3.8 of the ITB states: Except as provided in Paragraph A3.(3, above each bidder represents that his bid is based upon the materials and equipment described in the [ITB]. Prior approval of substitution of other materials and equipment will be considered if written request is submitted to the Engineer for approval at least twelve days prior to the date for receipt of bids. If the Engineer approves any such proposed substitution, such approval will be set forth in an Addendum and will be forwarded to all bidders . . .. If any bidder is unable to procure written approval of any substitution from the Engineer prior to the opening of bids, he shall base his bid on the Exact items specified; if said bidder wishes to bid substitutes, he must then do so as alternates to the base bid, and so note. Each such alternate submitted shall include a complete description of the proposed substitute, the material or equipment for which it is to be substituted, drawings, cut sheets, performance or test data other data or information necessary for a complete evaluation. If additional information is required by the engineer for a complete evaluation, in his sole judgment, the Contractor shall submit such additional information as required within five (5) days of such notification, or the Alternate will not be considered. Alternates requested on the Bid Proposal Form which are approved for construction will be incorporated into the contract with the successful bidder. Alternates offered by the Bidder may be accepted and incorporated into the contract with the successful bidder. Any Substitutions which are felt by the Bidder to offer significant additional value and advantage to the Owner are encouraged to be submitted as Alternates with the Bid Proposals. Section A-14.1 contains the bid form. The first blanks are reserved for the Base Bid. Alternate #1 is for the installation of a variable air volume system, which permits localized control of air flow and temperature. Alternate #2 is for reciprocating chillers. The remaining alternates are irrelevant to this case. The bid form states that Respondent may "award such alternates that in its judgment will be for the best interest of [Respondent]." Section 1.01 of the General Requirements, which are part of the ITB, describe the work of the contract as Installing "nominal 200 ton air cooled reciprocating chillers" and related equipment. Section 1.03 A. of the Basic Mechanical Requirements, which are part of the ITB, states that the "plans and specifications are a general description of the work to be performed." Sections 2.01 under "Pumps" and "Motor," which are parts of the ITB, list several "acceptable manufactuiers" for pumps and motors. Elsewhere the ITB also lists varibus acceptable manufacturers for different types of equipment. Sometimes, as in the case of motors, the specifications describing the particular item of equipment expressly allow substitutions upon "prior approval of required submittal data by Engineer." Sometimes, as in the case of pumps, the specifications describing the particular item of eguipment are silent as to substitutes. Section 2.01 of Air Cooled Water Chillers, which is part of the ITB, describes "acceptable manufacturers" as follows: Base Bid: Bohn Heat Transfer/Wickes Manufacturing Co., air cooled screw chilled. Alternate Bid: Carrier Corp, air cooled reciprocating chiller. Other Alternates: Only as approved by Engineer. Section 2.02 B. requires that the contractor provide "three (3) nominal 200 ton air cooled water chillers" meeting certain technical specifications not relevant to this case. Section 2.03 A. sets forth requirements for reciprocating chillers, and Section 2.03 B. sets forth requirements for screw chillers. On page M-8 of the drawings included in the ITB, the "air cooled chiller schedule" notes "Bohn" as the manufacturer and provides a model number for the Bohn chiller. The schedule states that the cooling capacity of the chiller is 194.7 tons. The cooling capacity stated in the schedule was intended to describe the cooling capacity of the Bohn model air chiller noted in the schedule. The capacity of a chiller depends upon various factors, including ambient air temperature. Under certain operating conditions, the Bohn chiller noted IA the schedule operates at a 200 ton capacity, and no evidence suggests that this model chiller was not a nominal 200 ton chiller. General Note 13 on page M-7 of the drawings states: This contractor shall base his proposal upon the equipment as scheduled or specified, using the manufacturers and model numbers as called for in the specification and scheduled on the drawings. (Add alternate design is separate). If more than one manufacturer of equipment is specified, any one of the manufacturers of equipment may be used in this contractor's proposal. If this contractor wishes to use equipment not specified he must, at the time of bidding, submit separately on letterhead stationery of the bidder, the equipment he would substitute and the cost to be added or deducted from his proposal. On February 11, 1991, Respondent issued Addendum #2 to the ITB. 2/ Among other things, Addendum #2 adds to Section 2.01 A. of Air Cooled Water Chillers: "ADD Trane Co. Model No. RTAA-200 as an approved Base Bid unit for the air cooled screw chillers. Petitioner picked up the ITB on February 18, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted timely bids by the deadline of February 19. Each bidder was qualified and each bid was responsive. 3/ Petitioner's base bid was $1,539,000. Alternate #1, which was the variable air volume system, added $120,307. Alternate #2, which was the reciprocating chiller, subtracted $41,424. Next to Alternate #2 on the form, Petitioner wrote in, "Carrier." With Alternate #1 only, Petitioner's bid was $1,659,307. Alternate #1 and 2 were $1,617,883. With Alternate #2 only, Petitioner's bid was $1,497,576. Intervenor's base bid was $1,547,300. Alternate #1 added $109,000. Alternate #2 subtracted $25,000. With Alternate #1 only, Intervenor's bid was $1,656,300. Alternate - 1 and 2 were $1,631,300. With Alternate #2 only, Intervenor's bid was $1,522,300. Following review of the bids, Respondent's Engineer sent a letter dated February 25, 1991, to Respondent's director of construction. The letter recommends the acceptance of Alternate #1 because the cost is within Respondent's budget and the benefit of increased comfort is worth the cost. The Engineer's letter also recommends that Alternate #2 (as well as Alternate #3 regarding a certain type of dampers) be rejected. The letter explains: "Discussions with [Respondent's] personnel in the days prior to bid time indicate that the use of these chillers has liabilities attached (principally noise and maintenance requirements) in excess of the savings in first cost. The Engineer's letter concludes that Respondent should award the contract to Intervenor because of its apparent low bid of $1,656,300 on the Base Bid with Alternate #1. The Engineer notes that the award would result in the installation of an "essentially identical system" as that installed in another high school in the district, which would save costs in training and parts inventory. Following Respondent's decision to award the contract to Intervenor, Petitioner timely filed a written protest and formal written protest concerning Respondent's intended decision to award the contract to Intervenor. Although the record is not entirely clear, it does not appear that Petitioner filed, within three days of receipt of the ITB, a written protest of the specifications. A chiller cools water used for air conditioning. An important part of the chiller is the compressor. The reciprocating compressor operates with pistons in a back-and- forth movement. The screw compressor operates with a screw that churns continually in one direction. Reciprocating compressors, which are the older technology, contain more components, including motors, than the screw compressors, which have been available for abort ten years. The life expectancy of the screw compressor is about three to four years longer than that of the reciprocating compressor. Evidently, little data are yet available comparing the life cycle costs of the reciprocating and screw air chillers. Given the mechanical actions and numbers of parts of the compressors, as well as Respondent's experience with, screw compressors, Respondent's projection of lower costs with the screw chiller is not unreasonable. Respondent included the reciprocating chiller alternate in the ITB because of concerns that the project would cost more than Respondent had available to spend. The same motivation prompted the inclusion of Alternate #1 for the variable air volume system. Once the bids were received, Respondent determined that it could afford the enhancements of a screw chiller and variable air volume system and consequently selected the lowest bid for this package.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Lake Plumbing, Inc. ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1991.
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
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Department of Transportation's rejection of all bids in this case meets the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact In August 1996, the Department sought bids for several road projects to be constructed in Bradenton, Florida. The projects were identified as State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6501, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. The construction project includes utility relocation work to be performed on behalf of the Manatee County, the City of Bradenton, and GTE, the owners of various utilities within the project area. In preparing for road construction projects, the Department enters into joint partnership agreements with utility owners. The agreements identify the responsibilities of the parties related to performance of utility relocation/construction work related to the road project. Essentially, the owner and Department determine an estimated cost for the utility construction which the owner places into escrow and the Department assumes the responsibility for obtaining bids for the utility work. In the event that the bid exceeds the escrowed estimated cost, the utility owner may withdraw from the agreement. Upon such withdrawal, the joint partnership agreement provides that the owner may perform the work itself or the Department can pay the amount in excess of that which the owner has escrowed. If the Department agrees to pay the "excess" cost, the utility work remains included in the bid project. If the Department does not pay the "excess," the work is performed by the utility owner in accordance with the Department's construction schedule, and is deleted from the final contract negotiated with the winning bidder. Six companies filed bids in relation to the projects at issue in this proceeding, including Gator Asphalt Co., APAC- Florida, MacKenzie E.T. Company, Westra Construction Corporation, Smith and Co., Inc., and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bid of $6,586,034.13 was the low bid submitted. The Petitioner has been properly prequalified by the Department to perform the work that is the subject of the bid at issue in this proceeding. The date upon which the bids were opened is unclear, but by October 4, 1996, the bids had been opened and tabulated. By letter dated October 4, 1996, the Department notified the City of Bradenton of the bid tabulation. Although the estimated cost of work to be performed on behalf of the city was about $400,000, the letter indicates that the total amount of the deposited escrow should be $534,160.50. The letter provided a deadline of October 10 to provide certification to the Department that the funds had been escrowed. Although the Department's letter of October 4 does not address whether the Department was willing to pay the "excess," the request for additional city funds indicates that the Department was not offering to pay the additional costs associated with the work. By letter dated October 9, 1996, the City of Bradenton withdrew its participation from the project. The city portion of the work was State Project Number 13160-6501. The Department's technical review committee met on October 9, 1996. The committee reviews bid proposals and makes a recommendation to the awards committee. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the technical review committee meeting. No one who attended the technical review committee meeting testified at the hearing. At the hearing, a witness who did not attend the meeting reviewed minutes of the committee meeting and testified as to what the minutes appeared to indicate. The minutes were not offered into evidence. The awards committee met on October 15, 1996. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the awards committee meeting. No one who attended the awards committee testified at the hearing. Despite the lack of information as to what occurred during the committee meetings of October 9 and 15, the evidence establishes that the Department made no attempt to recalculate the bid amounts after the City of Bradenton withdrawal. On November 4, 1996, the Department posted notice of its intention to reject all the bids for State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. Four bids exceeding the maximum acceptable bid established by the Department were rejected. Two bids, including the Petitioner's, were rejected as nonresponsive for failing to meet requirements related to utilization of "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" (DBE) in the project. The Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's proposed rejection of all bids. The Department requires that each bid proposal either meet specific goals for DBE utilization or include an adequate "good faith effort" package identifying the efforts made by the bidder to meet the goal. The DBE goal for these projects was 12 percent of the total bid amount. Failure to either meet the DBE goal or submit an adequate "good faith effort" package renders a bid submittal nonresponsive. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive for failing to meet the DBE requirements. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's proposal did not include an adequate "good faith effort" package. The Petitioner's bid identifies DBE participation as 11.3 percent of its total bid. The Petitioner's total bid amount included the utility work for the City of Bradenton. The Petitioner asserts that a specification set forth in the bid package requires that the Department recalculate the bid proposals by deleting the City of Bradenton work from the project. Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications issued as part of the bid package at issue in this proceeding, states as follow: The Department reserves the right to delete the bid portion of the utility relocation work from the Contract. Deletion of any utility relocation work from the Contract will require the Contract bid tabulations to be recalculated based on the remaining project quantities. According to calculations made by the Petitioner, reducing the amount of his total bid by the cost of utility work related to the City of Bradenton, results in his DBE participation rising to 11.9777 percent of the revised total. The DBE reporting form supplied to bidders by the Department states that the "[g]oal may be rounded to the nearest tenth percent," indicating that his 11.977 percent could be rounded up to 12 percent. The Petitioner asserts that the withdrawal of the City of Bradenton from the project and the rounding of the goal results in his bid meeting the DBE requirement of 12 percent. The language of Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications is applicable, not to bid proposals, but to the contract negotiated between the successful bidder and the Department. In practice, the Department has implemented this provision according to the specification language. Items specifically related to withdrawn utility relocation work are deleted from the contract negotiated with the successful bidder. The evidence fails to establish the Petitioner is entitled to recalculation of his bid proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by the Petitioner in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Brant Hargrove, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary S. Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) 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 departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issues are whether Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool (MPP), is the lowest qualified bidder on Contract No. R- 2119 or whether Suwannee Valley Medical Personnel Corporation (Suwannee) is entitled to the award of Contract No. R-2119 or is entitled to have all bids rejected and the contract relet for bids.
Findings Of Fact The ITB on Contract No. R-2119 was developed jointly between the Department's Central Office and the Region II contracting staff. The Region II staff sent a draft of the ITB to the Central Office, where it was reviewed by Gerald Ellsworth, the Department's Human Service Program Specialist. Mr. Ellsworth is responsible for reviewing the Department's contracts and plans, as well as for development of the Department's proposed invitations to bid and other related types of documents. Mr. Ellsworth has considerable experience in drafting and reviewing governmental contracts for purchasing of services at the state, local and federal government levels. The ITB was also reviewed by the Department's legal office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Correctional Medical Authority, with regard to both the specifications and the contract language in the ITB. The Department properly published the ITB on or about June 28, 1989. The ITB was published under cover of a formal State of Florida Invitation to Bid for Contractual Services, Form PUR: 7031 (Rev. 10/18/88), containing the State of Florida standard general conditions for bids for contractual services. Among those conditions were detailed requirements regarding the sealed nature of bids, requirements for the execution of bids, requirements regarding the opening of bids and conditions regarding prices, terms and payment, interpretations and disputes, conflict of interest, awards, governmental restrictions, default, legal requirements, advertising, assignment, liability, facilities, cancellation and public records. The same general conditions on the first page of the ITB specifically provided an exclusive mechanism for the bidders to resolve questions and disputes regarding the conditions and specifications of the ITB: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis added.) The body of the ITB stated that the Department was soliciting bids for registered and licensed practical nurse services in the Department's Region II, on all shifts, for the care and treatment of inmate patients, as further defined in the ITB's section entitled "Responsibilities of Successful Bidder; Scope of Work." The ITB also contained detailed requirements regarding Nurse Professional Qualifications, Quality Management Standards, Scheduling of Nurses, Records, Invoicing, Insurance, Legal Requirements, Conflict of Interest, Unsatisfactory Performance, Brokering of Contract, Subcontracts, Verbal Instructions, detailed procedural requirements regarding the submission, review and evaluation of the bids, a description of the institutions covered and a copy of the sample contract. One of the procedural requirements in the body of the ITB repeated that: All inquiries from Bidder's [sic] concerning this Invitation to Bid shall be submitted in writing to the office identified on the cover of this Invitation to Bid. Such inquiries shall be received by the office on or before the date indicated above in the Calendar of Events as the "Last Day for Written Inquiries" [July 10, 1989]. (Emphasis added.) The ITB contained a "Bid Price Sheet" which contained separate blanks for RN and LPN services, separate blanks for each service for weekdays and weekend/holidays, and separate blanks for each of these categories for each of the three geographic areas of Region II, in each of the three years of the contract. That Bid Price Sheet stated that prices quoted "shall be firm net prices regardless of travel involved. . . " The body of the ITB specified that bidders must submit "all costs in the format specified on the Price Quote Sheet provided." (Emphasis added.) Further, the "Proposal Evaluations" section of the ITB specified that the figures to be inserted in the blanks on p. 15 were to be "hourly rates" for each type of nursing service. The next paragraph of this section of the ITB, however, stated that "Total cost, and cost breakouts on the Price Quote Sheet shall be clearly stated." The undisputed testimony of Gerald Ellsworth established that the intent of these provisions of the ITB was to require the bidders to state the total cost (i.e., net firm price) for each hour of nursing services in a particular geographic area at a particular point in time. Even though the ITB set forth an estimate of the hours that would be required under the contract, this information was clearly only in the nature of an estimate, and it was never the intent of the ITB to require the bidders or the Committee to project or evaluate, respectively, the total cost of the contract (as opposed to the total cost of each hour of service) by multiplying the bidders' bid costs for each hour of service by the corresponding estimate of hours needed over the three- year life of the contract for each of those categories. The primary reason for this focus upon the cost of an hour of service, rather than the cost of the entire contract, is that the estimated hours needed, as indicated by the ITB, are only estimates. Actual demands for service and workloads are likely to vary considerably, both by type of nursing position and geographic area. These demands could also vary as a result of factors such as the vacancy levels in the Department's own staff of employee nurses or changes in administrative personnel at a given institution. The ITB called for a mix of both objective and subjective evaluation of materials submitted by the bidders. The cost data, submitted in response to p. 7, para. E; p. 12, para. F.2.e; and p. 15, para. 7 was entirely objective, as was the Committee's role in evaluating that data. On the other hand, the information required from bidders under p. 12, para. F.2.a ("Project understanding and statement of work and reference from clients"), and p. 12, para. F.2.b ("Nurse Professional Qualifications"), called for a mix of both subjective and objective information and evaluation. The former, referred to throughout the testimony as "Criterion A," required the bidder to submit "a narrative statement of work to be performed, and references from clients in accordance with the specifications appearing at p. 4, para. 2.A. The latter, referred to in the testimony as "Criterion B," required bidders to: submit professional qualifications, experi- ence, and CPR certification for Department reviewers which documents the Bidders [sic] capability to provide registered and licensed practical nurse personnel that meet the training specifications. as set forth at pp. 4-5, para. 2.B. Within Criterion B, for example, an entirely objective requirement is the proof of the bidders' nurses' CPR qualification. A subjective element of this same criterion would be the quantity and quality of documentation of available nurses. The ITB required the Committee to award points to the respective bidders based on a formula which takes into account each of these objective and subjective criteria. That Formula, at its first level, assigned a point value of 20 points for Criterion A (Project understanding and statement of work, and references from clients), 30 points for Criterion B (Nurse Professional Qualifications) and 50 points for Criterion C (Bid Cost). Specifically as to Criterion C (Bid Cost), this criterion was entirely objective and did not require any subjective analysis by the Committee. The ITB specified that the lowest bidder "shall" be awarded 50 points, based on the average of the three years' quotes for cost of hours of nursing services. The ITB specified that the remaining bidders "shall" be awarded points for bid cost based on the following formula: Points Awarded Equals 50 x (1-A/B) where A equals the difference between the respective bidders' average bid and the lowest average bid, and B equals the lowest bidder's average bid. Unlike Criterion C, the Committee members' evaluation of the bidders' responses to Criteria A and B was left to their judgment and discretion. While the ITB set forth factors that were to be taken into consideration by the Committee members under these criteria, there was no required method by which an evaluator was to assign points for Criteria A and B. Specifically, there was no requirement in the ITB that the evaluators rank the bidders under Criteria A and B. An evaluator was free, for example, to give all bidders full point credit under either criterion, or to assign them any variation of points. This type of point system for mixed weighing of subjective and objective criteria is not unusual in governmental purchasing contracting and competitive bidding and is, in fact, normal procedure. The bid criteria set forth in the ITB, as well as the system set forth therein for evaluation of those bids by a mix of subjective and objective criteria, is rational. Further, and specifically, the ITB's requirement that costs be quoted as a rate per hour of service, by geographic area and point in time, is rational. It would be irrational to evaluate bid cost under this ITB by multiplying each bidder's price quotes for individual hours of service, broken down by geographic area and point in time, by the corresponding estimates of hours needed, set forth at p. 3 of the ITB, and then comparing the resulting "total cost" of the contract under each bid, since the estimated hours were intended to be no more than estimates, and the Department recognizes that these hours are subject to significant variation over the term of the contract. This probable variation would make the latter calculation entirely meaningless and baselessly speculative. It was not the intent of the ITB to find the "lowest and best" bidder. Instead, the intent of this ITB was to find the lowest bidder who met the qualifications and specifications set forth in the ITB. This is not the same as "lowest and best." The Bidders and Their Bids Medical Personnel Pool MPP, the successful bidder on Contract No. R-2119, timely submitted its bid for that contract. MPP's bid showed that MPP is a nationally recognized health care provider, with over twenty years of experience in serving the health care needs of both home health clients and facility clients. Its franchise office in Gainesville, Florida, is one of four offices operated in the Region II area by Mr. Ed Bixby, a former vice president of MPP's parent company, Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Bixby personally has over fifteen years of experience in medical staffing. All MPP offices follow the same national corporate standards for quality assurance, office operation and general business practice. Further, MPP is a financially sound and viable business, with an ongoing corporate recruitment program that regularly attracts new employees. MPP's client service representatives are on-call and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet the Department's staffing needs. The agency has been managed since October 1987, by Mr. Duane Gorgas, who has seventeen years of experience in facility clinical laboratory medicine, and who is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a clinical laboratory supervisor. MPP demonstrated compliance with Criterion B of the ITB by showing that each of its nurses is carefully and personally screened and tested for nursing skills prior to being sent into the field. In addition, MPP personally verifies all nurses' licenses with the Department of Professional Regulation, as well as their CPR certifications. A minimum of one year's documented current clinical experience is required prior to a nurse's being sent into the field. Further, MPP is itself an approved provider of nursing and other professional continuing education programs (DPR Provider No. 27M0938) and provides continuing education directly to its employees on a regular basis. MPP's Gainesville franchise already provides RN's and LPN's to correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes throughout sixteen counties in north central Florida. A list of the prisons and county jails currently and historically staffed by MPP in both Regions II and III was included in the bid, and includes thirteen corrections facilities in those two regions. A broad range of references from these and other clients, both institutional and personal, was included as Attachment II to MPP's bid. Copies of the licenses of 48 experienced MPP nurses, qualified and available to provide the services called for under Contract No. R-2119, were attached to the bid as Attachment III. Suwannee Suwannee's bid was also timely submitted. Whereas Suwannee now protests that the Department's manner of determining bid costs as net cost per hourly unit of service is irrational, that contention is belied by Suwannee's own bid. In the first place, Suwannee did not quote cost as a multiplication of hourly rates times total estimated hours anywhere in its bid, even though its president, Mr. Fortner, now contends this is the only rational way to quote or determine bid cost under the ITB. Further, Mr. Fortner expressly conceded that the ITB did not call for any such calculation of "total cost" by multiplication of rates by estimated hours. Even so, Suwannee has waived any objection or question it may now have as to the method of determining bid cost. Mr. Fortner conceded that he was fully aware of the standards set forth at pp. 1 and 11 of the ITB, requiring that questions or objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB be submitted in writing in a timely manner prior to July 10, 1989. Mr. Fortner nevertheless conceded that he failed to submit any such questions or objections regarding the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, until the filing of his protest after the award of the bid to MPP, and long after July 10, 1989. Having failed to file any timely written objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, therefore, Suwannee has waived any objections to the Department's method of calculating bid costs by averaging each bidder's unit net price for an hour of service by geographic area and point in time, as opposed to Suwannee's after- the-fact preferred method of multiplying these rates by estimated hours to determine Suwannee's definition of "total cost." Suwannee's bid, as supported by its president's testimony, showed that Suwannee was only incorporated in late July 1988, less than a year before the ITB was published. Prior to that time its then-22-year-old president's business experience consisted of operating a video store. Mr. Fortner conceded he had no prior experience whatsoever in providing any sort of nursing or medical services. Prior to the bid letting, Suwannee's sole experience in attempting to staff a correctional facility was at Baker Correctional Institute. Mr. Fortner testified that his first client was Lake City Medical Center, yet no reference from that facility appears in his bid. On the other hand, MPP's bid contains a highly favorable reference from Lake City Medical Center's director of nursing, indicating a completely satisfactory contractual relationship with MPP since 1987. Whereas MPP directly provides continuing education to its nurses under its own provider number, Suwannee takes the position that continuing education requirements are the nurses' responsibilities, and that they must meet these requirements at their own expense. Further, while Mr. Fortner stated that he believes Suwannee tests its nurses, he admitted he did not know how, and Suwannee's bid was silent on this aspect of Criterion B of the ITB. Suwannee's bid was also silent on screening of new nurse applicants. Suwannee has only recently hired a full-time director of nursing. Whereas MPP submitted qualifications for 48 nurses to staff the estimated hours under contract, Suwannee proposed to staff the same number of estimated hours with only 31 nurses. Mr. Fortner testified that the number of licenses in Suwannee's bid constitutes the full complement of nurses he deems necessary to provide the number of hours of service estimated in the ITB. The Bid Evaluation Process Objective Evaluation of Criterion C Initially, because of a confusing misprint in the ITB regarding the mathematical formula for calculating points to be awarded to bidders, other than the lowest average cost bidder, under Criterion C (bid cost), some of the four Bid Evaluation Committee members calculated the ranking of bidders under that criterion differently. That calculation was corrected by Dr. Rechtine, the Committee chairperson, however, in consultation with officials of the Region II office. The correction did not alter the ultimate overall ranking of the bidders, although it made slight differences in the points awarded individual bidders by some members of the Committee, and in one case the second and third bidders under Criterion C were reversed on one evaluator's tally sheet. All four of the Committee members testified that they agreed with the corrected calculation of points to be awarded each of the bidders under Criterion C. At no time was any other part of any Committee member's points awarded altered or changed. Subjective Evaluation of Criteria A and B Steven Smith Committee member Steven Smith, Regional Health Services Administrator for Region II, responsible for assisting institutions in the region with health service issues, including contracting for health services, evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Mr. Smith thoroughly reviewed the entire bid document of each bidder and made judgments as to the merits of each bid. His evaluations were based on how the bidders presented their respective documents, including the presentation and content of the narratives. While he did not assign any greater weight to either MPP's or Suwannee's references, Mr. Smith felt that MPP better articulated its understanding of the nature of the work. Mr. Smith was particularly impressed with MPP's understanding of the Department's court-ordered duty to improve access for inmates' to nursing services, which Mr. Smith felt was indicative of MPP's understanding of the contract's service requirements. He was also impressed with MPP's documentation of its 24-hour coverage. In sum, Mr. Smith felt MPP's bid was much clearer than Suwannee's. Cynthia Vathauer Committee member Cynthia Vathauer is a Department accountant, in charge of the inmates' welfare fund, who has previously served as an evaluator of competitive bids. Ms. Vathauer evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Ms. Vathauer reviewed the ITB and next performed a detailed analysis of whether the bid components called for by the ITB under Criteria A and B were present in each bid. Her review of the bids under Criteria A and B consisted of listing all of the required components under each criterion and then checking off whether each bidder had adequately provided the required components, making notes where there was partial or questionable compliance and deducting points from the total allowable for each criterion which was missing or incomplete. Whereas Suwannee contends Ms. Vathauer made "no analysis" of the bids under Criteria A and B, simply because Ms. Vathauer stated that she did not read these components of the bids in detail for comparative content, this allegation is not supported by the weight of the competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Vathauer's detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the factors called for by the ITB, supported by her contemporaneous notes, shows that Ms. Vathauer made a rational and reasoned analysis of the bids under those criteria, fully supporting her allocation of points to the bidders under those criteria. She admitted candidly that she was not familiar with the clinical or operational aspects of health service provision. Thus, for example, rather than attempt to compare the relative quality of nurse evaluations (which, incidentally, was not required under the ITB), Ms. Vathauer based her judgment of compliance with this criterion on the presence or absence of valid copies of actual licenses. Dianne Rechtine, M.D. Dianne Rechtine, M.D., is the medical executive director at North Florida Reception Center and acting medical services director for Region II. Dr. Rechtine also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids under the standards of the ITB. Dr. Rechtine read the respective bids and, with respect to Criteria A and B, assigned points based on her evaluation of those bids. Her notes of how she allocated points under these criteria appear as Joint Exhibit No. 4D and show that Dr. Rechtine actually scored Suwannee higher than MPP under Criterion A and the same as MPP under Criterion B. Suwannee has not been heard to assert that Dr. Rechtine's analysis under these criteria was other than rational and reasoned. Thus, it is found that Dr. Rechtine's analysis and evaluation of the bids was in fact rational and reasoned. Peggy (Richardson) Patray Since Peggy (Richardson) Patray was not called to the witness stand, MPP offered into evidence, without objection, her deposition testimony, taken prior to MPP's intervention and without benefit of cross-examination by MPP or its counsel. Nevertheless, that deposition and Ms. Patray's own evaluation notes appearing as Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate that Ms. Patray, a registered nursing services consultant employed by the Department and previous nursing supervisor at New River Correctional Institute, carefully reviewed the ITB and analyzed and evaluated the bids under Criteria A, B and C prior to awarding points to the bidders. Ms. Patray looked at the types of facilities from which references were obtained and considered, for example, related jail-type experience to be a positive factor. Ms. Patray actually scored Suwannee superior to MPP under Criterion A for reasons related to the bidders' statements of understanding of work. She scored the two bidders evenly under Criterion B, even though she was favorably impressed by one (at the time of her deposition, she could not recall which) bidder's emphasis on pre-employment screening and in-service training, when contrasted with the other bidder's leaving of this responsibility to the individual nurses. Finally, Ms. Patray testified that she was favorably impressed with MPP's sources of references, as opposed to Suwannee's, and that there was not enough information in Suwannee's bid, in her opinion, regarding nurse professional qualifications. In sum, Ms. Patray's testimony and notes in Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate clearly that she also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids of the parties under the terms and conditions of the ITB. Suwannee's Allegations There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support Suwannee's allegations that political or media pressure adverse to Suwannee influenced the decision to award Contract No. R-2119 to MPP. Each Department witness who testified in this proceeding testified that no such political pressure was brought to bear upon them or even attempted. The competent, substantial and unrebutted evidence of record demonstrates clearly that no such pressure or influence occurred or was attempted. In the same vein, Suwannee has alleged that the Committee improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors or information outside of the ITB and the bid documents. The only evidence of record of Committee members having considered information outside of the ITB or the bids was the testimony of several of the Committee members that they either were aware of or considered allegations of past difficulties with MPP, not Suwannee. For example, Mr. Smith testified that he was aware of one past problem with MPP, but none with Suwannee. In any event, he did not consider anything outside of the bid documents in his review. Ms. Vathauer said nothing relating to this issue. Dr. Rechtine testified that she was aware of, and had considered, past problems with MPP, that she had received favorable input as to Suwannee and, to the extent that this knowledge affected her evaluation, she agreed that it did so to the advantage of Suwannee (scored 20 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B), and to the disadvantage of MPP (scored 12 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B). Finally, even Ms. Patray testified that she had received some negative reports on MPP, whereas she mentioned no such information regarding Suwannee. In sum, there is no evidence of record to support Suwannee's allegations that the Committee members improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors outside the bid documents. Any error which may have occurred in this regard was entirely harmless as to Suwannee, and if it had any effect at all, it worked to Suwannee's benefit. Results of the Bid Evaluation Process The result of the bid evaluation process was that MPP received 88 overall points under the formula set out in the ITB, Suwannee received 85.62, Quality Care received 73.05 and Upjohn received 58.87. MPP was also the low bidder on cost, i.e., Criterion C. The weight and preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that Contract No. R-2119 should have been awarded to MPP, as it was, and that there is an ample, rational, reasoned and logical basis in the record supporting the decision of the Department to award the contract to MPP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding Contract No. R-2119 to Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Office 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4566BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Suwannee Valley Medical personnel Corporation 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (page 5). Proposed findings of fact 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6, 17, and 19 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Corrections Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3); 3 (19, 25); 4 (page 5); 6 (11); 7 (12); 8 (16); 9 (46); 14 (44); and 15 (45) Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, and 10-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Medical Personnel Pool Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 16-50 (1-35) and 53-63 (36- 46) Proposed findings of fact 12-15 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 51 is included on page 5 of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 52 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Older COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Attorney at Law Haben & Culpepper 306 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Drucilla E Bell Perri M. King Attorneys at Law Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Thomas D. Watry Attorney at Law Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 32,000 square feet of office space to house some of its indigent social services for southern Escambia County. Since the desired office space is greater than 2,000 square feet HRS was required to competitively bid lease number 590:1984. Towards 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 one building to house all its units employee morale moving costs traffic flow within the building public access Many of the above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 17,000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. Employee morale was important because of high employee burn out due to rendering aid to so many people who have so little and supplying a pleasant environment conducive to the work of the employees. Moving costs were important should HRS be required to find other space to operate in while necessary remodeling took place in the selected building, or be required to incur the expense of moving to a new building. 1/ All of the above areas were covered by one of Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. 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 a cross section of input from people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space under the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individual who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as a persons familiar with the bid process. Ms. Schembera assigned to serve on the committee Charles Bates, Deputy District Administrator; Jim Peters, to provide a fiscal and overall administrative perspective as well as bid expertise; two citizens from the District Advisory Council to assure objectivity and to look at the properties from the perspective of a private citizen; Mamun Rashied, a program manager; Darlene McFarland, a program manager; Cherie Neal, a unit supervisor and program worker; and Stacey Cassidy, a clerical employee. Ms. Schembera did not personally know Cherie Neal or Stacey Cassidy. These staff members were designated by the supervisors upon Ms. Schembera's direction that she wanted persons who were both intelligent and respected by their peers. One private citizen member of the committee did not participate. The committee as constituted showed a great deal of thought on Ms. Schembera's part to ensure the objectivity of the bid process she was engaging in and to ensure the maximum amount of input from persons who had experience relevant to the overall review of the proposed real estate and to the decision they were being asked to make. The selection of the bid evaluation committee members was neither an arbitrary nor capricious act on Ms. Schembera's part. In fact, the evidence demonstrated the merit in constituting the committee as she did for the input she sought. The bid evaluation committee members, minus Mr. Bates, were briefed on their duties by Joe Pastucha, Facilities Services Manager. Mr. Pastucha is part of the staff responsible for the bid process at HRS. He provided these committee members with the weighted bid evaluation criteria found at page 15 in the bid package. He also gave the committee members a copy of Chapter 5 of the HRS manual containing guidelines for the bid process. His verbal instructions on specific procedures to follow in the evaluation process were limited since he did not wish to improperly influence the committee members. On July 20, 1988, HRS received three bids responding to its invitation to bid on Lease Number 590:1984. Bid A was submitted by Phillips and Company, the apparent second lowest bidder and Intervenor in this case. Its property consisted of one multi-story building located at 1740 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida. Bid B was not responsive and therefore was not considered by HRS and is not a part of this litigation. Bid C was submitted by Petitioner Carmon S. Boone, and was the apparent low bid. Mr. Boone's property consisted of two buildings located at 401 and 411 North Baylen Street, Pensacola, Florida. The Boone property is the present location of Respondent's offices. Both Bid A and Bid C were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Once the bids were received the bid evaluation committee began its work. The committee members, minus Mr. Bates, visited the Phillips property. However, the members did not visit the Boone property. There was no need. Four of the members currently worked at the Boone property and the other members had previously visited the Boone property on various other occasions. Mr. Bates was likewise already familiar with both properties. All members were sufficiently familiar with the cogent aspects of each property to allow them to make a rational decision. The bid evaluation committee, minus Mr. Bates, met as a group to evaluate each property in accordance with the weighted bid evaluation criteria. Each individual scored their sheets separately and the general consensus was supportive of recommending the Phillips property. Five committee members scored Mr. Phillips' property higher than the Boone property. The one exception was Mr. Peters who felt that HRS could not support a bid awarded for other than monetary reasons, i.e., he felt the lowest bid had to be accepted. Mr. Bates later reviewed all the bid synopsis sheets of the committee members and discussed the bid award with Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha. Mr. Bates felt that the Phillips property was the lowest and best bid. At about the same time, the staff responsible for providing technical assistance to the committee and the District Administrator were made aware that the general consensus of the committee was leaning towards the second lowest bidder, Phillips and Company, as the lowest and best bid. The staff members, one of whom was a bid committee member, disagreed with the award of the bid to Phillips and Company because the Boone property was the lower bid. The staff members sought to head off the committee's intended recommendation. The staff personnel held a meeting with some of the committee members in order to get them to join in a recommendation to Ms. Schembera of the Boone property. Mr. Boone was invited and attended the meeting. He was allowed to improperly bolster his bid by agreeing to convert the two buildings to one and other lesser additions. /2 The potential decision was discussed, but no committee member changed his or her mind. However, through a total lack of communication, a run away staff somehow rationalized themselves into a position of being authorized to submit a letter for Ms. Schembera's signature which awarded the Boone property the lease. Ms. Schembera became aware of her staff's attempt to subvert the bid process she had established. She refused to sign the letter submitted by the staff. She removed the staff member of the committee as a voting member. The staff member had supported the Boone property. She also removed a committee member who supported the Phillips property as a voting member. Ms. Schembera feared that her staff had improperly influenced this member to such an extent that his objectivity had been affected. Both members could still participate in committee discussions. Ms. Schembera thereby reasonably ensured the ongoing objectivity of the bid evaluation committee. The committee was reconvened, minus one member. It recommended the Phillips and Company property. Every reason 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 the Phillips property was the better property for the money. The Phillips property allowed working units to be located in one area with each such unit having its own access. It provided flat safe parking areas and sidewalks, bigger and more elevators, wide halls and windows which presented a bright, happy and pleasant working environment. The Boone property was in two buildings which could not accommodate co-located working units with their own access no matter how much remodeling took place. Parking and sidewalks are on a hill which is slippery when wet. It had one small elevator and narrow halls which did not adequately accommodate more than one wheel chair, and one ground floor where no windows could ever be remodeled into the building leaving a dark, dingy and unpleasant environment. Importantly, every committee member except for the staff member came to the conclusion that the Phillips and Company 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 particular 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. After reviewing and considering information from the bid evaluation committee, the information on the bid synopsis sheet, and the oral recommendations of Mr. Bates, Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha, Ms. Schembera concluded that the Phillips property was vastly better, even considering costs. She found it to be materially superior in terms of construction, organization, client accessibility, handicap accessibility, repairability (in terms of walls), and maneuverability for clients and staff. She felt the Phillips' building's qualities would offer more "humanity" to the process of serving the Department's clients. Additional facts she considered when making her decision included the morale of the staff and their productivity; the ability of staff and clients to conduct their business in a reasonably pleasant, comfortable, safe, and easy to understand and comprehend environment; and the desire to provide a minimally adequate work space. In addition to other monetary costs, she considered energy costs and life cycle costs as reflected on the bid synopsis sheet. The bid synopsis sheet defined minimal energy and life cycle costs to be anything less than 55 BTU's per square feet per year. In this case, the Boone property reflected 39.5 BTU's per square feet and the Phillips property reflected 53.5 BTU's per square feet. Both properties were under the 55 BTU cutoff established by HRS. Translated into monetary figures (life cycle costs) the Boone property reflected a cost of $26,735.00 and the Phillips property reflected a cost of $41,160.00. It was the difference between the energy figures which caught Ms. Schembera's eye. In her layman's opinion, it was incomprehensible that the two buildings would have such a wide divergence of energy costs. /3 She learned from her staff that the information used to compute these costs was supplied by the bidders who had vested interests in the outcome. Ms. Schembera concluded the cost difference was minimal and not of overriding concern in relation to the physical characteristics of the two buildings and how they compared to each other. She quite correctly felt the two buildings were not comparable. In essence, the two buildings' differences in design location and construction rendered neither building comparable to the other building as a like facility under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. 4/ Based on that information she gave the energy figures relatively little weight. More importantly, however, before the final bid award was made by HRS, the Division of General Services within HRS in its failsafe role in reviewing bids considered the life cycle cost figures of the two bids. The minimal language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, has been interpreted by HRS to mean that anything under 55 BTU's is minimal and except in one instance not applicable here, numerical differences under 55 BTU's are immaterial. The Division, without getting into the issue of the likeness of the facilities, concluded that both bids met the Department's interpretation of the "minimal" language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, and the relative numerical difference in the energy costs was immaterial. Ms. Schembera is entitled to rely on other more expert HRS Division staff to ensure a proper analysis of highly technical bid specifications such as the energy cost analysis required under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. It does not matter that the review took place after Ms. Schembera had made her preliminary decision. What is important is that the review be made either personal or vicariously through staff before the final award is made. A proper review of energy costs was, therefore, made by Respondent before the final award was made. Likewise, Ms. Schembera's ultimate decision that the buildings were not comparable like facilities was a proper review of energy costs even though that conclusion was arrived at through a layman's unsophisticated, but more accurate intuition and common sense. To that extent, the energy cost data had no impact on the ultimate choice made by the District Administrator and were properly considered by the District Administrator. 5/ A letter for Ms. Schembera's signature adopting the committee's recommendation was drafted by Mr. Pastucha. The letter was signed and sent to the Department's Division of General Services for review. The District was requested to provide additional justification for its choice by the Department's Division of General Services. Mr. Rashied was directed to draft the response. He simply reorganized the original memorandum into a format more compatible with the Division's direction, clarified a few points and without significantly changing the content, submitted the response as directed. The Division acquiesced in Ms. Schembera's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing Case NO. 88-4900BID, and awarding lease number 590:1984 to Phillips and Company as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 5th 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 5th day of January, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in rejecting all bids due to the vagueness of an addendum to bid specifications, and rebidding a contract for the installation and replacement of EDB water filters.
Findings Of Fact In September, 1986, Global submitted a bid to the Department for the installation and exchange of EDB water filters. The three lowest bidders, including Global, were disqualified. This bid was designated DOF-ADM-13. On or about November 14, 1986, the Department issued new bid specifications, and an invitation to bid designated DOF-ADM-29. Bidders were required to prequalify, but in other respects these specifications were essentially the same as the previous bid, DOF-ADM-13. The deadline for prequalification was December 2, 1986. Prior to the prequalification deadline, Global contacted the Department's contract manager, John Folks, and sought a change in the following prequalification requirement: All vendors must provide in writing from the National Water Quality Association proof that all management personnel involved in the development of the bid and in the completion of the contract (if vendor is awarded bid) have a NWQA CWD-V certification and that all staff members involved in the actual construction, installation and maintenance of the filter systems are NWQA certified installers. Please note the calendar of events for deadlines. (Emphasis Supplied.) Global did not have NWQA level V certified installers, and therefore, could not qualify under this provision. However, they did have Class I plumber's licenses, the highest designation in North Carolina, the company's headquarters. James Tate, Global's Vice President, testified that a Class I plumber's license is the same as a master plumber in Florida. The Department's contract manager approved and issued an addendum which constituted an amended bid specification on November 20, 1986, to permit a Class I plumber's license or equivalent, as follows: All vendors must provide in writing from the National Water Quality Association proof that all management personnel involved in the development of the bid and in the completion of the contract (if vendor is awarded bid) have a NWQA CWD-V certification or a class one plumber's license or equivalent and that all staff members involved in the actual construction, installation and maintenance of the filter systems are NWQA certified installers. Please note the calendar of events for deadlines. (Emphasis Supplied.) On December 3, 1986, Folks determined that Global was qualified to bid. Global submitted its bid on DOF-ADM-29 in a timely manner, and upon opening of all bids on December 15, 1986, was determined to be the lowest qualified bidder. Global was informed on December 15, 1986, that it was the winning bidder. However, on December 19, 1986, the Department posted its tabulation on bid DOF-ADM-29 which rejected all bids "due to ambiguities in specifications and prequalifying requirements." The specific reason for this rejection was that upon review of the addendum by the Department's General Counsel at the time, Robert Chastain, it was determined that the addendum was vague and ambiguous. Specifically, Chastain and Folks concluded that the reference to Class I plumber's license was ambiguous since such a designation does not exist in Florida, and it was unclear whether such licensure in another state would allow a plumber to work in the four Florida counties affected by this bid. This ambiguity in the addendum had been brought to the Department's attention by a competing bidder, Continental Water Systems, Inc., after bids had been opened on December 15, 1986, through a threatened bid protest. In rejecting all bids, the Department was attempting to avoid a protest either by Continental, if the award was made to Global, or by Global, if the award was made to Continental. The Department was reasonably concerned with the creation of a health emergency if the purchase of EDB filters was delayed through the filing of a bid protest. It sought to avoid any such delay by rejecting all bids and rebidding this contract as DOF-ADM-41 which contained the following redrafted specification: All vendors must provide in writing proof that all management personnel involved in the development of the bid and in the completion of the contract (if vendor is awarded bid) have a National Water Quality Association (NWQA) CWD-V certification or are a certified master plumber in the State of Florida and that all staff members involved in the actual construction, installation and maintenance of the filter systems are NWQA certified installers or are a certified plumber in accordance with county regulations and requirements in the State of Florida. (Emphasis Supplied.) The redraft of the prequalification specification in DOF-ADM-41 corrected the ambiguities created by the November 20, 1986, addendum to DOF-ADM- 29, as to both management and staff. Global's notice of protest of the Department's decision to reject all bids was timely filed on December 23, 1986, as acknowledged-by the Department's then General Counsel, pursuant to Rule 13A-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, which is presumed valid. On January 23, 1987, the Commissioner of Agriculture issued a Declaration of Emergency in order to be able to proceed with the rebid, DOF-ADM- 41, despite Global's protest of the rejection of all bids in DOF-ADM-29. This Declaration of Emergency was upheld in Global Water Conditioning v. Department of Agriculture, 521 So.2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The contract in DOF-ADM-41 was awarded in February, 1987, to Continental. The contract for the installation and exchange of EDB water filters is an on going project, and, with the exception of the prequalification changes referenced above, the specifications for bids D0F-ADM-13, 29 and 41 were essentially the same.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing Global's protest to the rejection of all bids in DOF-ADM-29. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 26th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2642 BID Rulings on Global's Proposed Findings of Fact: This is not a proposed finding of fact, but a restatement of the issue in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 6-7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether the Department acted arbitrarily in rejecting all bids due to vagueness of the specifications. 10-16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8, 9, and 10. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 21-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 23-26. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record, and as irrelevant. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in. Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 9-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 13-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 20-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 24-26. Rejected as irrelevant to the issue of whether the Department acted arbitrarily or capriciously in rejecting all bids due to ambiguities in the specifications. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 29. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, and as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Barth, Esquire 433 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory E. Horne, General Counsel Clinton H. Coulter, Esquire Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
