The Issue As described in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation Petitioners are challenging the Respondent's (SJRWMD) solicitation process with regard to the "Invitation to submit an Offer to Purchase property known as the Zellwin Airstrip." Petitioners seek to set aside the award of purchase to Intervenors and to have the solicitation process re-advertised. The issue for resolution is whether Petitioners are entitled to that relief.
Findings Of Fact In 1996 the Florida Legislature mandated that the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) attempt to purchase farms on the north shore of Lake Apopka as part of a long-term restoration and reclamation project. Petitioners, Rex Shepherd and Dale Harper, are pilots and owners of an aerial advertising business, American Outdoor Aerial Advertising. In early 1998 the business was operating out of Crakes field, a small airstrip owned by Kent Crakes as part of Crakes' North Lake Apopka farm. Petitioners' business owned airplanes and banners which it flew for its advertising clients such as Sears and GEICO. Sometime in early 1998 it became obvious that Petitioners would need to move their operation to another field. There were break-ins at the hanger, and the airstrip was beginning to flood as a result of the reclamation project. Kent Crakes referred Rex Shepherd to Leonard Freeman, the individual with SJRWMD who was involved with land acquisition in the area. Around March or early April 1998 Petitioners commenced discussions with Mr. Freeman regarding their use of the farm airstrip at Zellwin Farms, also part of the SJRWMD Lake Apopka farms acquisition program. Mr. Freeman was the SJRWMD point of contact for the Zellwin Farms acquisition. By early 1998, the property was already under contract and was scheduled to close some time around June 1998. Mr. Freeman and the Petitioners met at the Zellwin Farms airstrip in June 1998, and Petitioners determined the property would be suitable for their operation. Eager to accommodate Petitioners because of their predicament and also in anticipation of the SJRWMD's eventual sale of the Zellwin parcel, Mr. Freeman gave permission for Petitioners to store their equipment on the site and gave them a key. Because Zellwin Farms was beyond what SJRWMD considered to be the lake's historic shoreline, the SJRWMD knew that it would need to dispose of its 1400 acres as surplus, in whole or part. Mr. Freeman's desire was to find a way to dispose of the property as the best thing for the SJRWMD. Thus, because of the Petitioners' immediate interest in relocating their business, Mr. Freeman began negotiating with them for their purchase of the airstrip and related buildings. In September 1998, Mr. Freeman met again with Petitioners at the airstrip and discussed a specific proposal. Petitioners talked about offering $250,000 under a lease-purchase arrangement, and sent a letter dated September 10, 1998, to Mr. Freeman with that offer. Mr. Freeman later suggested that since the appraised value was $275,000, an offer in that amount would be easier to get approved. Mr. Freeman did not have the authority to obligate the SJRWMD to sell the property and Petitioners understood that. Still, Petitioners felt they were negotiating in good faith with staff who could make a strong recommendation to the board. Petitioners believed in early October that they had a hand-shake deal subject to further discussions regarding specific terms. They knew that a competitive solicitation might be an option for the SJRWMD but they also believed that they would be given an opportunity to meet another third party's offer. This belief was based not on some specific agreement for a "right of first refusal," but rather on Mr. Freeman's good-natured assurances that they would work it all out. Mr. Freeman requested that the SJRWMD special counsel develop a draft contract based on Petitioners' offer. The offer would then need to be signed by Petitioners and approved by Mr. Freeman's supervisor before going to the SJRWMD governing board. The counsel never finished the draft and it was never given to Mr. Freeman or the Petitioners. By the end of October 1998, Robert Christianson, Mr. Freeman's supervisor and director of the SJRWMD Department of Operations and Land Resources, learned that Petitioners were flying in and out of the Zellwin airstrip and using it for their business base of operations. This activity was beyond the storage permission that Mr. Freeman had granted. (Even that permission was beyond his individual authority.) Mr. Freeman and Mr. Christianson met with Petitioners on October 27, 1998, to work out a license agreement for their use of the airstrip. Such an agreement was necessary to protect the parties' respective interests and to cover the SJRWMD for any liability in the landlord/tenant relationship. The result of that meeting was a written license agreement for Petitioners to use, maintain, and provide protection for the property for a period from October 30, 1998, to April 30, 1999, subject to revocation with advance notice. Petitioners used the airstrip property under that agreement and made improvements, mostly cleaning up the facility so it could be used. At the October meeting it became obvious to Petitioners that the informal negotiations for their purchase were terminated and that the SJRWMD was going to solicit competitive offers for the purchase. This concerned the Petitioners and they felt let- down by Mr. Freeman. Still, they concentrated on getting the license agreement worked out. Rex Shepherd's account of the October meeting was that Mr. Christianson was very clear about the fact that the SJRWMD had to go for competitive bid, that they were bound by a board and rules and regulations even though both he and Mr. Freeman would like for Petitioners to have the airport, and that they should be able to work it out. At the end of the meeting, and as they were leaving the trailer, Mr. Shepherd commented to Mr. Freeman that he really did not want to lose the airport and wanted to be apprised of what was going on so that if there were a higher bid, he could have the opportunity to match it, or if it were too high, that they would have 30 or 60 days to vacate the property. According to Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Freeman simply responded, "We'll work all that out, don't worry about it." On November 11, 1998, the SJRWMD governing board voted to surplus the Zellwin Farms property with direction to the staff that the sale be widely advertised in the aviation community and not be a sole source deal. Consistent with the board's direction and pursuant to Section 373.089(3), Florida Statutes, the SJRWMD advertised a "Notice of Intention to Sell" the airstrip property in the Orlando Sentinel for three consecutive weeks, November 9, 16, and 23, 1998. The notice identifies the airstrip property as an "Approximately 47-acre agricultural airport facility, 2,200'? square feet asphalt runway, 5,250 ? square feet metal hanger, 2,048 ? storage square feet building, well and septic tank at a location of northwest Orange County, Florida, Sections 20 and 29, T-20-S, R-27-E, on Jones Avenue, 1 ? mile west of U.S. Highway 441, Zellwood." The Notice of Intention to Sell states that "[a]ll interested persons are invited to submit an offer to the District for purchase of said lands. Contact the District . . . and request an Airport Sales Package." Both the Airport Sales Package and the Notice of Intention to Sell state that the airport property will be sold for the highest price obtainable. The sales package states that full cash offers to be paid at closing will be given first consideration and that 10 percent of the purchase price must be paid when the offeror was notified that it was successful. The sales package also states that any person adversely affected by an offer solicitation shall file a Notice of Protest, in writing, prior to the date on which the offers are to be received, and shall file a formal written protest within ten (10) days after filing the Notice of protest pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-1.801. * * * Failure to timely file a notice of protest or failure to timely file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (SJRWMD Ex. 3). Both the Notice of Intention to Sell and the sales package require that sealed "offers for purchase" be submitted to the SJRWMD prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 4, 1998, the advertised time for opening of the offers. Nothing in the Notice or sales package reserves a right of first refusal for any person. Instead, both plainly state "no offer will be accepted after the date and hour specified for submittal of offers." (SJRWMD Exhibits 1 and 3) Although Petitioners did not see the newspaper notice, they had knowledge that the SJRWMD advertised the sale of the airstrip property through a competitive solicitation process in the newspaper. They had been clearly informed of need for the competitive process by Mr. Christianson at the October meeting and they were present when a pre-solicitation meeting/inspection took place at the airstrip in November prior to the offers being accepted by the SJRWMD. Intervenors requested a sales package from the SJRWMD on November 30, 1998, and December 2, 1998. Petitioners requested and received a sales package prior to the opening of the offers to purchase. The sales packages were not available to the public until December 2, 1998, the same day Petitioners received their package. Mr. Freeman told Petitioners they needed to submit their bid. Although the sales package stated that facsimile offers would not be accepted by the SJRWMD, Leonard Freeman informed Petitioners that they could fax their Offer to Purchase. The SJRWMD did accept a facsimile offer to purchase from Petitioners on December 4, 1998, at 1:07 p.m. Offers to purchase were opened by the SJRWMD at 2:10 p.m. on December 4, 1998. Petitioners submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $275,000, where Petitioners would pay $1,500.00 per month for 60 months ($90,000 with $72,000 applied toward principal) with a balance of $203,000 cash to be paid at the end of the 60-month term. Intervenors submitted an offer to purchase the airstrip property for $310,000, where Intervenors would put 10 percent down ($31,000 earnest money deposit) at award of Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the balance of $279,000 cash would be paid at closing on or before May 1, 1999. Petitioners' offer to purchase was not the highest offer; it did not provide for cash at closing; and it did not meet the requirement of 10 percent to be paid upon notification. Staff recommended to the SJRWMD board that it award the purchase of the airstrip property to the highest offeror, Intervenors. The governing board approved staff's recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 1998. On December 9, 1998, Petitioners filed a Notice of Protest. On December 18, 1998, Petitioners filed a copy of their Formal Bid Protest with the SJRWMD. Petitioners never grasped the implications of the competitive solicitation process until after the offers were opened and the award was made to Intervenors. Even if Petitioners had seen the newspaper notice and had received the sales package sooner, they still would not have protested because they understood that their "agreement" was outside of the process. That is, they mistakenly perceived that after the offers were in they could negotiate further to exceed the high offer. Chagrined, and genuinely regretful of the misunderstanding, Mr. Freeman had to tell Petitioners that further negotiations were foreclosed after the offers were opened. Mr. Freeman's earlier assurances to Petitioners were the result of an excess of bonhomie rather than any deception. He wanted them to have the airport and he wanted to work out the sale of surplus property. Petitioners were aware that he did not have the authority to bind his agency to an agreement. Mr. Freeman never specifically told Petitioners they had a right of first refusal; they wanted that advantage and surmised agreement from Mr. Freeman's and Mr. Christianson's vague counsel to not worry and that it would all be worked out. The SJRWMD devised a competitive process for disposition of the Zellwin airstrip that was consistent with its statute and with the direction of its governing board. Intervenors responded with an offer that met all the published requirements. Petitioners did not, and any culpability of SJRWMD's staff for Petitioners' misunderstanding is not so egregious as to require that the process begin again. Petitioners occupied the property, used it, and made improvements to enhance their use. This, however, was in reliance on their license to use the property and not on some certainty that they would ultimately be able to own the property. As Petitioners testified at hearing, they were disappointed that the SJRWMD decided to solicit competitive proposals; they knew that it was possible someone would offer more than they could match. (Harper, Transcript pages 117-120).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the SJRWMD enter its final order denying Petitioners' request to reject all bids and re-advertise the sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 24th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 John W. Williams, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Clayton D. Simmons, Esquire Stenstrom, McIntosh, Colbert, Whigham And Simmons, P.A. Post Office Box 4848 Sanford, Florida 32772-4848 Stanley Dollen 1230 Kelso Boulevard Windermere, Florida 34786 Herbert Clark 5416 Trimble Park Road Mt. Dora, Florida 32757
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are true, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the agency charged with regulating the pari-mutuel wagering industry in Florida, including persons licensed under Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was licensed as a cardroom employee occupational license number 1395921-1181, issued by the Petitioner. On May 20, 1998, the Respondent was working as a teller in the cardroom at Tampa Jai-Alai. The evidence establishes that on May 20, 1998, the Respondent provided wagering tickets to a patron of the facility without obtaining cash or a cash voucher in exchange for the tickets.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order revoking the cardroom employee license number 1395921-1181 of Bobbie J. Manning. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan C. Felker-Little, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bobbie J. Manning 3007 Spillers Avenue Tampa, Florida 33619 Deborah R. Miller, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for registration as a funds transmitter should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a scheduled, commercial airline, certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. Its base of operations in the United States is Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. Its passenger flights depart from and arrive at Fort Lauderdale International Airport, traveling to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Bahamas. Petitioner transports passengers, which constitutes ninety percent of Petitioner's business, and transports cargo and mail, which constitutes seven to eight percent of Petitioner's business. Petitioner also acts as a funds transmitter, which constitutes approximately one to two percent of Petitioner's business. Petitioner has performed funds transmittal since 1989 when Petitioner was founded. It started that service at the request of a Haitian who lived and worked in the United States and wanted to send money to his family in Haiti. Since then and currently, Petitioner only transmits funds to Haiti. Petitioner has in place detailed procedures for funds transmittal. Petitioner receives such funds in cash. Petitioner then writes a check made payable to the recipient. The check is then placed in an envelope, which is placed in a courier pouch, which is then placed on the aircraft. The pilot signs a receipt for the funds and delivers the pouch to Petitioner's receiving agent in Haiti, who signs for the pouch. Petitioner's agent then delivers it to a company Petitioner contracts with for giving out the pouches. The recipient of the check goes to that company, presents identification with a photograph, and is given the check. Petitioner charges only a three percent fee for this service, a cost which is substantially below the industry's prevailing charge. Petitioner deposits daily funds received for transmittal in a separate account in a different bank from the bank in which Petitioner maintains its operating funds. The majority of the customers for whom Petitioner transmits funds are repeat customers. The parties stipulated that Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, known as the Money Transmitter's Code, became effective on July 1, 1994. Petitioner had no knowledge of the existence of the Money Transmitter's Code or the effective date thereof. Petitioner's first knowledge of the requirement that a money transmitter pay a fee to, and register with, the Department occurred in May of 1996 when one of the Department's investigators made an unannounced visit to Petitioner's place of business. He advised Petitioner of the registration requirement and left an application form with Petitioner. Petitioner filed that application for registration with the Department on June 4. Question numbered 7 on that application reads as follows: "Provide a description of the corporate structure of applicant, including the identity of any parent or subsidiary of applicant." Petitioner's answer states: "Lynx Air International is the only corporation engaged in funds transmittal and is not owned by any other entity." Petitioner's senior vice president, who answered that question on behalf of Petitioner, misunderstood the question; he thought the question only sought information regarding subsidiaries involved in funds transmittal. As he understood the question, he answered it truthfully. Petitioner has no subsidiaries involved in the business regulated by the Department. However, Petitioner does have two subsidiaries which it owns and a third subsidiary in which Petitioner owns a fifty percent interest. The three subsidiaries own the aircraft which Petitioner leases. Petitioner's senior vice president, who is not an accountant, also filed with the Department monthly income statements since Petitioner's yearly financial statement was not yet completed. Petitioner's C. P. A. subsequently submitted to the Department Petitioner's annual financial statement which was prepared according to generally-accepted accounting principles. Petitioner's net worth is in excess of $100,000. The transmittal of funds is only ancillary to Petitioner's business as a commercial airline. The maximum amount of funds transmitted does not exceed $5,000 to $6,000 per flight. Petitioner wishes to continue serving as a funds transmitter because the service is beneficial to Petitioner and to the public. Petitioner benefits because offering the service is a method of bringing "the customer in the door." The customer who uses Petitioner's service is also likely to purchase a ticket from Petitioner when that customer needs to travel. When Petitioner properly performs the funds transmittal service, the customer obtains a level of trust in Petitioner. Similarly, the customer benefits because Petitioner offers a safe method for the customer to send money to help support his or her family in Haiti. Petitioner has not caused any problems or losses to, or received any complaints from, any persons who have used Petitioner as a funds transmitter. Petitioner has not yet posted the bond required for registration with the Department because the Department advised Petitioner it was not necessary for Petitioner to incur that expense until its application for registration was approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for registration and requiring Petitioner to post the requisite bond prior to issuance of the registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Noto, Esquire 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1001 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Robert Alan Fox, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Did the Respondents offer to sell a business opportunity without filing a disclosure statement with the Department and without providing prospective purchasers a disclosure statement at least three working days prior to the receipt of any consideration for the signing of a business opportunity contract contrary to Section 559.80, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact On March 5, 1994, Star Vision was in attendance at a trade show in Jacksonville, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 3,5) Upon investigating Star Vision's activities at the show, the Department's representatives, Bob James and Bill Bassett, found Star Vision to be offering for sale a business opportunity as defined by Chapter 559, Part VIII, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibits 3,5) Star Vision offered to sell a business opportunity representing that one could become a "licensee" upon paying $600. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5) Star Vision had not file a copy of the required disclosure statement with the Department prior to making the offering above. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2,3) Granhan and Bray were given a letter notifying them of the filing requirements together with a business opportunity registration package. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2,3) On March 12,1994, Star Vision attended another trade show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4) Upon investigating Star Vision's activities at the show, the Department's representative, James R. Kelly, found Star Vision to be offering for sale a business opportunity. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4) Star Vision represented the following while offering to sell a business opportunity: The regular price of the opportunity was $1,495 but they were running a special of $495 for anyone signing up at the show; and Purchasers would receive training tapes and other training that teaches how to market and sell the product. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4) The Department received a consumer complaint against STAR VISION from Mr. Alan Drake. Upon purchasing a business opportunity from Star Vision, Mr. Drake was provided with audio and video tapes which instruct purchasers how to sell and market the product. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1) Upon selling him a business opportunity, Star Vision did not provide Mr. Drake with a disclosure statement, and has never registered with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ordering that: Respondents to cease and desist selling business opportunities in the State of Florida, Imposing an administrative fine of $5,000 for each violation, in accordance with Section 559.813(2), Florida Statutes, against Terry Granhan and Mike Bray d/b/a Star Vision Direct Cable in the amount of $15,000. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay S. Levenstein, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Terry Granhan and Mike Bray Star Vision Direct Cable, Inc. 9050 Highway 64, Suite 115 Memphis, TN 38002 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Corrections' ("Department") intended decision to award contracts to Intervenors, Gateway Foundation, Inc. ("Gateway"), and The Unlimited Path, Inc. ("UPI"), for licensed in-prison substance abuse treatment services pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate FDC ITN 17-112 ("the ITN"), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or the ITN specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The ITN, Site Visits, and Addenda The Department is a state agency responsible for the supervisory and protective care, custody, and control of all inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. As of June 30, 2016, the Department had a total inmate population of 99,119, with 62 percent (61,454) of those inmates in need of treatment for a substance abuse disorder. The Department wants to strategically improve the manner in which it provides licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates by focusing on maximizing the levels of treatment and individual inmate needs without increasing costs. The Department chose to utilize a flexible competitive procurement process to achieve its goals; specifically, an invitation to negotiate method of procurement rather than an invitation to bid or request for proposals, because it wanted industry leaders to craft individual and innovative solutions to address the problem.1/ Against this backdrop, on September 21, 2016, the Department issued the ITN, "In-Prison Substance Abuse Treatment Services," seeking replies from qualified vendors to provide licensed substance abuse treatment services to inmates incarcerated by the Department in each of its four regions. The Department reserved the right to make separate awards to each of its four regions, or to make a statewide award to a single vendor. The initial term of the contract(s) to be awarded under the ITN is five years. In addition, the Department may renew the contract(s) for up to one additional five-year term. The ITN separated substance abuse treatment services into five distinct service types: Prevention Services, Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Intensive Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment, Long-term Residential Therapeutic Community, and Aftercare. Additional services were also required, including motivation/readiness classes for program participants awaiting admission to Outpatient, Intensive Outpatient, or Residential Therapeutic Community services, and an alumni support group for program participants who have completed treatment services. The ITN required that the treatment services be provided in programs licensed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 65D-30. The ITN identified the selection criteria as follows: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the State based upon the "Selection Criteria" and satisfies the Department's primary goals as identified in this ITN. The Selection Criteria may include, but is not limited to, the following. Selection Criteria: Respondent's articulation of their solution and the ability of the solution to meet the requirements of this ITN and provide additional innovations. Respondent's experience in providing the services being procured and the skills of proposed staff relative to the proposed approach and offering. Respondent's Technical Reply and Cost Reply, as they relate to satisfying the primary goals of the services identified herein. All interested vendors, before submitting their replies, were required to visit various sites within the regions covered by their reply. GEO attended these site visits, which were held in October to November 2016. During the visits, the topic of the budget was discussed. All vendors were informed that the Department "did not have any new money," and that it would be operating within the existing budget. Section 4.10, TAB A, of the ITN required that each vendor submit with its reply a letter from a surety company or bonding agent that documents the vendor's present ability to obtain a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $1,500,000, per region. In Section 4.8 of the ITN, Pass/Fail Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements, the Department stated it would reject any and all replies that did not meet the pass/fail criteria. One of these criteria, Section 4.8e), specifically required each vendor to demonstrate its ability to meet the performance bond requirement. A vendor was likewise required to make this certification on Attachment IV to the ITN, Pass/Fail Requirement Certification and Non-Collusion Certification. Section 4.8e) stated as follows: The Vendor must be able to demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements. Prior to execution of prospective contract, Respondent will deliver to the Department a Performance Bond or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount equal to the lesser of $1.5 million dollars, per region, or the average annual price of the Contract (averaged from the initial five year Contract term pricing). The bond or letter of credit will be used to guarantee at least satisfactory performance by Respondent throughout the term of the Contract (including renewal years). Section 5.36 of the ITN, Performance Guarantee, also provided: The Vendor shall furnish the Department with a Performance Guarantee in the amount of $1,500,000, per region, on an annual basis, for a time frame equal to the term of the Contract. The form of the guarantee shall be a bond, cashier's check, or money order made payable to the Department. The guarantee shall be furnished to the Contract Manager within thirty (30) days after execution of the Contract which may result from this ITN. No payments shall be made to the Vendor until the guarantee is in place and approved by the Department in writing. Upon renewal of the Contract, the Vendor shall provide proof that the performance guarantee has been renewed for the term of the Contract renewal. Based upon Vendor performance after the initial year of the Contract, the Department may, at the Department's sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond for any single year of the Contract or for the remaining contract period, including the renewal. The purpose of a performance bond is to mitigate the Department's risk should a vendor fail to perform on a contract. In Addendum 2, the Department identified six current contracts being replaced by the ITN, and provided links to those contracts and budgetary information on the Florida Accountability Contract Tracking System ("FACTS").2/ The Department also provided two rounds of formal questions and answers, which are reflected in Addenda 6 and 7. In Addendum 6, question 3, a vendor asked a question about cost. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendors are encouraged to submit a Cost Reply in such a manner as to offer the most cost effective and innovative solution for quality services and resources, as both cost efficiency and quality of services will be a consideration in determining best value. In Addendum 6, question 77, a vendor asked a question about how to submit a reply. In response, the Department answered as follows: Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide. In Addendum 7, question 2, the Department again addressed the issue of how many replies are required of a vendor who was interested in either a statewide or a regional award, through the following questions and answers: Question 2: In the responses to vendor questions (Addendum 006), Change to No. 6- "4.9 Submission of Replies" states that "In Reply to this ITN, each Vendor shall: Submit a separate Reply for each Region (bullet item a on page 8). However, under answer #77 (p.21), it states that "Vendor's shall only submit one Reply, and the Reply must be clearly labeled with the Region(s) included, or that the Reply is Statewide." Can you please confirm that a statewide proposal can be one, single proposal for the entire state rather than four separate proposals for each of the four regions? Answer: Yes. If submitting for a Reply for Statewide, the Reply can be submitted as one (1) Reply. If submitting a Reply for multiple Regions such as Regions 1 and 2, a Reply must be submitted for each Region. A separate Technical Reply and Cost Reply must be included for each submission. The Cost Replies must be sealed in a separate envelope from the Technical Replies, but they can all be submitted in the same package. Submission and Evaluation of Replies to the ITN On June 15, 2017, the Department received replies to the ITN from the following six vendors: GEO, Gateway, UPI, SMA Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Village South, Inc., and Bridges of America, Inc. GEO submitted five separate replies, one for each region and one for statewide. Gateway submitted a single statewide reply, but indicated in the reply that it wanted to be considered for a statewide award and one or more regional awards. Gateway also included a detailed budget breakdown by region with pricing for each region. The Department's instructions to the evaluators of the replies included a note reminding them that Gateway submitted a statewide response, but that it wanted to be considered for each individual region. UPI submitted three separate replies, one each for Regions 1, 2, and 3. UPI made the required certifications regarding the performance guarantee and submitted a letter from a surety company evidencing its ability to obtain a performance bond in the amounts required by the ITN. All of the replies were deemed to satisfy the pass/fail criteria and were then evaluated and scored. Negotiations Following the evaluation of the replies, the Department entered into the negotiation phase with GEO, Gateway, UPI, and Bridges of America, Inc. Negotiations commenced in August 2017 and continued through October 2017. The Department held a total of three negotiation sessions with each of these vendors. The ITN provided that the scores from the evaluation phase would not carry over into negotiations and that the negotiation team was not bound by the scores. The Department's negotiation team consisted of Kasey Faulk, chief of the Bureau of Procurement (lead negotiator); Patrick Mahoney, chief of the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition; and Maggie Agerton, the assistant chief of In-Prison Substance Treatment in the Bureau of Readiness and Community Transition. Ms. Faulk has a master's degree in business administration from the University of Florida. She is also a Florida-certified project management professional; Florida- certified contract negotiator; and Florida-certified contract manager. In her tenure as chief of the Bureau of Procurement, she has overseen more than 130 competitive solicitations, including at least 80 invitations to bid, at least 30 requests for proposals, and approximately 17 invitations to negotiate. She has drafted procurement procedures at two different state agencies, and helped draft revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68-1. Without objection, Ms. Faulk was accepted at hearing as an expert in the area of Florida procurement processes. Ms. Agerton authored the programmatic portions of the ITN and served as an evaluator. She has a bachelor's and master's degree in criminology. She is also a Florida-certified addiction professional and certified criminal justice addictions professional. She currently serves as contract manager for the Everglades Recovery Center ("Everglades") contract, of which GEO is the incumbent vendor.3/ During negotiations, GEO, which had only provided services to the Department for a short time, touted its experience and devotion of resources at Everglades. However, GEO was under a corrective action plan at Everglades as of May 12, 2017, because of missing information in clinical files and lack of staff supervision. Complete clinical files are very important to substance abuse treatment. Proper clinical documentation is necessary for licensure purposes and allows the Department to ensure that services are being provided in accordance with the contract. By the end of October 2017, Ms. Agerton had conducted a site visit to Everglades, and although GEO had made significant progress in the area of leadership and staff, the clinical files were still a significant problem. Ms. Agerton and Ms. Faulk had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. During the negotiation phase, GEO was aware of the Department's concerns regarding its performance at Everglades. During negotiations, GEO was told by the Department that it is trying to spend its money more efficiently and in a cost-effective manner. GEO was told by the Department that its price was outside the range of competitive replies, and GEO was encouraged to provide alternative pricing models and "sharpen its pencils." During negotiations, the Department asked every vendor to identify its cost drivers. GEO did not identify the performance bond as a cost driver. However, UPI identified the performance bond as a cost driver. UPI informed the Department that a performance bond would cost it $200,000 per year regardless of whether the amount of the bond was reduced, because the cost of the bond is based on the complete value of the contract. UPI requested that it be allowed to submit a cashier's check to the Department in the amount of $1,000,000 for three regions in lieu of paying $200,000 per year for five years to a bonding company for a performance bond. At hearing, Ms. Faulk explained the process of negotiating with individual vendors, the importance of having a strategy, and the value of making individual concessions with individual vendors during negotiations. UPI had performed services for the Department for over ten years, through budget cuts, and had not walked away from their contracts. Accordingly, the negotiation team considered UPI's suggestion to be a low risk. That is, the Department did not believe there was a significant risk that UPI would abandon the contract. In any event, the cashier's check proposed by UPI would benefit the Department because the Department could easily take the money and use it to recoup losses in the event of nonperformance, as opposed to a bond, which may require the Department to engage in protracted litigation with a surety company to obtain the value of the bond. The Department also saw the cashier's check as an opportunity to obtain lower pricing from UPI. The negotiation team told UPI it would accept, in lieu of the performance bond, a $1,000,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded three regions; a $750,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded two regions; and a $500,000 cashier's check if UPI was awarded one region. Allowing UPI to post a cashier's check in the amount of $750,000 for the two regions it was awarded did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, GEO's representative, John Thurston, who oversaw the development of GEO's reply and BAFO, and participated in the negotiations, acknowledged that GEO's cost to obtain a performance bond in the amount of $1,500,000 would only have been $67,500 per year. During negotiations, the Department revised the scope of work. Following the negotiations, on October 25, 2017, the Department emailed an RBAFO to those vendors who participated in the negotiations. The RBAFO informed vendors that the term "Best and Final Offers" is used to provide the vendor the opportunity to clarify its response and adjust its price based on the negotiations, and that this does not preclude the Department from seeking clarification or additional information upon receipt of the BAFOs. The RBAFO further stated that the BAFO "must contain a written narrative of services to be provided inclusive of clarifications and any alternative or modifications discussed during the negotiation process." The BAFO required an executive summary, description of service delivery, a staffing matrix, and a price sheet. GPR-037 (General Program Requirements) in the RBAFO addressed staffing and provided, in pertinent part: The vendor shall ensure that all required Vendor staff positions are filled for the entire scheduled 40 hour weekly working period, and that those individuals are physically present at the work site. All positions are full-time, unless otherwise specified, inclusive of interim positions. As to the price sheet, the per diem pricing "should represent the best price the Vendor is willing to offer to the Department." The RBAFO specifically addressed and allowed for vendors to provide alternative pricing models and methods. Providing alternative price offerings gives the Department more options to solve its problem and demonstrates a vendor's understanding of the Department's needs. All vendors were provided with an equal opportunity to submit BAFOs reflecting revisions to the ITN made by the Department during negotiations. The RBAFO reminded vendors to include in their BAFOs alternatives or any modification discussed during the negotiation process. GEO was aware during negotiations that it could have inquired about or proposed to negotiate different components of all aspects of its proposal. GEO was also aware that any global changes for all vendors would be included in the RBAFO, but that negotiation concessions, innovative solutions, and negotiated points with individual vendors, would not be included. In fact, GEO negotiated items that were not shared with other vendors. The BAFOs and Negotiation Team Recommendation The deadline for vendors to submit their BAFOs was November 14, 2017. The Department received BAFOs from the four vendors invited to negotiate. The ITN provided that BAFOs would not be scored and the negotiation team would make a recommendation of award based on which vendor's solution presented the best value to the state, utilizing the selection criteria in the ITN. Prior to submitting its BAFO, the Department responded to Gateway's inquiries about differences between what was to be included in the BAFO and what was discussed during negotiations, specifically in the context of the ratio of Prevention Services counselors (indicated as one counselor to fifty participants in the RBAFO, but discussed during negotiations as one counselor to eighty participants). The Department instructed Gateway to use the ratios included in the RBAFO, and "provide an alternative price with the ratio your Company is proposing." As allowed by the RBAFO and further clarified by the Department, Gateway's BAFO included both a base price offering and an alternative price offering, with detailed explanations of the assumptions included within each offering. Gateway's BAFO included a ratio for Prevention Services counselors from one counselor for every fifty participants (1:50), and an alternative ratio of one counselor for every eighty participants (1:80). Gateway's staffing models in its BAFO also included part-time positions. The members of the negotiation team reviewed the BAFOs and then made a formal recommendation of award at a public meeting held on November 17, 2017, with recorded minutes. The negotiation team recommended regional awards rather than a statewide award. It recommended an award of Regions 1 and 2 to UPI and Regions 3 and 4 to Gateway. The team recommended these vendors because it believed their solutions represented the best value to the state based on the selection criteria identified in the ITN. Ms. Faulk recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because UPI was an incumbent vendor with a long history of providing satisfactory services to the Department. Additionally, she felt UPI had tremendous ideas on how to maximize treatment, their cost was affordable, and they proposed innovative solutions. Ms. Faulk ultimately recommended Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 because she found them very innovative and treatment-focused. She felt they had extensive experience in a correctional setting providing substance abuse treatment, and their cost was very affordable. She recommended the alternate price offering because it was an innovative solution to increase services. Gateway's alternate price offering increased the number of available treatment slots and provided staffing which the Department found acceptable and appropriate, while at the same time offering a better price. Ms. Agerton recommended UPI for Regions 1 and 2 because she felt UPI brought an innovative solution in negotiations, as well as many different ideas. She felt that based on their incumbent status, they had knowledge of the Department's systems and were able to suggest improvements while remaining affordable. Ms. Agerton recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4 because they also brought innovative solutions, particularly an evaluator that would help with monitoring their implementation. She also felt Gateway was likewise affordable and energetic. Neither Ms. Faulk nor Ms. Agerton recommended GEO for any of the regions. Ms. Faulk felt GEO's cost was significantly higher than the other vendors. She also had concerns about some of GEO's responses during the negotiation sessions, particularly with regard to the problems at Everglades. Ms. Faulk felt GEO lacked innovation, it did not understand the problems at Everglades, and it lacked an effective strategy for how not to have the problems reoccur in the future. Ms. Agerton did not recommend GEO for any of the regions because she felt they were very expensive compared to the other vendors; so expensive, in fact, that their price exceeded the Department's budget. Ms. Agerton also had concerns about GEO's current contract performance at Everglades. A formal recommendation memorandum was prepared by the procurement officer and routed through various levels of the Department. The memorandum included a cost analysis, which reflected the total awarded price for all four regions for the initial five-year term to be $57,683,377.25. GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, approximately $22,000,000 higher than the Department's intended awards for all four regions. Notably, the formal recommendation memorandum mistakenly reflected 225 prevention slots in Region 3, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal; and 200 prevention slots in Region 4, instead of the 320 prevention slots included in Gateway's alternative proposal. For Region 3, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $319,466.25 for 225 slots reflected in the memorandum. For Region 4, multiplying 320 slots times Gateway's per diem rate of $3.89 (and by 365 days a year), results in an annual total cost of $454,352; compared to the annual cost figure of $283,970 based on 200 slots. Thus, accounting for the increased prevention slots for Regions 3 and 4 results in an annual increase in cost of $305,267.75 above the $11,536,675.45, for a total annual cost for all four regions of $11,841.943.20, and a five-year cost of $59,209,716. On the other hand, GEO's proposed price for all four regions for the same period was $80,558,693.75, which divided by five results in an annual cost to the Department of $16,111,738.70. GEO eliminated the cost of Aftercare services because the Department intends to use an Alumni Program for zero cost in lieu of Aftercare services. GEO calculated that removing the cost to the Department of Aftercare services would result in $1,885.790.75 less, or a total annual cost of $14,225,948.70. Thus, removing the cost of Aftercare services from GEO's proposed price for all four regions would still result in a five-year cost to the Department of $71,129,743.50, which may exceed the amount appropriated, budgeted, and available to the Department for substance abuse treatment for Fiscal Year 2017- 2018, and which far exceeds the cost of $59,209,716 (the amount of the proposed award to Gateway and UPI for the same time period).4/ The recommendation memorandum was approved by the Department's secretary on January 9, 2018. GEO's Protest GEO's protest raises numerous issues, none of which warrant rescission of the Department's intended award to Gateway and UPI. Gateway's Reply to the ITN GEO contends Gateway submitted only a single "statewide" reply to the ITN, and no reply for any regions, and therefore, Gateway is ineligible for a regional award. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Gateway's reply was properly considered as a reply for multiple regions because Gateway clearly indicated its intent to be considered for multiple regions. Moreover, Gateway gained no competitive advantage over other vendors as a result of combining its statewide reply with a regional reply. In fact, the Department would have been inundated with replies if it required a vendor to reply for every conceivable combination of regions. UPI's Performance Guarantee GEO contends the Department materially deviated from the ITN and gave UPI a competitive advantage over it by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department did not materially deviate from the ITN and give UPI a competitive advantage over GEO by allowing UPI to provide, in lieu of a performance bond, a cashier's check in the amount of $500,000 if awarded one region; $750,000 if awarded two regions; or $1,000,000 if awarded three regions. Notably, the ITN did not require proposers to submit a performance bond or letter of credit with its reply to the ITN, and none of the vendors submitted a performance bond or letter of credit with their replies. Instead, in replying to the ITN, a vendor was only required to "demonstrate its ability to meet the Performance Bond requirements." UPI satisfied the requirements of the ITN by demonstrating its ability to meet the performance bond requirements. In any event, the reduction in the amount of the bond agreed to by the Department ($750,000 in connection with the award of contracts for two regions) did not provide UPI with a competitive advantage over GEO. At hearing, Mr. Thurston estimated GEO's annual cost of providing a performance bond in connection with contracts to be awarded pursuant to the ITN would be approximately $67,500, well below the $200,000 per year that UPI was quoted for its bond. Moreover, the amount of $67,500 is insignificant compared to the significant disparity in the annual, total prices proposed by GEO and UPI in their BAFOs for Regions 1 and 2 (GEO: $9,299,141.50; UPI: $6,342,203, for a difference of $2,956,938.50 per year). At hearing, Mr. Thurston acknowledged he could have raised the issue of the performance bond during negotiations. As Mr. Thurston also acknowledged at hearing, even if GEO had been able to negotiate an elimination of the performance bond amount requirement in its entirety, GEO would not have been able to offer a price that would have remedied the disparity. Gateway's BAFO (Prevention Services Ratio) GEO contends Gateway's ratio for Prevention Services counselors of 1:80, as provided in Gateway's BAFO alternative price offering, is a material deviation from the RBAFO requirements. As detailed above, this alternative offering was expressly permitted by the RBAFO and was further clarified by the Department to Gateway before its BAFO was submitted. Moreover, increasing the prevention capacity to 80 per institution adds an additional 605 inmates served at any one time, resulting in the Department being able to serve more inmates for the same appropriation amount. This is precisely the type of innovative thinking the Department sought to reach its goals. GEO did not submit an alternative pricing model, and it never asked the Department if the ratios for Prevention Counselors were negotiable. At hearing, GEO could not say how much it could have lowered staff levels, if at all, if it attempted to negotiate ratios. Gateway was not given a substantial advantage over GEO by increasing the prevention capacity. In addition, although chapter 65D-30 does include required ratios for certain types of services, there is no maximum caseload requirement applicable to Prevention Services. Gateway's BAFO (Part-Time Positions) GEO also contends Gateway violated GPR-037 in the RBAFO because Gateway's staffing models included part-time positions. However, the Department interprets the phrase "unless otherwise specified" to mean that unless the vendor specifies a position in its reply as part time, the Department will assume that any positions referenced in the reply are full time (40 hours). GEO never asked the Department for clarification on the meaning of the phrase "unless otherwise specified." At hearing, Mr. Thurston could not say whether its BAFO would have been adjusted had GEO asked about negotiating the positions, in terms of being full time. In any event, the Department currently utilizes part- time staff under the contracts being replaced by the ITN. Part- time staff may provide a more cost-effective solution than full- time staff. Gateway's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO also contends Gateway's alternate price offering provided for a reduction in clerical staff positions contrary to GPR-035 as set forth in Addendum 6 and the RBAFO. GPR-035 required that each vendor provide a minimum of one clerical position for up to 136 treatment slots, and one-half position for each additional 68 treatment slots. In support of its position, GEO presented Exhibit 1. However, GEO's Exhibit 1 is based on incorrect assumptions, and it is unreliable and unpersuasive. First, the ratios calculated by GEO are impermissibly "rounded-up." Secondly, contrary to GEO's position, the Department only calculates an additional one-half position once the full 68 treatment slots have been achieved. GPR-035 does not require one-half positions for "up to each additional 68 slots." A plain reading of GPR-035, consistent with the Department's reasonable interpretation, is that an additional one-half position is required only after the full 68 slots have been achieved. Gateway's base price offering fully complied with the staffing ratios when the ratios are calculated according to a plain reading of GPR-035, which is bolstered by the Department's practice in calculating ratios. Gateway's alternative price offering providing for a reduction in clerical positions to one full-time employee per facility was a cost-saving measure discussed with the Department and a product of negotiations. Even if Gateway's alternative price offering deviated with regard to the clerical positions, given the discrepancy between GEO's and Gateway's price offerings, the deviation is so small that it is a minor irregularity and not a material deviation. Gateway's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends Gateway failed to provide region- specific pricing or a final, firm pricing offer of any kind for the initial term or the renewal term. During negotiations and in its BAFO, Gateway reiterated that it would accept a regional or multi-regional award. Under Section 4.12 of the ITN, the Department reserved the right to seek clarification from vendors regarding their BAFOs and to reopen negotiations after receiving BAFOs. The negotiation team recommended awarding Gateway's alternate price offering for Regions 3 and 4 contingent upon clarification from Gateway that its pricing would be applicable to Regions 3 and 4. Although vendors were invited and could have attended the public meeting and heard this for themselves, none of them chose to attend. Four days later, on November 21, 2017, the Department's procurement officer reached out to Gateway's representative asking it to confirm that the pricing listed in the alternate price offering would remain the same if awarded individual regions as opposed to the entire state. Gateway's representative responded that the alternate prices included in Gateway's BAFO could remain in effect with a modified administrative personnel staffing plan if Gateway was awarded more than one region. At the time of this exchange, the Department's negotiation team had already recommended Gateway for Regions 3 and 4; so, the Department knew there would be no need to renegotiate pricing because Gateway was recommended to receive more than Region 4. According to Ms. Faulk, the Department understood Gateway's response to mean that the per diem pricing provided in Gateway's BAFO would apply to Regions 3 and 4. Gateway would reduce the oversight positions to two or three positions, consistent with the smaller level of responsibilities required for two regions instead of four. This exchange occurred prior to the drafting of the award recommendation memorandum, which was dated November 28, 2017. It was not signed by Ms. Faulk until January 3, 2018, or the Secretary until January 9, 2018. Gateway's per diem statewide pricing applied equally to Regions 3 and 4. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on its BAFO price sheet, the Department calculated the grand total price using the correct per diem unit prices provided. The ITN stated that unit prices would control in the event of a mathematical error. As it pertains to the price sheet instructions, the RBAFO stated that the vendor's pricing should represent the best price the vendor is willing to offer the Department. Gateway provided both a base price offering and an alternate price offering. The base price offering's price sheet contained the required per diem prices for both the original contract term and the renewal contract term. Under the section titled "TOTAL PRICE," Gateway appeared to sum the individual per diem prices rather than provide an actual grand total contract amount. Gateway did the same for its alternate price offering price sheet. Although Gateway did not provide a grand total price on the price sheet, it included a detailed budget breakdown for both its base price offering and alternate price offering. The Department felt these breakdowns offered additional transparency into Gateway's pricing. Section 4.10, Tab F, of the ITN provided that all calculations would be verified for accuracy by the Department's Bureau of Support Services staff, and that unit prices submitted by a vendor would prevail in the event a mathematical error is identified. Ms. Faulk testified the Department could calculate a grand total price by using the per diem pricing provided on the price page. She explained the Department could multiply the per diem price for each service type by the number of slots for that service, and then multiply that number by 365 days to arrive at the yearly price for a particular service. The Department could then add those prices together to obtain an annual total. She also explained these same calculations could be done for the renewal pricing. UPI's BAFO (Clerical Positions) GEO contends UPI deviated from the staffing requirements by providing fewer clerical support positions than required by the RBAFO. Specifically, GEO contends UPI had a deficit of six clerical support positions, and that if GEO knew it could reduce the staffing complement by six, it would have been worth approximately $270,000. UPI's clerical staffing ratios deviated from GPR-035, because its ratios were calculated based on the belief that prevention slots were not "treatment" slots. The ITN and RBAFO refer to prevention slots as treatment slots. Nevertheless, given the discrepancy between the prices submitted by GEO and UPI, UPI's deviations from the clerical staffing requirements are so small that they are minor irregularities and not material deviations. UPI's BAFO (Pricing) GEO also contends UPI's BAFO failed to include the Revised Price Sheet. Specifically, in paragraph 24 of its amended petition, GEO alleged: "UPI appears to have created its own form that emulated the format of the required form but provides many more spaces for additional information. Other Vendors that used the ITN required form did not have the opportunity to include this additional information." Although UPI did not use the specific Revised Price Sheet form, it provided per diem prices for each level of treatment as required by the form and additional information for the Department's consideration. GEO failed to include per diem pricing for Residential Therapeutic slots in Regions 2 and 4. GEO also modified its price sheets and submitted additional information in the form of annotations denoted by asterisk. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that the Department appropriately determined that the proposed awards to Gateway and UPI will provide the best value to the Department based on the selection criteria. Any irregularities in Gateway's and UPI's replies and BAFOs as alleged by GEO were minor and not material deviations. The Department's intended awards to Gateway and UPI are not contrary to the Department's statutes, rules, the ITN specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order dismissing the protest of GEO Reentry Services, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 1976, the School Board of Orange County and ITEL Data Product Corporation (ITEL) entered into a lease agreement providing for the lease of data processing equipment to the Board from ITEL by which ITEL supplied a computer central processing unit (CPU) and related equipment. Concomitantly, by agreement, ITEL provided for servicing and maintenance of the equipment. In October, 1977, IBM announced its new 303X series of computers with delivery schedules to customers for the newly introduced equipment to take up to two years. IBM has had a long-standing policy, well-known in the data processing industry, of filling customer orders for equipment in the sequence in which they are received, called "sequential delivery." With public agency customers, such sequential orders are not envisioned by the agency nor IBM to be a firm order because of the often protracted procurement process, involving competitive bidding, that public bodies typically have to engage in before making such a major purchase. IBM therefore permits public agencies, such as the School Board in this case, to place non-binding orders in anticipation of a future procurement so that a sequential delivery position will be available to the public agency and thus cause no delay in acquisition of the equipment should IBM become the successful bidder upon a particular procurement. On October 6, 1977, the School Board placed a "reservation" for an IBM 3031 CPU and related data processing equipment. In a letter of October 11, 1978, the School Board informed IBM that this equipment would be needed in approximately November, 1979, subject to availability of funds and subject to IBM being selected as a winning vendor in a competitive bidding process. There was no executed contract or other commitment between IBM and School Board at this point in time. Sometime in the summer of 1979, the School Board, which had become dissatisfied with the service and maintenance it had received from ITEL pursuant to the ITEL lease, engaged certain members of its staff in a study regarding its future data processing equipment needs. The School Board staff study resulted in a determination by the staff, and ultimately by the Board, to acquire additional data processing equipment capacity in excess of the capacity supplied under the ITEL lease. On August 28, 1979, the School Board terminated the ITEL lease effective December 31, 1979, and on or about September 5th, notified ITEL of that termination. On or about October 2, 1979, after determining that it wished to lease new and greater capacity equipment, the School Board Issued an "Invitation to bid" to eleven vendors, providing for the leasing, with option to purchase, of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal." In response to this invitation to bid, ITEL, Menrex Corporation, as well as IBM, submitted bids and on November 13, 1979, the School Board rejected all the bids as being not responsive, as it had reserved the right to do in the invitation to bid document. The rejection of these bids on November 13, 1979, provided only slightly over a month during which the School Board would have to acquire equipment by rental or purchase and have it installed, since the ITEL lease would be terminated on December 31, 1979. Accordingly, acting on the advice of counsel, the School Board determined that it could legitimately develop an interim emergency leasing plan for meeting its data processing needs upon the expiration of the ITEL lease starting December 31, 1979. This leased equipment was expected to be in place for approximately three to six months or until such time as a new bidding effort and procedure could be developed. The School Board, upon advice of counsel, determined that under its procurement regulations, it could rent equipment on a month to month basis without engaging in a competitive bidding process if it solicited quotations from at least three vendors. Thus, on November 13, 1979, the School Board solicited quotations from three potential vendors, Comdisco, ITEL and IBM, for purposes of securing an interim rental of an IBM 3031 CPU, "or equal", and related equipment. IBM and the Petitioner herein, NAS, which is the successor in interest to ITEL, responded to the solicitation of quotations and NAS informed the Board that it could not supply the particular equipment specified, but offered a NAS CPU at a monthly charge and suggested other related equipment to the Board that NAS considered to be suitable. The School Board staff informed NAS that the CPU unit itself would be a suitable alternative to the IBM 3031 CPU mentioned in the solicitation of quotations. On November 20, 1979, the School Board elected to select IBM's quotation and entered into the lease arrangement with IBM on a month-to-month rental basis. NAS did not challenge that action by the School Board. This rental agreement was entered into on or about December 7, 1979. It was a standard IBM lease and contained a provision whereby IBM offered the customer an option to purchase the equipment, although there was no obligation imposed therein on the customer to purchase the equipment, which was the subject of the lease. The agreement provided that the customer would be contractually entitled to certain "purchase-option credits" or accruals if it was leasing the equipment on a long-term basis and subsequently elected to exercise the option to purchase that same equipment. IBM grants such purchase-option credits as a general rule in month-to-month rental situations such as this, although they are not always a matter of contractual right on behalf of the customer. In any event, no consideration was shown to have been given at the time of entering this rental agreement to the existence or non-existence of any purchase-option credit provision since the only authorized contract at that time was a month-to- month rental agreement. No purchase or option to purchase which would be binding on either party was contemplated since both IBM and the School Board were aware that before a purchase of this magnitude could be made, that a competitive bidding procedure must be utilized. Equipment was installed pursuant to the rental agreement in December, 1979. Neither at the time of the contracting, nor at the time of the installation of the IBM 3031 CPU, did NAS or Comdisco challenge the award of the month-to-month rental contract to IBM. In early 1980, the rental agreement being only temporary, the School Board began studying various alternatives for making a permanent acquisition of needed data processing equipment. In early May of 1980, upon advice of its attorney and various staff members assigned to study the matter, the School Board determined that it would be more economical for the School Board to purchase a CPU and related equipment and service either by cash or installment payment, than to continue renting a CPU and related equipment or to lease those items with an option to purchase as had originally been contemplated in the October, 1979, aborted procurement effort. Thus, it was that on about April 20, 1980, the School Board appointed a committee of five persons to help draft technical specifications to ultimately be promulgated in bidding invitation documents with a view toward acquiring the required data processing equipment through competitive bidding and ultimate purchase. The committee included School Board employees and outside consultants with knowledge of the field of data processing. The members were: Louis Nall, Education Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; Kim Anderson, Information Systems Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations for the School Board; and Craig Rinehart, Director of the Systems Development/Systems Support staff of the School Board. Upon this committee agreeing upon required specifications for the equipment to be acquired, the bidding documents or "invitation to bid" and related supporting documents were developed by the committee in conjunction with assistance of certain other members of the staff of the Board as well as the School Board's attorney. The bid documents were approved by the School Board on May 27, 1980, and they were issued on May 23, 1980, to eight potential vendors, including NAS, IBM, and Amdahl Corporation. The bid documents invited bids for the sale of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal" (plus service and maintenance) for delivery no later than July 15, 1980. In addition to specifying an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal.," the pertinent specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents provided as follows: The manufacturer of the equipment described in the bid was required to currently manufacture it and offer for sale or lease along with it, an upgradable attached word processor subsystem the same as, or equal to, the IBM 3031 "attached pro- cessor." The Central Processing Unit, or CPU, being bid had to be capable of hosting or accommodating an attached processor. (The purpose of requiring this was so that the School Board could later ob- tain more processing capability if and when it needed it, rather than having to pay for more capacity than it needed at the time of the initial purchase. The vendors were not required by the bidding documents, however, to bid at the time of this procurement for the actual sale of such an attached processor, to be added later.) The School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informal- ity in any bid. The bid documents initially stated that the School Board would not pay any separately stated interest or finance charges in arriving at its total purchase price for all equipment to be bid. Each bidder was required to offer a certain number of support or maintenance personnel in the Orlando area at the time the bid was submitted and the Board would enter into a separate service and maintenance agreement with the successful vendor. NAS did not protest the bid specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents. NAS did request and receive several interpretations and clarifications of the bid documents from the Board in a manner favorable to NAS. These favorable clarifications or interpretations were as follows: The unavailability of serial numbers for data processing equipment at the time the bid was prepared would not adversely affect the bid's validity. NAS could temporarily rent equipment from other manufacturers which it could not itself deliver by the July 15, 1980, date required in the bid documents. (emphasis supplied) NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the requirement that support personnel be present in the Orlando area, provided it had the required support personnel in the area at the time the equipment was actually delivered, rather than at the originally stated time of submission of the bid. The NAS 7000N CPU, which was a computer of greater capacity than the IBM 3031, even after the IBM had the attached processor added, was specifically determined by the Board to be con- sidered as equivalent to the IBM 3031 and thus ap- propiately responsive to that specification and the invitation to bid documents. NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the term "manufacturer" even though NAS did not in itself manufacture the equipment, but only marketed it for the maker, Hitachi Corporation. IBM also had a role in determining and securing clarifications or interpretations of the specifications in the invitation to bid from the School Board. Thus, it was that IBM suggested that the Board could save money if it allowed each vendor (not just IBM) to separately state an interest or finance charge in its bid, since IBM was of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service would not tax as ordinary income to the vendor any separately stated interest charges or financing charges received by such vendor from a public governmental body such as the School Board. Thus, to the extent that vendors could save on income taxes from the total payment, if successful, then the School Board could reasonably expect all vendors to submit correspondingly lower bids in response to the invitation to bid. In response to IBM's request, the School Board amended the bid documents to allow a "separately stated time-price differential" for any item of equipment, not to exceed seven and one-half percent of that item of equipment. At NAS' request, the School Board also amended the bid documents to state that a single central processor (the NAS 7000N), with equivalent power to the IBM 3031 CPU, which was upgradable in the field, would be an acceptable alternative to the requirement that a separate processor must be capable of being attached to the CPU in order to increase data processing capacity. In fact, the NAS 7000N actually has somewhat greater data processing capacity than the IBM 3031. A further amendment to the bid documents provided that in determining the lowest and best bid, the Board would consider each vendor's total charges for service, maintenance and support of the equipment for a one- year period following the award of bids. Additionally, at the request of IBM, an amendment was approved to the bid documents stating that instead of seeking equipment "new and not refurbished," that that requirement would be changed to "new and not refurbished or not more than one-year old." These amendments were sent to all potential bidders. Prior to disseminating the May, 1980, invitation to bid documents, the School Board established an Evaluation Committee to review and analyze bids to be received in response to those documents. The Committee was composed of the following individuals: David Brittain, the Director of the Educational Technology Section, Florida Department of Education; William Branch, Director of Computer Service, University of Central Florida; Louis Nall, Education Consultant, Florida Department of Education; Ronald Schoenau, Director of Northeast Regional Data Center, Florida University System; Craig Rinehart, Director of Systems Development/Systems Support of the Orange County School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations of the School Board; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Dale Brushwood, Director of Production Control, School Board; and David Brown, Attorney for the School Board. The Evaluation Committee was charged with conducting a review and analysis in accord with certain instructions given by the Board and to recommend to the Board the bid the Committee believed was the lowest and best bid. The Committee was instructed that objectivity is of prime importance. Five vendors submitted bids in response to the Invitation documents, as amended. They were NAS, IBM, Amdahl, CMI and Memorex. On June 17, 1980, the bids were opened by the Board. On a recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, the School Board found the bids submitted by CMI and Memorex to be not responsive to the bid documents. The bids submitted by NAS, IBM and Amdahl Corporation were found responsive to the bid document. The Evaluation Committee met for approximately 5 hours evaluating the bids by a number of different criteria, including the consideration of both a one-year and a three-year maintenance cost, as well as an assumption arguendo that the bid documents did not merely call for the IBM 3031 CPU upgradable by the addition of an attached processor, as the specifications actually requested, but instead that the $330,000 (estimated) attached processor was to be bought at the outset from IBM. The result was that the Evaluation Committee reported that the IBM bid was the lowest and best response, even if the cost of a $330,000 attached processor was added to their bid, which was not actually to be the case because the attached processor was not included in this procurement process. Even had that been added to the IBM bid, making it the second lowest dollar bidder, the Evaluation Committee still felt it to be the lowest, best bid. The IBM bid for the 3031 CPU and related equipment was $1,412,643 plus a time-price differential of $58,738 for a total of $1,471,381. The related bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $74,201.34, making a grand total for IBM's bid of $1,545,582.34. The NAS bid for the sale of an NAS 7000N CPU and related equipment was the next lowest bid at $1,575,751 plus a time-price differential of $74,722 for a total of $1,650,473. The accompanying bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $64,603. The total of the NAS bid was thus $1,715,076. The Amdahl Corporation's bid was higher than either IBM or NAS. In evaluating and in arriving at the decision that the IBM bid was the lowest and best, the Evaluation Committee was concerned with the previous poor record of maintenance and support provided by NAS's predecessor in interest, ITEL Corporation, as well as by the fact that there were then no NAS 7000N computer systems installed in the United States, so that some knowledge of its performance record could thus be gained. Further, the residual value for NAS' equipment had not yet been proven to the extent that IBM's had. Thus, the Committee determined that the IBM bid would still be the lowest and best even had the attached processor, at an estimated cost at time of $330,000, been added to the bid, making it the second lowest in dollar terms because the IBM bid combined the least risk, with the maximum equipment capacity growth flexibility at maximum benefit to the School Board in terms of financial flexibility. The NAS machine would provide more capacity than the Board needed for several years at higher cost, without the Board having an option regarding when that extra capacity should be obtained. The financial flexibility benefit of the IBM bid in terms of allowing for future capacity growth was borne out because the attached processor, by the time it was actually acquired from IBM in 1982, only cost $172,000, due to price decreases made possible by technological advances. The Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the IBM bid as the lowest and best received, and in official session on June 24, 1980, after hearing presentations by an NAS representative, the School Board unanimously voted to award IBM the contract for the subject equipment. On July 1, 1980, the contract submitted by IBM was executed by IBM and the School Board. It provided for a purchase by the Board of the equipment and services described above, payable in two installments, $600,000 on or before August 15, 1980, and the balance on or before July 5, 1981. On July 16, 1980, NAS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the Board, also filing an emergency motion for stay with the School Board, seeking a stay of all further agency action on the contracts with IBM, including any payment, pending disposition of the case. On July 29, 1980, the School Board, after hearing argument of NAS counsel, denied that petition for Administrative Hearing and motion for stay on the basis that the contract between the Board and IBM had already been executed and that the NAS request for a 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was not timely. On August 4, 1980, NAS appealed the Board's decision to deny a hearing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal and also filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The emergency motion requested the court to prohibit any further action pursuant to the contract, including payment of any sums pending determination of the issues raised in the appeal. On August 15, 1980, the court granted the emergency motion for stay on the condition NAS post a supersedes bond on or before August 18, 1980. On August 26, 1980, the court vacated that order because of failure to timely post the supersedes bond. The School Board then paid IBM the first installment payment of $600,000, when due, shortly thereafter. On May 6, 1981 the Fifth District Court of Appeal ultimately rendered a decision that NAS ". . . should have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1980), that its bid was the lowest and best response to the bid document." Thus, the case was remanded to the Board to conduct an administrative hearing, and the Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 4, 1981, NAS filed with the Board a motion for stay to prevent the Board from making the final payment to IBM on the purchase price. After hearing arguments of NAS' attorney, the Board, on June 23, 1981, denied the motion for stay and NAS appealed. On July 3, 1981, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the School Board's denial of the stay. Final payment was thereafter made by the Board to IBM, thus completing the purchase and all performance of the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Orange County denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire 630 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter J. Winders, Esquire Nathaniel L. Doliner, Esquire Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel E. O'Donnell, Esquire 400 Colony Square, Suite 1111 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 James L. Scott, Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues concern the question of the responsiveness of Intervenor's bid to the invitation to bid (ITB) 92-66BC. If the Intervenor is not responsive, then Petitioner asserts that it should be awarded the contract as the second ranked bidder. In particular Petitioner alleges that there are certain irregularities in the response by the Intervenor and that they constitute material deviations from the bid requirements. They are in turn: Whether Intervenor failed to submit its price on the second addendum bid sheet as required or to acknowledge that its bid was being submitted in accordance with Addendum No. 2. Whether Intervenor failed to include its references with its bid response. Whether Intervenor failed to fill in the space on the bid form calling for cash discount terms. Whether Intervenor failed to fill in the space on the bid form calling for delivery days. Whether Intervenor failed to initial changes or corrections to its price quotation.
Findings Of Fact On September 14, 1992, Respondent mailed ITB No. 92-66BC to prospective bidders. The ITB called for "A bid for supplied items related to HRS data processing operations-Florida Project." Within the ITB was given the following explanation concerning bid items and bid prices: ITEM Unit Bid NO. Quantity Description Price 1 each IBM 4234 Print Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 30 each IBM 4202 Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 50 each IBM 4019 Laser Toner (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 650 each IBM 2380/2381 Print Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 5 boxes Continuous Self-adhesive (per month) Labels $ ea. (labels are blank with no printing) overall size 5 3/4" x 6" including pin feed holes, label size 5" x 17/16", white labels, 1,000 per box $ per 1 each IBM 6262 Mylar Film Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 650 each IBM 6262 5 Mil. Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 8 boxes IBM 3800 Toner (3/box) (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 1 roll IBM Splicing Tape (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 2 boxes IBM 3800 Developer (2/box) (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. On September 24, 1992, Addendum No. 1 was prepared related to the items that were being bid. It stated: The purpose of this Addendum #1 to the above referenced HRS bid invitation is to: (a) Clarity the individual IBM product specifications with IBM stock numbers (b) increase the quantity for item #1, and (c) extend the bid opening date. These changes are as follows: ITEM Unit Bid NO. Quantity Description Price Increase quantity IBM 4234 Print Ribbon of IBM 4234 Print Auto-Inking Ribbon (Auto-Inking) IBM Stock #1380160 from 1 ea./mo. to "30 ea./mo.". $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4202 Ribbon as previously IBM Stock #1040150 specified $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4019 Laser Toner High Yield IBM Stock #1380200 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 2380/2381 Print Ribbon IBM Stock #1040930 $ ea. Same Quantity Continuous Self-Adhesive Labels $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 Mylar Film Ribbon IBM Stock #1040400 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 5 Mil. Ribbon High Contract IBM Stock #1040300 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 3800 Toner IBM Stock #1669122 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM Splicing Tape IBM Stock #4165880 $ /cn. of 72 rolls Same Quantity IBM 3800 Developer 2/box IBM Stock #1162223 $ /box Addendum No. 1 also moved the bid opening date from September 24, 1992, until September 30, 1992. Addendum No. 2 was issued on September 28, 1992, concerning bid items. It stated: The purpose of this 2nd Addendum to the above referenced bid invitation is to incorporate the "packaging" (3 per box) on item #8 and to add/clarify the individual "units" on which "Unit Bid Prices" shall be based. These changes are as follows: ITEM Unit Bid NO. Quantity Description Price Increase quantity IBM 4234 Print Ribbon of IBM 4234 Print Auto-Inking Ribbon (Auto-Inking) IBM Stock #1380160 from 1 ea./mo. to "30 ea./mo.". $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4202 Ribbon as previously IBM Stock #1040150 specified $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4019 Laser Toner High Yield IBM Stock #1380200 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 2380/2381 Print Ribbon IBM Stock #1040930 $ ea. Same Quantity Continuous Self-Adhesive Labels $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 Mylar Film Ribbon IBM Stock #1040400 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 5 Mil. Ribbon High Contract IBM Stock #1040300 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 3800 Toner IBM Stock #1669122 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM Splicing Tape IBM Stock #4165880 $ /cn. of 72 rolls Same Quantity IBM 3800 Developer 2/box IBM Stock #1162223 $ /box The second addendum changed the bid opening date to October 9, 1992. Petitioner and Intervenor received the addenda. Notwithstanding the attempts at clarification concerning the bid items, Item No. 6 continued to be problematic in that the description of the ribbon type was Mylar Film; however, the stock number shown opposite the item identified was for nylon ribbon. Respondent intended to purchase Mylar ribbon. Intervenor was made aware that the agency desired Mylar ribbon by its Item No. 6. This information was imparted before the bid opening. Although William F. Cox, Respondent's employee who was responsible for the ITB has no specific recollection of discussing the problem about Item No. 6 with a representative from Petitioner's corporation, John C. Lyons, a representative for Petitioner's corporation does recall a discussion. Lyons' understanding in conversation with Cox was that disposition would be made concerning item 6 after a winning vendor had been selected, that disposition having to do with rectification of the confusion surrounding the item description and stock number. Prior to bid opening Cox had reached as many bidders as he felt time would allow him to contact concerning the problem with Item No. 6. Time was of the essence in that the contract which Respondent had with the existing vendor who supplied the items sought by the ITB was expiring and the federal government from whom funding for this activity was being received was insisting on moving the project forward. This reason for bidding was to change from a sole source purchasing arrangement to a purchase under competitive bidding. The existing vendor was a sole source and the ITB was designed to substitute competitive bidding for that approach. Cox was unsure how he would deal with responses pertaining to Item No. One alternative was that if he had two responsive bids which included reference to Mylar ribbon that would suffice. Another option would be to throw out Item No. 6 and consider the award on the basis of the other nine items. Intervenor bid Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6 together with a number of other vendors who submitted responsive bids for Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6. Petitioner bid nylon ribbon on Item No. 6. All ten vendors who submitted responses were found responsive to the ITB. Because Intervenor had bid Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6 and other vendors had also bid Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6, Cox elected the option to leave Item No. 6 in the price quotation for determining the ranking for vendors. The decision to award the overall contract was decided on the basis of price in the aggregate for the ten items in question. Although Petitioner had bid nylon ribbon on Item No. 6, this was to the Petitioner's advantage in comparison to other vendors concerning the price competition. The reason for this finding is that nylon ribbon is a less expensive ribbon than Mylar ribbon. When the bids were opened on October 9, 1992, the basis for assessing compliance with the terms of the ITB was controlled by the terms of the ITB; Chapter 287, Florida Statutes; Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, as interpreted by Mr. Cox without benefit of any additional guidelines which Respondent may have established for assessing responsiveness. That approach was not irregular. The price quotations for line items within the bid blank offered by Intervenor were set out in the ITB and Addendum No. 1. Addendum No. 2 was not attached. Petitioner attached both addenda to its response and set out the prices on the addenda. Petitioner did not set out the prices on the ITB. Notwithstanding the failure to submit Addendum No. 2 with its response, Intervenor was aware of its requirements when submitting its response. While it is the ordinary expectation that Addendum No. 2 would have been submitted, this oversight does not constitute a material deviation from the requirements set out in the ITB. The basic description of the ten items that were being bid remained consistent beginning with the ITB and continuing through the addenda. An examination of the price responses by the Intervenor when compared to Petitioner's responses and those made by other vendors does not lead to the conclusion that the failure to use the blank for Addendum No. 2 compromised the Intervenor's response. This finding is made with the knowledge of the language under general conditions to the ITB referring to sealed bids where it says "all bid sheets and this form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope. . . . Bids not submitted on attached bid form shall be rejected. All bids are subject to the conditions specified herein. Those which do not comply with these conditions are subject to rejection." Because of what Mr. Cox perceived as possible confusion by the vendors concerning the number of attempts to clarify the terms of the items to be bid, he did not feel that a vendor should be penalized for not recording the price quotations on the addenda. This perception is acceptable. Finally, additional evidence concerning the underlying similarities between the initial invitation to bid and the addenda is borne out by the fact that both the Petitioner and Intervenor in recording the price quotations in two places in their responses were consistent in those quotations. Included within the ITB was a section entitled "Background Statement." It stated: The computer related supplies which will be purchased from this bid/contract will be used by the department's data center in Tallahassee and statewide district service centers in the timely provision of a range of critical client services. The ability of the department's statewide data processing network to deliver these services in a responsive manner is critical to the very livelihood of many of these individuals. For this reason, the department will require that responding vendors provide a minimum of three (3) company references and provide other pertinent information, as required, to substantiate that the company is capable by experience and resources, to fulfill the provisions of this contract in a timely, competent and professional manner. The requirement for providing three company references was not one which made it incumbent upon the vendor to submit the references with the response to the ITB. The ITB is silent on the use of the information concerning references, that is to say the verification of those references and how that might be achieved. The vendor is only responsible for providing the information. Respondent may then use the information in any manner it desires. Although it is the ordinary practice of the Respondent to check the references prior to posting the intent to award, nothing in the ITB makes it incumbent upon the Respondent to do so and the vendor will not be held accountable for the Respondent's failure to comply with its customary practice by not checking the references prior to the posting of the intent to award. Intervenor did not provide the references with its response to the ITB. When Cox reminded Intervenor that it had not provided the references, the references were faxed to Cox on the day that the results concerning the ITB were posted. Two of the three references were checked on the day of posting following the posting. The third reference was not available to confirm the suitability of this vendor to supply the bid items in question. Moreover, the items being bid were from a single manufacturer, IBM. The vendors who were participating in the response, including Petitioner and Intervenor, were companies who had business affiliations with IBM that allowed necessary access to the bid items being sought. In summary, there was no requirement to provide references with responses and Intervenor did supply information about its references in a timely manner and the treatment of those responses by Respondent was appropriate. Within the general conditions to the bid is language to the affect that "all corrections made by bidder to his bid price must be initialled." Intervenor in Item No. 5 found within the basic bid blank and Addendum No. 1 changed bid by obliterating information and substituting the price $3.95 per box. This was an irregularity. The manner in which the irregularity was addressed by Mr. Cox minimized its influence and caused it to be other than a material deviation from the terms of the ITB. When Mr. Cox opened the Intervenor's response and discovered this change to Item No. 5 which had not been initialled he held up the response and said, "I have a bid with a change here I want to show it." This was presented in front of other vendors who were in attendance at the bid opening. Petitioner was not in attendance. A member of Respondent's staff other than Cox also saw this display and heard the remarks. This approach demonstrated that the Respondent had not made the changes in the person of its employee and by inference verified that the change had been made by the Intervenor. The nature of the change does not leave ambiguity concerning the intention by the Intervenor in that the prior entry on Item No. 5 within the basic invitation to bid blank and Addendum No. 1 had been obliterated leaving only the price quotation in the amount of $3.95 thus this problem is a minor irregularity and not a material deviation from the terms concerning the ITB. The delivery time contemplated for providing the bid items was ten working days by shipment FOB destination. This was as announced in Paragraph Although the front page to the ITB carries with it a blank for recording the delivery date where it says "delivery date will be days after receipt of purchase order", it was not necessary for a vendor to fill that number of days in. The reason is that the number of days had already been established by the terms of the ITB and no latitude was presented to a vendor to suggest otherwise. If a vendor chose to fill in the ten days required by Paragraph 11 by placing the number ten on the lead sheet to the ITB, this was a redundant act. Likewise on the lead sheet to the ITB is found a blank for recording the "cash discount terms". Reference to cash discount terms was not a specific requirement within the ITB, especially as it relates to a comparison of responses by the vendors in deciding who would be awarded the contract. Therefore, the failure by the Intervenor to record its cash discount terms on the lead sheet to the ITB in a setting in which Petitioner had offered such information is not a deviation from the requirements set out in the ITB. Under general conditions at Paragraph 4.b. concerning discount, it is stated "cash discounts for prompt payment shall not be considered in determining the lowest net cost for bid evaluation purposes." Nothing in the remaining text found in the ITB was contrary to that statement. The price difference between the responsive bid by the Intervenor and the responsive bid by the Petitioner was $102 in a setting in which Intervenor had the lowest price and Petitioner had the second lowest price.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the bid protest of the Petitioner and awards the contract to Intervenor, together with costs in the amount of $764. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-6824BID The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the last subparagraph to Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. The last subparagraph to Paragraph 5 is rejected as the reason for deciding that the Intervenor had complied with the requirements for references. Paragraph 6 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion related to Mr. Lyons and his understanding of what must be done in making changes through the initialling process. Mr. Lyons insights do not set aside the perception that the failure to initial by Intervenor was a minor irregularity. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found. As to Paragraph 8, the fact that Mr. Cox did not make a specific determination about Item No. 6 related to the response by the Petitioner did not disadvantage the Petitioner in a way that should cause a change in the outcome. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 8 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 10 through 28 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Pelham, Esquire Pennington, Wilkinson & Dunlap, P.A. 3375-A Capital Circle, N.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert L. Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Cody, Jr. IT Products, Inc. 5303 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John C. Lyons, Senior Account Manager 321 West Exchange Street Akron, OH 44302 Associated Computer Stipulations 1801 North Meridian Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 SAI/Delta, Inc. Suite 1014 670 North Orlando Avenue Maitland, FL 32751 Best Line Office Machines, Inc. Post Office Box 37381 Pensacola, FL 32526-0381 FRC Office Products Post Office Box 10163 Jacksonville, FL 32247-0163 Matrix Data Corporation Post Office Box 36150 Cleveland, OH 44136 Center Office Products 625 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 Computer Solutions/Connecting Point 4405 Bayou Boulevard Pensacola, FL 32503 Forms Management, Inc. Post Office Box 4004 Tallahassee, FL 32315
Findings Of Fact On November 24, 1976, petitioner purchased an airplane (the Corsair) in Florida from R. D. Whittington Aircraft Sales, Inc., for which he paid eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00). Sales tax has never been paid on account of this transaction. Before the purchase, petitioner asked George W. Sullivan, an airplane mechanic and test pilot, to evaluate the Corsair as an investment for resale. After petitioner acquired the Corsair, he caused three new cylinders to be installed and had the carburetor, the magneto and the propeller overhauled. Within three or four months of petitioner's acquisition, several prospective purchasers had inspected the Corsair. In the spring of 1977, petitioner began displaying the Corsair. At various times, petitioner engaged other pilots to ferry the Corsair to aircraft shows at Cherry Point, North Carolina, Greenville- Spartanburg, South Carolina, and elsewhere. At the time of the hearing, the Corsair had been flown approximately 43 hours since petitioner had acquired it, ten to twelve hours of which petitioner flew himself, in the course of displaying the Corsair and checking out repairs. Petitioner has traded in airplanes for the last several years and has been recognized as a dealer in aircraft by the Internal Revenue Service. Petitioner, who moved to Florida from California, applied to respondent for a dealer's certificate promptly upon learning that he was required to do so. On November 24, 1976, however, petitioner was not registered as an aircraft dealer with respondent. After an unsuccessful attempt to register effective retroactively to July 1, 1972, petitioner registered as a dealer with respondent, effective October 1, 1977. According to respondent's records, R. D. Whittington Aircraft Sales, Inc., was not registered as a dealer with respondent on November 24, 1976, and has not registered since. Petitioner obtained an address for R. D. Whittington Aircraft Sales, Inc., from respondent and, on or about, December 20, 1977, sent by certified mail a blanket resale and exemption certificate to the address respondent had furnished. A return receipt indicated that the certificate was delivered as addressed. In the past, respondent has treated sales to dealers as exempt from sales tax where the purchaser furnished the seller a resale and exemption certificate at the time of the sale and even when the certificate has been furnished afterwards, where the purchaser was registered as a dealer with respondent at the time of the transaction. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's proposed assessment be upheld. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering is the state agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the pari-mutuel wagering laws of the state of Florida. Respondent, Ronald F. Kilbride, is an individual who frequents pari- mutuel facilities in the state of Florida for the purpose of wagering. On September 26, 1992, the Respondent was present at the Sarasota Kennel Club and placed several bets on races to be run at the Calder Race Track. On that same day, Respondent placed several bets on races to be run at the Sarasota Kennel Club. On September 26, 1992, at approximately 2:45 p.m., a pari-mutuel wagering ticket, number 42 BOB C22A82A4 (the Ticket), was purchased at Sarasota Kennel Club for a wager on a horse race (race number 5) being run at Calder Race Track. The Ticket was a winning ticket for that race. At approximately 2:55 p.m. on September 26, 1992, Respondent presented what he claimed to be the Ticket, to James Ollie, Mutuel Clerk, Sarasota Kennel Club, at window number 6414 for payment. Ollie accepted the ticket presented by Respondent for payment but did not pay or explain to Respondent why he was not paying for the ticket. After a period of time had elapsed without receiving payment, the Respondent became agitated and asked for, and received, the ticket back from Ollie. There is no evidence that the ticket handed to Ollie by the Respondent at that time was in two pieces or taped together or altered in any fashion. Subsequent to his attempt to cash what Respondent claimed to be the Ticket, Respondent wrote a letter, dated September 27, 1992, to Patrick Mahony, Vice President Mutuels, for Calder Race Course, Inc., enclosing what Respondent claimed to be the Ticket and explaining the circumstances surrounding the attempt to cash that ticket. Before enclosing the ticket referred to in Finding of Fact 7 in the letter mailed to Mahony, Respondent made a copy of the letter and imposed a copy of the ticket mailed to Mahony on the bottom left hand corner of the copy of the letter (Respondent's exhibit 1). The copy of Respondent's exhibit 1 was furnished to John Foley, Investigator, Bureau of Investigation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, at the time the original letter was mailed to Mahony. The copy of the ticket shown on Respondent's exhibit 1 is a copy of the ticket mailed to Mahony by Respondent by letter dated September 27, 1992. The envelope containing the letter and the two ticket parts indicated that Mahony received the envelope in a damaged condition. Mahony's letter of October 6, 1992 advised Respondent that the ticket was received in two sections which were taped together by an employee of Calder Race Course, Inc. who handled mailed out tickets. After taping the two pieces of the ticket together and attempting to process the taped together ticket, it was discovered by an employee of the mutuel department at Calder Race Course, Inc. that the records indicated the ticket had previously been cashed at Sarasota Kennel Club. The taped together ticket was returned to Respondent. The Respondent made a complaint to the Division concerning his treatment at the Sarasota Kennel Club. As a result of that complaint, the Division commenced an investigation. As a result of that investigation, the ticket that Respondent had received back from Mahony (Petitioner's exhibit 3) was taken as evidence in the investigation. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) was requested by the Division to assist in the investigation by reviewing the ticket to determine if it had been altered, other than it being cut and taped back together. In comparing Petitioner's exhibit 3 with other Autotote tickets, FDLE found that the horizontal bars on the back side of Petitioner's exhibit 3 that had been cut were shorter than the horizontal bars in the same position on other Autotote tickets that had not been cut. It was the testimony of the FDLE expert that cutting a similar Autotote ticket across the horizontal bars in the same place and taping the two pieces back together would not affect the length of horizontal bars that had been cut. It is clear from the unrebutted testimony of the FDLE expert that Petitioner's exhibit 3 had been altered by cutting two Autotote tickets in a similar fashion and taping the opposite pieces of the two cut Autotote tickets together. The copy of the ticket shown on Respondent's exhibit 1 is a copy of a whole Autotote ticket that has not been cut in that there is no line indicating that the ticket has been cut and taped back together before copying or copied as two pieces not taped together. A line indicating where the ticket parts are taped to together is evident on Petitioner's exhibit 3 and the blowup of that same ticket by FDLE (Petitioner's exhibit 8). There are a series of vertical bars under the words AUTOTOTE at the top of each ticket and at the bottom of each ticket which are printed on the ticket at the time of purchase. In comparing the copy of the ticket shown in Respondent's exhibit 1 with the ticket identified as Petitioner's exhibit 3 and the blown up copy of that ticket identified as Petitioner's exhibit 8, the vertical bars at the bottom of each of the above-referenced exhibits appear to be identical. The vertical bars at the top of each of the above-referenced exhibits under the words Autotote appear to be identical starting at the top right hand side and moving left to the vertical bar under the letter "E" in the word Autotote on top left hand side. However, there are two vertical bars on the top left hand side under the letters "O" and "T" in the word AUTOTOTE on the top left hand side of the copy of the ticket shown on Respondent's exhibit 1 that do not appear on either the ticket mailed back to Respondent by Mahony (Petitioner exhibit 3) or the blowup of that ticket (Petitioner's exhibit 8). Other than the two vertical bars referred to in Finding of Fact 16, the information printed on the ticket shown on Respondent's exhibit 1 is the same as printed on the front side of the ticket returned to Respondent by Mahony and identified as Petitioner's exhibit 3 and the blow up of the front side of Petitioner's exhibit 3 identified as Petitioner's exhibit 8. Comparing the copy of the ticket shown on Respondent's exhibit 1 with the ticket identified as Petitioner's exhibit 3, it is clear that if the Respondent had somehow come into possession of the Ticket and cut off the left hand portion of the Ticket as shown in Petitioner's exhibit 3 and replaced it with a similar cut off portion from another ticket that had not been cashed, then the two vertical bars would still appear on the ticket identified as Petitioner's exhibit 3. A one page computer printout allegedly generated by the Autotote Hub entitled "Content of: Daily Ticket Cashed File" for September 26, 1992 list the Ticket as being sold at Window 6410 by Teller 5774 at a cost of $150.00 with a dividend value of $3425.00. This document does not list the window number at which the Ticket was cashed or the teller cashing the Ticket or the time the Ticket was cashed. There was no witness from Autotote to testify as to the significance of this computer printout. However, Mr. Snyder testified that the Ticket was cashed by James Ollie, Mutuel Clerk, at Window 6414, on September 26, 1992, but there was no evidence as to the time of day the Ticket was cashed. Mr. Ollie testified that the Ticket was presented to Ollie for cashing by a Mr. Dean who was referred to as "Santa Claus", for the obvious reasons of giving gifts to individuals, including employees of the track. Mr. Ollie also testified that he misplaced the Ticket after it was cashed and that he was suspended for a period of time by the Sarasota Kennel Club for carelessness. When a winning ticket is cashed by a teller or mutuel clerk the number of the window where the ticket is cashed and the amount won by the ticket holder is stamped on the blank space on the far left hand side of the ticket (the blank area to the left of information printed on the ticket at the time of purchase). This is referred to as a brand which signifies that the ticket has been cashed. After a ticket is cashed it is required that the track keep the ticket on file for, among other things, accounting purposes to the state of Florida and Internal Revenue Service. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that the ticket Respondent received back form Mahony had been altered. Likewise, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that the ticket Respondent mailed to Mahony was not altered at the time Respondent mailed the ticket to Mahony. The Respondent did not communicate with Thomas Hughes on September 27, 1992 by telephone or any other mode of communication at any time relevant to this proceeding for the purpose of discussing how to alter a ticket that had already been cashed and branded so that the ticket could be cashed again and did not verbally, or in any other manner, threaten Hughes with bodily harm for disclosing the alleged conversation, notwithstanding the testimony of Hughes and Shirley Griffon to the contrary. Such testimony lacks credibility. The Respondent did not verbally, or in any other manner, threaten James Ollie with bodily harm at any time relevant to this proceeding, notwithstanding the testimony of Shirley Griffon, Dwight Holloman and James Ollie and the Report of Private Ejection to the contrary. Such evidence lacks credibility. The Respondent may have been loud at times and his manner considered offensive by some of the employees at Sarasota Kennel Club. However, the Division has failed to present competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent verbally, or in any other manner, threatened any employee of the Sarasota Kennel Club with bodily harm at any time relevant to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing or rescinding Petitioner's Order of Patron Exclusion and Notice of Right to Hearing filed against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 15th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1403 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed finding of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Findings of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(4, except date is September 26, 1992 not 1993); 3(22-24); 4(7-9,15); 5-11(10,11,11,11,12,12,and 25, respectively) Proposed finding of fact 12-15 are not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 29 - 31. Proposed finding of fact 16 and 17 are more argument than Findings of Fact. Proposed finding of fact 18 - 20 are rules and statutes and are more appropriately placed in the conclusions of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent elected not to submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Helton, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ronald F. Kilbride, pro se 5681 Westwind Lane Sarasota, Florida 34231 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William E. Tabor, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
