Findings Of Fact In May, 1987, the Department contracted with B.P. Associates, then owner of the Bay Plaza facility, to lease space at that facility located in Brandon, Florida. A part of the bid conditions required extensive physical renovations of the facility which were being supervised by Coldwell Banker, a real estate brokerage and management firm serving as property manager and construction supervisor. Construction was begun in December, 1987. Mr. Burrwood Yost was hired by the Department as its Facilities Services Manager for the Tampa Region in March, 1988. Mr. Yost soon became dissatisfied with the work being accomplished under Coldwell Banker's supervision and the company's responsiveness to maintenance problems arising at the facility, which the Department had asked to be corrected. As a result of this dissatisfaction with Coldwell Banker's demonstrated inability to properly perform, Mr. Yost recommended that the bid award to B.P. Associates be withdrawn and that the procurement be relet. On June 17, 1988, the bid award to B.P. Associates was withdrawn. On June 1, 1988, however, shortly before the withdrawal of the prior award, ownership of Bay Plaza was transferred to Northern which immediately substituted a new property manager and construction supervisor for Coldwell Banker. The new management firm was Grubb and Ellis, which took over on September 1, 1988. New bids were solicited by invitation to bid on July 15, 1988 which called for approximately 27,122 square feet of leased space to be available by April 1, 1989. The bid invitation clearly stated that "all bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form." This form outlined the bid procedure, listing award factors to be considered and specifying the precise amount of weight each factor would be given. Past performance was not listed as a basis for evaluation on the bid invitation form and Mr. Yost admits that past performance was not to be considered as a factor. Five bids were received of which three were deemed responsive. These were Bidder C, Northern; Bidder D, Turner Development Corporation; and Bidder E, Alderwood B. Northern's bid was the lowest of the three responsive bids by more than $2.00 per square foot over the life of the lease. Alderwood was the second lowest. Each of the bids was evaluated by a bid evaluation committee consisting of seven representatives from the various Department program offices that were to occupy the leased space. The chairman of the committee, Ms. Chipman, was placed thereon at the request of Mr. Yost, and was actually a supernumerary since the committee a originally constituted by Mr. Akridge, the Department's Facilities Services Manager Assistant in Tampa, was made up of only six members. A 100 point bid evaluation scale, which was included in the bid package furnished to each bidder, was to be utilized by the committee to evaluate each bid. Prior to beginning their evaluation duties, the committee members were walked through each proposed site, and in the briefing given by Department authorities, specifically advised that prior performance was not a criteria and should not be considered. When the committee members' evaluations were computed, Northern's bid for Bay Plaza received a score of 83.5. Alderwood's bid for its property was given a score of 87.9. Each evaluator rated Alderwood highest and the evaluation committee concluded that, consistent with the overall criteria which called for the lease to be awarded to the lowest and best bid that met program needs, Alderwood's bid was lowest and best. Consequently, the committee recommended that Alderwood receive the award even though Northern's bid for Bay Plaza was lowest in terms of total dollars involved. The bids were evaluated based on three major evaluation criteria. These were Fiscal Costs, Location, and Facility. The Fiscal Cost element was further broken down into three subcategories; rental rates, renewal rates, and moving costs. Northern received 25 points of the 25 available for rental rates because it offered the lowest rental rate. When reduced to present value, Northern's bid for the entire term of the lease was more than $600,000.00 below the next lowest bid and for the first nine years of the lease alone, was $336,799.00 lower. Alderwood was awarded 21.5 points for its rental rate submission. In the area of renewal rates, Northern was awarded 7 of 7 possible points and Alderwood was awarded 2. These awards were not computed by the committee or assigned by them. Instead, the scores were computed on the basis of a present value analysis accomplished in Tallahassee and were entered on the score sheet by Mr. Akridge, the Department's local supervisor for this procurement. Considering the moving costs, however, Alderwood outscored Northern by 3 to 2.7 points. This difference was attributed to an additional moving cost for the Bay Plaza site as opposed to the one move cost if the Alderwood site were chosen. To have the rehabilitation work done at Bay Plaza would have required a move to another location while the work was being done and another move back when it was finished. In the Alderwood case, the Department would move only once. The "Location" criteria also had three subcategories for consideration. They were, general area, in which both bidders received the maximum 10 points; public transportation at 5 points, and environmental factors at 15 points. In the area of public transportation, Alderwood received the full 5 points with Northern receiving 1.1. Department personnel considered the fact that bus service was available through the site at Alderwood, the stop being within wheelchair and walking distance of the building, as being more significant and of higher value than the proposed bus service envisioned in 1989 for Northern's facility which, at the time of the bidding, was not served by a bus. Bus company officials stated an intention to provide bus service to the area in the future. The environmental factors subcategory related to the physical characteristics of the building and the surrounding area and the effect of these factors on the "efficient and economical conduct of Department operations." In this subcategory, Alderwood received a higher score than did Northern's building because the committee was of the opinion the Alderwood facility would be more energy efficient. Current Department occupants of Northern's facility at Bay Plaza contended that because of the large expanses of glass, there would be more heat generated in the building in the afternoon. No official energy efficiency assessment was done of either building because both occupied less than 20,000 square feet. Consequently, the committee analysis here was based on the experience of some committee members and was neither scientific nor professional. The committee was also concerned with the potential for theft because of the large amounts of glass and was of the opinion that the Bay Plaza layout was "confusing." Neither of these judgements carry much weight, however. Another environmental factor considered by the committee concerned the parking availability at each facility. The committee was of the opinion that the layout at Northern's facility was not good. It was long and extended. Staff also was concerned that the several access doors to the Northern facility could cause clients to become confused. More important, however, was their concern that due to the several entrances to the building, it would be difficult to control entry. Alderwood's facility, on the other hand, provided a central entrance for each building and it was felt this would allow tighter security control for the safety of the building occupants. The committee was also impressed by the fact that Alderwood's facility provided a play area for clients' children, and felt that Alderwood's landscaping was more appealing. The rating of Alderwood's handicap access as high, is important. Turning to the third major bid criterion, Facility, Northern's facility was awarded 16.3 points of a possible 20 for layout/utilization while Alderwood's was awarded 18.7 points. For the subcategory, single building, Northern's facility received 6.7 points out a possible 10 and Alderwood's facility was awarded 8.1. As for the final subcategory, street level, both facilities were awarded 5 points. As for layout/utilization, one committee member, Chipman, awarded Alderwood more points because it provided a separate entrance for each program, because it provided covered walkways for weather protection, and because there was less of a "maze" effect in that facility due to its square configuration. This last factor was of concern to other committee members who rejected the idea of clients having to walk through offices to get to the different programs. The wider hallways and better access for handicapped, as was stated previously, were also considered positive factors for Alderwood. Neither facility offered the single building which was a desired characteristic, Mr. Akridge, however, advised the committee in his preparatory briefing that since neither bidder offered a single building facility, the committee could award points on the layout of the multi-unit facility based on the relationship of the individual components to each other. At least two committee members, Chipman and Collins, rated Alderwood's facility better and awarded more points because they felt the layout of that facility allowed a more advantageous grouping of programs within the units. There is substantial evidence, however, that the information furnished the committee was neither complete nor in all cases accurate. Once the committee completed its evaluation, Mr. Akridge tabulated the scores and prepared a "request for bid award" letter dated September 21, 1988 for transmittal to Department officials in Tallahassee. The letter was prepared to report the committee recommendation for the award to Alderwood and to explain why the recommendation was made to award to that bidder as opposed to the low bidder. Review of this letter clearly reflects that Mr. Akridge and the committee were concerned with past performance at the Bay Plaza facility. When Mr. George Smith, a senior management analyst for the Department in Tallahassee received Mr. Akridge's letter, recognizing the possible appearance of consideration of an improper factor, he requested that Mr. Akridge seek and provide more justification for the committee's findings. While Mr. Smith contends he did this because of his concern over costs, the fact remains that Akridge's letter of September 21 did mention past performance which was an invalid consideration. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Akridge to prepare another memo giving additional information about such things as bus service, the difference in rental rates, the building layouts and locations and those factors which the users of the proposed facility, those individuals who were on the committee from the using organization, felt were important to them in the effective accomplishment of their jobs. Mr. Smith clearly indicated he recognized that past performance is not a valid point for consideration and that it would play no part in his analysis of the bids preparatory to making final recommendation for award. In response to Mr. Smith's direction, Mr. Akridge prepared another memorandum dated September 30, 1988. Though by far the greatest portion of this memo is a detailed comparison of the two facilities and the concerns of the committee regarding them, the first paragraph, (1 A) refers to the failure of the former leasing agent to obtain state fire marshal approval and a reference to concern that in light of the fact that Northern is an absentee owner, there might well be a return to slow response times experienced under the prior management contract. Though Mr. Smith recognized that the September 30 memorandum again made reference to prior performance, experienced as he was in the procurement of facilities, he also recognized that "that was not a part of the evaluation criteria" and "basically, just disregarded that." Thereafter, the award was made to Alderwood. Petitioner contends that whether consciously or unconsciously, past performance of Northern's predecessor in ownership influenced the evaluation and bid review process thereby placing Northern at a competitive disadvantage to Alderwood. There is evidence in the record to indicate this conclusion, may be justified. Mr. Yost, the Facilities Services Manager, admits that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the prior management of the Bay Plaza facility and it was because of this dissatisfaction that the decision was made to recommend withdrawal of the prior award and a new bid invitation. Though he claims he deliberately kept himself out of the re-bid process, the evidence indicates that he oversaw it from the beginning and was present and/or involved in almost every part of it. The invitation to bid utilized his name; he attended the pre-bid conference and injected himself into the process by answering questions of bidders; he personally reviewed each bid upon receipt with Mr. Akridge; and, though he turned the committee selection over to Mr. Akridge, specifically requested that a nominee of his own choosing, Ms. Chipman, be appointed. Ms. Chipman, to whom Mr. Yost had previously spoken regarding his dissatisfaction with the prior Bay Plaza operation, was appointed as the seventh member of a committee originally scheduled to have only six members and served as the chairperson thereof. It is also significant to note that while the committee was in session evaluating the bids, Mr. Yost came into the committee room and met with the members while the deliberation process was going on. This creates a definite appearance of impropriety. After the protest was filed by Northern's agent, on November 8, 1988, Mr. Akridge, on behalf of the Department, met with members of the evaluation committee and representatives of Alderwood. During this meeting, the Department representatives explained to Alderwood how they wanted the layout of the facility to be accomplished and directed the architect who was present to prepare preliminary design plans. This appears to have been in contravention of provisions of a Department rule, (10-13.011(2)(a), F.A.C) which calls for the contract award process to be stopped until the protest is resolved. The evaluation criteria, found on page 16 of 17 of the Bid Submittal Form at subparagraph 1A, states that rental rates for the basic term of the lease, evaluated testing a present value methodology at a discount rate of 8.31 percent, would constitute 25 percent of the total evaluation criteria. This requirement was not appropriately applied in this case. The points included on each committee member's evaluation form for this category do not correlate to the present value rates furnished by the Department. Whereas Alderwood's bid was 21 percent higher than Northern's when reduced to present value, Alderwood received 86 percent of the rental rate points given Northern instead of 79 percent of Northern's points as it should have received. As a result, Northern did not receive the appropriate weight for its rental rates points as compared to it's competitor, Alderwood. In addition to the above, there are several examples indicating that points given by the committee were awarded based on inaccurate assumptions, unreliable information, or speculation. These include a failure to recognize that the windows at Bay Plaza are tinted; an inaccurate belief by one committee member that Alderwood's buildings are closer together than Northern's; a failure to properly apportion points by a committee member in the area of public transportation on the mistaken belief that Northern's facility would not have bus service; a mistaken belief that hallways at the Northern facility could not be widened when, in fact, Northern had agreed to renovate the entire facility including the hallways to whatever design the Department requested, (in this regard, Mr. Akridge properly advised the committee it should assume for the purpose of evaluation, that Northern would widen the Hallways if requested) ; the possible improper award of points for moving costs when no information on actual costs was available; a failure by the committee to recognize that major construction planned for in front of the Alderwood facility would hinder what the committee considered that building's better access; a failure to recognize that bid specifications required a security system be installed in any facility leased which would minimize if not eliminate the theft risk; and a lack of information regarding crime rates, police patrols, night lighting, and the nearness of police facilities to the buildings in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the intent to award lease no. 590:1853 to, Alderwood B. Partners, Limited, be withdrawn; that a new evaluation committee be appointed to review the bids submitted by the responsive bidders; that this committee be properly briefed as to the requirements of their task and the appropriate standards to be applied thereto; and that the Department thereafter issue an award to the lowest and best bidder as determined by this evaluation committee. RECOMMENDED this is 15th day of March, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalpachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5325BID 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. BY PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but more in the form of argument than as Finding of Fact. The paragraph is redundant to other evidence already considered. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and as to substance, incorporated herein. BY THE RESPONDENT; & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein with comment. Redundant to 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein though 17 is redundant to 16. Accepted and incorporated herein as to the fact that bus service is planned for the Bay Plaza facility in 1989. Accepted with the exception of that portion dealing with Mr. Yost's having nothing to do with the evaluation of the bid which is rejected. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted with the exception of the disclaimer of Mr. Yost's participation in the selection of committee members. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted with the exception of the last sentence which is not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. First sentence rejected as a recitation of testimony. The second sentence is accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a recitation of evidence contained in Mr. Smith's deposition. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Brown, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Richard Candelora, Esquire Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P.A. Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601 Jack D. Farley, Esquire DHRS District Six Legal Office 400 West Buffalo Avenue, Room, 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire DHRS General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Barton-Malow Southern, Inc., deviated from the bid requirements, and if so, whether such deviation consists of a minor deviation which may be waived by the respondent, or whether Ron A. Royal, Inc., should be awarded the elementary school "C" project as the lowest responsive bidder.
Findings Of Fact On April 20, April 27, and May 4, 1986, the Board advertised its Notice of Call for Sealed Bids, soliciting bids for the construction of Elementary School "C". The notice advised that the contract to be awarded would require approval of subcontractors by the Board and stated that the Board "reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and to waive any and all informalities in regard thereto." A pre-bid conference was held on May 15, 1986, at which time the potential bidders were advised that page 14 of the bid documents entitled "List of Subcontractors" would be deleted and addendum #1 would include a more specific list of subcontractors to be completed by the bidder. The original list of subcontractors stated: The undersigned, hereinafter called "Bidder", list below the names of all the subcontractors who will perform under the Bidder. Any work item (Trade) not included will be assumed by the owner as being performed by the Bidder's own forces." A space was provided for the bidder to state the work item and the name of the subcontractor who would perform the work. Addendum #1 instructed the bidders to delete the original page C.14 and insert the enclosed sheet C.14 (addendum #1) "List of Subcontractors" for submission with the sealed bids. The substituted list of subcontractors provided as follows: The undersigned, hereinafter called "Bidder", lists below the names of the subcontractors who will perform under the Bidder. In the event the general contractor will perform one of the phases listed with his own personnel, he shall state by "general contractor". The form listed 20 specific areas of work, such as site work, iron and steel work, roof decks, and electrical, and provided a space for the bidder to fill in the firm name and address of the subcontractor for each specific area. Bids were submitted to the Board by nine (9) general contractors. The lowest bid by $310,000, was submitted by Barton-Malow; the second lowest bid was submitted by Royal. On the list of contractors submitted with Barton Malow's bid, Barton- Malow listed "G.C". (General Contractor) for the work areas described as site work, concrete work, masonry work iron and steel work, and lathing and plastering. Barton-Malow listed a subcontractor and "G.C." for phases described as hard tile and electrical. For the work areas described as "roof decks" and "roofing and sheet metal" three (3) subcontractors were listed for each of the areas. The list submitted by Royal with its bid provided that the concrete work would be performed by the general contractor and listed a single subcontractor for each of the other 19 areas of work specified. Barton-Malow was the only bidder who listed multiple subcontractors for a specified work area. In the blanks provided for the subcontractors' addresses, Royal listed the city where each subcontractor was located; Barton-Malow did not provide any addresses bout stated at the top of the column "will be advised upon request." None of the bidders provided street addresses for the subcontractors, however, only one bidder other than Barton Malow failed to provide the city in which the subcontractor was located. Immediately after the bids were opened and read, 1/ the meeting was adjourned and Mr. Derryberry, Mr. Collins, and two other people reviewed the bids. Mr. Derryberry concluded that the Barton-Malow bid was not in compliance with the bid requirements due to the manner in which Barton-Malow had filled out the subcontractor list. Mr. Derryberry therefore recommended to the Board that the Barton-Malow bid be rejected because of the perceived irregularities and the bid of Royal be accepted. The recommendation of the architect was adopted as the recommendation of the school administration and presented to the Board at a public meeting on June 3, 1986. The Board received the report of the architect and the administration, heard from the attorneys and representatives of Barton- Malow and Royal, and then voted to waive any irregularities and accept the Barton-Malow bid. The original page C.14 was approved by the Board in about 1980 and used since that time. However, there had been some difficulty with that form on two different jobs within the last six months, and therefore it was decided to clarify the purpose of the form by specifically listing all the major subcontracting areas. The intent was to require all bidders to list the primary subcontractor in each of the major work areas, and thus prevent bid shopping after the bids were opened. The architect, Mr. Derryberry, prepared and included the amended form C.14 as part of Addendum #1 to the bid documents. Although the Board never formally approved the amended form, Mr. Derryberry had the authority to clarify any of the bid documents by addendum. Page C.14 (Addendum #1) lists 20 major subcontracting areas; however, in almost all of the areas it would be possible for more than one subcontractor to perform the designated work, and in several areas it would be unlikely that one subcontractor would perform all the required work. For example, site work includes paving, earth moving, culvert work, fencing, and irrigation, and one subcontractor would not normally do the work in all those areas. The amended page C.14 does not state that only one subcontractor should be listed for each specified work area. The bidders were not advised at the pre-bid conferences or subsequent thereto, that only one subcontractor should be listed in each category. The only information the bidders received regarding the list of subcontractors was the information contained on the revised page C.14. In other words, the bidders were simply directed to list "the names of the subcontractors who will perform under the Bidder", and to list general contractor when "the general contractor will perform one of the phases listed with his own personnel." In the subcontractor list submitted with their bid, Barton-Malow listed "Batten Electric Co./G.C." for the subcontract "Electrical", and listed "Bauer & Assoc./G.C." for the "Hard Tile" subcontract. The listing of a subcontractor and the general contractor in these areas is not a deviation from the bid requirements. There is no indication on the list submitted by Barton- Malow that the listing of a subcontractor and the general contractor in the hard tile and electrical categories meant anything other than both the subcontractor and the general contractor would perform the work required in those areas, and there was no evidence presented at the hearing that would require a different conclusion. 2/ Categories 5 and 6 on the subcontractor list are "roof decks" and "roofing and sheet metal." Although listed as two separate categories, the same subcontractor would have to perform both due to the bid requirements. Further only one subcontractor can perform the roofing work; it is not an area that is divisible into subcategories that can be performed by different subcontractors. For categories 5 and 6, Barton-Malow listed "H. H. Robertson/Architectural Exteriors/Commercial Roof Decks." As admitted by Barton-Malow, that all three subcontractors "will perform" the subcontract is an impossibility. 3/ From the list submitted by Barton-Malow it cannot be determined who will perform and be responsible for the roofing work. When asked at the hearing who was going to perform the roofing work for Barton Malow, the vice-president of operations for Barton-Malow responded, "One of those three would have done it." He indicated that a submission would have been made to the Board designating the subcontractor. By listing three subcontractors for the two roofing categories, Barton-Malow deviated from the bid requirements. The subcontractor list contained one basic requirement, that the subcontractors listed "will perform." By listing three subcontractors for the roofing, when only one subcontractor could performs Barton-Malow would be able to bid shop for subcontractors after the bid submission. This would give Barton Malow a definite advantage over the other bidders who complied with the bid requirements and listed only the one contractor who would perform the work. The other bidders would be bound to use the subcontractor listed and therefore, would be unable to negotiate for a better price after obtaining the contract. However, by listing multiple subcontractors, Barton-Malow would be able to negotiate for a better price because it had not committed itself to any one subcontractor. In five categories, site work, concrete work, masonry work, iron and steel work, and lathing and plastering, Barton Malow listed general contractor. About an hour after bid opening, Mr. Derryberry called Mr. Polso, the Vice- President of Operations for Barton-Malow, to inquire about the bid because it was so much lower than the other bids. Mr. Polso assured Mr. Derryberry that there had been no mistake in the amount bid. Mr. Derryberry then asked about the listing of general contractor for the iron and steel work because he had never known of a general contractor doing that type of work. Mr. Polso stated that he had not had time to determine the low bidder in that category and was still getting prices. He also said that Barton-Malow would not be doing the lathing and plastering. However, when Mr. Derryberry advised that he was recommending that the bid be disqualified due to the incompleteness of the subcontractors form and asked whether Barton-Malow wished to withdraw its bid, Mr. Polso stated that Barton-Malow had no intention of withdrawing its bid. Subsequently, Mr. Polso met with Mr. Derryberry and Mr. Collins at the school offices and advised them that Barton-Malow had every intention of performing the work where general contractor had been listed. Barton-Malow is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barton Malow Company and has the resources of Barton-Malow Company available when necessary. In 1985, Barton-Malow did between 60 and 70 million dollars of construction work; Barton- Malow Company had a dollar volume of 600 million dollars. Barton-Malow has the capacity to perform work in the areas where it listed general contractor. Barton-Malow prepares its bid by estimating the value of the total project and the value of the majority of the specific trades involved. If Barton-Malow does not receive a bid from a subcontractor that it feels is competitive in a particular trade area, it performs that work itself. The C.14 (Addendum #1) form permitted a bidder to list "general contractor" in any or all subcontract areas in which it would perform the work with its own personnel. Once the bids are opened, the bidder cannot unilaterally substitute a subcontractor for the general contractor. The general contractor would be required to do the work unless it received authorization to substitute a subcontractor based upon a showing of good cause. The evidence does not support a finding that Barton-Malow was incapable of performing the work in the areas in which it listed "general contractor." Therefore Barton- Malow did not deviate from the bid requirements by listing "general contractor" in five of the twenty specified areas. Although Baron-Malow deviated from the bid requirements by failing to list any addresses on its subcontractor list, this was a minor irregularity which did not give Barton-Malow any competitive advantage over the other bidders. In Division C, Article 5, Section 5.3.1., the bid documents provide: It is the intent of the owner to award a Contract to the lowest responsible Bidder provided the Bid has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Bidding Documents....The Owner shall have the right to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and accept the Bid or Bids which in his judgment, is in his own best interests.
Findings Of Fact The Department of General Services, (hereinafter "DGS") is a state agency, the responsibilities of which include the management of state construction project. It accomplishes such management through its Division of Building Construction. The Divisions responsibilities include, negotiation of architect/engineer contracts, review of plans and specifications, contract administration, and contract management. One such project is Project No. MA-87080010, the subject matter of which involves repairs and alterations to the National Guard Armory in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Armory Project. Certain portions of the bid specification for the Armory Project were prepared by the project architect, Mr. William D. Tschumy, Jr. Other portions, specifically the portions dealing with bidding conditions and contractual conditions, were provisions provided by DGS for inclusion in the specifications. The project architect was not familiar with all of the bid specification provisions provided by DGS. Prior to submitting its bid on the Armory Project, James P. Moran, Inc., had been prequalified for bidding on the project. Such prequalification did not obviate the need for James P. Moran, Inc., to meet the experience requirements in the bid specifications and in Rule 13D-11.904(2)(a)(8), Florida Administrative Code. The bid specifications for the Armory Project include the following provisions: 1/ Section B-2, page 9: 8. Firm experience - must have successfully completed no less than two project of similar size and complexity within the last three years. and; Section B-22, page 16: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the best interest of the State of Florida and to reject the proposal of a bidder who the owner determines is not in a position to perform the contract and to negotiate the contract in accordance with its Rule 13- D11.08 if the low qualified bid exceeds the project construction budget. James P. Moran, Inc., timely submitted its bid on the Armory Project and was subsequently notified that it had been recommended for contract award by the Director of the Division of Building Construction. This recommendation was made on the basis of a recommendation by the project architect that the bid be awarded to James P. Moran, Inc. At the time of making his recommendation, the project architect was not aware of the firm experience provision in either the bid specifications or the applicable rules. A timely protest was filed by another bidder on the Armory Project, in which the protesting bidder raised the issue of the firm experience of James P. Moran Inc. DGS concluded that the protest was valid and after further deliberation made the determination to reject all bids. All the bids other than the bid submitted by James P. Moran, Inc., exceeded the funds available for construction of the Armory Project. Because the other bids all exceeded the available funds, DGS decided that the best course of action would be to modify the scope and nature of the work involved in the project and then re-bid the project. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed modifications to the project will result in lower bids, because the modifications would permit the work to be done quicker and at less cost to the contractor. James P. Moran, Inc., was incorporated in 1981. However, prior to the summer of 1988, it had submitted no bids acquired no permits, and had neither started nor completed any jobs. The qualifying contractor for James P. Moran, Inc., is Mr. James P. Moran who, for many years prior to the summer of 1988, was an employee, officer, and shareholder of Frank J. Moran, Inc. Mr. James P. Moran holds a State of Florida building contractors license, a State of Florida electrical contractors license, a Dade County electrical masters license, a Broward County electrical masters license, and a State of Maine electrical contractors license. While employed by Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was also the qualifying contractor for that corporation. While so employed, Mr. James P. Moran's primary duties were those of project director and estimator. He was also a corporate officer of Frank J. Moran, Inc. During his employment with Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was the project manager on projects of similar size and complexity to the Armory Project. The construction budget for the Armory Project is approximately 250,000. The dollar values of construction jobs are valid indicators of the comparative sizes of construction jobs. The dollar values of the two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are approximately $161,000 and $112,000, respectively. The two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are not of similar size to the Armory Project. While DGS is concerned about the qualifications of the personnel employed by a contracting firm, DGS is also concerned about the track record of the firm itself, and, therefore, requires that a firm have completed projects in its own name in order to qualify for a bid award. In other words, a new firm cannot "take credit" for work performed by one of its employees at a time when the employee was working for another firm. Also, DGS does not allow "stacking" of the dollar value of several small jobs in order to demonstrate completion of a job of similar size to the job that is the subject of a bid. The purpose of the experience rule is to require a contracting firm to have completed at least two jobs of similar dollar size to the dollar size of the job being contracted. Among, the reasons stacking is not allowed is that completion of a job of any given size is a more complicated and complex undertaking than completion of a series of smaller jobs that total up to the same dollar value as the job of given size. DGS has now modified the scope of the project and has amended the plans and specifications in such a fashion that it will take less time to complete the modified Armory project and may reasonably be expected to result in lower bids closer to or below the construction budget. The modified Armory project may reasonably be expected to result in a savings of both time and money.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services issue a final order in this case rejecting the bid of James P. Moran, Inc., as being non-responsive, and rejecting all other bids, in order to modify the scope of the project and rebid it. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of March 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Nine bids were received for Contract E4571, Project/Job No. 99004-3516 ("E4571"). Petitioner's bid was timely received. Respondent opened bids on December 13, 1991. Respondent posted its intent to award E4571 to J & D Tropical Landscape Design on December 20, 1991. Section 1.2 of the Bid Specifications for E4571, as modified by the Special Provisions, states: A contractor's bid shall be in the form of a unit price for each unit expected to be accomplished. The Special Provisions to E4571 require each bidder to submit a single unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. Item 4 in the Special "Provisions provides: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to submit to the Department A SINGLE unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. The Contractor shall be responsible for his/her method of averaging. Failure to comply shall result in the Contractor's Bid Proposal being declared "Irregular" and such Bid Proposals will be rejected. (emphasis added) Petitioner's Bid Proposal was properly declared irregular and rejected by Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Item 4 in the Special Provisions by failing to submit a single unit price for each pay item, by failing to correctly average a unit price, and by failing to state the unit price in words. The Unit Price Sheet on page 23 of the Bid Proposals contains the following table listing item numbers A582- 2 through A584-4. Petitioner listed item number A583 as follows: ITEM PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE $ AMOUNTS NUMBER QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE (IN FIGURES) (Exten- (IN WORDS) sion Price) 3/ A583 4 200.000 TREES (8' TO 20, 85 20400 PLANT ' HEIGHT OR CLEAR TRUNK) @ DOLLARS CENTS The actual extension price 4/ for 200 trees at $85 per unit is $17,000 rather than the $20,400 stated by Petitioner in the table on page 23. The "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the table is $37,013.20. The "Contract Total" that should have been stated if Petitioner intended the extension price of item number A583-4 to be $17,000 would have been $33,613. The "Contract Total" listed by a bidder on the Unit Price Sheet is the unverified contract price. The actual contract price is determined by Respondent pursuant to the formula given in Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications. Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications foil E4571 states: The contract price is defined as the sum of the unit bid price times the planned work for each item as shown on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner would have been the lowest successful bidder irrespective of whether Respondent had replaced the extension price for item number A583-4 and the "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner with the actual extension price for item number A583-4 and the actual "Contract Total" . However, Respondent is precluded from doing so by Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications For Road ,and Bridge Construction ("Standard Specifications"), published by the Florida Department of Transportation (1991) and by the Special Provisions for E4571. Respondent follows "Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications for the purpose of evaluating bid proposals. Section 3-1 is used, in part, to determine the extension price for item numbers listed on the Unit Price Sheet. Section 3- 1 provides in relevant part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price of any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, In which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Petitioner did not show the unit price in words for any item number on the Unit Price Sheet, including item number A583-4. There is a discrepancy in the three entries for item number A583-4 on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner failed to show the unit price for item number A583-4 in words, and the unit price and extension price are not in agreement. Under such circumstances, Respondent interprets Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications as requiring that Petitioner's bid be declared irregular and rejected. Respondent's interpretation of Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications is reasonable and is consistent with the mandate in Item 4 of the Special Provisions for E4571. See Finding 4, supra. Furthermore, in practice, the correct unit price of a pay item is necessary to process payment under the contract and the contractor must submit invoices based upon the pay items and unit prices listed in its bid. The bid specifications for E4571 provide that a bidder is responsible for his or her own averaging of a stated unit price, and that if a bidder fails to provide a single unit price for each pay item on the Unit Price Sheet the bid shall be declared "Irregular" and will be rejected. The requirement to provide a single unit price for each pay item was emphasized by Respondent at the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Petitioner's representative attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. No challenges were made to the bid specifications by any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (964) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before January, 1989, The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide for social services in Haines City, Florida. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease of 9041 square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3%. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given by advertisement in four central Florida newspapers. HRS had prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS' requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of % (Weighting: 30) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 5) Associated moving costs i.e. furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc. (Weighting: 0) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 5) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 20) Facility Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 20) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 15 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100% The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: rental rates environmental factors efficient space layout The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to several hundred people every month. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the influx of people. Because of servicing so many people, factors two and three received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by Intervenor, Unirealty Services, Inc. (bid A), and Petitioners, Messrs. Matthews and Walker (bid B). The bids were opened February 20, 1989, and Mr. Michael T. Akridge, former Facilities Services Manager, District VI HRS, determined both bids were responsive. At the time the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had an option contract to purchase the subject facility, and an authorization from the optionees (two principals of Intervenors) for Unirealty to act as their agent. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committee's choice of lowest and best bid. The purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Six individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. The bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Unirealty was the "lowest and best." The bid evaluation committee consisted of six representatives of the Department who visited each bidders' site and questioned the bidders' representatives. Each of the committee members worked with or supervised HRS programs that were to be located in the leased space. The solicitation for bids provided each bidder, among other things, with the bid evaluation criteria, a 100 point scale, which the committee used to evaluate the bids. Each committee member's evaluation scores were averaged and totaled to score Petitioners at 90.8, and Unirealty at 83.9. Each committee member gave a higher score to Unirealty. The three major bid evaluation criteria were FISCAL COSTS, LOCATION and FACILITY. Under the FISCAL COST criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioners received 30 points out of 30 possible, and Unirealty got 23.1. For Renewal Rates, Petitioners got 5 out of 5 possible points, and Unirealty received 3.7 points. No points were awarded for Moving Costs. The evaluation committee did not assess points for Rental or Renewal Rates. These were scored by Michael T. Akridge, bid manager, based on a present value analysis of bidders' proposed rates. Mr. Akridge did not give the Committee the points for Rental and Renewal Rates until after they had completed their evaluations of the LOCATION and FACILITY criteria. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Central Area-- 10 points--with both bidders receiving 9.3; Public Transportation--5 points-- which both bidders received; and, Environmental Factors--20 points--out of which Petitioners received 12.8 points and Unirealty 20 points. The Environmental Factors sub-category included building physical characteristics and surrounding area and their effect on the efficient and economical conduct of Department operations. Unirealty received a higher score than Petitioner because the committee believed its building had a better appearance, and was in better shape. The area surrounding the building was more open, while Petitioners' building was in a less desirable neighborhood with a bar or liquor store and bus station nearby which could create problems for clients because of transients. It had far more window space which creates a better work environment, and allows staff to be watchful of clients and their children outside, and the windows would be tinted. The windows at Petitioner's site were limited and no more could be added. Unirealty had more adjacent parking spaces, with handicapped parking closer to the building, and part of it was fenced which provided added protection to clients and staff. Petitioners' site had adjacent businesses whose patrons were using some of the parking spaces which the committee felt could create a problem. The Unirealty building could have an outside food stamp issuance facility which would be far more accessible to clients and to make the lobbies less crowded. It had an existing alarm system. It did not have side streets adjacent to the building, thus there would be less traffic congestion and therefore safer for clients; and, it had outside gathering areas where clients could go to smoke. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, Petitioners received 11.8 points out of 20 for Layout/Utilization and Unirealty received 19.7 points; for Single Building, both bidders received 10 points out of 10 possible. For the Layout/Utilization sub-category Unirealty received more points because its building configuration was more flexible and conducive to design of interior space, with less maze effect. The members of the committee each testified that it was important that the Unirealty building had no support poles to get in the way as they did in Petitioners' building. The support poles in Petitioner's building created a safety problem for clients and inhibited the location of desks and corridors. At Unirealty's site each worker could have a window, and mechanical and service areas could be put in the center of the building, with a playroom for clients' children. It provided a better restroom location near the front of Petitioner's building and lobby areas, and clients would not have to wander through work areas to get to the restrooms. Unirealty's building provided better control of clients' movements and thus better security. Members of the committee also upgraded the Unirealty building because its pitched roof was less likely to leak and its air conditioning was zoned thus providing better air quality and temperature control. At Unirealty there was better ingress and egress, and entry ways could be added. This could not be done at Petitioners' site. The Unirealty building could have different entrances for each HRS program, with separate lobbies for each program with less client congestion and better control. During the Committee members inspection of the sites they were told of an existing security alarm system already in place at the Unirealty site and were told that system would remain in place. When asked, the Petitioner's representative was unsure if his client would install a similar system at their site. A security system for the entire building was not included in the bid specifications, and it was improper for the committee to give Unirealty extra points for this unsolicited item. The proposed lease agreement calls for 9041 square feet of office space and a minimum of 66 parking spaces. Unirealty offered 72 parking spaces and Petitioner offered 75. The committee awarded more evaluation points to the Unirealty site based on future expansion capability of the building and the existing additional on-site parking spaces which were visible at the site at the time of inspection. The committee erroneously believed that the extra square footage of building space and extra parking spaces would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was not in the bid specifications and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The evaluation committee included the improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the Unirealty property. The two improper factors cannot be considered here. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was clearly to award the lease to the Intervenor. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Petitioners presented greater problems for design and flexibility due to the rectangular configuration of the building. The other consideration was that the physical characteristics of the Unirealty site and the surrounding area were considered far superior to the Petitioner's site. A close review of each evaluation sheet and the testimony of each committee member at the hearing shows that the improper factors were not so heavily weighted as to invalidate the committee recommendation. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after inspection of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Intervenor's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Intervenor's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. Over an eight year period the Petitioner's rental cost was significantly lower than the Intervenor's. However, it is clear the legitimate considerations of the committee were crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder. The conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. After the committee recommendation was scored and tabulated, Mr. Akridge requested the committee chair, Ms. Gail Newell, to prepare a draft letter of the proposed bid award. This was done in collaboration with the other committee members. Mr. Michael T. Akridge then prepared the bid award letter for the signature of the Administrative Services Director based on the draft letter. In it the two improper considerations were mentioned. The authority to award the lease to Unirealty was approved on March 8, 1989, by King W. Davis, Director of General Services for HRS based on the bid award letter, dated February 26, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:2057 to Unirealty Services, Inc., as the lowest and best bidder. 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 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39 (in part), 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 81, 83 (in part) are adopted in substance in so far as material. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 37, 73, 74, 80 are rejected as conclusions of law. Paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 44, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 72, 75, 778, 82, are rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66 are rejected assubordinate or immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1-17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Matthews, Jr. 2405 Hideaway Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire HRS District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Neal A. Sivyer, Esquire Paul J. Ullom, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P. A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 23,871 square feet of office space to house some of its social services for indigents in Northern Escambia County. Since HRS desired more than 2,000 square feet of office space, it was required to bid lease number 590:1987 competitively. To that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety public access, ingress and egress availability of public transportation. The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 1000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period during each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the in flux of people. Additionally, many of Respondent's clients utilize public transportation since they do not own or have access to personal vehicles. Because of servicing so many people the above factors received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Additionally, in order to submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor was required to meet one of the following qualifications at the time the bid was submitted: (a) be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas; (b) be the lessee of the space being proposed and present with the bid a copy of the lease with documentation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas; (c) submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas; or (d) submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to, in turn, sublease. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process. On July 21, 1988, HRS received five bids on the lease. Intervenors submitted the apparent low bid which Northside consisted of one building located at the Brentwood Shopping Center in Pensacola, Florida. At the time that the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had a contract to purchase the subject facility; they have since closed on that transaction. This bid package did not include the four acres adjacent to the Brentwood Shopping Center property and no contract to purchase or other documentation was submitted as to the four acre parcel of property. Petitioner submitted the apparent second lowest bid which consisted of one building located at Fairfield Plaza in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's interest in Fairfield Plaza is that of a lessee under a Master Lease with rights to sublet the property. All appropriate documentation was submitted with the bid. This property was the subject of a semi-friendly foreclosure action at the time that the Petitioner's bid was submitted. Petitioner was still in possession and control of the property. Both Petitioner's and Intervenors' property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The other three bids which were submitted by HRS are not in contention The committee members personally inspected the sites offered by the Petitioner and the Intervenors. While at the Intervenors' site, the committee's concern over the property's minimal parking (as compared to Fairfield) and limited safe public access, ingress and egress were raised. The only access to Intervenor's property was from a very busy multi-lane highway. Certain turns onto and off the property were extremely dangerous. In order to make its bid package more acceptable, Intervenors' representative orally amended the bid package to include the southerly four acres contiguous to the Brentwood property. The Inclusion of the southerly four acres would adequately increase Intervenors' parking. The amendment would also create additional and safer public ingress and egress since the four acres abutted on Murray Lane which intersects Highway 29. This amendment substantially worked to Intervenors' advantage and was a material change to the previously submitted bid. The improper amendment cannot be considered here. Following the on-site inspections, the committee members met and rated the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenors according to a Bid Synopsis evaluation sheet which they had been previously provided. The committee members' review of the Intervenors' property included the improper bid amendment. Even with the improper amendment, the unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was to award the lease to the Petitioner and Fairfield Plaza. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Intervenors presented greater problems for ingress and egress due to the congested nature the area. The other consideration was that service to Fairfield Plaza from public transportation was both more frequent and direct. The property offered by the Intervenors had less public transportation service. The stops were less frequent and a significant number of clients would be required to transfer buses to reach Brentwood when utilizing such public transportation. All bus passengers would be required to walk from the bus stop close to Brentwood and attempt at their peril to cross a very busy, dangerous and congested highway. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Petitioner's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Petitioner's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. The District Administrator initially adopted the committee's recommendation and reported that recommendation to King Davis, the Director of General Services for HRS. The Director of General Services later informed the District Administrator that he and his staff were concerned with the fact that the recommendation was to award the lease to the second lowest bidder. The staff's review considered the improper amendment as part of the Intervenors' bid. Over a ten year period the Petitioner's rental cost was $62,381.00 more than the Intervenors'. In addition, the estimated energy consumption for the first year for the Petitioner's property was approximately $4800 more than for Intervenors. King Davis and his staff did not believe that the justifications cited in the recommendation letter would be considered crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder, should the agency get involved in a bid protest over the award. He and his staff did not disagree that the reasons assigned by the committee and Ms. Schembera were legitimate considerations. Their ultimate concern was that the reasons given by the committee and Ms. Schembera would not be given as great a weight by a Division of Administrative Hearings' hearing officer; and therefore, fail to withstand a potential bid challenge. But the conclusion that the lack of ingress and egress and public transportation could not outweigh the cost differences assumed that Intervenors' bid included the four acres. Without the four acres, the problems with ingress and egress, congestion and public transportation become even more important and can outweigh minor price differences in rent and energy. This is especially true when one considers the impact that the influx of at least 1000 people would have on an already congested and unsafe area. Put simply, the conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. Instead of reconvening the committee after receiving the recommendation from King Davis and discussing the same with him, the District Administrator made the determination that the lease should be awarded to the Intervenors. The District Administrator, acquiesced in Mr. Davis' assessment that HRS could not succeed in a bid challenge. She did not like his advice. In fact, even at the hearing Ms. Schembera still believed Petitioner's property was the lowest and best for HRS purposes. However, through circular reasoning she also concluded that Intervenors' property was the lowest and best bid because she chose it. The agency's ability to succeed in a bid challenge which may or may not happen is not covered by any of the weighted bid evaluation criteria contained in the bid package and is not an appropriate reason to prefer one bid over another. The foregoing is particularly true when the reason given (surviving a bid protest) is based on the occurrence of a future event which may not occur. To reject a bid for a reason outside the bid criteria and one based on an unknowable future event is an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of Respondent. A court-appointed receiver was ordered to take control of the property belonging to the Petitioner on September 28, 1988, after the bid award was announced. Petitioner still retains its right of redemption of the property, and such an interest is sufficient to confer standing on Petitioner to maintain this action. Moreover, the evidence was clear that Petitioner had both the ability and wherewithal to perform the lease should it receive the bid award. Perfected ownership or control is not required. With Petitioner's apparent ability to perform, the fact of the foreclosure action and the receiver should not work against the Petitioner in this bid protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:1987 to Eccelston Properties, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact In June 1987 The School Board of Lee County, Florida invited the submission of sealed bids for grading and drainage improvements at the new Multipurpose Building at Fort Myers High School. In addition to requiring grading, the project involves the erection or placement of structures in the nature of a drainage system consisting of culverts, pipes, and concrete inlets with grates, to be tied into the existing drainage system off School Board property across a county right-of-way into a culvert for discharge across the street, and which on School Board property attaches to and becomes a part of an existing building. Sealed bids were submitted by Systems Technologies Co. of Ft. Myers, Inc. (hereinafter "Systems Technologies") and by Ledo Lines, Inc. Respondent determined Systems Technologies to be the lowest responsible bidder and advised Ledo Lines, Inc., that it would be awarding the contract to Systems Technologies. Warren W. Hunt is the president and the qualifying agent of Systems Technologies. Hunt has an underground utilities contractor's license which has been inactive since it was obtained by him in March, 1986, being inactive therefore both at the time that Hunt submitted the bid on behalf of Systems Technologies and at the time of the final hearing in this cause. The inactive status results from Hunt's failure to complete the license process with the State of Florida. Since Hunt's license was inactive due to being incomplete at the times material to this cause, neither Hunt nor Systems Technologies was a licensed contractor and Systems Technologies was not a responsible bidder at the time that the bid was submitted. The contract specifications set forth the method by which the bids would be evaluated. Paragraph numbered 2.9 on page PD-4 provides as follows: Comparison of Proposals - Proposals will be compared on the basis of total computed price for each division of work. Total computed price equals the sum of the prices for the lump sum Contract Item, plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price Contract Items for each Division of work. The total price for each unit price Contract Item will be obtained by multiplying the estimated quantity of each item by the correspond- ing unit price set forth in the Proposal form[.] That provision, accordingly, requires that the bids be evaluated based upon the sum of all line items rather than based only upon their total or "bottom line" figure. Respondent's Director of Facilities Planning admitted that he failed to comply with this provision of the contract specifications in evaluating the two bids submitted to him and in determining that the bid should be awarded to Systems Technologies. In Systems Technologies' bid, the sum of the prices for the lump sum contract items plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price contract items amounts to $30,109.60. However, in submitting its bid Systems Technologies incorrectly added its column of figures and incorrectly computed its Total Contract Price (Estimated) to be $29,768. Since the contract specifications envision a unit price bid rather than a lump sum bid, the amount of the bid of Systems Technologies is in fact the amount of $30,109.60. The bid of Ledo Lines, Inc., is for $29,913.84. Ledo Lines, Inc., is, therefore, the low bidder on this project. The contract specifications when read in their entirety clearly require that the low bid be determined by adding the unit price and lump sum components rather than relying on the lump sum "bottom line" figure shown for Total Contract Price (Estimated). Employees of the consultant who Prepared the specifications testified that they expect to be able to hold the bidders to the unit prices but not to the Total Contract Price (Estimated) because the estimated quantities may change. Thus, the evidence is uncontroverted that the determination of low bidder pursuant to the contract specifications is based upon the total of the unit price provisions and not by the single figure at the bottom of the page which adds those individual prices and which was added erroneously in this case by Systems Technologies. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated that the School Board is subject to mandatory competitive bidding for this project. They further stipulated that where there is mandatory competitive bidding, the contract must be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder. Since Systems Technologies is neither a qualified, responsive bidder nor the lowest bidder, it is clear that Ledo Lines, Inc., is the lowest responsive bidder for the project in question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining Ledo Lines, Inc., to be the lowest responsive bidder and awarding the contract for grading and drainage improvements to the Multi- purpose Building at Fort Myers High School to Ledo Lines, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Melvin, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 E. G. Couse, Esquire Post office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Harry A. Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue Whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board), may reject all bids as proposed for Bid No. 2002-02-FC, Group A1, or whether such action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the entity charged with the responsibility of governing the public schools within the Broward County School District. As such, the acquisition of school properties and attendant improvements fall within the Board's legal authority. These cases involve the procurement of relocatable buildings suitable for classroom purposes. Pursuant to its authority, on or about December 27, 2002, the Respondent issued a bid that is the subject matter of the instant challenge. The bid, identified in this record as Bid 2002-02-FC, sought proposals for the procurement of district-wide relocatable buildings. In a prior time these buildings were known as "portable classrooms" or "portables." In the post-Hurricane Andrew world, these structures are now pre-engineered and constructed of concrete or steel (or a hybrid of both) and must be, by design, capable of being relocated to various sites. The Petitioners, Royal and Padula jointly, and the Intervenor, James B. Pirtle Construction Company, Inc. (Pirtle or Intervenor), design, construct, and install such structures. In these cases the bid sought several distinct proposals. First, the project sought vendors who would provide and deliver concrete relocatable buildings (Group A1). Group A2 (not at issue in this proceeding) sought steel relocatable buildings. Group B (also not at issue in the instant case) sought site adaptation prices for landscaping, lighted covered walkways, steps, ramps, and other engineering incidental to the installation of the buildings. The advertisement for the bid carried the same generic information as to all groups. The bid documents also contained many terms that were applicable to all groups. Pertinent to the issues of these cases are the following excerpts from the bid document (Joint Exhibit 2). The order of the excerpts should not suggest any significance. The excerpts are listed in this manner solely for convenience sake: BASIS OF AWARD In order to meet the needs of the school system . . . each Award will be . . . up to three responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Individual projects will be issued . . . based upon lowest cost among one or more bidders per project as determined by the project manager. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, and all items in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on Document 00410 Bid Form. SBBC [the Respondent] reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) work may be issued to multiple contractors if in the opinion of The School Board of Broward County, Florida or its staff the work cannot be completed by a single contractor in the specified time such as a Summer, Winter or Spring Break or if it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. ARTICLE 4 BIDDING PROCEDURES 4.01 FORM AND STYLE OF BIDS A. Bids shall be submitted on forms identical to Document 00410, Bid Form, and other standard forms included with the Bidding Documents. The following documents are required to be submitted with the Bid: * * * SIGNED SEALED ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS OF THE STRUCTURES TO BE PROVIDED (FOR RELOCATABLE BUILDINGS BID ONLY) 5.03 REJECTION OF BIDS AND IRREGULAR PROPOSALS * * * The Owner shall have the right to reject any or all Bids, reject a Bid not accompanied by a required bid security, good faith deposit, or by other data required by the Bid Documents, or reject a Bid which is in any way incomplete, irregular or otherwise not Responsive. The Owner may waive any formality in the bid requirements and award or not award the contract in the best interests of The School Board of Broward County, Florida. (Emphasis in original not shown) In addition to the foregoing, the bid documents contained detailed and specific design criteria that set forth information such as the slope of roofs, the roof spans, the mechanical systems, ventilation, plumbing, windows, and stoops. These design criteria covered hundreds of topics and encompassed virtually every facet of the structures. To review each bid proposal as to whether each design specification was met would require countless man-hours. The issue of how to review the bid proposals was not adequately anticipated by the Respondent. From the outset the bid document evolved from unusual circumstances. Whether the bid document was intended to be a request for proposals (RFP) or an invitation to bid (ITB) was a primary confusion among the Board's staff. If the proposals were to be deemed responsive or not and then ranked solely on price (thus making the bid process more like an ITB) how could staff effectively determine the threshold question of responsiveness? If the proposals were to be ranked based upon a point or qualitative approach (more like an RFP) where were the criteria by which to score the proposals? In fact, there were no objective criteria disclosed in the bid document by which a proposal could be evaluated. More curious is that no bidder brought this lack of evaluation criteria to the Board's attention during the mandatory bidder's conference. Moreover, no one challenged the bid specifications. Presumably, the bidders believed it was an "all or nothing" award. That is, if they were the lowest responsive bidder, they would receive the award. The question of who would be responsive and how that decision would be resolved did not come to light until after the bids had been opened. At the mandatory bidders' conference conducted on January 14, 2003, the bidders posed questions in the form of requests for information. In response, the Respondent issued six addenda intended to cover the questions posed. None of the responses addressed how the bid proposals would be evaluated. If anything, Addendum No. 3 added to confusion related to what documents must be submitted with the bid proposal. More specifically, Addendum No. 3 provided, in pertinent part: [Addendum 3, question and response to inquiry] 9. Can schematics be submitted with the bid instead of the signed and sealed architectural and engineering design drawings of the structures that are requested in Document Article 4.01.A.6? Response: Signed and Sealed Architectural/Structural Drawings are required to be submitted with the Bid. The Requirement for Mechanical and Electrical signed and sealed drawing is waived, however all engineering associated with the Relocatable Buildings will require engineer of record signed and sealed drawings and calculations prior to issuance of building permit DRC review. Nevertheless, when the bid proposals were opened on March 4, 2003, the Petitioners and the Intervenor were found to be the three lowest bidders. If responsive, the Intervenor would be considered the lowest bidder with the Petitioners being considered alternate vendors for the procurement. Unsatisfied with the preliminary determination that the Intervenor was the lowest bidder, the Petitioners timely challenged the bid award. The Petitioners maintained that the Intervenor had not timely provided sealed design drawings as required by the bid document. Petitioners argued that the Intervenor had attempted to impermissibly amend their proposal by late-filing a set of structural drawings for the bid. Thus the initial bid protest sought to determine what design drawings were required by the bid and whether the Intervenor had timely supplied such drawings. The Petitioners contended that the Intervenor's submittal should be rejected as non-responsive to the bid. Whether they had complied with the full dictates of the bid requirements was potentially at issue as well. While the initial bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for formal hearing, the parties continued to attempt to resolve the issues. It was apparent that the bidders had not submitted identical proposals. How the proposed products had been compared and evaluated was difficult to determine. From the Respondent's committee members came the disclosure that the decision of determining whether the bidders had complied with the bid ultimately came from three fashioned questions. If the structure proposed was pre- engineered, relocatable to various sites, and suitable for educational purposes, the entry was deemed responsive. Based upon this assessment the Petitioners and the Intervenor were deemed responsive and their bids ranked based upon price. This approach did nothing to discern if the designs were comparable in quality, if they met the bid design criteria, or if the drawings were even sufficient to comply with the dictates of the bid. The first posting of the bid award for Group A1 was entered March 18, 2003. On March 21, 2003, the Petitioners timely filed their notices of intent to protest the award of Group A1 to the Intervenor. Thereafter they timely filed the petitions to protest the award and the initial protest was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The protests did not encompass Group A2 or Group B. No bidder protested the proposed awards for Group A2 or Group B. In fact, the Respondent went forward on those procurements and awarded contracts for those groups on April 1, 2003. The Respondent did not award the contract award for the Group at issue in this proceeding. It must be noted that the instant procurement is not the Board's first experience with the procurement of concrete relocatable classrooms. In fact, the Board has purchased similar structures through a procurement contract that the Palm Beach County School Board holds with its vendors. One of the Respondent's concerns when the instant bids were reviewed was why the cost per unit for the bids in this case was higher than the Palm Beach County amount. As it turned out, the installation economy of multiple units at one site directly impacts the cost of the relocatable structures. Royal confirmed this information after the bids had been opened. When the Respondent's staff met with its counsel in preparation for the initial bid dispute (before the Board elected to reject all bids) the cost of the bid, the lack of full evaluation of the bidders' proposals, and the issues of the first protest were openly discussed. By that time any irregularities with the bid documents could not be repaired as to the contracts already awarded, but as to the instant matter the Respondent could revisit the circumstances and determine its best course. As a result of that reassessment, the Respondent elected to reject all bids regarding this group and attempt to re-bid the procurement with more certain terms. To that end on May 9, 2003, the Respondent issued a revised bid decision that provided in pertinent part: The Facilities and Construction Management Division intends to recommend that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, at the School Board meeting on June 3, 2003, reject all bids received for Group A1 and authorize revising the bidding documents and re-bidding. The rejection of all bids received for Group A1 is made due to serious flaws and ambiguities contained in Document 00200 4.01.A-6 as modified by Addendum No. 3. The Division intends to revise the bidding documents to delete the requirements that bidders submit plans with the bids; include ranges of unit quantities within the bid form; include one or more additional types of construction of the classroom buildings including a composite concrete/steel structure; and incorporate within the new Invitation to Bid all revised terms and conditions that were released through addenda in this procurement. The Petitioners timely filed protests regarding this new decision by the Board and the instant action ensued. By issuing the revised decision to reject all bids the Respondent intended to resolve all issues and to cure the perceived problem with the lack of consistent evaluation of the bidders' proposals. More specifically, the Respondent would be able to assure that the project design could comport with the specifications sought; specify whether architectural or engineering drawings were required and when (it was hoped that the confusion over "architect" vs. "engineer" could be eliminated); and obtain a substantial discount based upon economies from multi-unit purchases for a single site. None of the objectives sought were pre-textual or contrived. Additionally, by avoiding any process that would require a detailed reviewed of the bidders' proposals, countless man- hours could be saved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a Final Order affirming the decision to reject all bids in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November 2003 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Usher Larry Brown, Esquire Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A. 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Orlando, Florida 32801 Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esquire Schwarzberg & Associates Esperante, Suite 210 222 Lakeview Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas R. Shahady, Esquire Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the bid for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Lease No. 590:1871 to provide office space in Dade County, Florida, should be awarded to either Petitioner or Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Robert Litowitz (hereinafter "Litowitz"), in response to an invitation to bid advertised by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"), timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property located at 11401 SW 40th Street (also known as Bird Road), Miami, Florida. This lease was to be for a five-year term with two one-year renewal options. The net square footage for the lease required by HRS was 14,781 + 3 percent with the geographical boundary designated by the invitation to bid being described as follows: All bid should be for existing office space located within the following boundaries: On the North, S.W., 48th Street. On the South, S. W., 88th Street. On the East, Palmetto Expressway, and on the West, S.W., 117th Street. This description contained an error in that the western boundary line should have been 117th Avenue not 117th Street. This minor discrepancy was noted at both of two pre-bid conferences conducted by HRS. The Intervenor, James C. Colross (hereinafter "Colross"), also timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property described as Building "B," 9495 Sunset Drive (Southwest 72nd Street), Miami, Florida. Prior to the bid opening date, February 17, 1987, employees of HRS conducted two pre-bid conferences. At these conferences the bid package was reviewed and explained to all potential bidders present. Litowitz attended the pre-bid conference held the last week in January 1987. At this pre-bid conference Litowitz received the bid package and advised employees of HRS that he would be submitting property located on Bird Road for consideration for lease No. 590:1871. Linda Treml was the HRS employee who served as the contact person for the bid for Lease No. 590:1871. Ms. Treml conducted the pre-bid conferences and answered questions from potential bidders regarding the bid submittal forms. Several months earlier, perhaps during the summer 1986, Litowitz had met with Linda Treml regarding the possible lease of the Bird Road site, Ms. Treml had advised Litowitz that, at that time, HRS was not looking for space but that Litowitz would be added to their mailing list for future bid opportunities. Ms. Treml toured the Bird Road property with Litowitz as a courtesy visit for his inquiry. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required the proposed space be in an existing building. "Existing" was defined to specify the entire space to be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage. Both the Colross and the Litowitz properties met this definition for an existing building at the time of the bid submittals. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required a minimum of 90 parking spaces to include a minimum of 80 full size spaces and 4 spaces meeting the Standards For Special Facilities For Physically Disabled found in Chapter 130-1, Florida Administrative Code. The required parking spaces did not have to be reserved for the exclusive use of HRS. Colross offered 62 exclusive spaces on site with 50 additional exclusive parking spaces located one block from the proposed facility. The Colross site plan for Building B (the bid property) established over 90 non-exclusive parking spaces available on site. The Litowitz property also had 90-plus non-exclusive parking spaces on site. HRS requested a clarification for the 50 exclusive spaces offered off-site by Colross. The verbal clarification was reduced to writing to confirm such spaces, if needed, would be at no cost to HRS. This written confirmation was not issued until March 31, 1987. HRS established a bid evaluation team to review the bids submitted for Lease No. 590:1871. This team, comprised of Janet Robinson, Dorea Sowinski, and Grace 0abolish, visited both the Litowitz and Colross properties. Subsequent to the site tours, they met in a conference room at Janet Robinson's office to discuss the bid evaluation process. This team was to make a recommendation as to which bid was the lowest and best. The recommendation was to be made based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the bid submittal form. No other criteria were to be employed by the evaluation team. HRS has no guidelines which specified how each team member is to apply the evaluation criteria. The team recommendation would then be reviewed by George Smith and his superiors. Linda Treml advised the evaluation team not to consider the Litowitz property because it was outside the geographical boundary established by the invitation to-bid. The Litowitz property located on Bird Road is, in fact, outside of the advertised boundaries. The bid advertisement required the property to be considered for Lease No. 590:1871 to be within the stated geographical area. HRS did not, by act or omission, encourage Litowitz to prepare and submit a bid for a property known to be outside the defined boundary. HRS did not advise Litowitz that a property outside of the defined boundary would be disqualified. The bid evaluation criteria assigned a weighing value of 10 percent to the proximity of the offered space in the central or preferred area of the map boundaries. Litowitz mistakenly concluded that even though his property was not within the boundaries that he would lose only the 10 percent weighing factor when his property would be evaluated. HRS did not, by act or omission, affirm this erroneous interpretation. Because the Litowitz property was not within the defined geographical boundary, HRS disqualified the Litowitz bid. Accordingly, the Colross bid was the only bid left for consideration and was selected for Lease No. 590:1871. The interested parties were notified of this selection on or about March 19, 1987. The Colross bid included a higher rental fee than the Litowitz bid. HRS rejected a third bid for Lease No. 590:1871 submitted by Brookhill Capital Resources (hereinafter "Brookhill") since it was missing certain documents which had to be submitted by the time of the bid opening. The Brookhill bid included a lower rental fee than the Litowitz bid. The Brookhill property was within the advertised boundary. HRS selected the Colross property and deemed it the lowest and best bid since the Litowitz and Brookhill properties had to be disqualified. Members of the bid evaluation team preferred the Colross property for Lease No. 590:1871. HRS did not waive the boundary requirement for Lease No. 590:1871. Employees of HRS completed a bid synopsis which listed data on all three bidders for lease no. 590:1871 even though two of the bidders, Litowitz and Brookhill, had been disqualified, HRS reserved the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection would be in the interest of the State of Florida. Janet Robinson as the managing administrator of the disability determination office set the geographical boundaries for the invitation to bid. The boundaries were established in consideration of the needs and desires of the employees of the disability determination office.
