Findings Of Fact Background On May 6, 1988, Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), issued an invitation to bid (ITB), numbered DIT-87/88-26, whereby it sought to establish a 12-month germ contract for the purchase of Unisys personal computers, peripheral equipment and accessories. On May 9, 1988, Petitioner, Palm Beach Group, Inc., requested a copy of the ITB from the Department, and was mailed a copy of the ITB that day. Petitioner received its copy of the ITB on May 14, 1988, and filed its bid with the Department on May 19, 1988. By May 20, 1988, the bid opening date, three bids had been filed with the Department. Pertinent to this case are the bids of Unisys Corporation, which bid total unit prices of 140,792.00, and petitioner, which bid total unit prices of 16, 753.002 On May 23, 1988, the bid results were posted by the Department. The bid results revealed that the bid of petitioner had been rejected as nonresponsive to the ITB because it did not include page 13 of the ITB, and therefore did not include a bid on the 14 items listed on that page of the ITB. The bid results further revealed that the Department proposed to award the contract to Unisys Corporation. Petitioner timely filed its notice of protest and formal protest with the Department. On May 24, 1988, petitioner submitted to the Department page 13 of its bid, and proposed to supply the 14 items listed on that page at "no charge." The bid documents The ITB consisted of 18 consecutively numbered pages. Page 1 included the bidder acknowledgment form an some of the general conditions of the bid. Page 2 Included the remainder of the general conditions. Notably, page 1 of the ITB conspicuously provided that it was "Page 1 of 18 pages." Pertinent to this case, the ITB contained the following general conditions: SEALED BIDS: 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 condition specified herein. Those which do not comply with these conditions are subject to rejection. * * * BID OPENING:...It is the bidder's responsibility to assure that his bid is delivered at the proper time and place of the bid opening. Bids which for any reason are not so delivered will not be considered....A bid may not be altered after opening of the bids... PRICES, TERMS, AND PAYMENT * * * (c) MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications, delivery schedule, bid prices, extensions and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services. Failure to do so will be at a bidder's risk.... INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No Interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006 Florida Administrative Code. Fail to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. NOTE ANY AND ALL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FRONT THESE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE. ATTACHMENTS: Special Conditions-Page 3 Bid sheets-pages 4-16 Minority Certification-Page 17 Attachment to all bids, etc.-page 18 Among the special conditions which appeared on page 3 of the ITB were the following The purpose of this bid is to obtain competitive prices per unit for the purchase of UNISYS personal computers, peripheral equipment and accessories for the Department of Insurance. * * * No substitutes or equivalents will be acceptable to the Department. The bid shall be awarded on an "all or none" basis using the low total bid price comprised of the total of all sections. Following the special conditions of the ITB appeared the bid sheets; pages 4-16 of the ITB. These sheets were divided into 10 sections: processors, displays, display controllers, keyboards, diskette drive, hard disk drives, memory, operating systems, miscellaneous devices, and lan options. Under each section the Department listed by part number and description the items that must be bid. The last page of the bid sheets, page 16, provided space to total the prices bid on sections 1-10. Notably, the following language appeared at the bottom of page 16: NOTE. RETURN ENTIRE UNIT PRICING, SECTION 1 THRU 10, PAGE 4 THRU 15 WITH THIS BID SHEET FOR EVALUATION AND AWARD PURPOSES. Petitioner did not protest the bid specifications or conditions within 72 hours after receipt of the ITB, nor did it raise any question or seek any interpretation of the conditions or specifications. The bid protest At hearing, petitioner contended that it should be excused for failing to include page 13 of the ITB in its bid and to bid those items, because such page was not included In the ITB forwarded to it by the Department or, alternatively, that its to include page 13 and to bid those items was a minor irregularity that could be cured by its submittal, after bid opening, of page 13 with an offer to supply the items on that page at "no charge." Petitioner's contentions and the proof offered to support them are not persuasive. First, the proof failed to establish that page 13 was not included in the ITB forwarded to the petitioner. Second, there was no ambiguity in the ITB. Rather, the ITB clearly provided as discussed supra, that the bid sheets consisted of pages 4-16, and that the bid sheets must be submitted to the Department for evaluation and award purposes. Under such circumstances, even if page 13 had been missing from the ITB forwarded to the petitioner, petitioner can not be excused for its failure to include page 13 and to bid the items on that page, and the Department's invalidation of petitioner's bid for such failure cannot be deemed arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. A minor irregularity? Minor irregularity is defined by Rule 13A-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code, as: ...a variation from the invitation to bid... which does not affect the price of the bid..., or give the bidder... an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders..., or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Variations which are not minor can not be waived. The items listed on page 13 of the ITB were an integral part of this bid, which was to be awarded on an "all or none" basis. Under such circumstances, the deficiency cannot be deemed minor, because it could affect the price of the bid or give petitioner an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. Succinctly, petitioner could revisit its bid after the bids had been made public and, considering how badly it wanted the contract, bid or not bid the omitted items. If it elected not to bid the items, petitioner could effectively disqualify itself and withdraw its bid. The other bidders who timely submitted their bids would not have an opportunity to revisit their bids to the Items listed on page 13 or to withdraw their bids, but would be held to the provision of the ITB that prohibited such withdrawal for 45 days after bid opening.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the formal protest filed by Palm Beach Group, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Respondent) decision to reject all bids is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent and should be rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook own a building located at 205 Gus Hipp Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida. The address for Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook is 1950 Murrell Road, Rockledge, Florida. Petitioner Alan Taylor is an agent for Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook, and assisted the Cooks in the preparation and submittal of their Response to the Department's Request for Proposals for Lease Number: 800:0176-COCOA. Respondent, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, is the state agency that issued the Request for Proposals for Lease Number: 800:0176-COCOA. Intervenor, 11 Riverside Corp., is the bidder to whom the Respondent issued an award letter for the Lease prior to the Respondent's decision to reject all bids. On or about January 12, 1998, the Respondent advertised Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Lease No. 800:0176-COCOA. This was the second RFP issued by the Respondent for the Cocoa Lease. The Respondent did not receive any bids in response to the first RFP. Draft versions of both RFPs were prepared by Respondent's staff. There were only very "minor changes" in the contents of the first and second RFPs, such as revisions to the issuing and advertising dates. The Respondent received proposals from three entities: Robert and Sara Cook, 11 Riverside Corp., and James E. and Jacie Stivers. All three proposals were timely submitted. Respondent's General Services Manager, Fran Lyles, reviewed the three proposals and completed a responsiveness checklist for each proposal. When Ms. Lyles provided the three responsiveness checklists to Ms. Sandy Veal, the checklists for the proposals submitted by the Cooks and 11 Riverside Corp. did not contain any notations that said proposals were non- responsive. Ms. Lyles also informed Ms. Veal that the proposals submitted by the Cooks and 11 Riverside Corp. were responsive. On or about February 19, 1998, Sandy Veal traveled to Cocoa to perform site visits for the two responsive properties. On February 23, 1998, the Respondent issued a written letter of intent to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp. The letter was prepared by Ms. Veal and signed by Ms. Lyles. The Petitioners timely filed a written Notice of Protest with the Respondent on March 2, 1998, in which the Petitioners challenged the Respondent's February 23, 1988, decision to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp. In subsequent correspondent and telephone calls to the Respondent, Petitioners' agent provided a detailed analysis regarding the basis for the Petitioners' Notice of Protest. The primary basis was that the other two proposals were not responsive, and that, as the remaining responsive bidder, the Respondent should award the Lease to the Petitioners. Prior to the deadline for the filing of the Petitioners' Formal Written Bid Protest of the Respondent's February 23, 1988, decision to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp., the Respondent informed the Petitioners that the Respondent had decided to reject all three proposals that the Respondent had received for the Cocoa Lease. On March 12, 1998, the Respondent provided written notification to the Petitioners that the Respondent had rejected all proposals and would "re issue [sic] at a later date." This date coincided with the deadline for the Petitioners to file their Formal Petition in support of their Notice of Protest pursuant to Florida law. On March 17, 1998, the Petitioners timely filed a second written Notice of Protest with the Respondent, in which the Petitioners challenged the Respondent's March 12 decision. No entity other than the Petitioners timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest. The Respondent's contention that General Services Manager, Fran Lyles, did not review the RFP prior to its issuance is not credible. Ms. Lyles' testimony that she informed Ms. Veal that all three proposals were not responsive prior to Ms. Veal's trip to Cocoa for a site visit is also not credible. Ms. Lyles signed the award letter to 11 Riverside Corp., even though she had allegedly informed Ms. Veal that all three proposals were non-responsive. Ms. Lyles' explanation that she was very busy and simply didn't ask how an award could be made to a bidder that she had determined was non-responsive is also not credible. Ms. Lyles altered the responsiveness determination checklists after the Petitioners filed their Notice of Protest of the Respondent's award to 11 Riverside Corp. Words were added and white-out was used to cover up Ms. Lyles' initial responsiveness determination which was made prior to the filing of the Petitioner's first Notice of Intent. It appears that such alterations were made by Ms. Lyles in an attempt to shift the responsibility for errors made in the bidding process. The sole basis for the Respondent's contention that the proposals submitted by the Petitioners is non-responsive is that the site plan allegedly failed to show parking spaces. The evidence established that the site plan adequately showed the parking spaces, and that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was responsive. The Respondent erroneously determined that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was non-responsive. The proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. failed to include the public entity crime statement as required by the Respondent's RFP, and also failed to include proof of zoning. The floor plan included in the proposals submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. failed to include the calculations as required by the Respondent's RFP. The proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. also failed to include the documentation necessary to establish bidder control of the property as required by the Respondent's RFP. Any one of the aforementioned flaws in the proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. rendered the proposal non- responsive. The building included in the proposal submitted by James E. and Jacie Stivers failed to provide the square footage calculations and failed to provide a scaled floor plan with square footage calculations, as required by the Respondent's RFP. The proposal submitted by the Stivers consisted of two separate facilities. However, the proposal submitted by the Stivers only included the items required by the Respondent's RFP for one of the two separate facilities. The proposal submitted by the Stivers failed to include a letter of authority from the owners of both facilities as required by the Respondent's RFP. Any one of the aforementioned flaws in the proposal submitted by the Stivers rendered the proposal non-responsive. It is not arbitrary for Respondent to reject all bids if there is only one responsive bidder. The state has discretion to award, or not award, in the event of a single responsive bidder, so long as the basis for the rejection is not improper. Whether such rejection is in the best interests of the state may be based on several criteria to be taken into account by the Respondent. One of the criteria is the absence of competition for state business and the lack of offerings. Rejection of all bids can be premised on an omission from the RFP or change in the Respondent's needs that would affect the ability of the Respondent to perform the duties prescribed by the Respondent. The Respondent provided evidence of the importance of correct specifications in the RFP. The Respondent made a decision before January 1, 1998, to develop new specifications for use in lease RFPs. The new specifications were used in the "Bradenton" RFP (issued after the Cocoa lease). The new specifications in the Bradenton RFP include a three percent cap on increases in the lease rate. This specification was material because it is an important part of the Respondent's budget evaluation. It was the Respondent's intent to use this new specification in the Cocoa RFP. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring proposer to provide copies of licenses of contractors. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification in the part has caused delays in occupancy of the leased space by the Respondent. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring the proposer to provide a construction schedule. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification was deemed by the Respondent to impede the Respondent's ability to assess liquidated damages. The Respondent identified a lease in Sarasota that was negatively affected by the absence of this specification. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring proposer to pay all renovation costs and that there be no outstanding liens on the property. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification has resulted in liens imposed on office space the Respondent was procuring. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification clarifying whether the proposed space had to be in a single building. The absence of this specification was a concern to the Respondent and has created problems for other state agencies. The Department did not reject all proposals with the intent of avoiding a protest. The terms of the RFP do not specify when or how the Respondent is to notify proposers of the basis for the rejection of all bids. The evidence is insufficient to show that the Respondent's rejecting all proposals was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by Petitioners be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Theriaque, Esquire 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's (hereinafter "Department") declaration that the bid of Ranger Construction, Inc. (hereinafter ("Ranger") was materially irregular and therefore unresponsive to an invitation to bid on contracts in highway construction projects 93110-3539, 3543, 3525, on State Road 80, (Avenue E), in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On December 4, 1991, both Petitioner, Ranger, and Intervenor, Community, submitted bids for job numbers 93110-3539, 93110-3542, and 93110-3525, for a construction project on State Road 80, (Avenue E), in Palm Beach County. Petitioner's bid was in the total amount of $2,554,390.37, and Intervenor's was in the total amount of $2,557,071.42. On the basis of those figures, Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. Bid specifications incorporated in all this agency's bids indicate that a bid may be rejected for irregularities. The term, "material" is not used in that specification. When bids are opened, agency procurement officials look at each bid to insure that any award is based on balanced bids containing all appropriate signatures and other requirements, and in the event of an irregularity, a decision is made on the question of whether any irregularity is material in that specific contract. This decision, made by the Awards Committee, is whether the irregularity is material enough to declare the questioned bid unresponsive and award the contract to the next lower bidder. When bids are first opened at the Department auditorium, they are checked to see if the bid bond or a cash or cash equivalent alternative is present. Then the figures are read off and recorded. The bids are then taken back to the contracts office and safeguarded until the minority business enterprise office looks at them. When this is done, the bids are then passed out to the checkers for examination. This more detailed review of the bids submitted revealed that Ranger's bid bond form, though attested to by the corporate secretary, and executed by George H. Friedlander, Agent for the bonding company, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, did not bear the signature of either Ranger's president or vice president. This is considered by Department representatives as being a requirement of a responsive bid. Community's bid bond was properly signed and attested to, and bore the signature of the agent for Reliant Insurance Company, the surety. Community failed to put the company name on the certificate of non- collusion, but in light of the fact that the certificate was signed by the president and was attached to other Community documents, it was identifiable as a part of that bid. In addition, further review of Ranger's bid revealed that on item 630-1- 12 of the computerized price breakdown, certain conduit was listed with a unit price of $621.00 per linear foot. The computer disc furnished to the bidders by the Department, which was used to compute the pricing breakout, reflected 38 linear feet of this conduit would be required. The price of $621.00 per foot on the bid form was in error, however. It should have been $6.21 per linear foot. The error occurred when Ranger's representative punched in the typographically incorrect figure, a clearly clerical error, at the time the bid forms were being completed. This was done, according to Mr. Slade, Ranger's vice president and the person responsible for the bid preparation, in the press of last minute preparation in a motel room in Tallahassee, under less than optimum circumstances. Notwithstanding the fact that this was a clerical error which was not caught by any Ranger official on review of its bid prior to submittal, Department officials considered the use of that large figure made Ranger's bid "unbalanced." This defect, plus the failure of the bid bond to be signed by Ranger's president or vice-president, were both considered to be material deviations by the members of the Department's technical review committee which, based on those deviations, recommended to the Department's Contract Award Committee that Ranger's bid be declared unresponsive. This was notwithstanding the fact that even with the incorrect pricing for the amount of the conduit stated on the Department's discs, Ranger's bid was still low. It must be noted, however, that the 38 linear foot quantity of conduit listed in the Department's discs was an incorrect amount. The project plans, furnished to all bidders prior to the bid process, reflected, in the breakdown of specifications, that the correct amount was 97 linear feet of conduit required. When Ranger's incorrect price of $621.00 per foot was applied to the actual footage required, the result was a bid figure for Ranger which was substantially higher than that submitted by Community and, therefore, caused a reversal in the order of the bidders. The Department applies a deviation standard of 7% to flag bids for more careful scrutiny. Here, the $621.00 item price was clearly in excess of that standard. As will be seen below, Ranger was not the only party to make a mistake in this procurement. The Department's discs erroneously reflected the quantity of conduit required at 38 feet when the actual amount called for was 97 feet. There is a difference, however, between the Department changing its specifications, as would be the case here, and the bidder correcting a unit price after opening. The Department can but the bidder can't. The bid documents, furnished to each prospective bidder, reserve the Department's right to make changes. Though the evidence indicates that it was not unknown in the past for Department officials to call a bidder for clarification of an unclear point in its bid, prior to bid award in this case, even though the pricing of the conduit was, at a figure almost 100 times the average/estimate of $7.30 per foot, no call was made to Ranger by any Department official to insure that the stated figure was the intended figure for inclusion. Mr. Griner, upon inquiry by the Hearing Officer, indicated that though while not usual, such an intentional inflation was not unknown to happen in bidding on Department contracts. No specific cases were cited, however. The evidence also indicates that this particular item was not the only item the Department considered to be unbalanced. There were three others in Ranger's bid, but this one was the only one which was felt to be inappropriate. By the same token, Community's bid also contained several items considered to be unbalanced, but they were not considered to be in the disqualifying category that the conduit price in Ranger's bid was in. Unbalanced bids are considered bad by the Department because, if successful, they allow the contractor to recoup or receive a larger portion of the contract price at the beginning of the contract term thereby making it less disadvantageous for him to walk away from the contract and making agency control over the contractor more difficult. Here, Mr. Slade unequivocally denies it was Ranger's intention to unbalance its contract for any purpose and claims it was no more than a clerical error in inserting the decimal point in the unit price when entered into the computer which resulted in the error. He claims that if he had been contacted by the Department when the obvious error was discovered, as he asserts, has been done in the past, he would have corrected it. It is clear that while query calls may have been made by the Department to bidders in the past, they were of a nature which did not affect the price of the contract. Ranger never received any notice from the Department about any problem with its bid. The first information Mr. Slade had of any problem with Ranger's bid came when his estimator made a routine call to the Department and was told of the problem with the unbalance. Thereafter Mr. Slade spoke with Mr. Newell to determine what route the subsequent proceedings would take. The Department contends, through the testimony of Mr. Newell and Mr. Griner, that it is Department policy to consider the failure to have a required signature on a relevant document to be grounds for declaring a bid non- responsive. Their testimony further reflects, however, that while the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee, (TRC), and the Contract Award Committee, (CAC), are uniformly to that effect, the Department Secretary has, on occasion, rejected such a recommendation and awarded a contract to a bidder whose bid did not contain a "required" signature. Consequently, it cannot be said to be Department policy to reject all bids containing an unsigned document since the Secretary, who as the agency head, sets agency policy, has acted inconsistent with such a "policy." Further, Mr. Morefield indicated that the Awards Committee could waive a failure of signature if it felt to do so was appropriate. To the best of his knowledge, however, that has not been done on this type of contract documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., in regard to project Nos. 93110- 3539, 3543, and 3525 in West Palm Beach, Florida. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 20th day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1538 BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: I 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. II 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 12. Accepted. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 31. Accepted. 32. - 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42. - 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45. - 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. & 50. Accepted. - 53. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. - 61. Accepted. & 63. Accepted. Accepted. & 66. Accepted. 67. & 68. Accepted. 69. Accepted to the extend that the correction is of mathematical calculations of the bid price - not corrections of pricing elements. 70. Accepted. 71. & 72. Accepted. 73. Accepted as a probability 74. Accepted. 75. & 76. Accepted. 77. Accepted. 78. Accepted. 79. Accepted and incorporated herein. 80. Accepted as to the Bond defect; rejected as to the pricing error. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted. 12. - 14. Accepted. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 22. Accepted. 23. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. - 30. Accepted. 31. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a summary of testimony. & 38. Accepted. Irrelevant and not related to basis for denial. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and Second sentences accepted. Balance accepted and incorporated herein. & 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire 123 S. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Mary M. Piccard, Esquire 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Saxon Business Products, Inc.'s ("Saxon") response to the Department of General Services' invitation to bid for walk-up convenience copiers should be disqualified on grounds that: Saxon's omission of a supply price list was a material deviation from the bid specifications and conditions; and Saxon's walk-up convenience copier, model "Saxon 300," failed to prove two-sided copy capability.
Findings Of Fact I. Invitation to Bid On June 10, 1981, DGS issued invitation to Bid No. 544-600-38-B ("ITB") entitled, "Walk-Up Convenience Copiers; Bond Paper and Magazine Finish Bond Paper." The ITB proposes an annual contract under which state agencies and institutions can purchase copying machines. It contains general and special conditions and specifications, and warns vendors that bids that do not comply with such conditions "are subject to rejection." (Testimony of Celnik) The ITB specifications divide copiers into two groups: Group I, plain bond copiers, Group II, magazine finish copiers. The copiers are further categorized by type: Type I indicates minimum features; Type II indicates two- sided copying capability; Type III indicates one reduction capability; and Type IV indicates two or more reduction capabilities. These types are further separated into 12 classes on the basis of speed and volume (P-1.) The ITB special conditions instruct bidders to submit bid sheets 2/ breaking down all copying costs to a per-copy basis. Bids are to be evaluated and contracts awarded to bidders submitting the, lowest cost per copy in each category of copier. Cost per copy is calculated by using a specific cost formula. (P-1.) The ITB cost formula contains three components: machine cost, labor cost, and supply cost. DGS proposes to disqualify Saxon's bid in several categories of copiers for failure to supply a supply price list required by the supply cost component. This component provides, in relevant part: C) SUPPLY COST - The bidder shall compute supply costs on the Manufacturer's Brand. If there is an existing state con- tract for supplies for the manufacturer's brand equipment, the state contract price may be substituted. Supply costs will be rounded to six (6) decimal points. All other costs will also be rounded off to six (6) decimal points. The volume price used by the vendor to compute supply cost shall be based on the monthly median vol- ume of the type and class being bid. Supply cost submitted shall be firm for the contract period, except for paper, and all supply costs shall be current market price, verifiable. Vendor must submit supply price lists with his bid to substantiate that correct price vol- umes were used, unless state contract prices were used. A contract award may include supplies if deemed in the best interest of the State. By electing to substitute state contract supplies, the vendor is certifying that his equipment, using said supplies, will meet all per- formance requirements of this bid and of the equipment manufacturer. NOTE - All cost formulas will be verified by the Division of Purchasing and errors in extension will be corrected. In the event incorrect supply cost volumes are used by a bidder, the Division of Purchas- ing will adjust these costs to the median volume range. (e.s.)(P-1.) The purpose of the supply price list requirement, included in DGS's 1980 and 1981 ITB for convenience copiers, is to enable DGS to verify the supply cost figures shown on a vendor's bid sheets; in this way, DGS can insure that all vendors are using correct quantity pricing on their bid sheets. 3/ (In the past, some bidders had used lower supply prices, which were tied to high volume purchases; but those volumes frequently exceeded the state's needs and the median volumes specified by the ITB for each category of copier.) The verification procedure followed by DGS in both 1980 and 1981 involves checking the vendor's bid sheets against the prices shown on the supply price list. 4/ If DGS finds an inconsistency between the two, it "corrects" the bid sheet supply cost upward or downward to reflect the price shown on the supply price list. 5/ Such a bid sheet correction would also change the total median cost per copy, the factor used to evaluate competing bids. DGS also checks the supply list to determine whether it contains current market prices. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) If a vendor fails to submit a supply price list, DGS cannot verify that the supply prices used on the bid sheet (to compute total median cost per copy) accurately reflect the median volumes specified in the ITB. Neither can DGS determine whether the supply prices used on the bid sheet are set prices, which do not vary with volume, or volume prices, which do; the bid sheets, on their face, do not reveal which type of pricing is being used. (Testimony of Eberhard; P-1.) After sealed bids are publicly opened, DGS has an established practice of not allowing any bidder to submit additional material which could alter price or other information previously submitted on bid sheets. DGS does, however, accept late information if it can be corroborated by an independent source. For example, a bidder might -- after bid opening -- supply its corporate charter number, which can be easily verified by contacting the Department of State. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) The ITB special conditions also require DGS to test and approve copiers prior to bid opening. Copiers which are not tested and accepted by DGS are ineligible for a contract award: EQUIPMENT APPROVAL - Each item of equipment bid shall have been tested by the Division of Purchasing prior to the bid opening time and date for performance and reliability under normal working con- ditions. Any bidder whose equipment has not been tested shall provide a model of the equipment on which he intends to bid to a specified testing station, complete with all supplies, at no expense to the State. Testing will extend for a period of twenty (20) working days. In the event evaluation and acceptance of untested ma- chines has not been accomplished prior to the bid opening date and time, such machine shall not be eligible for an award. (P-1.) II. Bid Opening: Saxon's Failure to Submit Supply Price List Prior to the 1981 bid opening, Saxon failed to submit a supply price list in connection with its bid. This was apparently an oversight on its part; a year earlier, it had furnished a supply price list in response to a similar ITB for convenience copiers. Because of Saxon's omission, DGS was unable to verify the supply prices used by Saxon on its bid sheets or determine whether Saxon was utilizing set or volume prices. (Testimony of Eberhard, Celnik, Hittinger.) After bid opening, Saxon notified DGS that the supply prices shown on its bid sheets were set supply prices -- unit prices which do not vary with volume -- and confirmed that they are the supply prices which it now offers to the state. (Testimony of Celnik.) In its evaluation of the bids, DGS applied the requirement of a supply price list equally to all bidders. All bidders who omitted a supply price list were informed that they were disqualified. Saxon's bid was disqualified in five copier categories: Group I, Type I, Class I; Group I, Type I, Class II; Group I, Type I, Class IV; Group I, Type II, Class I; and Group I, Type II, Class II. At least 11 vendors, however, did submit supply price lists with their bid sheets; approximately one-third were set price lists, the remaining were volume price lists. (Testimony of Eberhard; P-3.) If a vendor could submit a supply price list after the bid opening, it could effectively decrease or increase its bid. (This is so because, in case of a conflict between the bid sheet supply price and the supply price list, the price list value will prevail. A change in the bid sheet supply price will change the cost per copy figure the determining factor in awarding contracts.) A vendor submitting a late supply price list would have an unfair advantage since it could change its bid after bid opening while its competitors could not. The competitive nature of the bidding process would be impaired. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) Furthermore, if late submittal of a supply price list was allowed, a bidder could disqualify itself by refusing to provide it; the bidder would then have the advantage of revisiting its bid and -- if it chose -- withdrawing it after bid opening. The opportunity to withdraw a bid -- after bid opening -- would be an advantage not enjoyed by those who timely submitted supply price lists with their bids. (Testimony of Hittinger, Eberhard.) In some copier categories, the vendors who omitted supply price lists were the low bidders. If DGS disqualifies them for their omission, it must award the contract to the next highest bidder. The difference between those low bids and the next higher bid is substantial -- in some cases exceeding 23 percent. 6/ (Testimony of Celnik, Eberhard, Nee, Reinhart.) III. Failure of "Saxon 300" to Demonstrate Two-Sided Copying Capability In accordance with the ITB, Saxon submitted its "Saxon 300" copier to DGS for evaluation and testing. Prior to bid opening, DGS conducted a 20-day test of the machine. The "Saxon 300" machine which DGS tested lacked two-sided copying capability. It could reproduce clearly on one side, but not on the other. The "Saxon 300" sales literature and instruction manual submitted with the machine did not represent that the machine had two-sided copying capability. (Testimony of Nee; 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, R-2.) The "Saxon 300" may have two-sided copying capability, but only after special modifications are made to the copier. These modifications include removal of a roller device, replacement of the heating element, and replacement of the blower system. Saxon did not indicate at the time of testing, or in its bid, that the "Saxon 300" required such modification for two-sided copying capability. Neither did it indicate what, if any, additional costs would be charged for such modifications. (Testimony of Nee, Wallace; R-3.) After DGS tested the "Saxon 300," it sent Saxon a form letter indicating that the copier met minimum operating requirements. The letter did not inform Saxon that the machine lacked two-sided copying capability because DGS did not consider the lack of such capability a major malfunction in the equipment. (Testimony of Nee.) If a machine malfunctions, DGS has -- in the past -- allowed vendors to correct the deficiency or substitute another machine. (Testimony of Nee.) The Group I, Type II, Class I category of copiers, requires two-sided copying capability. Saxon bid its "Saxon 300" as a copier which meets this requirement. (Testimony of Celnik, Nee; P-1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Saxon's bids in Group I, Type I, Class I; Group I, Type I, Class II; Group I, Type I, Class IV; Group I, Type II, Class I; and Group I, Type II, Class II be disqualified; and That Saxon's bid in Group I, Type II, Class I be disqualified. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 26th day of February, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent was justified in cancelling the award of bid of HRS Lease No. 590:2054 to Petitioner, BOOZER, on the basis that it was nonresponsive. Whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of HRS Lease No. 590:2054 to Intervenor rather than to Petitioners or some other bidder.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: HRS caused an invitation to bid to be advertised regarding Lease No. 590:2054 on January 3, 1989 and January 10, 1989. The Invitation to Bid required that all bids be received on or before 2:30 p.m. February 1, 1989, for 9,168 net rentable square feet, plus or minus 3%, of existing office space. A pre- bid meeting was scheduled for January 11, 1989. The advertisement also advise that the bid specifications could be obtained from the Orlando Regional Office of HRS, and that the State of Florida reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The material provisions of the bid specifications at issue in this proceeding are: The space be made available on September 1, 1989 or within 175 days after bid is finalized. The proposed space must be in an "existing building", which was: defined to mean "dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage at the time of bid submittal". The bidder provide 2 clear photographs of the exterior front of the proposed facility and 2 scaled (1/8 inch or 1/4 inch 1 foot preferred) floor plan showing present configurations with measurements that equate to the net rentable square footage (HRS Exh. 1, General Specifications Requirement No. 10(a)) Emphasis in original). Building(s) in not more than 2 locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. Prior to the pre-bid conference, but after the initial publication of the bid invitation, representatives of NOTTUS contacted Ernie Wilson, the facilities services manager for District 7, HRS, to inquire regarding the propriety of submitting a bid for space in two buildings in which HRS presently had facilities, together with a facility that was greater than 100 yards from the existing facilities. At the time of the inquiry, NOTTUS was leasing facilities to HRS at its Lipscomb facility in Palm Bay, Florida. A portion of the square footage that NOTTUS inquired about leasing to HRS was the remaining square footage in two buildings that HRS partially occupied at that time. All of the premises submitted by NOTTUS under its bid package were located in the Woodlake PUD, which is all under single ownership. A representative from HRS advised the representative from NOTTUS that: the issue regarding the proximity of the locations would not be addressed as a bid specification, but rather, that would be a matter to be weighed by the evaluation committee in analyzing the bids. the bid proposal to be submitted would actually be for two locations as a portion of the space offered by NOTTUS was to be located in buildings in which HRS presently maintained facilities. The submittal of the bid package regarding the premises subject to occupancy by HRS, as ultimately submitted by NOTTUS, would definitely not disqualify the bid submittal. Mr. Wilson also received telephone calls from BOOZER and a third bidder making inquires regarding the bid package. The Pre-bid conference was held on January 11, 1989. No objections or questions regarding the bid specifications as to be utilization or definition of the terms "existing building" and "present configuration" were raised at that time. At no time prior to the submission of the bids were any objections or questions raised by BOOZER regarding the utilization of the term "existing building" or the term "present configuration" as those terms were defined within the bid specification. Each of the Petitioners in this action, the Intervenor, as well as two other parties, submitted bids to HRS within the time requirement set forth in the bid documents. The bids were opened at the time and place reflected in the aid documents and Invitation to Bid. Subsequent to the opening of the bids, John Stewart, who is Ernie Wilson's supervisor, and Ernie Wilson reviewed the bid packages submitted for Lease No. 590:2054 and made a determination as to which bids were responsive. As a result of that evaluation, a determination was made that all five bidders were responsive. These bidders were the Petitioner, Fred D. BOOZER, the Intervenor, Nottus, Inc. the Petitioner, Trust NB-1 Micah G. Savell and Professional Center V. Inc. These bid proposals were then submitted to the evaluation committee who viewed the property of each of the bidders on February 13, 1989. The bid documents of BOOZER contained an additional document, i.e., a site plan, which reflected that the premises subject to his bid proposal were an "existing building". The area submitted for the bid was shaded reflecting the entire square footage submitted for bid as being "in existence." The drawing further reflected the "existing building" as being the "proposed HRS building". The premises subject to the Petitioner's, BOOZER, bid were not in existence, as that term was defined in the bid specifications, in that approximately 2500 square feet had not yet been constructed. Two walls, a floor slab and a roof were not in existence. The only improvements located therein were palm trees, grass and a sidewalk. Petitioner stipulated that the area occupied by the palm trees, grass and sidewalk was in fact "not dry". The existing building at 2225 South Babcock Street that was dry at the time of the bid opening constituted approximately 6,900 square feet of premises subject to Petitioner's bid. At the time of the inspection, the Petitioner, BOOZER, was present. At no time did BOOZER indicate that the total facility bid was not in existence. The members of the evaluating committee who viewed the property for purposes of evaluating the bid were not aware of the fact that the entire premises subject to BOOZER's bid proposal was not in "Existence" and "dry". The floor plan showing the present configuration of BOOZER's facility reflected an open floor space for the area occupied by the palm trees, grass and sidewalk. The palm trees, grass and sidewalk were not reflected in the present configuration drawing. Both the floor plan and site plan were prepared by BOOZER's son with his approval. In evaluating the respective bid proposals, the evaluation committee rated the properties as follows: Fred D. BOOZER - 450 points Nottus, Inc.- 433 points Micah Savell - 384 points Trust NB-l - 360 points Professional Center V. Inc.- 357 points The location requirement found in Article D.3(b) of the bid package was taken into account. In evaluating the Nottus bid, including a zero rating from one of the evaluation committee members. As a result of the points awarded by the evaluation committee, a determination was made to award the bid to BOOZER, who was notified of this award on or about March 14, 1989 by letter dated March 14, 1989. On or about March 20, 1989, Petitioner, BOOZER, obtained a construction permit from the City of Melbourne to construct a fire wall and framing for additional shell building. This building permit was for the purpose of enclosing the area that was occupied by the palm trees, grass and sidewalk at the time of the bid proposal being submitted. Upon being awarded the bid, Petitioner, BOOZER then made a decision to commence construction to complete the premises subject to his bid proposal, and had expended $28,000 thereon through the hearing date. On or about March 29, 1989, HRS, through Ernie Wilson and Lynn Nobley, discovered the fact that approximately 2,500 square feet represented as being a part of the existing building, in fact was not existing pursuant to the bid specifications. At the time of this discovery, construction under the construction permit had not been completed. Mr. Wilson advised BOOZER at that time that he was concerned that BOOZER's bid was nonresponsive because the premises subject to the bid proposal were not in an "existing" building at the time of the bid submittal. The normal procedure for HRS in awarding a bid where the initial award is cancelled or thrown out is to award the bid to the second and next best lowest bidder. It is not the normal practice of the HRS evaluation committee to measure the applicable properties at time of evaluation to determine net rentable square footage. At the time of discovery of the foregoing status of BOOZER's building, Ernie Wilson, contacted a Nottus representative, Fred E Sutton, its President, to advise him of the possible nonresponsiveness of BOOZER's bid and requested information to determine whether Nottus, the second low bidder, still had facilities available pursuant to its bid documents and whether Nottus would agree to continue to continue to be bound by the terms thereof. Mr. Sutton advised Ernie Wilson that the facilities were still available and that Nottus would agree to abide by the terms of its bid proposal. Following the procedural steps necessary to advise the appropriate individuals within HRS of the possible nonresponsive bid by BOOZER, Ernie Wilson was advised by the Director of HRS General Services, King W. Davis, by letter dated April 2, 1989 to withdraw the award for the proposed lease 590:2054 from BOOZER because of approximately 2,500 feet of nonexisting space. He was also instructed to award same to Nottus as the second lowest bidder. On or about April 14, 1989, Ernie Wilson advised BOOZER of the Notice of Withdrawal of the award from BOOZER and award to Nottus, together with the reasons therefor, which was received by BOOZER on April 17, 1989. Petitioner, BOOZER, timely initiated these actions by filing his Notice of Intent to appeal the withdrawal of the award of bid to him and the award to Nottus, and by timely filing a formal written protest and request for formal hearing. Attachment "D" of the bid package required the submittal of a proposed plan to a division of the State Fire Marshal for review of any proposed construction or renovation to determine whether such construction or renovation complied with the uniform fire safety standards. Said plans were required to be prepared by licensed architects and engineers for certifications outlined in Attachment "D". These matters were all to be completed prior to the commencement of any revocation or alteration. Petitioner, BOOZER, commenced said improvements prior to said approval. In fact, BOOZER submitted no plans in compliance with these requirements prior to construction. Petitioner, BOOZER, is a licensed builder in the State of Florida, and has been for ten years. BOOZER further acknowledged that at the time of signing and submitting the bid proposal, he certified that he understood the terms of the bid specifications and agreed to be bound by them. TRUST NB-1 attempted to initiate an appeal of the award of the bid to Nottus by submitting a facsimile "notice of protest" to HRS predicated on the award of the bid to Nottus occurring greater than sixty (60) days following the bid opening date. TRUST NB-1 received notice of the award to Nottus on April 18, 1989 and attempted facsimile delivery on April 21, 1989. The facsimile "Written Notice of Protest" was not filed until April 25, 1989. The regular mail receipt of said Notice was received by HRS and filed on April 24, 1989. 38. The "formal written protest" was filed with HRS on May 1, 1989. 39. signature The facsimile Notice of Intent to Protest did not contain of a representative of TRUST NB-1. the original 40. Ernie Wilson is the custodian of records for bid protests for HRS, District 7, and is also the person designated in the bid documents as the contact person for the bid on Lease No. 590:2054. TRUST NB-1 was ranked number four in relation to the five bids submitted. Bidder Micah Savell, not a party to these proceedings, is the next low bidder after BOOZER and Nottus, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order: (a) Finding the bid of Petitioner, BOOZER, to be unresponsive and that the cancellation of the award by Respondent was justified. Find the bid of Intervenor, NOTTUS to be unresponsive. Find that Petitioner, TRUST NB-1, lacks standing and its protest should be dismissed. Reject all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Proposed Findings of Fact by Petitioner, Fred O. Boozer: 1-5 Rejected. 6 and 7 Accepted as incorporated in the Recommended Order. Proposed Findings of Fact by Intervenor, Nottus, Inc. Accepted. Accepted as modified. 3-30. Accepted. 31. The first two sentences rejected as argument and not supported by the evidence. Last sentence in paragraph accepted. 32-40. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Houck, Esquire 312 South Harbor City Boulevard Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida James A. Sawyer, Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's or Department's) proposed action to award a contract to Couch Construction, L.P., is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (Department) issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for road resurfacing on State Road 10/US 90 in Columbia County, Florida; Financial Project No. 208406-1-52-01 (The Project). Four companies submitted responses to the ITB. Couch was low bidder at $2,271,354.81, and Petitioner was second low at $2,278,263.07. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway resurfacing. The price proposal specifications stated in pertinent part: Item Number 2102-10. . .Approximate Quantity. . . 4,320.00 hours Item Number 2102-74-1 . Approximate Quantity . . .75,780.00 each day Item Number 2102-99 . . Approximate Quantity . . . 720.00 each day None of the bidders filed a timely objection to the price proposal specifications. Article 2-6, of the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction states: A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alternations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by the Department to determine whether the bid was mathematically and/or materially unbalanced. The Department's Preliminary Estimates Engineer conducts an unbalanced review of the bids to determine if the bids are mathematically unbalanced. A bid is considered to be mathematically unbalanced if the prices quoted are significantly different from the approximate cost of the item to the contractor. It is very common for bids on construction projects to contain some item prices that are mathematically unbalanced. Bid prices that are mathematically unbalanced are considered by the Department to be non-material irregularities if they do not affect the order of the bidders. In determining whether a mathematically unbalanced price is material, the Department follows a policy set out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Department has been following the same policy since at least 1992. The FHWA does not allow for materially unbalanced bids to be accepted by the Department on projects that are federally funded. A materially unbalanced bid is one in which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the ultimately lowest cost to the Department. The Department has developed an Unbalanced Program Logic for its computer analysis of the bids. The program flags the items that are mathematically unbalanced. It flags the item with an "A" for those items that are above the tolerance window, "U" for under the tolerance window, and "F" as front-loaded items. The flagged items which are short-listed by the computer program are sent to the designer of record to verify the quantities and to verify whether the correct pay item was used. The designer of record verified that the quantities were correct for this Project. As part of the bid review, the Department does a statistical average or mean average for each of the bid items. A standard and a-half deviation either side of the mean is established. The bid items outside that standard and a-half deviation, positive or minus, are discarded. The remaining bid items are re-averaged and this second average is referred to as the "serious average." A front-end loaded item is an item for which work is performed early in the contract. Mobilization is considered a front-end loaded item. Couch's Mobilization item 2101-1B was flagged by the computer analysis. The Department did an analysis of the Mobilization item. The Department started with the difference between Couch's bid and the Petitioner's bid on this item, $18,0000.00. That amount was multiplied by the current interest rate, 10 per cent, and then multiplied by a factor of .5, which spread it over half the contract, times 180-day contract period divided by 365, one calendar year. The result was $434.84, which represents the potential advantage that could result from paying the $18,000.00 amount early in the contract. That amount, $434.84, did not materially unbalance Couch's bid. The three items identified by Petitioner as unbalanced (paragraph 3, above) were low and did not present any detriment to the Department. If those three items overran at the rate established, it would be an advantage to the Department. In evaluating unbalanced bids, the Department follows the guidance in a May 1988 memorandum from the FHWA, which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price, the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is materially unbalanced such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, the Department compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, the Department's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by the Department to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. The Department also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in the Department's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the Department for the project. In this case, Couch and Anderson submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. Couch's unit price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $0.25/hour. The Department's average price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $25.22/hour. The Petitioner's quotation for off-duty law enforcement was $26.00/hour. The Department's computer analysis of Couch's bid flagged the off-duty law enforcement item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Petitioner for the off-duty law enforcement item was not unbalanced, and therefore was not flagged for further review by the Department. The same analysis was applied to the barricades and variable message sign items, with similar results. The Department also did an in-depth review of item 2101-B, Mobilization, for front-end loading. The result of that analysis was that, as a result of front-end loading, there was the probability of increased cost to the Department of $443.84. This small increase in the cost to the Department was not large enough to change the order of the bidders. Therefore, it was not a materially unbalanced item. The Department then made a more in-depth review of the three mathematically unbalanced items in Couch's bid and determined that none of those items were materially unbalanced, because none of them had the potential to increase the cost to the Department and none of them had the potential to change the order of the bids. In sum, the Couch bid was not materially unbalanced. The evidence in this case is insufficient to support a basis for rejecting the Couch bid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation issue a final order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's Formal Protest and Request for Hearing; denying all relief requested by the Petitioner; and awarding the subject contract to the Intervenor, Couch Construction, L.P. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1989, Respondent issued to prospective bidders an Invitation to Bid on an electronic mailing machine pursuant to the specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid. The specifications provided that the equipment was to include a postage meter with a "postage by phone" feature. The postage by phone feature allows postage for the electronic mailing machine to be secured by a telephone call to the post office. Bids from Pitney Bowes, Inc., Petitioner, and American Business Products, Inc. were received in response to the Invitation to Bid. The bid opening was held September 29, 1989. The bid from Pitney Bowes was selected by Respondent as being the responsive low bid. The bid from Petitioner and the bid from American Business Products, Inc. were rejected as being unresponsive. Acting on the recommendation from the Superintendent and his staff, Respondent voted at its regular meeting on November 1, 1989, to accept the bid from Pitney Bowes. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a timely, formal bid protest that was based on two grounds. First, Petitioner contends that the bid was single sourced because the bid specifications were drafted so that only Pitney Bowes could file a responsive bid. Second, Petitioner contends that the bid of Pitney Bowes was not responsive. The invitation for bid provides, in pertinent part, that the electronic mailing machine with power1 stacked and console: ... shall be capable of processing up to 210 envelopes per minute; ... shall be equipped with conveyor stacker able to hold up to 900 envelopes; ... The invitation for bid provides, in pertinent part, that the postage meter with postage by phone feature: ... shall have automatic accounting functions; ... shall be interchangeable with Pitney Bowes Model 5600, mailing machine. After the Invitation to Bid was issued, Respondent learned that only a postage meter manufactured by Pitney Bowes could meet the specification that the postage meter with the postage by phone feature be interchangeable with a Pitney Bowes Model 5600. Petitioner contends that the inclusion of this requirement results in a single source bid because only Pitney Bowes, Inc. is capable of submitting a responsive bid. The requirement that the postage meter with the postage by phone feature be interchangeable with the Pitney Bowes Model 5600 had no bearing on Petitioner's bid being rejected by Respondent. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner, or any other bidder, was prejudiced by this requirement being included in the bid specifications or that Pitney Bowes was given an unfair advantage in the bidding process. Although Respondent had a valid purpose in including this requirement among the bid specifications, it took no steps to enforce this requirement to the prejudice of the bidders. Petitioner also contends that the invitation to bid is a single source bid because the term "postage by phone" is a trademark of Pitney Bowes, Inc. There was no evidence that any bidder was prejudiced by the use of this term or that Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given an unfair advantage in the bidding process by the use of this term. The machine Petitioner's company offered did not have a postage meter with a postage by phone feature as required by the bid specifications. For that reason, Petitioner's bid was found to be not responsive. The machine Petitioner's company offered is scheduled to add a postage by phone feature in early 1990, but it did not offer this feature at the time Petitioner's response to the Invitation to Bid was submitted. Postage by phone is a feature offered by Pitney Bowes and other companies. Petitioner contends that the electronic mailing machine offered by Pitney Bowes, Inc. is not capable of processing 210 envelopes per minute and that it is not equipped with a conveyor stacker able to hold up to 900 envelopes. Petitioner further contends that the postage meter offered by Pitney Bowes, Inc. does not have automatic accounting functions. The evidence does not support these contentions. The bid submitted by Pitney Bowes, Inc. meets all specifications of the Invitation to Bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order which rejects the bid protest filed by Complete Business Systems and which accepts the bid of Pitney Bowes, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this day 12th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 89-63I4BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected, in part, as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being a conclusion of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Papes Secretary and Treasurer Complete Business Systems, Inc. Post Office Box 24627 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4627 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School of Palm Beach County Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Palm Beaten County, Florida Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1984, Respondent gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids for State Project No. 72000-3541, referred to as Federal-Aid Project No. M 9041(10). This project involves the installation of a computerized traffic control system for the City of Jacksonville. In response to the opportunity to bid, the Department of Transportation received four bids. Petitioner, Winko-Matic Signal Company, was among the bidders. The other bidders were Georgia Electric Company, Traffic Control Devices, Inc., and Sperry Systems Management. The bids of Traffic Control Devices and Sperry Systems were rejected based upon an error in bid tabulations on the part of Traffic Control, a mistake on the quantities page, with the Sperry rejection being based upon a bid bond problem. Traffic Control had been the apparent low bidder with a bid of $1,964,115. Winko-Matic was the second apparent low bidder with a bid of $2,279,604.70. The Department of Transportation had estimated that the total cost of the Jacksonville project would be $ 2,024,680.61. Having discarded the bid of Traffic Control Devices, the Department of Transportation telegrammed Winko-Matic on April 4, 1984, advising Winko-Matic that it was the apparent low bidder for the Jacksonville project. Subsequently, the awards committee of the Department of Transportation met on April 18, 1984, and determined to reject all bids and re-advertise the job. In the course of this meeting the awards committee was told that there were erratic bids received on contract items, pointing to some perceived confusion among the contractors as to requirements of the contract. Discussion was also held on the possibility of establishing a pre-bid conference if the project was re advertised. The awards committee then voted to reject the bids on the basis that the apparent low bidder, Winko-Matic, had submitted a bid which-was 12.6 percent over the Department's estimate, instead of being within 7 percent of the Department of Transportation's pre-bid estimate, a point above which the Department of Transportation in its non-rule policy would call to question to the acceptability of the apparent low bid. In addition to deciding to reject all bids and re-advertise, it was determined that a pre-bid conference should be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the bid-letting date. Winko-Matic was advised that the Department of Transportation's decision to reject all bids by correspondence of May 4, 1984, in which it was indicated that all bids had been rejected based upon the fact that they were too high. In response to this notice of rejection, Winko-Matic, effective May 17, 1984, filed a written notice of protest. The case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 20, 1984, and a final hearing date was established by Notice of Hearing of July 5, 1984. The hearing date in this cause was September 12, 1984. The Jacksonville project in question requires the utilization of what has been referred to "UTCS Enhanced" software. This software package is unique and has only been used in a limited number of locations within the country. Those locations are Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Broward County, Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama. Another unique feature within the project design is the use of an associated coaxial computer sys gem. Given the unique nature of this project and the fact that the Department of Transportation had never advertised for bids related to UTCS software, Department of Transportation obtained assistance from a consulting firm, Harland, Bartholomew & Associates. In fulfilling its function Harland gave estimates to include an estimate related to the projected cost of the software, Item 681-102. The Harland estimate for the overall project was $2,143,130 including a $100,000 estimate for the software system. That estimate relating to the software was subsequently adjusted by the Department of Transportation to depict a cost of $13,780. The Department of Transportation estimate was based upon information within its computer related to a system unlike the enhanced software contemplated by the plans and specifications. In other words, the stored information in the Department of Transportation computer was not the same as contemplated by the plans and specifications in the Jacksonville project. Moreover, the initial estimate of Harland was based upon the idea of an extended software system, as opposed to an enhanced software system. Winko-Matic had bid $389,500 for the software in Item 681-102. That estimate was premised upon figures obtained from JHK and Associates, the group which Winko-Matic intended to use as its subcontractor for the enhanced software portion of the project. JHK developed the software and was responsible for systems integration of the Los Angeles, California, project, one of the locations in which UTCS enhanced software has been utilized. JHK premised its estimate for the software hare upon experience in Los Angeles and an evaluation of the tasks to be performed related to the enhanced software. This included general software development activities, hardware innovation, installation costs during the period of acceptance and testing, and the preparation of data base. The JHK bid price was $339,500. Another $50,000 was added to that price related to what the Petitioner describes as its management costs for that item. By June 20, 1984, when a further meeting was held by the awards committee on the subject of the Jacksonville project, it was concluded that the estimate made by the Department of Transportation of $13,780 was not correct, on the topic of the enhanced software. A more reasonable estimate, according to the information imparted in this session, would be $200,000 for enhanced software as called for in this project, with a $100,000 amount being a reasonable estimate had they chosen to use extended software. Adjusting the initial price related to the UTCS enhanced software to reflect a corrected estimate of the Department of Transportation in its original advertised bid, that estimate becomes $2,210,900.61 and its consultant Harland's estimate becomes $2,243,130. With this adjustment, the differential in the estimate made by the Department of Transportation and the Petitioner approaches 3 percent and not the 12.6 percent originally found. The 3 percent is below the threshold of 7 percent used as the policy for determining whether a bid might be rejected as being far beyond the acceptable limits set forth in the Department of Transportation's estimate. In the aforementioned June 20, 1984, awards committee meeting, the Department of Transportation continued to hold the opinion that all bids in the Jacksonville project should be rejected and the matter re-advertised. Although the problem pertaining to the estimate of the cost of the enhanced software package had been addressed, the committee continued to feel that the prices received in the bid letting were erratic Reference was also made to revisions or modifications to the project plan which would be offered if the matter were re- advertised. It was also pointed out that the Federal Highway Administration would concur in the Department's decision to reject all bids and would accept modifications. The awards committee again voted to reject the bids. The matter was again considered by the awards committee on August 31, 1984. On that occasion, it was pointed out that the revisions contemplated by the Department of Transportation, should the matter be re-advertised, would not affect in a substantial way the cost estimate for the project with the exception of Item 680-101, the system control equipment (CPU), which would promote a lower price for the project. The committee determined in the August, 1984, meeting to reject all bids and re-advertise. While the initial notice of rejection of May 4, 1984, had suggested the basis for rejection as being the fact that Petitioner's bid far exceeded the 7 percent allowance for price above the Department of Transportation's estimate of costs, the meetings of the awards committee and the suggestion of the Respondent in the course of the final hearing in this case indicated that there were other reasons for the decision to reject. Those Were: (a) an apparent lack of clarity among bidders regarding specifications for the Jacksonville job, (b) the desire of the Respondent to revise specifications on the Jacksonville project; and (c) a lack of sufficient competition in the bids. In connection with the first of the additional reasons Respondent suggests that variations within the bid responses related to particular line items within the specifications point out a lack of clarity in the project's specifications or confusion by bidders related to those specifications. Respondent did not bring forth any of the bidders who might speak to the matter of possible confusion or misunderstanding concerning some of the bid items. By contrast, the Petitioner's president; the president of JHK & Associates and James Robinson, Harland's project manager for the Jacksonville job, did not find the specifications in the original documents to be confusing. In addition, the testimony of those individuals established the fact that bid variations related to particular line items are not extraordinary and do not establish any apparent confusion by the bidders as to the requirements of those line items. In effect, what the differentials demonstrate are variations related to the manufacture or in-house capabilities of the bidders and an effort to allocate discretionary costs in various places as to line items. Moreover, they might indicate last- minute adjustments in the bid quote prior to the opening and a possible effort by a contractor to enter into a new job market. Finally, they demonstrate offsetting which is the allocation of item prices by a contractor to maximize profits. To do this, a contractor submits high bids on items representing quantities which the contractor feels will increase after the contract is awarded and submits low bids on items representing quantities which are not likely to change. In summary, while the Department of Transportation in its presentation expressed some concern about the variations in the pricing in the bid quotations offered by the respective bidders in this project, its suspicions on the question of the possible clarity of its specifications were not confirmed and are not convincing. On the topic of revisions which the Department of Transportation would offer if the matter were re-advertised, with one exception those matters appear to be items that could be attended through change orders or supplemental agreements. They are not matters which necessarily must be addressed through a rejection of all bids and a re-advertising of the project. The lone exception to this is the possibility that the Department of Transportation may not be able to protect its proprietary rights in the enhanced software which is being developed for the project, under the terms of the present bid documents. Given that uncertainty, the Respondent would wish to re-advertise the project and make certain that its proprietary interests are protected. Finally, Respondent has alluded to the fact that the Jacksonville project should be re-advertised in view of the lack of competition in the initial letting. Only four bidders expressed an interest in this project at the time of the first letting. Of those, two bidders were found to be responsive. While this is a low number of bidders, there does not appear to be any agency practice on the part of' the Department of Transportation to the effect that this number of bidders would not be accepted. Moreover, no indication has been given that should the matter be re-advertised a greater number of bidders would express an interest than was the case in the first letting. Consequently, this reason for bid rejection is not acceptable. If Respondent did not reject the bids and re-advertise the project, Winko-Matic would be the successful bidder in the Jacksonville project.
Findings Of Fact On May 19, 1983, Respondent mailed official Invitations to Bid (IFB) forms to 18 different firms, including Petitioner, soliciting bids for Class VI printing in accordance with the specifications and conditions attached to the letter, signed by R. E. Read, Jr. This letter contained the comment, "As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularities in bids received." This letter also advised prospective bidders who had questions regarding the IFB to call Larry Amison, the individual who had drafted the accompanying specifications. The notice of IFB, published in the Tallahassee Democrat on Thursday, May 19, 1983, also contained a notice of reservation of the right to reject all bids. Only five IFB forms were returned. Three of the five were returned without bids for various reasons, such as "Not Competitive," "Unable to meet specified delivery date" and "Cannot schedule job of this proportion at this time." This type of explanation, in government procurement circles, need not be taken at face value, but is often used to signal the recipient's thanks for the invitation to bid and a desire to be invited to bid again at some time in the future. The other two forms received were bids: one from Zenith Communications Group, and one from Petitioner. This procurement was somewhat unusual in that the IFB stipulated the amount of money the agency had to spend and requested a hid as to the most product it could get for that money. There were two publications involved: "A" and "B." An alternative was given on delivery date options: one within 30 working days of receipt of approved proofs, and one within 45. Zenith offered to provide 7,180 copies of Book "A" and 7,155 copies of Book "B" (14,335 total books) for a total price of $53,400 1/ within 30 working days. Petitioner offered to provide 9,473 copies of Book "A" and 4,950 copies of Book "B" (15,423 total books) for a total price of $53,344.64 within 45 days. The bids were opened on June 1, 1983, and published from June 1 through June 10, 1983. They were brought to the Director for consideration upon opening. It is his responsibility to evaluate the bids and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Agriculture on the successful low bidder. Since there was only one bid on each delivery date, the Director felt there were not two comparative bids. As a result, he forwarded the bid package to Ms. Grace Harrison, a purchasing agent with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and an individual very familiar with the procurement of printing services. After a review of the entire bid package, Ms. Harrison's studied opinion was that there were two valid bids and Douglas was the low bidder, and it is so found. Ms. Harrison also felt it was unusual not to receive any more responses than were received on a procurement of this magnitude. This same opinion is held by Mr. Amison, who drafted the specifications. Others have differing opinions, however. Whether it was unusual or not, however, is immaterial. There were two valid bids, and only two are required for an award. However, even in the case of two bids, the agency reserved the right to reject any and all bids. As a result, on or about June 6, 1983, the Director decided, based on his understanding of state policy on the matter and in light of the size of the procurement, to seek more bids through rebidding. In this case, the Director felt more bids were available because of the responses of the nonbidders which referred to the response times being so short. Therefore, he directed a rebid, and this information was communicated to all bidders, including Petitioner. On June 7, 1983, Petitioner wrote to the Director, disagreeing with his decision and notifying him of its protest. On the following day, the Director notified Petitioner the rebidding was being delayed, giving Petitioner 10 days to file a formal notice of protest. This was done in a timely manner. The phrase regarding the agency's right to reject bids is contained in every State IFB. Its purpose is to permit state agencies to reject bids where it becomes apparent there is a valid and legitimate benefit to be gained by the agency in doing so. One such situation is when, in the bona fide opinion of the agency, there are insufficient bids. While there is a difference of opinion as to whether only two bids are unusual in a procurement of this nature, there is no dispute that it would have been beneficial to the agency to have received more than two, since more bids would increase competition. To rebid the contract at this juncture would undoubtedly increase competition to the potential benefit of the Respondent. However, Petitioner claims it would also work to its detriment because other potential bidders would have access to the details of the two present bids and would thereby gain an advantage. This may be the result of rebidding.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Douglas Printing Company, Inc., be awarded Contract DOF- ADM-79. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of September, 1983.
