The Issue This is a proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to challenge the Respondent's determination that the Petitioner's proposal submitted in response to a request for proposals was disqualified for failure to comply with all requirements of the specifications in the request for proposals or, alternatively, to require the Respondent to reject all proposals and issue a new request for proposals with improved specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Palm Beach County Workforce Development Board, Inc., Wages Coalition ("Respondent") is a Florida corporation not-for- profit organized under the laws of the State of Florida on or about August 14, 1996. The Respondent's articles of incorporation contain a statement of the purposes for which the corporation was formed. Those purposes include the following: To provide direction and oversight for initiatives related to the development of a workforce which will meet the needs of business, industry and the government to enable Palm Beach County to compete in all economic markets. . . . To promote and enhance productive employment of individuals in Palm Beach County, Florida, through the development, promotion, and implementation of programs to prepare youth and adults for successful entry into and retention in the labor force, to afford job training to economically disadvantaged and other individuals in need of such training, and to develop jobs and match all eligible individuals with job openings, through industry-specific training programs supportive of industrial and economic development, through employment- generating activities to increase job opportunities, and through other related activities. The Respondent is a "regional workforce board" within the meaning of Section 445.007, Florida Statutes. On or about January 10, 2000, the Respondent issued a Request for Proposals for Year-Round Youth Programs for Program Year 2000-2001 ("RFP"). The Petitioner timely submitted its proposal in response to the RFP, and the Respondent disqualified the Petitioner's proposal by letter dated March 2, 2000, accompanied by a document entitled "technical review sheet" signed by the Respondent's employee, Mr. Delwin Finch, and the Respondent's legal counsel, Chandler Finley, Esquire. Thereafter, by letter dated March 8, 2000, the Petitioner notified the Respondent that it wished to protest and/or appeal the disqualification of its proposal. By mutual agreement, the parties attempted to resolve the Petitioner's protest/appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes; however, the matter was not resolved, and this administrative action followed. According to the Respondent's technical review sheet for the Petitioner's proposal, the Respondent disqualified the Petitioner's proposal based on the following items alleged to be missing from the proposal: Item 3 - Signatures for two of Petitioner's collaborating partners (Westech and Pahokee Middle schools) were missing. Item 5 - No audit, financial statement or tax return for two of Petitioner's collaborating partners (Westech and Pahokee Middle Schools). Item 6 - A detailed line item budget was not included. Item 7 - The current organizational status, current licenses and certifications, proof of insurance, proof of current financial status, employment policies, and most recent audit were not furnished for two of Petitioner's collaborating partners (Westech and Pahokee Middle Schools), no occupational license was furnished for Petitioner's collaborating partner CILO, and an adequate explanation was not furnished for the absence of these documents. Item 8 - The certifications regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Drug-Free Workplace, and Clean Air Act were not provided for two of Petitioner's collaborating partners (Westech and Pahokee Middle Schools). Item 9 - Proposal was not signed by three of Petitioner's collaborating partners (Urban league, and Westech and Pahokee Middle Schools). Evidence at the hearing establishes that three of the above described bases for disqualification were erroneous; i.e., the detailed line item budget (item 6 of the technical review sheet) was not missing, an occupational license for CILO was not required because it is a non-profit organization, and the signature of collaborating partner, Urban League, was not missing. Mr. Delwin Finch, was the representative of the Respondent who performed the technical review of all proposals received by the Respondent in response to the RFP. He disqualified the Petitioner's proposal because it stated that portions of the services referred to in the proposal would be subcontracted to West Tech School and Pahokee Middle School, but the proposal was not signed by the principals of West Tech School or Pahokee Middle School, nor was it signed by the Palm Beach County School District, and because there were no financial statements or certifications regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Drug- Free Workplace, or Clean Air Act from West Tech School, Pahokee Middle School, or the Palm Beach County School District. The Petitioner's proposal has an adequate explanation for the absence of each item of information, signature, or certification that was cited in Respondent's technical review sheet as missing. Of the eight proposals that were not disqualified, at least two other proposals omitted documents, financial statements, signatures, or certifications from collaborating partners named in such proposals, or from parties that were referred to as "subcontractor(s)." The approved proposals with such omissions were the proposals submitted by a coalition consisting of The Paxon Group, Inc., Palm Beach Community College, the 5060 Group, Street Beet, and The United Way ("the Power Coalition") and the proposal submitted by Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc. The Power Coalition proposal states that it will be "subcontracting" portions of the services referred to in the proposal. However, the proposal is signed only by The Paxon Group, Inc., and Palm Beach Community College. It is not signed by any subcontractor, nor does the Power Coalition's proposal include financial statements or certifications regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Drug-Free Workplace, or Clean Air Act from any of its coalition members except for The Paxon Group. Notwithstanding the specific reference in the Power Coalition's proposal to certain services being subcontracted, and the absence from Power Coalition's proposal of signatures, financial statements, or certifications regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Drug-Free Workplace, or Clean Air Act, no deficiencies in this Paxon Group proposal were noted in the Respondent's technical review of that proposal. The proposal submitted by Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc., states that it is "subcontracting" with the Palm Beach County School District. However, this proposal did not include the signature, financial statements, or certifications regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Drug-Free Workplace, or Clean Air Act from the School District. Notwithstanding the specific reference in Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc.'s proposal to subcontracting with the School District, and the absence from Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc.'s proposal of signatures, financial statements or certifications regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Drug-Free Workplace, or Clean Air Act from the School District, no deficiencies in the Gulfstream Goodwill Industries, Inc. proposal were noted in the Respondent's technical review of that proposal. The specifications in the subject RFP include language pursuant to which the Respondent "reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received." Those specifications also provide that "[i]f a required certification or document is unavailable at the time of proposal, this must be stated and an explanation provided. Before a contract is offered, the proposer must submit the required certifications provided later in this packet." The specifications in the subject RFP also contain an appeal process which affords all proposers "the right to protest the award decision." The grounds upon which protests will be considered are itemized in the specifications. The itemized grounds for protesting the award decision are different from the grounds available in a proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. The procedures for resolving protests under the subject RFP are also set forth in the specifications. Such procedures are different from the procedures provided in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. The specifications in the subject RFP contain no mention of Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, nor has the Respondent adopted the rules required by Section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent has had protests of award decisions under previous requests for proposals that contained the same protest resolution language as the instant RFP. All of the prior protests were resolved using the procedures set forth in the specifications. The Respondent has never previously used the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, to resolve a protest of one of its award decisions.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the current procurement process should be terminated and that the procurement should be begun anew with specifications and procedures consistent with the requirements of Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, and other state statutes related to procurement. Alternatively, should the Respondent elect to continue to go forward with the instant procurement effort, an order should be issued setting aside the disqualification of the Petitioner's proposal, and the Petitioner's proposal should be considered along with the other successful proposals. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, J. D. Pirrotta Company (JDP), is a general contracting company located in Orlando, Florida. JDP has bid on projects involving construction of schools or educational facilities, including projects for Valencia Community College. Respondent, District Board of Trustees of Valencia Community College, is the governing body of the community college, with the authority to award contracts. Valencia Community College (VCC), in Bid #90/91-06, advertised for sealed bids for interior remodeling and renovation of existing buildings' modules 3 and 5, on its west campus on South Kirkman Road, in Orlando, Florida. The sealed bids were due at or before 2:30 p.m., on December 13, 1990, in the purchasing department of VCC, 190 South Orlando Avenue, Suite 402B, Orlando, Florida 32801. The Invitation to Bid includes a voluminous project manual containing instructions to bidders, various forms, a standard contract text and detailed specifications. A separate bid packet contains the set of drawings for the construction work. The advertisement of the Invitation to Bid, and Section 00100 of the Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, paragraph 14A, reserve for the owner the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any and all "informalities". (Respondent's Exhibits #1 and #2) Section 00100, Instructions to Bidders, paragraph 18, provides: 18. SUBCONTRACTORS, ETC. The bidders at bid date shall submit to Owner a list of all subcontractors and other persons and organizations (including those who are to furnish the principal items of material and equipment) proposed for those portions of the work as to which such identification is so required. Such list shall be accompanied by an experience statement with pertinent information as to similar projects and other evidence of qualifications for each such subcontractor, person and organization if requested by Owner. If Owner, after due investigation has reasonable objection of any proposed subcontractor, other person or organization either may, before giving the Notice of Award, request the apparent successful bidder to submit an acceptable substitute without an increase in bid price. If the apparent successful bidder declines to make any such substitution, the contract shall not be awarded to such bidder, but his declining to make any such substitution will not constitute grounds for sacrificing his bid security. A subcontractor, other person or organization so listed and to whom Owner does not make written objection prior to the giving of the Notice of Award, will deemed acceptable to Owner. Should the subcontractors list be revised, for any reason, architect and Owner shall be immediately notified. (Respondent's Exhibit #2) Paragraph 9, Section 00300, the bid form, provides: The following documents are attached to and made a condition of the Bid: Required Bid Security in the form of a Bid Bond. A tabulation of subcontractors and other persons and organizations required to be identified in this Bid. Required Bidders Qualification Statement with supporting data. (Respondent's Exhibit #2) Section 00700, the Public Entity Crimes statement form, includes these instructions: Any person responding with an offer to this invitation must execute the enclosed Form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(3) (a), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES and enclose it with your bid. If you are submitting a bid on behalf of dealers or suppliers who will ship and receive payment from the resulting contract, it is your responsibility to see that copy/copies of the form are executed by them and are included with your bid. Failure to comply with this condition shall result in rejection of your bid. (Respondent's Exhibit #2) The Instructions to Bidders and the drawings include a total of ten deductive alternatives to be addressed in the bids, to afford VCC some flexibility in the event the base bid might be higher than the agency's available funds. In response to the advertisement and request for sealed bids, VCC received bids from the following seven contractors: Seacoast Constructors and Consultants; JDP; Southland Construction, Inc.; Harbco, Inc.; Technical Design Systems, Inc.; Hembree Construction, Inc.; and Waltree Construction, Inc. The bids were opened publicly and read aloud beginning shortly after the submittal deadline on December 13, 1990. Jack C. Crawford, Vice-President for Administrative Services, and Stephen Richard Childress, Purchasing Manager, participated in the bid opening on behalf of VCC. Seacoast Constructors was the lowest bidder, at $1,274,000.00, base bid; JDP was the second lowest bidder, at $1,297,000.00, base bid. None of the bidders submitted bids containing all of the requested or required information. None of the bidders included a deduct alternative requested by Drawing E-10, General Notes number 2. Only JDP included the deduct alternative requested by Drawing E-6, General Notes number 2. Seacoast Constructors and Consultants failed to include Form PUR 7068, Public Entity Crimes statement, with their bid, but it executed and submitted the form to VCC on December 13th, the date of the opening. Two of the bidders, JDP and Harbco, failed to submit subcontractor lists with their bids. At the time of hearing, JDP had still not submitted its list. For this project the low base bid is within VCC's available funds, and it does not intend to rely on any of the deduct alternatives in the bids. Following the bid opening, the bid tabulation form was posted on a bulletin board in the administration building. A copy of the tabulation form was also placed in a folder which includes recommendations on other bids and which is maintained at the desk of the security guard outside the room where the bids are opened. Inside the front cover of the folder, in the bottom left hand corner, is a small typewritten statement: Failure to file a protest within the time described in S. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of any other notice of section 120.53, F.S. remedies to bidders, including in the advertisement or in instructions to bidders. JDP filed a written bid protest in a letter dated December 13, 1990 and received on December 14, 1990. The letter clearly states that it is a formal protest, pursuant to Section 120.53(5), F.S. It argues that bids submitted by Seacoast Constructors and others were unresponsive and should be rejected for failure to include the Public Entity Crimes Statement, for failure to bid on a deduct alternative, and for other reasons (immaterial, because they apply to higher bidders). The protest letter requested award to JDP. JDP met with representatives of VCC to attempt to resolve the protest. At the meeting, Joseph Pirrotta was informed that his bid was considered nonresponsive because it failed to include a subcontractors' list. The meeting did not resolve the matter, and on December 19, 1990, Joseph Pirrotta sent a follow-up letter arguing that the text of the bid instructions only require a subcontractors' list for "...portions of the work as to which such identification is so required", and nowhere in the bid packet was any reference to which were required. JDP considered that the subcontractors' list was, therefore, unnecessary. The December 19th letter also reiterated JDP's request to reject the other bids and to award the contract to JDP. The December 13th and 19th letters are the only written protests by JDP. VCC has previously awarded contracts to bidders who failed to submit a Public Entity Crimes Statement with their bid. It considers such failure an "informality" subject to waiver. It considers failure to submit a list of subcontractors an economic advantage with respect to other bidders. Representatives of VCC have recommended to its board that the contract be awarded to Seacoast Constructors, the lowest bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That the District Board of Trustees of Valencia Community College enter its final order awarding the contract in Bid #90/91-06 to Seacoast Constructors and Consultant, and rejecting the protest of J.D. Pirrotta Company. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 25th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie King O'Neal, Esquire P.O. Drawer 1991 Orlando, FL 32802 Jeffrey S. Craigmile, Esquire Brian P. Kirwan, Esquire 390 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 2180 Orlando, FL 32801 Jack C. Crawford Vice President Administrative Services Valencia Community College P.O. Box 3028 Orlando, FL 32802
Findings Of Fact On February 25, 1994, DACS issued an Invitation to Bid ITB/DF-93/94-49 to obtain competitive bids for contractual services involving a biological assessment of approximately 44,334 acres of the Goethe State Forest in Levy County, Florida. The Invitation to Bid provided that the bids received would be opened at 2:30 p.m. on March 21, 1994. The Special Terms, Conditions and Specifications of the Invitation to Bid provided that references submitted by the bidder must be those of the bidder. The General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provided that the Department may waive any minor irregularity or technicality in the bids received. Bids must be evaluated upon the information furnished with the bid. No other information is used. At the bid opening, Conway was the apparent low bidder at $0.71 per acre for a total of $31,477.14, and Environmental Services was the apparent second low bidder at $1.0438 per acre for a total of $46,275.66. ESP's bid was approximately 47 percent higher than Conway's bid. ESP's bid was responsive to the ITB and ESP is qualified to perform the work required under the ITB. Conway submitted three references with its bid. However, Conway's three references were for work previously performed by Ms. Duever as an individual or as an employee of another company. The references were not those of the bidder, Conway. Linda Duever, the sole officer and director of Conway Conservation, Inc., read the invitation to bid and was aware of the specific requirement for references of the bidder. Ms. Duever thought the Department and the Invitation to Bid emphasized the importance of similar work to that sought by the Department. She did not seek information about the reference requirements, even though she had some doubt about the references she was submitting, thinking she could supplement the bid later if necessary. Nor did she protest the specifications within the timeframes established by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Conway is a closely January 26, 1993. However, Conway Conservation, Inc., and Linda Duever are two separate and distinct entities. The evidence demonstrated that the references of the bidders were an important part of the information to consider in the award of this bid since the references indicated that the bidder had the expertise to perform the work required in the bid but also had the financial wherewithal to complete such work and hire the necessary personnel or subcontractors to successfully complete the work required in the Invitation to Bid. In this case, Petitioner's references demonstrated expertise in the areas of knowledge required to complete a biological survey. However, what the references did not show and could not show because they did not reflect business done by Conway, was the financial ability of Conway to adequately complete a biological survey. Such information was very important to the Department and was not a minor irregularity nor technicality which could, or should, have been waived by DACS. Given these facts Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid and the Department was correct in rejecting Petitioner's bid and awarding the project to ESP. Finally, Conway is not certified by the Department of Management Services as a minority business enterprise pursuant to Section 288.703(4), Florida Statutes, although the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner could easily be so certified. However, bidder's minority status, either certified or not certified, does not change the result in this case. Status as a Minority Business Enterprise was not a consideration in this bid award. Therefore, Minority Business Enterprise status, or lack thereof, did not and could not have had any impact on the outcome. Moreover, the Department has no authority to change the terms and conditions under which a bid is to be awarded after the bids are opened in order to grant more favorable treatment to a potential minority business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order in this case dismissing Petitioner's formal protest and awarding the contract for the Project to Environmental Services and Permitting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2121BID The facts contained in paragraphs A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, Q, R and S, of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs C, J, N and P of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20 and 21 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Isadore Rommes Senior Attorney Legal Office 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Kent A. Zaiser P. O. Box 6045 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6045 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 John T. Lavia, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. Post Office 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services under Invitation to Bid No. 12-039T – Refuse Services (the ITB) Respondent School Board of Broward County, Florida (the School Board) acted contrary to a governing statute rule policy or project specification; and if so whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition. Specifically, Petitioner Ace Waste Services, LLC (Petitioner) challenges the determination that the bids submitted by the apparent low bidder, the apparent low second low bidder, and the apparent low third low bidder were responsive and responsible bids meeting the specifications contained in the ITB.
Findings Of Fact School Board Policy 3320 entitled "Purchasing Policies" is the agency's rule governing the purchasing of goods and services. On October 7, 2011, the School Board issued the ITB which was entitled "Refuse Services." On October 18, 2011, the School Board issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITB. The refuse services were to be provided to 58 district school sites, which were collectively referred to as Group 1. The Bidder Acknowledgement found at Section 1.0 of the ITB states in pertinent part as follows: I agree to complete and unconditional acceptance of this bid all appendices and contents of any Addenda released hereto; I agree to be bound to all specifications terms and conditions contained in this ITB . . .. I agree that this bid cannot be withdrawn within 90 days from due date. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 3(b): MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications delivery schedules bid prices and extensions and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services. Failure to do so will be at Bidder's risk. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 35: PROTESTING OF BID CONDITIONS/SPECIFICATIONS: Any person desiring to protest the conditions/specifications of this Bid/RFP or any Addenda subsequently released thereto shall file a notice of intent to protest in writing within 72 consecutive hours after electronic release of the competitive solicitation or Addendum and shall file a formal written protest with ten calendar days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Saturdays Sundays legal holidays or days during which the school district administration is closed shall be excluded in the computation of the 72 consecutive hours. If the tenth calendar day falls on a Saturday Sunday legal holiday or day during which the school district administration is closed the formal written protest must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. ET of the next calendar day that is not a Saturday Sunday legal holiday or days during which the school district administration is closed. Section 120.57(3)(b) Florida Statutes as currently enacted or as amended from time to time states that "The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based." Failure to file a notice of protest or to file a formal written protest within the time prescribed by [section 120.57(3)(b)] or a failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter 120]. The failure to post the bond required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI within the time prescribed by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI as currently enacted or as amended from time to time shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter 120]. Notices of protest formal written protests and the bonds required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI shall be filed at the office of the Director of Supply Management and Logistics 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 323 Sunrise, Florida 33351 (fax 754-321-0936). Fax filing will not be acceptable for the filing of bonds required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 36: POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS: Any person who files an action protesting an intended decision shall post with the School Board at the time of filing the formal written protest a bond payable to the School Board of Broward County Florida in an amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Board's estimate of the total volume of the contract. The School Board shall provide the estimated contract amount to the vendor within 72 hours excluding Saturdays Sundays legal holidays and other days during which the School Board administration is closed of receipt of notice of intent to protest. The estimated contract amount shall be established on the award recommendation as the "contract award amount." The estimated contract amount is not subject to protest pursuant to [section 120.57(3)]. The bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against the protestant in an Administrative Hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond the School Board may accept a cashier's check official bank check or money order in the amount of the bond. If after completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings the School Board prevails the School Board shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or judgment including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings but excluding attorney's fees. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protestant the bond shall be returned. If the protestant prevails then the protestant shall recover from the Board all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or judgment excluding attorney's fees. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 1: INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE: The School Board of Broward County Florida (hereinafter referred to as "SBBC") desires bids on REFUSE SERVICES for solid waste removal as specified herein. Prices quoted shall include pick up at various schools departments and centers within Broward County Florida. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 3: AWARD: In order to meet the needs of SBBC Bid shall be awarded in its entirety to one primary and one alternate responsive and responsible Bidders meeting specifications terms and conditions. The lowest Awardee shall be considered the primary vendor and should receive the largest volume of work. Therefore it is necessary to bid on every item in the group and all items (1-58) in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC reserves the right to procure services from the alternate Awardee if: the lowest Bidder cannot comply with service requirements or specifications; in cases of emergency; it is in the best interest of SBBC. After award of this bid any Awardee who violates any specification term or condition of this bid can be found in default of its contract have its contract canceled be subject to the payment of liquidated damages and be removed from the bid list and not be eligible to do business with this School Board for two years as described in General Conditions 22 and 55. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 7: ADDING OR DELETING SITES: SBBC may during the term of the contract add or delete service wholly or in part at any SBBC location. When seeking to add a location SBBC shall request a quote from both Awardees. The lowest Bidder shall receive an award for the additional location. If additional service is requested for an existing site already receiving service the current service provider will be contacted to provide a new quote based on the pricing formula submitted in response to this ITB or a subsequent quote. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 11: RECEPTACLES: The Awardee shall furnish receptacles in good repair. . . .The Awardee shall furnish any and all equipment materials supplies and all other labor and personnel necessary for the performance of its obligations under this contract. Design of all equipment is subject to the approval of the Manager Energy Conservation Utility Management or his designee and must be replaced upon notification without additional cost to SBBC. DESCRIPTION: All receptacles used for solid waste referenced in Group 1 on the Bid Summary Sheets and the Tamarac location listed in Section 5 Additional Information unless otherwise indicated shall be provided by the Awardee at no additional cost. Bin receptacles shall be provided for SBBC use in the cubic yard capacities as indicated on the Bid Summary Sheets. Receptacles shall be bin-type units steel or plastic lift-up lids NO SIDE DOORS unless specifically requested for 8 cu. yd. fitted for automatic loading on casters where necessary for chute operations. (Receptacles not on casters must have a 6" – 12" clearance from ground to bottom of bin for easy cleaning underneath.) TWO AND THREE YARD CONTAINERS: It will be necessary for The Awardee to supply the two (2) and three (3) yard containers to hold compacted refuse at a ratio of approximately 4:1. These containers are designed for front-end loading. THESE UNITS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE BID SUMMARY SHEET BY A SINGLE ASTERISK (*) NEXT TO THE CONTAINER SIZE. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 20: SMALL IN-HOUSE COMPACTION UNITS(approximately two yards): The following schools have in-house compaction units which will need to be provided by the Awardee. Waste is compacted at an approximate ratio of 3:1. Collins Elementary Oakridge Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Revised Special Condition 14: PRICING – ALL INCLUSIVE COST GROUP 1 ITEMS 1– 58: Bidder shall submit fixed monthly costs where indicated on the Bid Summary Sheets for each location based on 4.33 weeks per month. (This number is derived by dividing 52 weeks by 12 months). Monthly costs stated shall be an all-inclusive cost for providing receptacles refuse removal and disposal including but not limited to all necessary labor services material equipment taxes tariffs franchise fees maintenance and applicable fees. SBBC agrees to pay the Broward County Disposal Adjustment (tipping fees) in effect at the time. Increases to this fee will be paid as assessed by Broward County. Any decreases in these rates shall be passed on to SBBC as well. No bid specification protest was filed by any person concerning the original ITB or Addendum No. 1. Nine companies submitted timely responses to the ITB. Each bidder submitted a monthly bid and an annual bid. The School Board thereafter ranked the respective bids. Intervenor was the apparent low bidder with a monthly bid of $39,576 and an annual bid of $474,918.38. All Service was the apparent second low bidder with a monthly bid of $40,540.90 and an annual bid of $486,490.80. WSI was the apparent third low bidder with a monthly bid of $47,671.71 and an annual bid of $572,060.52. Petitioner was the apparent fourth low bidder with a monthly bid of $50,177.73 and an annual bid of $602,132.76. On November 2, 2011, the School Board's Purchasing Department posted the agency's intended recommendation for award of the ITB. The intended decision was (A) to award to Intervenor as the primary vendor for Group 1 (1 through 58); and (B) to award to All Service as the first alternate for Group 1 (1 through 58). On November 4, 2011, Petitioner timely filed its Notice of Protest with the School Board's Purchasing Department. On November 14, 2011, Petitioner timely filed its Formal Bid Protest with the School Board's Purchasing Department and delivered the required bid protest bond. The School Board formed a Bid Protest Committee that met with Petitioner on December 19, 2011, to consider Petitioner's formal written protest in accordance with section 120.57(3)(d)(1) and School Board Policy 3320. The parties were unable to resolve the protest by mutual agreement and the School Board sent Petitioner a notice of non-resolution of dispute. Section 1 of the ITB precludes a bidder from withdrawing its bid within 90 days of its submission to the School Board. At the time of the formal hearing 106 days had passed since the submission of bids. No bidder, including Intervenor, has indicated that it committed an error in calculating its prices submitted under the ITB or asked the School Board to excuse it from the prices it offered under the ITB. To the contrary, Intervenor's counsel represented at the formal hearing that Intervenor was standing by its bid. Generally, compacted waste is heavier and more expensive to dispose of than non-compacted waste. The ITB identifies the number and size (in cubic yards) of the receptacles to be placed at each location and the number of pick-ups per weeks to occur for each receptacle. The ITB also informs the bidders whether a receptacle was compacted or non-compacted. If compacted the ITB set forth the ratio of compaction. Bidders were also asked to bid a monthly cost and any applicable fees charged by the facility receiving the waste to arrive at total monthly cost for each receptacle to be furnished. The bidders were required to provide a total monthly bid for the services and a total annual bid for the services. The bidders were to use the information set forth in the ITB to calculate their bids. Petitioner asserts that the bids submitted by Intervenor, All Service, and WSI were not responsible bids because those bids failed to factor in the higher costs of disposing of waste that had been compacted. Petitioner contends that the reference to compaction ratios constitute specifications by the School Board to require all bidders to calculate their pricing utilizing the compaction ratios. Petitioner describes the referenced compaction ratios as "multipliers" that needed to be used by the bidders in calculating their prices for handling and disposing of compacted waste. Petitioner is seeking to impose its interpretation of the ITB as requiring each of the bidders to calculate its bid using the same pricing methodology that Petitioner employed. There is no ambiguity in the ITB, and there is no factual basis to conclude that all bidders were required to prepare their bids in the same fashion as Petitioner. There is nothing set forth in the ITB that required the School Board to interpret its reference to the compaction ratios as being a specification of a "multiplier" for pricing as opposed to a description of the capacity of the receptacles to be used at each of the school locations. At no point is the word "multiplier" used in the ITB to specify that the bidders were required to engage in mathematics involving multiplying their prices against some unit price the bidders were specifying in their bids. The ITB specifies the frequency with which the varying container sizes needed to be picked up at each of the 58 schools with the weight or volume of the container not being a factor in setting the specification of how often the container is to be picked up by the awardee. No adjustments were to be made to the prices paid by the School Board based on the weight of the container when removed. The School Board did not specify in the ITB that a bidder was required to charge the same monthly cost at each school for a similarly-sized refuse container nor did the School Board require different pricing for compacted waste as compared to non-compacted waste. Petitioner's assertion that the bidders were required to use those ratios as a multiplier when bidding on the cost of disposing of compacted waste is rejected as being contrary to the plain language of the ITB. The compaction ratios were provided to the bidders as information only. There is no requirement that a bidder use a particular methodology in determining its bid amounts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County Florida enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, dismisses the protest filed by Petitioner Ace Waste Services LLC, and upholds the award of the procurement to Choice as primary awardee and to All Service as alternate awardee. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March 2012, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. S Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March 2012.
Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited bids on State Project Job No. 99003-3583 to be accepted September 19, 1991, up until 11 a.m., the time set for bids to be opened. Petitioner's bid on this contract was timely submitted. Respondent posted its intent to award this contract to Frontier Enterprises Inc. on September 26, 1991, and thereafter Petitioner timely filed its protest. When the five bids submitted on this project were opened September 19, 1991, the three low bidders listed were: National Bridge Painting $129,472 Damalos and Sons Inc. $245,000 Midwest Industries $294,744 Following the posting of these bids, Frontier Enterprises telephoned the DOT employee responsible for the opening of the bids and advised that it had timely submitted a bid which was received by DOT September 19, 1991. Shortly after the bids were opened and posted, National Bridge, by letter dated September 20, 1991, withdrew its bid due to a calculation error. Frontier Enterprises submitted their bid by UPS and instituted a tracer which revealed that their bid had been received at the DOT mail room in Chipley, Florida, on September 19, 1991, around 9:30 a.m., prior to the bid opening, in a UPS envelope. DOT's search for the Frontier Enterprises bid located the UPS envelope in a DOT office in Chipley which was unoccupied on September 19, 1991. The mail clerk who received the UPS envelope containing Frontier Enterprises' bid recalls receiving three UPS envelopes September 19, 1991, but does not specifically recall receiving the Frontier Enterprises bid, although he recognizes his signature on the tracer response. (Exhibit 2) After locating the misplaced Frontier Enterprises bid, Respondent opened that bid as it had opened all other bids and tabulated the bids received in order from low to high. (Exhibit 4) This tabulation showed the low bid submitted as having been withdrawn, Frontier Enterprises as second lowest bidder and Petitioner as third lowest bidder. Respondent's witnesses testified without contradiction that, although the Bid Solicitation Notice (Exhibit 1) provided that sealed bids will be received in the Conference Room in the Chipley Department of Transportation District Office until 11 a.m., September 19, 1991, the normal procedure followed by bidders is to have their bids sent to the mail room at the Chipley DOT office. Accordingly, when it was learned that Frontier Enterprises' bid had been timely submitted and was, in fact, the lowest responsive bid, Frontier Enterprises was awarded the contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest filed by Damalos and Sons Inc. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 6th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Tony Damalos Post Office Box 3796 Holiday, FL 34690-0796 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are delineated with particularity in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation executed by all parties; however, the issues generally are as follows: Whether Experior has standing to challenge the RFP Process. Whether Promissor was a qualified or responsive proposer. Whether Experior's cost proposal was entitled to the maximum points if Promissor's proposal is determined to be unqualified or non-responsive. Whether the scoring of the proposals by Evaluator three was affected by his bias or was so aberrant as to be unsupportable or illogical or in violation of the RFP. Whether DBPR's award of MBE/WBE preference points to Experior and PSI was inappropriate and should be eliminated. Whether Experior suffered an unfair competitive disadvantage.
Findings Of Fact The Department first decided to seek proposals for computer-based testing (CBT) services on March 29, 2002, when it issued RFP 01-02-001. General Condition Number Seventeen of that RFP stated that any material submitted in response to the Request for Proposal will become a public document pursuant to Section 119.07, including any material which a responding proposer might consider confidential or a trade secret. Any claim of confidentiality was waived upon submission. Experior never protested that General Condition Number Seventeen in that first RFP. The cost proposals submitted by all proposers in response to that first RFP became public record after the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Experior on September 17, 2002. Promissor and PSI filed notices of intent to protest and formal written protests. In response to those protests, however, the Department decided to reject all proposals. Experior then challenged the rejection of all proposals by filing a notice of intent to protest on October 24, 2002, but ultimately withdrew that protest on October 31, 2002. Thereafter on January 13, 2003, the Department issued requests for proposal RFP 02-03-005 (the RFP), seeking proposals for the provision of computer-based testing services for several professions regulated by the Department. That is the RFP with which this case is concerned. Questions arose by potential vendors at a Pre-Proposal Conference, which was held on January 21, 2003. Representatives of the Department, Experior, Promissor, and PSI attended. Amendment One to the RFP grew out of that conference and was issued on February 3, 2003. This amendment contained the written questions and the Department's answers and the minutes of the Pre-Proposal Conference. The Department appointed certain employees to serve on the evaluation committee. The employees who were appointed were Karen Campbell-Everett; Steven Allen; Mollie Shepard; Alan Lewis; Milan Chepko (alternate) and Joe Muffoletto (alternate). Additionally, Department employee Valerie Highsmith was appointed to evaluate proposer references. Ultimately, alternate evaluator Joe Muffoletto replaced evaluator Steven Allen due to the death of Mr. Allen's father. Amendment One to the RFP then identified the evaluators and informed all proposers that the educational and professional background of each evaluator could be obtained by making a public records request. The protest filed by Experior alleges that evaluator Joe Muffoletto was not appropriately qualified. Experior did not file a challenge to the evaluators within 72 hours after they were identified in RFP Amendment One. Realistically this would have been difficult to do unless they already knew what the objections to qualifications might be, since Amendment One, in identifying the evaluators, informed the proposers that they would need to make a public records request to obtain the educational and professional background of each evaluator. In any event, preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Muffoletto's experience is sufficient to constitute "experience and knowledge in program areas and service requirements" for the CBT contract within the meaning of Section 287.057(17)(a) (which only requires that evaluators "collectively" have such experience). Mr. Muffoletto has a bachelor's degree, with a major in English and a minor in psychology. He holds a master of science degree in education and master of arts degree in multi- disciplinary studies and has completed the graduate level course called "assessment of learning outcomes" at Florida State University. Before working for DBPR, in 1996, he was a junior high and high school English teacher for 30 years. He has worked as a computer trainer for students taking the New York State Regents Competency Exam. In 1996-1997 he was an OPS test editor with DBPR and from 1997 to 1999 worked for the Florida Department of Education as a coordinator of test development, where he trained consultants on how to write test items, review test items, and amend test content outlines and blue prints. While in that position, he also wrote an RFP and developed a set of exams. Since 1999 he has been a psychometrician with DBPR and currently develops computed-based examinations for landscape architects and auctioneers and regular examinations for electrical contractors. Promissor, Experior and PSI each submitted responses to the second RFP. The technical proposals were distributed to members of the evaluation committee for review sometime after a standardization session for evaluators was conducted on February 11, 2003. The members of the evaluation committee separately conducted an analysis of each proposal and awarded points based on their review. Each evaluator submitted his or her completed technical evaluation guides or score sheets to Lyra Erath, who then forwarded the score sheets to the lead evaluator, Molly Shepard. The evaluation of the proposer references was completed by Valerie Highsmith and her score sheets for such evaluations were submitted to Bobby Paulk. On February 27, 2003, the Department opened the cost proposals, which reflected the following prices proposed per hour: Promissor: $9.00; Experior: $10.50; PSI: $11.35; and NCS Pearson: $14.75. The score for each cost proposal was calculated in accordance with a mathematical formula set out in the RFP. Promissor proposed the lowest cost and thus received the maximum cost score of 175 points. Experior received 150 points, PSI 138.77 points, and NCS Pearson 106.79 points. Upon concluding the evaluation process established by the RFP, Promissor's proposal was ranked first with 490.08 points out of a maximum available 555 points. PSI was second place, being awarded 461.40; Experior was awarded 440.03 points and NCS Pearson, 305.16 points. The bid/proposal tabulation was posted by the Department on March 12, 2003. Therein it indicated its intent to award the contract for CBT Services to Promissor. On March 17, 2003, Experior and PSI filed notices of intent to protest the intended award to Promissor. Experior thereafter timely filed a formal written protest, although PSI did not. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The Time Period for Contract Implementation Experior's protest alleges that the time period for contract implementation was allegedly "too aggressive" (short). The RFP however, repeatedly notified all proposers that they would waive any protest of the terms and specifications of the RFP unless they filed such protest within 72 hours of receiving notice of the specifications, as provided in Section 120.57(3). Similarly, RFP Amendment One informed the proposers that the RFP was amended to include "changes and additions" and that failure to file a protest within the time specified in Section 120.57(3) would constitute a wavier of Chapter 120 proceedings. RFP Section V, states "A. DBPR estimates that the contract for the RFP will be effective on or about March 17, 2003, and the testing services begin May 19, 2003." The 30- day periods the protest claims were "too aggressive" (i.e. too short) were specifically disclosed in RFP Section X concerning "scope of services." The time period of which Experior now complains was apparent on the face of the RFP. Indeed, when Experior's personnel first read the RFP, they had a concern that the time period might give Promissor a competitive advantage. At the Pre-Proposal Conference on January 21, 2003, Mark Caulfield of Experior even expressed concern that the 60 days allowed for implementation was a very aggressive schedule and asked the Department to reconsider that time period. The concern over the implementation schedule was documented in written questions which DBPR answered in Amendment One, telling all proposers that the implementation schedule was fair, in its view, and would not be changed. Experior did not protest the RFP's implementation time period within 72 hours of first reading the RFP and never filed a protest to any term, condition or specification of RFP Amendment One, including the Department's notice that it felt that the implementation schedule was fair and that it would not be amended. Thus, any challenge to the implementation schedule was waived. Even had Experior not waived its challenge to the implementation schedule, there is no persuasive evidence that the schedule would give Promissor an unfair competitive advantage over Experior and PSI. The DBPR tests are already finalized and would simply have been transferred to a new vendor if a new vendor had been awarded the CBT Services Contract. Experior failed to adduce persuasive evidence to show that any proposer was advantaged or disadvantaged by the implementation schedule which applied to all proposers. Evaluation of the MWBE Submittals RFP Section XIV.Q. encouraged minority and women-owned businesses (MWBE) to provide work goods, or services associated with services contemplated by the RFP. Proposers were to be awarded additional points for committing to use MWBEs, based on the percentage of the business under the contract the MWBE would perform. Experior, Promissor and PSI each proposed to use MWBEs to supply goods or services needed to perform the CBT contract. Promissor indicated that it would use one MWBE for 30 percent of the contract value. Resultingly, the Department awarded Promissor 16.5 MWBE preference points (30 percent x 55 maximum points). Experior presented no persuasive evidence showing how the Department interpreted and applied the MWBE provisions of the RFP or showing that the Department acted in excess of its authority in determining the award of MWBE points, as described in Amendment One. Experior offered no evidence concerning whether the Department considered or applied the "two subcontractor" limitation in RFP Section VI.5 ("no more than two subcontractors may be used") when it evaluated the Experior and PSI MWBE proposals, nor how it applied that limitation. Experior and PSI both indicated they would use three MWBE vendors. Experior proposed to use JR Printers (Printing Services); Colamco, Inc. (computer equipment for testing centers); and Workplace Solutions, Inc. (furniture for testing centers). (Furniture is a commodity, not a service.) PSI proposed to use Victoria and Associates (staffing services); Franklin's Printing (printing/mailing services); and National Relocation Services, Inc. (furniture, computers, delivery and installation [commodities, not services]). Based on the proposals, the Department awarded Experior 7.15 points and awarded PSI 17.48 points. Although Experior claims that it and PSI each exceeded the two subcontractor limitation by proposing to use three MWBEs, RFP Section XIV.Q. did not specifically require that proposed MWBEs be subcontractors, but rather only required that MWBEs be utilized by the primary vendor (contractor) to provide work, goods or services. Thus a vendor of goods or a supplier of services could qualify as an MWBE (and, implicitly, not necessarily be a subcontractor). Experior did not prove that any of the MWBEs proposed by PSI or Experior were actually subcontractors on an ongoing basis. The parties stipulated that the companies that each proposed to use were vendors. Moreover, when questioned about the provisions of Section VI regarding sub- contracting of services under the RFP, Jerome Andrews, chief of purchasing and human resources, differentiated the purchase of services from the purchase of commodities as being defined by statute. (See Sections 287.012(4) and 287.012(7).) Experior did not explain or offer persuasive evidence relating to its allegation that PSI's proposal for MWBE services was misleading. Experior did not show that PSI's MWBE proposal did not conform to the RFP requirements or, if there were a defect, how many points, if any, should be subtracted from PSI's total. Moreover, to the extent that Experior claims that the proposal was defective because PSI's proposed suppliers would not provide services over the course of the entire contract, Experior's proposal suffers the same defect, as Experior's proposal admits that "[c]omputer equipment and furniture services will be performed during the implementation phase of the contract." Thus, if PSI's MWBE point award had to be reduced, so would Experior's. Experior fail to carry its burden to show any error in the scoring of the PSI MWBE proposal. It did not establish that these vendors were subcontractors and thus did not establish that the relevant vendors were of a number to exceed the subcontractor limitation in the RFP. It did not persuasively establish that such would have been a material defect, if it had been exceeded. Completion of Evaluation Sheets Some of the RFP's evaluation criteria identified the number of points available and state that such points would be "awarded as a whole and not broken down by sub-sections." In contrast, the remainder of the evaluation criteria simply stated that a specific number of points was available for each specified criterion. In each instance where the evaluation criteria stated that points are "awarded as a whole and not broken down by subsections," the corresponding section of the RFP was broken down into two or more subsections. In each instance where the evaluation criteria simply listed the number of points available, the corresponding section of the RFP was not broken down into subsections. Experior alleged that the evaluators did not properly score Experior's proposal in instances where the evaluation sheet indicated "points are to be awarded as a whole and not broken down by subsections." Experior offered no proof regarding how the Department interpreted that provision or the manner in which the scoring was actually conducted, however. The score sheets reflect that the evaluators actually did award points "as a whole," not broken down by subsections, for those evaluation criteria where that was required. The record does not support any finding that the Department or its evaluators violated the requirements of the RFP, Department policy or controlling law and rules in this regard. Issue of Bias on the Part of Evaluator Three Experior contends that Evaluator Three, Mr. Muffoletto, was biased against Experior. The persuasive evidence does not support that allegation. During his employment with the Department, Mr. Muffoletto interacted with Experior on one occasion regarding reciprocity of an out-of-state examination. This experience left him with the impression that Experior was "proprietary" because it was protective of the content of its examinations. The evidence did not show he had any other impressions, positive or negative, concerning Experior or misgivings about Experior being selected in the first RFP. The mere fact that his total score for Experior was lower than those awarded by other evaluators does not establish bias or irrationality in scoring. The evidence shows that Mr. Muffoletto scored the proposals in a rational manner. He appeared to evaluate criteria comparatively and gave a proposer more points if that proposer was more convincing than another on a particular criteria or point of evaluation. He gave lower scores when the proposer simply copied the text of the RFP and then stated that the proposer would meet or exceed the criteria; in accordance with instructions that evaluators could give lower scores in such cases, so long as the scoring was consistent between proposals. Mr. Muffoletto gave higher scores when the proposers gave more individualized responses, provided more thorough statistics and ways to interpret those statistics, gave numerous specific examples and had a more attractive presentation. Even if Mr. Muffoletto had been biased, it has not been persuasively shown that such would have a material impact on the outcome of the evaluation. If the scores of Evaluator Three were completely eliminated for both PSI and Experior, which is not justified, PSI's point total would be 459.12 and Experior's point total would be 453.54. If Evaluator Three were deemed to give Experior scores equivalent to the highest scores awarded to Experior by any other evaluator, PSI's total would be 461.42 and Experior's point total would be 458.87. Even if Evaluator Three had given Experior the maximum points for each criterion, PSI's point total would have been 461.42 and Experior's point total would have 461.12. Issue of Prior Knowledge of Experior's Prior Cost Proposal Experior contends that Promissor's knowledge of Experior's cost proposal submitted in response to the first RFP in 2002 gave Promissor an unfair competitive advantage. Experior waived that challenge, however, when it withdrew its protest to the rejection of all bids submitted in response to the first RFP. Experior knew when it filed and withdrew its protest to the first RFP decision that all cost proposals had become public record and so it was incumbent on Experior to have challenged the issuance of a second RFP, if it had a legal and factual basis to do so. At the latest, Experior should have challenged the second RFP specifications when issued (within 72 hours) as Experior had already obtained the other proposers' cost proposals and so it knew then that the prior cost proposals were available to all for review. Even if Experior had not waived that challenge, the evidence does not support a finding that Promissor gained any competitive advantage. Although Experior attempted to show, through the testimony of Mark Caulfield, that Promissor could not perform the CBT Services Contract at a profit at the $9.00 per hour price it proposed, Mr. Caulfield actually testified that it would be possible for a company to perform the services for $9.00 per hour, and he did not know what Promissor's actual costs were. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence that Experior's prior cost proposal played any role in Promissor's determination of its bid for the second RFP or, if it did, that such consideration would have violated any provision of the RFP, governing statutes or rules or Department policies, under the prevailing circumstances, if it had occurred. Alleged Improper Scoring of Experior's Proposal with Respect to Criterion VII.A. Experior alleged that Evaluator One should have awarded 15 points instead 11 points for Experior's proposal format, criterion VII.A., but Experior did not offer the testimony of Evaluator One or any other evidence supporting that allegation. Experior failed to carry its burden of showing that the award of 11 points to Experior for criterion VII.A., was irrational or violated the requirements of the RFP or controlling policies, law or rules of the Department. Even if Evaluator One had awarded 15 points for that criterion, Experior admitted it would have no material impact on the outcome of the procurement, given the more than 21 point advantage PSI enjoyed over Experior. Responsiveness and Qualification The preponderant evidence does not establish that Experior was entitled to but did not receive the additional 21.38 points that it would have to earn to score higher than PSI and move into second place. Experior did not establish error in the evaluation or scoring of its proposal or PSI's proposal that alone, or collectively, would be sufficient for Experior to overtake PSI. As a result, Experior could only prove its standing ahead of PSI by having the Promissor proposal disqualified, which would move it to the first-ranked position because of accession of the full 175 points for having what, in that event, would be the lowest cost proposal. Experior's objection to the Promissor proposal is not meritorious. Its protest alleges that "because Promissor will [allegedly] subcontract for services representing more than 33 percent of contract value, Promissor is disqualified from submitting its proposal and its proposal must be stricken from consideration." Experior did not allege any error in the scoring of Promissor's proposal and so Promissor's highest score cannot be changed. Indeed, even if Experior were awarded the maximum technical score of 325 points, Experior's score would be 482.15 points, still less than Promissor's score of 490.08 points. Experior, as a practical matter, cannot earn enough points because of the disparity in final cost proposal scores to overtake Promissor, unless it can prove Promissor should be disqualified. Experior's proof did not amount to preponderant, persuasive evidence that the Department erred in determining that Promissor's proposal was responsive and that Promissor was a qualified proposer. The Department did an initial review of the proposals to determine if they were responsive to all mandatory requirements, and any proposer determined non-responsive would have been excluded at that point. Promissor's proposal contained all required information in the required format and was deemed responsive. The preponderant evidence shows that the Department's determination that Promissor was responsive and qualified comported with the requirements of the RFP and controlling policy, rules and law. Promissor expressly stated that it would comply with the RFP's subcontracting guidelines upon performing the contract wherein it stated "Promissor agrees and commits to meet the requirement of the RFP." Promissor's proposal stated its intent to subcontract less than 33 percent of the contract value, and that was all that was required for the proposal to be responsive. There is nothing in the Promissor proposal that indicated that Promissor would not comply with the subcontracting guidelines. Experior's entire challenge to the Promissor proposal is based on the contention that Promissor intended to use a subcontractor to provide call center services under the Florida contract but did not say so in its proposal. The Promissor proposal actually stated that Promissor would use its "proprietary scheduling system" or "proprietary reservation system" to service the Department's contract as it was currently doing, not that it would use any particular call center. These representations appear to be true, as Promissor's "scheduling system" or "reservation system" (the proprietary software Promissor uses to take reservations) that it said it would use for the new Florida contract is the same system used under the prior contact with the Department. Ordinarily, whether or not Promissor would actually comply with the subcontractor guidelines could not be determined until Promissor actually performs the contract. It is an issue of contract compliance and not responsiveness or qualification. Here the evidence shows that Promissor was in compliance with the 33 percent maximum subcontracting requirement before the originally scheduled contract implementation date. Since Promissor wished to obtain the maximum points for minority participation, Promissor decided to subcontract to the maximum possible extent with an MWBE. In doing so, Promissor wanted to assure that the use of Thompson Direct, Inc., for call center services did not make it exceed the 33 percent subcontractor standard. Thus, Promissor decided, before it submitted its proposal, to perform the call center services from one of its three regional centers and this decision was communicated internally before Promissor prepared its proposal. Promissor initially intended to perform the call center services from its regional offices in Atlanta, Georgia. In order to implement that decision, senior executives of Promissor, including its president, toured that office in early March, before the Department posted its notice of intent to award to Promissor. After the notice of award was posted on March 12, 2003, Promissor promptly posted an employment advertisement on its website seeking persons to act as call center representatives to service the Florida contract from the Atlanta office. That advertisement was posted on March 14, 2003, a day before Experior filed its notice of intent to protest. In early to mid-April, the manager of the Georgia regional office prepared a project plan that revealed that the Georgia regional office might not be ready to perform call center services by the May 20th contract implementation date. Promissor then decided to use its Maryland regional office to perform the call center services. Regardless of the location of the call center, the scheduling system used by Promissor would be the same as under the prior contract and the same as Promissor promised in its proposal. The Scranton call center and the three regional offices use the same proprietary scheduling system provided by Promissor and run from servers located at Promissor's headquarters in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Even at the Scranton call center that was previously used, Promissor trained all of the employees, who handle calls only for Promissor, wrote the scripts for their use and provided the proprietary scheduling software. The Maryland call center was actually accepting all calls for the Florida programs to be serviced pursuant to the RFP by May 19th, before the May 20th contract implementation date. Since the call center services were actually being provided by Promissor's Maryland regional office before the contract implementation date, Experior's claim that Promissor would provide those services through a subcontractor is not supported by preponderant evidence. Allegations that Promissor Made Misrepresentations Regarding Subcontractors In light of Promissor's actual provision of call center services from its regional office before the contract implementation date, Experior's contention that alleged misrepresentations occurred in the Promissor proposal are without merit. Even if Promissor had not actually performed, however, Experior failed to prove that Promissor made any misrepresentations or was unqualified. In support of its claim that Promissor was unqualified, Experior introduced into evidence three proposals that Promissor or ASI (a corporate predecessor to Promissor) had submitted to agencies in other states in the past three years. Experior argues that Promissor/ASI made misrepresentations in the other proposals and, therefore, Promissor made misrepresentations in the proposal at issue in this proceeding. Its basis for alleging that Promissor made misrepresentations in the Florida proposal at issue is its contention that Promissor/ASI made misrepresentations in other proposals to other states. No evidence was offered that Promissor had made a misrepresentation to the Department as to this RFP, however. In light of Promissor's actual performance in accordance with its proposal and the RFP requirements, the proposals from the other states have little relevance. Experior did not prove that Promissor made misrepresentations in the other proposals, particularly when considering the timing of those proposals and Promissor's corporate history. Promissor's corporate history must be considered in evaluating the claim of misrepresentation to the other state agencies in other states. In 1995, Assessment Systems, Inc., or "ASI," was acquired by Harcourt Brace Publishers. In June of 2001, ASI was sold with a number of other Harcourt companies, including a company called Harcourt Learning Direct, to the Thompson corporation. Harcourt Learning Direct was re-named Thompson Education Direct. Soon after, the federal government required, for anti-trust reasons, that Thompson divest itself of ASI. Accordingly, ASI was acquired by Houghton Mifflin Publishers in December 2001, and its name was later changed to Promissor. Up until December 2001, the entity now known as Promissor and the entity now known as Thompson Education Direct were corporate affiliates under the same corporate umbrella. The Kansas Proposal Experior's Exhibit five was ASI's Proposal for Agent Licensing Examination Services for the Kansas Insurance Department dated May 8, 2000. A letter that accompanied the proposal stated that ASI would not engage a subcontractor for examination development or administration services. Mark Caulfield testified that he did not know whether or not what was said in this letter was true on the date it was written. He testified that he did not know if ASI was using any subcontractors or any outside contractors for any purpose in May of 2000. In fact, as of May 2000, ASI did not subcontract for any call center services; at the time that the letter was written, all of the representations in the letter were true. ASI was awarded the Kansas contract and Experior did not protest. Experior did not offer any evidence related to the requirements in the Kansas RFP and is not aware of any issues between Kansas and Promissor regarding the contract. There is no evidence that the Kansas request for proposals had any subcontracting limitations in it. The proposal that ASI submitted to Kansas in May 2000 listed a phone number for ASI's call center. In preparation for the hearing, witness Mark Caulfield called that phone number and claimed that a person answered the phone "Promissor," and said she was located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Experior did not show that the person that answered the phone was an employee of Promissor. Whether or not the person who answered the phone in that example was or was not an employee of Promissor and could or could not bind Promissor with any statement as a party admission, is beside the point that it has not been shown who would have answered the phone in May 2000, or where they would have been located, as to whether or not that person was the employee of Promissor or its immediate corporate predecessor in interest or whether that person was employed by some subcontractor. That is immaterial, however, in the face of the fact that it has not been proven that the Kansas request for proposals had any subcontracting limitations in the first place and, therefore, no misrepresentation in the Kansas situation has been proven on the part of Promissor. The Maine Proposal Experior's Exhibit seven is ASI's proposal to provide real estate examination administration and related services for the Maine Department of Professional Regulation and is dated August 1, 2001. As of August 1, 2001, ASI did not subcontract for call center services. On pages 2-10 of the Maine proposal, there is a reference to ASI having an extensive network of program-specific, toll-free telephone lines and program-dedicated customer care representatives. This statement was shown to be accurate and was an accurate statement when made on August 1, 2001. The statement refers to the monitoring of the reservation process done by ASI management. Experior admitted that it had no reason to believe that in August of 2001, ASI did not have an extensive network or program-specific toll-free telephone lines and program-dedicated customer care representatives, and Experior did not prove that to be currently untrue. Experior's Exhibit eight is Promissor's Real Estate Candidate handbook regarding the Maine procurement dated April 2003. As of April 2003, the statements made in the handbook were accurate and correct. The handbook listed on page 11 a customer care phone number of 877-543-5220. Experior provided no evidence as to the location where that phone number rang in April of 2003. Experior did not show persuasive evidence regarding the requirements in the Maine RFP and there is no evidence that the Maine RFP had any subcontracting limitations as are in question in the instant case. The Oklahoma Proposal Experior's Exhibit nine was Promissor's response to Bid No. N031354 for License Testing Services for the Oklahoma Insurance Department. It is dated December 18, 2002. Promissor did not state in the proposal that it would not use subcontractors. There is no need to reference subcontractors in the Oklahoma proposal as the Oklahoma RFP did not contain subcontracting limitations. Oklahoma has approved the manner in which Promissor is performing under that contract and Experior did not establish that the statements in Promissor's proposal were false when made or now. The Texas Proposal Experior's Exhibit twelve is Promissor's press release titled "Texas Selects Promissor as Exclusive Provider for Insurance License Testing," dated October 1, 2002, in which Promissor referred to "the Promissor Call Center." Experior did not establish that Texas was not served by a Promissor call center or that Promissor was not performing in the manner its Texas proposal promised. In fact, Texas has approved Promissor's performance under the Texas contract. Even if the proposals Promissor offered had stated that Promissor would provide call center services through a specified entity (which they did not do), and then Promissor later performed such services through another entity, such evidence would be insufficient to prove that Promissor would not comply with the Florida RFP's subcontracting guidelines, especially given Promissor's actual performance in accordance with its proposal. Experior did not establish with preponderant evidence a "routine business practice" of Promissor to make misleading or false promises in proposals to evade subcontracting guidelines. There is no evidence in any of the four states concerning which Experior provided evidence, that they had any subcontracting limitation in their RFPs. The evidence showed that the statements in each of these proposals were undoubtedly accurate at the time they were made; to the extent that the provision of call center services differs from what was promised (although the evidence does not establish that), such difference is explained by the changes in corporate structures that have occurred since the proposals were submitted. Additionally, the evidence established that Promissor has submitted between 70 and 120 proposals since the beginning of 2000 across the nation. The documents relating only to other proposals to other states that were not even proved to have requirements similar to Florida's are insufficient to establish that Promissor had a "routine" practice of making misleading promises about its call center services. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not offered preponderant, persuasive evidence that Promissor is unqualified as a proposer.
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 by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation denying the Petition and approving the intended award of the contract to Promissor, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy Russell Weiner, Esquire Mang Law Firm, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman & Bryant, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Law Firm 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether the Respondent's proposed award of a contract pursuant to an Invitation to Bid for the management of the citrus groves at Lake Louisa State Park to Intervenor is fraudulent, dishonest, arbitrary or illegal. Whether Respondent improperly notified Petitioner of the intent to award the contract. Whether the Respondent violated the terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) by doing any of the following: Determining that the bids were within five (5) percent of each other. Requesting additional information. Using 80 points to be awarded for percentage of return. Considering grove equipment in the evaluation. Assigning ten (10) points to the category "equipment." Not considering financial stability of the bidders. Not assigning points to either bidder for financial stability. Computing the points assigned to each bidder incorrectly. Computing years of experience for both bidders incorrectly. Failing to use a committee of three, one of whom was an accountant. Whether the Respondent was obligated to accept the bidder who would provide the most revenue, considering all the other factors. Whether a partnership existed between the Petitioners, and if so, how many years of experience to award to it. Whether Petitioners, as a partnership, have standing to bring this protest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which operates and manages state parks under its jurisdiction, pursuant to chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks (“Division”). Kenneth Walker and R. E. Oswalt (Petitioner, Walker/Oswalt) are general partners for various ad hoc business ventures. Earl Drawdy (Intervenor) is an individual. The Invitation to Bid (ITB) Lake Louisa State Park contains approximately 300 acres of citrus groves, of which, 167 acres are active trees (“Lake Louisa Groves” f/k/a “Dixie Lake Groves”). The groves had been abandoned for about a year prior to the state’s purchase of the land. In 1994, Earl Drawdy bid and was awarded a one-year contract to care for and harvest the groves. The contract was extended for one year and Drawdy maintained the groves until this bid protest. In preparing the Invitation to Bid (“ITB”), the goal of the Department was to obtain a 10-year contract with a third party who would care for and rehabilitate Lake Louisa Groves. The bid specification language was assembled mainly from the prior contract. A new scope of work was added and the draft agreement for the ITB was prepared. On January 3, 1996, Draft Specifications for a 10-year extension option for the Dixie Lake Groves in Lake Louisa State Park (Draft Specifications) were sent to interested bidders including, but not limited to, Kenneth Walker. The Respondent’s legal department subsequently prepared and approved the final specifications. The final specifications are entitled “Specifications for the Management of the Lake Louisa Orange Groves at Lake Louisa State Park” (“the ITB”). The ITB was posted at the Division’s District 3 office, located in Apopka at the Wekiva Springs State Park from April 24 through May 1, 1996, and sent to prospective bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor. The original deadline stated in the ITB to file sealed bids was May 5, 1996. On May 3, 1996, the Department notified all interested bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor, by letters sent by Federal Express, that the deadline to bid had been extended to May 10, 1996. By May 10, two bids had been received, one from petitioner and one from Intervenor. Both bids were timely. The bids were opened on May 13 and evaluated on May 15, 1996. On May 15, 1996, the Respondent notified Petitioner and Intervenor by facsimile that it required additional information from them, giving them a deadline to respond of May 31, 1996. The Respondent requested a resume and an equipment list from Intervenor, and it requested an equipment list and a letter of intent that a partnership would be formed from Petitioner. Both Intervenor and Petitioner responded timely to the request. The ITB provided in pertinent part: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids shall be evaluated by a committee composed of at least three representatives of the Department. At least one of the three members will be an accountant who will evaluate the financial statements for compliance with this bid request. Evaluation will be based on the percent of return, past performance, experience, and financial stability. Up to ninety (90) percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten (10) percent will be based on experience and financial stability. In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within 5 percent of each other), the evaluation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid or give oral presentations in a final evaluation process. The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for operation of the grove. * * * The Department also reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in bids, providing such action is in the best interest of the State. Minor irregularities are defined as those that have no adverse effect on the State’s interest and will not affect the outcome of the selection process by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other Proposers. The Florida Park Service also reserves the right to reject all bids. The bid specifications allow a committee of more than three persons so long as one of them is an accountant. Pursuant to the provisions of the ITB, a committee was formed to evaluate the bids, consisting of Rosi Mulholland, district biologist; Cheryl Sweeney, district accountant; Norman Edwards, operations consultant manager; and Carla Ridge, administrative assistant. The committee consisted of four persons, one of whom was an accountant. Cheryl Sweeney was qualified to serve as the committee accountant by virtue of her position and experience. Bids were opened on May 13, 1996, by Ms. Ridge and Ms. Mulholland. Intervenor’s bid called for sharing 36 percent of gross proceeds of fruit sales with Respondent. Petitioner’s bid called for sharing 38 percent of the gross with Respondent. Between May 13 and May 15, Ms. Mulholland, Ms. Ridge and Mr. Edwards met and discussed the bids. Those members of the committee agreed that, based on the fact that the bids were nearly equal, the committee should request additional information from the bidders. Ms. Sweeney concurred with that decision after the fact. On June 3, Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge met and prepared a proposed point score for the two bidders. Later that afternoon, the full committee met for at least an hour to evaluate the bid information and proposed point score. The committee reviewed, discussed, and concurred on the point evaluation which had been prepared by Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge. The committee evaluated the following criteria: percentage of return, past performance, experience, financial stability, and equipment. Requesting Additional Information The ITB states: In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within 5 percent of each other), the valuation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid. Ms. Ridge subtracted 36 percent from 38 percent and got 2 percent, which she interpreted to be “within 5 percent of each other.” The rest of the committee concurred, and determined that the bids were equal or very nearly equal, and that additional information should be requested. This determination was proper under the bid specifications. Dividing 2 by 38, with a result of 5.26 percent, as Petitioner calculated, rounds to 5 percent. A 5.26 percent difference on a scale of 100 percent is very nearly equal and within 5 percent of each other. More information was needed about the intended formation of a limited partnership. Petitioner would have had to submit more information on that issue in any case. Equipment The bid specifications provide: Up to 90 percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten percent will be based on experience and financial stability. The committee concluded, after having all the information before it, that the percentage of return should receive 80 points, so that points could be given for equipment. The committee determined that since the language said “up to 90 percent” the committee could reduce the points allotted for that category. The language “up to 90 percent” necessarily implies that some figure less than 90 percent could be used. The committee had not firmly fixed the 90 percent figure, and the bid specifications language put the bidders on notice that a figure less than 90 percent may be used. The committee’s use of 80 percent of the points for this category was proper and reasonable under this clause. The committee considered equipment in its evaluation of the bids. This category was added to the bid specifications by letter of May 15, 1996 to all bidders. Although the letter was not specifically labeled an addendum, the Respondent’s intent was to add “equipment” to the categories to be evaluated. Addenda are allowed under the bid specifications. Petitioner received notice that equipment would be considered, and submitted a list of equipment owned by or available to them. The committee members determined that certain types of equipment were necessary to perform the contract. For such a contract, it was appropriate for the committee to consider the equipment each bidder has to perform the necessary tasks. Without the proper equipment, a bidder could not perform the contract, no matter what the bid amount. The committee determined that 10 percent of the points should be assigned to the category “equipment” because equipment was necessary to perform the contract. Additionally, the grove was old stock and not irrigated and would require specialized care. The committee very strongly felt that equipment was an important and meaningful category. Assignment of ten percent of the points for equipment was not unreasonable or excessive. The committee considered and evaluated, through different members, the financial stability of the bidders. After receiving all the information, the committee determined that the ten percent of the points to be allotted to “experience and financial stability” should be allotted to experience alone. The committee determined that financial stability included the partnership issue, which was never resolved by them. The committee determined that the unresolved partnership issues would have a negative impact on the financial stability, points awarded on the basis of financial stability would have favored Intervenor. The committee considered past performance of Intervenor as a part of his experience. The committee did not give extra points to Intervenor for his past experience. The consideration of past performance was proper. Intervenor Drawdy was awarded 33 years of experience. This was based on Intervenor’s letter in his bid package in which he stated that he began in the citrus industry in 1963. 1963 was subtracted from 1996, which resulted in 33 years. Based on this, Intervenor was awarded a full 10 points. Notwithstanding the questions the committee had about the partnership’s experience, the committee decided to give Petitioners points for experience in the citrus business of each individual partner. Walker was awarded 0 points. Oswalt was awarded 29 years of experience. This determination was based on Oswalt’s biographical profile submitted with the bid, in which he stated that he began citrus management in 1967. 1967 was subtracted from 1996, with a result of 29 years. A ratio of 29 to 33 was applied, with a result of 9 points given to Petitioners. The committee’s calculation of the experience of Petitioners and Intervenor was flawed, but was not fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. The tabulation of points computed by the committee was posted at the District 3 office on June 3, 1996, in the same location the original bid was posted. This was in accordance with the bid specifications. Petitioners were notified by telephone, and a copy of the tabulation was sent to them via facsimile. Petitioner had actual notice on the date the bids were posted that the Respondent intended to award the contract to Intervenor. No written notice was required by the bid specifications. Notice was properly given to Petitioner by the Respondent. The point system was qualified by the Respondent, which stated: The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for the operation of the grove. The committee also determined that Intervenor was best suited to care for the grove, based on all the information available to it on June 3. The committee believed that it could make such a determination in the ultimate decision. Petitioner filed a timely notice of intent to protest the award on June 5, 1996, by facsimile. Petitioner filed a timely written petition for formal hearing on June 13, 1996 by certified mail. The Respondent notified Intervenor by letter on or about June 13, 1996, that a bid protest had been filed. Intervenor has not been awarded the contract. Attempts to resolve the bid protest informally were made at a meeting on July 19, 1996, and by letters and phone calls made between July 1 and August 20. There was no resolution. Standing/Formation of Partnership Petitioners intended to form a limited partnership to care for the Lake Louisa Groves, if they were awarded the bid. An unwritten general partnership was formed for this purpose at the time the bid was submitted. The Petitioners had previously formed partnerships in the past and have shared profits and losses. For each different venture, a new oral partnership was made. Most of the committee members did not know whether the bid was responsive or not on the issue of the limited partnership, and so made the request for additional information. Petitioner Walker signed the bid proposal on behalf of the partners. The bid was not a responsive bid since the entity which submitted the bid did not intend to perform the contract if it was the successful bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the protest of the Petitioners be dismissed and the contract for the Lake Louisa Groves be awarded to the Intervenor, Earl Drawdy. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan B. Brantley, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Edward P. Jordan, II, P.A. 13543 East highway 50 Clermont, Florida 34711 Kim Booker, Esquire 2752-A Enterprise Road Orange City, Florida 32763 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue This is a bid protest proceeding pursuant to Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's bid was responsive.
Findings Of Fact 1 . By Request For Proposal Number RFP-DOT-Ps-89-6000, the Department solicited proposals for the performance of work related to the identification and assessment of hazardous waste. The subject request for proposal document was available from December 4, 1989, until the closing date of January 4, 1990. The Petitioner requested a copy of the subject request for proposal and it was duly sent by the Department via certified bail addressed as follows: Enviro-Haz of Florida, Inc., 825 Parkway Street, Suite 14, Jupiter, Florida. The U.S. Postal Service receipt for that delivery was signed by Ms. Kerry Brougham. Ms. Brougham is employed by Force Equipment, located at 825 Parkway Street, Suite 13, Jupiter, Florida. The copy of the subject request for proposal received by Ms. Brougham was ultimately delivered to the Petitioner in time for the Petitioner to file a timely proposal. Ms. Brougham has a friendly relationship with the people at the Petitioner's office and routinely accepts mail addressed to the Petitioner when the mail arrives at a time when the Petitioner's office is closed. Ms. Brougham's regular practice is to place the Petitioner's mail on a separate place on her desk and to then carry the mail to the Petitioner's office when someone returns to that office. When delivering mail to the Petitioner's office, Ms. Brougham either hands it to the receptionist or places it on the receptionist's desk in the Petitioner's office. The subject request for proposal includes the following language under the caption "Responsiveness of Proposals:" All proposals must be in writing. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform, without condition or exception, the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal. Non-responsive proposals shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, improper or undated signatures. (Emphasis added). The subject request for proposal contains several forms each potential vendor was required to use in the submission of its bid. Among these forms was "Form A," consisting of six pages on which each potential vendor was asked to provide extensive pricing information. It is also clear from the subject request for proposal that the Department sought both a technical proposal and a price proposal, the two to be separately submitted. For purposes of evaluation, 90 potential points were assigned to the technical proposals and 10 potential points were assigned to the price proposals. On December 20, 1989, a pre-bid conference was held. Mr. Coleman attended the pre-bid conference on behalf of the Petitioner. All potential vendors at the pre-bid conference were given a copy of Addendum No. 1 to the subject request for proposal. (There is no dispute in this case regarding Addendum No. 1.) Following the pre-bid conference, the Department distributed Addendum No. 2 to all potential vendors. The distribution was accomplished by certified mail. A copy of Addendum No. 2 was mailed to the Petitioner. The envelope containing Addendum No. 2 was received by Ms. Brougham at the office next door to the Petitioner's office. As with the earlier mail sent to the Petitioner by the Department, Ms. Brougham signed the U.S. Postal Service receipt for the mail containing Addendum No. 2 addressed to the Petitioner. Ms. Brougham delivered the mail containing Addendum No. 2 to the Petitioner's office. 1/ Addendum No. 2 instructed potential vendors to remove the six pages comprising "Form A" in the original request for proposal and to insert a new "Form A" consisting of six revised pages. The new "Form A" requested additional pricing information that was not requested on the original "Form A." Specifically, the new "Form A" requested pricing information for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, while the original "Form A" requested pricing information for only the first year. When the Petitioner submitted its proposal, it used the original "Form A," rather than the revised "Form A" that was part of Addendum No. 2. The Petitioner's proposal did not include the pricing information for the years 1991 and 1992 required by the revised "Form A." The Department received five proposals in response to the subject request for proposal. When Department personnel evaluated the five technical proposals, the Petitioner's proposal was ranked fifth. When Department personnel evaluated the five price proposals, the Petitioner's proposal was deemed to be non- responsive due to the Petitioner's failure to provide pricing information for the years 1991 and 1992 as required by revised "Form A."
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner's proposal is non-responsive and dismissing the Petitioner's formal written protest. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of March, 1990.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation’s decision to reject all bids for Financial Project No. 209278-1-52-01 (J. Turner Butler Blvd.) a major interchange in Duval County, Florida, was exercised illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly or fraudulently.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 2004, the Department of Transportation advertised its Bid Solicitation Notice (BSN), for the JTB Project. H. W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) designed the JTB Project. Petitioner, Superior Construction, and Archer Western Contractors, LTD, submitted bids on May 26, 2004. Petitioner had the apparent low bid, and Superior had the second apparent low bid. On or about May 27, 2004, Robert Burleson, President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association (“FTBA”), contacted the State Construction Engineer, Ananth Prasad, P.E., and alerted him to potential issues regarding MOT phasing. (T. p. 876, lines 18-24; p. 880, lines 14, 15). Richard Ayers, of Superior Construction, called the Jacksonville Urban Office of the Department of Transportation, District 2, alerting the District to the concerns regarding the maintenance of traffic issues. Ayers had reviewed the bid and plans generally to assess its bid in light of the Petitioner's bid, and had discovered in the process MOT issues that he believed would add substantially to the costs and time required to construct the project. As a result of these calls, Robert Hansgen, P.E., District 2 Resident Engineer, was directed by someone within the Department to review the MOT plans. On June 1, 2004, Mr. Hansgen forwarded to Henry Haggerty and Al Moyle a memorandum outlining seven areas of MOT concern relating to the "constructability" and safety of the JTB project. On June 1, 2004, Hansgen's memorandum was forwarded to Mohammed Majboor, P.E., Design Consultant Engineer for the Department, who forwarded the memo to Lochner. Lochner reviewed its plans in light of the Hansgen memorandum and forwarded its response on June 3, 2004, to Hansgen, who reviewed the responses and added his comments. He e-mailed Henry Haggarty seven concerns he had with the MOT plans. On June 2, 2004, Allen Moyle, Jacksonville Construction Engineer, received Hansgen's and Lochner's responses regarding the MOT plans and determined that the project plans needed revisions because of safety issues. Moyle concluded that all the bids needed to be rejected in light of the MOT revisions. He transmitted a request to Cathy Thomas at the Department's headquarters to arrange a meeting with Lochner to commence revision of the plans at the earliest possible date. On June 8, 2004, Hansgen briefed the District 2 Secretary, Schroeder, and other District 2 staff members on the issues regarding maintenance of traffic issues based on his memo, a marked-up copy of the MOT sheets, and pictures. Rejection of all bids was discussed at this meeting. Mr. Hansgen testified at the formal hearing concerning his findings and his actions with the aid of the original memorandum and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Hansgen's concerns were about safety issues and included the reduction of traffic lane widths in areas to 11 feet where barrier walls would be erected on both the inside and outside medians where traffic would be traveling at 55 miles per hour. Another concern was the length of these lanes that would be restricted by concrete barriers. These barriers prevented easy access of emergency vehicles in these areas, which presented a significant hazard at this interchange, which accesses a major hospital complex. Mr. Hansgen’s also identified an inconsistency regarding where the contractor could work in an area close to the barrier wall; a portion of the roadway where a cross slope or tilting of the traveling lane created dangerous vehicle control issues; and plans to widen a portion of the roadway while vehicles traveled on the same portion of roadway which would require further narrowing of lanes. Because the State of Florida has one of the highest fatality records in the nation in work zones, the Department is very concerned about this issue. After the meeting on June 2, 2004, the Jacksonville Urban Office for District 2 recommended rejection to DOT in Tallahassee of all bids based on the need to “clarify uncertainties within the phasing of the maintenance of traffic (MOT) plans.” The recommendation of District 2 was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, which is comprised of six voting members. On June 9, 2004, the Technical Review Committee recommended rejection of all bids on the JTB Project to the Contract Awards Committee based upon MOT safety issues. The Contracts Award Committee, composed of three voting members, met on June 15, 2004, to consider the recommendations regarding the JTB Project of the Technical Review Committee and District 2. The Contracts Award Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee and District 2 and rejected all bids based upon MOT safety issues. The Department posted its notice of intent to reject all bids on June 17, 2004. The Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the Department’s rejection of all bids with a Formal Written Protest, filed on July 1, 2004, including an appropriate protest bond. The Department’s engineers met with engineers from H.W. Lochner, Inc., to discuss the issues of concern raised in the Hansgen memorandum. The Department commissioned Lochner to revise the plans to enhance the safety features for MOT, and certain other enhancements. Lochner and the Department entered into Supplement Agreement #13 that included both the requested enhancements and the changes to accommodate the concerns referenced in the Hansgen Memorandum. Richard Kelly testified regarding “animus,” and “dislike” displayed by employees of the Department. He pointed to past decisions and actions of Department employees as proof of “dislike” and “animus." These included a Letter of Concern to the Petitioner, on April 16, 2004, from the Department outlining five areas the Department had identified as important in making a determination on the pre-qualification of the Petitioner for bidding on Department contracts for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Also mentioned were disputed issues between the Department and the Petitioner arising during construction of the I-95/I295 Interchange Project, including Jacksonville ordinances on noise ordinance, and trees and deficiency letters from the Department to AMEC Civil. In addition, the disqualification of Morse Diesel, LLC, as the Petitioner was formerly named, from bidding on construction contracts with the State of Florida, and in 2002, the revocation of the pre-qualification of the Petitioner to bid on DOT projects were described. Ananth Prasad, P.E., who was identified by the Petitioner's witnesses as a primary source to opposition to the Petitioner, testified that he did not hold the position of State Construction Engineer in 2000, and was not involved in the decision to deny pre-qualification of Morse Diesel. Mr. Prasad also was not involved with the initial decision to revoke the pre-qualification of AMEC in 2002. Mr. Prasad does not personally hold a position on the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Prasad did not vote on the decision to recommend rejection of all bids on the JTB project. The decision to reject all bids for the JTB Project was made by the Contracts Award Committee based on recommendations from the Technical Review Committee, and District 2. The Department’s Contracts Award Committee exercised its statutory authority to reject all bids based on concerns regarding the MOT phasing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Formal Written Protest concerning the bid rejection for the project in this litigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Alan Cummings, Esquire S. Elysha Luken, Esquire Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Mike Piscitelli, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 305 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Calvin C. Johnson, Esquire C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2008.
