The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's or Department's) proposed action to award a contract to Couch Construction, L.P., is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (Department) issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for road resurfacing on State Road 10/US 90 in Columbia County, Florida; Financial Project No. 208406-1-52-01 (The Project). Four companies submitted responses to the ITB. Couch was low bidder at $2,271,354.81, and Petitioner was second low at $2,278,263.07. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway resurfacing. The price proposal specifications stated in pertinent part: Item Number 2102-10. . .Approximate Quantity. . . 4,320.00 hours Item Number 2102-74-1 . Approximate Quantity . . .75,780.00 each day Item Number 2102-99 . . Approximate Quantity . . . 720.00 each day None of the bidders filed a timely objection to the price proposal specifications. Article 2-6, of the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction states: A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alternations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by the Department to determine whether the bid was mathematically and/or materially unbalanced. The Department's Preliminary Estimates Engineer conducts an unbalanced review of the bids to determine if the bids are mathematically unbalanced. A bid is considered to be mathematically unbalanced if the prices quoted are significantly different from the approximate cost of the item to the contractor. It is very common for bids on construction projects to contain some item prices that are mathematically unbalanced. Bid prices that are mathematically unbalanced are considered by the Department to be non-material irregularities if they do not affect the order of the bidders. In determining whether a mathematically unbalanced price is material, the Department follows a policy set out by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Department has been following the same policy since at least 1992. The FHWA does not allow for materially unbalanced bids to be accepted by the Department on projects that are federally funded. A materially unbalanced bid is one in which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the ultimately lowest cost to the Department. The Department has developed an Unbalanced Program Logic for its computer analysis of the bids. The program flags the items that are mathematically unbalanced. It flags the item with an "A" for those items that are above the tolerance window, "U" for under the tolerance window, and "F" as front-loaded items. The flagged items which are short-listed by the computer program are sent to the designer of record to verify the quantities and to verify whether the correct pay item was used. The designer of record verified that the quantities were correct for this Project. As part of the bid review, the Department does a statistical average or mean average for each of the bid items. A standard and a-half deviation either side of the mean is established. The bid items outside that standard and a-half deviation, positive or minus, are discarded. The remaining bid items are re-averaged and this second average is referred to as the "serious average." A front-end loaded item is an item for which work is performed early in the contract. Mobilization is considered a front-end loaded item. Couch's Mobilization item 2101-1B was flagged by the computer analysis. The Department did an analysis of the Mobilization item. The Department started with the difference between Couch's bid and the Petitioner's bid on this item, $18,0000.00. That amount was multiplied by the current interest rate, 10 per cent, and then multiplied by a factor of .5, which spread it over half the contract, times 180-day contract period divided by 365, one calendar year. The result was $434.84, which represents the potential advantage that could result from paying the $18,000.00 amount early in the contract. That amount, $434.84, did not materially unbalance Couch's bid. The three items identified by Petitioner as unbalanced (paragraph 3, above) were low and did not present any detriment to the Department. If those three items overran at the rate established, it would be an advantage to the Department. In evaluating unbalanced bids, the Department follows the guidance in a May 1988 memorandum from the FHWA, which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price, the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is materially unbalanced such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, the Department compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, the Department's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by the Department to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. The Department also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in the Department's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the Department for the project. In this case, Couch and Anderson submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. Couch's unit price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $0.25/hour. The Department's average price for the off-duty law enforcement item was $25.22/hour. The Petitioner's quotation for off-duty law enforcement was $26.00/hour. The Department's computer analysis of Couch's bid flagged the off-duty law enforcement item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Petitioner for the off-duty law enforcement item was not unbalanced, and therefore was not flagged for further review by the Department. The same analysis was applied to the barricades and variable message sign items, with similar results. The Department also did an in-depth review of item 2101-B, Mobilization, for front-end loading. The result of that analysis was that, as a result of front-end loading, there was the probability of increased cost to the Department of $443.84. This small increase in the cost to the Department was not large enough to change the order of the bidders. Therefore, it was not a materially unbalanced item. The Department then made a more in-depth review of the three mathematically unbalanced items in Couch's bid and determined that none of those items were materially unbalanced, because none of them had the potential to increase the cost to the Department and none of them had the potential to change the order of the bids. In sum, the Couch bid was not materially unbalanced. The evidence in this case is insufficient to support a basis for rejecting the Couch bid.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation issue a final order in this case dismissing the Petitioner's Formal Protest and Request for Hearing; denying all relief requested by the Petitioner; and awarding the subject contract to the Intervenor, Couch Construction, L.P. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1999.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1994, the Respondent received and opened bids for its Project No. HSMV 92044000, Repairs, Art Sutton Drivers' License Office, Miami, Florida (the Project). The bid specification documents (the Specifications) for the Project included requirements for a Base Bid and for specific alternate proposals with respect to three defined items of alternate work. Section 01100 of the Specifications stated that "[a]ll Alternates described in this Section are required to be reflected on the Bid Form as submitted by the bidder." Part 2 of that section provided: ALTERNATE NO. 1 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the removal of existing window units and the installation of new units as indicated in plans and specification Section 08520. ALTERNATE NO. 2 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the provision of communications conductors see specification Section 16400. ALTERNATE No. 3 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the installation of all landscape materials as indicated on plans and as per specification Section 02960. Also included in the Specifications as Exhibit 4 was a Proposal Form. The Specifications required each bidder to submit this form in triplicate on the bidder's letterhead. With respect to alternates, the Proposal Form required: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ The Respondent's architect received four bids on August 31, 1994. As recorded on the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation, three bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates, as well as a Base Bid. The Bid Tabulation shows that two bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates and included the alternate prices in their Base Bids. The Petitioner provided specific prices for the three alternates, but excluded the alternate prices from its Base Bid. The fourth bidder provided a specific price for only one alternate and excluded that alternate price from its Base Bid. (The fourth bidder was disqualified as non-responsive for failing to submit prices on all three alternates.) In pertinent part, the Petitioner's proposal read: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications: Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct . . . $4,400.00 Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct . . . $1,158.00 Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct . . . $2,084.00 These Alternates were in addition to the Petitioner's Base bid of $204,322.00. The proposal form submitted by the Petitioner comports with Exhibit 4 to the Specifications, which was the mandatory Proposal Form. On August 31, 1994, William Phillip Austin, Peitioner's President, wrote the architect: Per our telephone conversation this date regard- ing the confusion relating to the Add/Deduct for Alternates 1, 2 and 3 for the above project, please be advised that our base bid did not include the work described in the Alternates. As stated if you want work described in Alternates 1, 2 and 3, you must add the cost to our base bid. The base bid including Alternates 1, 2 and 3 would, therefore, be $211,964.00. If we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Respondent's architect completed and submitted the bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation to the Respondent in early September. The document clearly discloses the amounts of each bidder's Base Bid and Alternate proposals. Using plus (+) and minus (-) signs, the Bid Tabulation further shows each bidder's method of calculation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent had any problem in evaluating the bids and identifying the lowest bidder. The Petitioner was the lowest bidder on any combination of base bid plus or minus any or all alternates. Subsequently the Petitioner received a NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION dated October 4, 1994. The Notice informed the Petitioner that the Respondent "has recommended that the contract be awarded to your firm in the total amount of $211,964.00, accepting the Base Bid and Alternates #1, #2 & #3. The Administrator of Contracts Design and Permitting, Division of Building Construction, Department of Management Services, State of Florida will consider this recommendation." Larry R. Coleman, Construction Projects Administrator, signed the letter. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt. A representative of the second lowest bidder, Kalex Construction, then contacted the Respondent, complaining of the Award Recommendation. The grounds for the Kalex complaint are not in the record. However, on October 14, 1994, H. R. Hough, the Respondent's Contracts Administrator, sent the Petitioner a letter "to notify you of the State's decision to reject all bids on the above referenced project due to ambiguities in the specifications." Mr. Hough's reasons for the rejection are "other than those stated by the protestor," Kalex. The Respondent's Rule 60D-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, states: Determination of Successful Bidder. All projects except where competitive bidding is waived under the provisions of Rule 60D-5.008 will be publicly bid in accordance with the provisions in the project specifications bidding documents. Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder, determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents, that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract, taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Under the above-quoted rule, the Respondent compares bids beginning with the lowest "base bid." The Respondent is of the view that for this comparison to be fair and equal, all bidders must include the same scope of work in the "base bid." The Respondent does not interpret the above-quoted rule to allow deductive alternates from some bidders and additive alternates from others. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, the Respondent's interpretation and application of the above-quoted rule is erroneous.) The Specifications contain some ambiguous and inconsistent language regarding whether alternates should be treated as additive or deductive. The ambiguous and inconsistent language did not provide any bidder with an advantage or a disadvantage, nor did it otherwise affect the fairness of the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order in this case awarding a contract for the subject project to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: This is primarily a statement of position and is addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 2 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. Third sentence is accepted as an accurate statement of how Respondent has been interpreting the subject rule, but is not accepted as constituting a correct interpretation of the rule. Paragraph 8: Rejected as misleading and confusing because the "scope of work" to be performed under the contract can only be determined after the Respondent decides which alternates to include and which to exclude. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esquire Armstrong & Mejer Suite 1111 Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) 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 buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading 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 24th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The College realized that it needed a new telecommunication system about three years ago, when it began to renovate some of its buildings. On June 8, 1992, the College issued an Invitation To Bid, No. 3656, to eight vendors to replace its fifteen-year-old AT&T Dimension Private Branch Exchange (PBX) System and install a voice and data communications network among the College's four campuses. The bids were to be opened at 2:30 p.m. on July 29, 1992. The College believed replacement of the existing PBX system would result in lower operating costs, permit the system to serve more functions and permit the system to expand as the College's needs grew. Two vendors, NEC and AT & T, submitted bids. The College already has gone through two prior bids for the new PBX system, which did not result in contracts with any of the bidders. AT&T had submitted a bid in response to each of those attempts to let a contract for replacement of the College's communications system. The process of developing the bid specifications was initiated by the College's Vice President for Business Affairs, Dr. Clinton Hamilton, who asked those who would be using the communications system (the Registrar, the Learning Resources Department, the Provost, and others) to explain their needs so they could be incorporated in the new system. He also asked College employees familiar with information systems and telecommunication systems to help draft the bid documents to incorporate the functions the users desired. The College received assistance from a committee made up of representatives of the State's Department of General Services, Division of Communications; the State Department of Education; Miami Dade Community College; Nova University; and the School Board of Broward County. These groups reviewed the proposed bid specifications before each of the College's three attempts to let a contract and advised the College on them. The College made a careful effort to craft its specifications to ensure it would purchase the most appropriate communications system for its needs. The College currently has separate and independent voice and data communications systems. For data, each of the College's locations (South campus, Central campus, North campus and the College's administrative center in Fort Lauderdale) use more than one data circuit (AT&T Exhibit 5; Bid page D-1). For example, the eight controllers at the South campus are connected to the Fort Lauderdale Center by a pair of data circuits. The 15 controllers at the Central campus are linked to the Fort Lauderdale Center by four data circuits. If the controllers associated with one data circuit should go down for some reason, those connected to the other data circuits at campus will continue to operate, and the campus will only suffer "partial paralysis." The bid at issue seeks a single "voice and data T-1 network" to link each of the campuses to Fort Lauderdale Center in a unified system, which eliminates the need for separate voice and data systems. The new system is designed so that controllers at each campus will communicate with the mainframe computer at Fort Lauderdale Center through T-1 trunk lines, the same lines connecting the voice telephone system at each campus. Each campus will have its own PBX system, and the T-1 lines will allow users at each campus to place telephone calls to extensions at all campuses internally, i.e., without leaving the College's own network. They can also use the local Southern Bell network to place calls if all internal lines are in use, just as the Southern Bell network is used to place calls to numbers outside the College's campuses. Connection of the voice system (the PBX equipment) and data terminals at each of the College's three campuses to the Fort Lauderdale Center requires the use of multiplexors, devices which improve efficiency in networks by concentrating and combining signals and switching them over connecting links (i.e., the T-1 circuits) to other locations or devices. The bid solicitation document requires a multiplexor known as a "40- Series" multiplexor at each campus to perform the concentrating and combining role. The bid solicitation document also specifies a single multiplexor of a more complex type, a "45-Series" multiplexor, at the Fort Lauderdale Center. This multiplexor performs the switching function to redirect signals from one location to another. The bid solicitation document instructs bidders to supply a Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a type of software to operate the hardware components. Comsphere is manufactured by a wholly owned subsidiary of AT & T, known as "AT&T Paradyne." This software manages the entire network, and allows remote troubleshooting of any problems on the network, Comsphere's system can automatically dial out to the AT&T Paradyne Center in Largo, Florida, so that a technician can investigate and often solve problems without the need to send anyone to a campus to perform maintenance. On July 7, 1992, the College held a bidders conference to explain the bid documents and their requirements, in order to insure that the bids the College received would be accurate and complete. During that conference, the vendors were told: (1) any price corrections must be initialed or the bid would be disqualified; (2) all pages of the bid documents which contain signature lines had to be signed; (3) bidders could not modify the general conditions or special conditions of the bid documents; and (4) any questions about the specifications would be answered only by written addendum. The same instructions can be found in text of the bid solicitation document (AT&T Exhibit 4). The College issued Addendum One to its bid documents on July 9, 1992, Addendum Two on July 14, 1992, and Addendum Three July 22, 1992. Addendum Two is the source of the dispute here. As is the College's practice, all bids were opened publicly after the hour for the receipt of bids had passed on July 29, 1992. Each bid submission had two parts. The first was a bid summary sheet containing a required format for the vendor's price. The second part of the submissions were bound volumes explaining how the vendor would satisfy each of the specific requirements in the bid specifications. During the bid opening, a College employee opened the sealed envelopes containing the vendor's bid summary sheet, and read aloud the prices found on each bidder's summary sheet. Page 13, paragraph 19.6 of the Bid Specifications told bidders that the bid summary sheets must recite the total bid price for the entire system, which had to include any upgrades to the standard features of the vendor's equipment so that the equipment provided would meet the College's specifications. When the bids were opened, representatives of AT & T, AT&T Paradyne, and NEC were present. As the bid summary sheets were opened and the prices announced, no one from AT&T objected to the prices read out or contended there was an error in AT&T'S pricing. The College's Director of Purchasing, Janet Rickenbacker, and the senior buyer handling the acquisition, Susan Kuzenka, then reviewed the extensive responses to the specifications submitted by the two bidders. They determined that NEC was the low responsive bidder. The amount AT&T bid based on the bid summary sheet found in its sealed bid was $1,558,836.57, NEC's bid was $1,549,895.15. 1/ After the bid opening, Mr. Zinn of AT&T had two conversations with Ms. Kuzenka about the AT&T bid. These conversations focused on the conflict in the entry for system maintenance on the bid summary sheet for AT&T which had been opened and read aloud on July 22, 1992, and the backup data for the system maintenance figure found in a section of AT&T'S bid response documents. On the bid summary page, AT&T had listed its "four-year maintenance totals M[onday] through F[riday] 8 a.m. through 5 p.m." as $755,536.16. But on page 53 of its bound bid response, AT&T listed the "total maintenance" cost as $530,204.00. This lesser figure is consistent with other maintenance price information found on page 61 of the AT&T bound bid documents, which set out total monthly maintenance costs for Monday through Friday maintenance from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for all four college locations as $11,045.92 per month. If this monthly figure is multiplied by the maintenance term (48 months) the sum is the $530,204.00 shown on page 53. During his first conversation, however, Mr. Zinn told Ms. Kuzenka that the higher figure of $755,536.16 was correct, because AT&T had neglected to add in the maintenance for the AT&T Paradyne multiplexor in the entries in the bound bid documents at pages 53 and 61. During a second conversation, Mr. Zinn reversed his position and indicated that he had added the maintenance for the multiplexor twice, which resulted in an erroneously high figure of $755,536.16 on the bid summary sheet, and that the $530,204 figure on page 53 was correct. One week after the bid opening, on August 5, 1992, AT&T sent a fax letter to Ms. Kuzenka, which confirmed Mr. Zinn's second conversation, and stated that the correct maintenance price was the $530,204.00 found on page 53 of the AT&T bid, rather than the $755,536.16 figure found on its bid summary sheet. Ms. Kuzenka had not asked anyone from AT&T to submit this price change to its bid, and it was not accepted by the College, under its standard policy that price changes will not be accepted once a sealed bid has been received and opened. The College has consistently adhered to this practice through the entire term of Ms. Kuzenka's employment. While a lower maintenance price can be found in one portion of the voluminous response of AT&T to the Bid Specifications, the figure on the bid summary sheet controls. See the "Special Instructions" found at page 5 of the bid solicitation documents (AT&T Exhibit 4). A bidder should not be permitted to look for ambiguities in the supporting documentation to contradict clear entries of price components found on its bid summary sheet. Use of the bid summary sheet permits the College to rely on a specific portion of the bid submission, which will be comparable from bidder to bidder, and to avoid wading through voluminous and perhaps internally inconsistent submissions to try to determine exactly what the bidder's price is. The "Special Instructions" state: "Bidder must use bid pages provided by the College and submit bid in the order issued; failure to do so will result in rejection of your bid" (AT&T'S Exhibit 4). Over and above the maintenance price differential, the College staff found the submission by AT&T to be materially non-responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Ms. Kuzenka found five problems with the AT&T submission, which led her to conclude that the response submitted by AT&T failed to meet the bid specifications: (1) AT&T qualified or modified the terms and conditions of the specifications; (2) price corrections were not initialed by AT & T; (3) the maintenance contract was partially assigned to another vendor; (4) the bid was not signed by AT&T on all pages which have required signature lines; and (5) AT&T failed to provide a qualification statement. Modification of terms and conditions The College's bid document stated in paragraph 54.1 that the terms and conditions of the bid and purchase order constitute the contract and "no other terms and conditions apply" (Tr. 157). The maintenance agreement, titled "Product Agreement," which is appended to the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan is a standard AT&T form (College Exhibit 6). It contains a provision in paragraph 20G., which states "THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LOCAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY" (emphasis in original). The general conditions of the bid required that the contract be governed by Florida law (Tr. 152). AT&T argues that the standard product agreement it attached to its bid response had not been signed by a representative of AT & T, and that the College had the right to accept or reject the terms of the Service Offerings and Support Plans and the attachments to it. This is true, but the inclusion in its bid response of the New Jersey choice of law provision certainly creates an ambiguity over the applicable law, if AT&T'S bid were accepted. This ambiguity would be completely avoided had it not been proposed by AT & T, in contravention of the bid's general conditions. Paragraph 2 of the Product Agreement states "Terms and conditions on any non-AT&T order form shall not apply." Fairly read, AT&T was attempting to have its duties under its standard Product Agreement governed by the laws of New Jersey, not the laws of Florida. As a matter of sovereignty, Florida agencies do not subject themselves to foreign law. The College acted within its legitimate range of discretion when it rejected the choice of law provision as inconsistent with its bid documents. The same problem is caused by similar language in paragraph 12F of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The AT&T Product Agreement also has an integration clause, Paragraph 20H, stating that it constitutes the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes any other oral or written agreements. This provision also attempts to modify the terms and conditions of the bid specifications to give the terms of AT &T's Service Offerings and Support Plan priority over the specifications. The College was entitled to reject this as inconsistent with the bid specifications. The same problem is presented by similar language in paragraph 12G of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The Service Offerings and Support Plan also contained a provision allowing AT&T to assign the agreement, which violates the anti-assignment provisions of paragraph 56.1 of the bid specifications. AT&T'S bid response stated that the College would be required to pay the cost for installing any additional cable. The bid specifications required vendors to inspect existing facilities at the College during a pre-bid walk- through, so that bidders could determine whatever cabling would be needed, and incorporate all necessary cable in their bid price. AT&T'S attempt to make the College liable for any cabling over and above that estimated by AT&T when submitting its bid is inconsistent with the bid specifications. The AT&T submission includeds a statement that the College was obligated to pay for the cost of a site survey to be performed by the project manager before the execution of the contract. Yet a site survey had already been performed, and the bidder's price was to have been inclusive of a total system, with no additional cost to the College for items such as surveys. Finally, the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan required the College to provide, at the College's expense, a secured and protected area for storage of tools and equipment near the equipment room, which was not part of the bid specifications. At the walk-through, AT&T should have determined whatever its security needs were and included those costs in its bid price. In essence, AT&T submitted preprinted forms without tailoring them to the carefully crafted requirements of the College's bid specifications. It cannot now disavow the contents of its forms which violate or fail to conform to these specifications. The time to review the company's standard forms was before they were submitted in its bid response, not afterward. Price correction There is a price correction on page 48 of the AT&T bid which is not initialed. The bid specifications require that "all corrections, manual or written or white-out must be initialed by the person signing the bid" (Bid Specifications, page 63, paragraph C). This was not done. The specifications stated "Failure to initial price corrections will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 2). Assignment provisions There was also confusion in the AT&T bid arising from the attachment of two proposed maintenance agreements, one from AT&T itself, another from AT&T Paradyne. The two maintenance contracts are not identical. 2/ College personnel believed that one contract was for part of the equipment, while the other contract was for another block of equipment. The College had been concerned about the difficulty in having to deal with different companies; it had drawn its specifications so that the bidder would be the single entity responsible to the College for maintenance. The submission of a proposed maintenance contract from an entity other than the bidder was inconsistent with the bid specifications. Signature Not all pages with signature lines had been signed by AT&T'S representative. These included page D1, which had a bearing on the equipment allowance being provided for the existing system traded in by the College. While AT&T regards these failures as trivial, the College went to pains to require bidders to sign pages with signature lines. Page 5 of the Bid Specifications stated: "Failure to sign all pages with a signature line will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 3). It is not arbitrary for the College to insist that these requirements be followed or to enforce the penalty stated in the specifications. Qualifications statement The special conditions for the bid required that vendors submit a qualifications statement listing similar work done for others (Tr. 168; Bid Specifications Section 25.1 at page 25). The College intended to consult those listed to determine whether they were satisfied with the equipment the vendor installed and the service it provided. AT&T did not provide that list, but rather provided an annual report which contains no customer references. This was not responsive to the bid. The College had experience with AT&T'S fifteen- year-old Dimension system, but not with the new equipment AT&T bid. The failure to submit the qualifications statement deprived the College of the opportunity to check with entities which had purchased the equipment AT&T had bid, something it had been careful to require of bidders. Deciding how to treat these inadequacies is a matter of discretion. Staff recommended rejection of the AT&T bid for genuine instances of noncompliance with specific requirements of the bid specifications the College had carefully crafted. This action cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The College's decision The College's purchasing department recommended to Dr. Hamilton that the bid be awarded to NEC as the low responsive bidder. A bid tabulation was posted on August 7, 1992, awarding the contract to NEC and rejecting AT&T'S bid. The protest AT&T filed a Notice of Protest, and later a Formal Written Protest on August 18, 1992, which dealt with a number of technical aspects, but did not claim that NEC's rival submission failed to conform to the bid specifications. Dr. Hamilton advised the College's president that, to be fair to both bidders, an outside consultant should be retained to evaluate the issues raised by AT&T in its Formal Written Protest. This was done, and the College retained Technology Associates for $8,600 to report to the College on the issues raised by AT & T. Technology Associates found that AT&T did not meet the emergency 911 requirements outlined in the College's bid documents. Southern Bell requires that when 911 calls are made from the College, the telephone system be capable of identifying to the police dispatcher which campus, which room and which extension number originated the emergency 911 call. The consultant also found that NEC's system met this requirement. AT&T did not attempt to refute this determination at the final hearing. The consultant found that AT&T'S proposed system was "over designed," in that it included elements not required by the bid documents. AT&T argues that Addendum Two, issued on July 14, 1992, 14 days before the bid opening, was so ambiguous with respect to necessary redundancy that the two bidders were bidding on fundamentally different systems, so that the matter should be bid for a fourth time. The portion of the addendum at issue states: The College requires two additional T-1 lines; not one as previously stated, to be added to diagram D-2 to ensure redundancy. A T-1 line is to connect North Campus with Central Campus and an additional T-1 line is to connect Central Campus with South Campus. (Tr. 85) Addendum Two explains that these lines are required to "ensure the ability to redirect calls if required, enabling the system to be fully redundant" (Tr. 86- 87, emphasis added). The addendum directed only the addition of two T-1 lines. This can be done, as NEC proposed, by connecting additional T-1 lines, one from the PBX at the North Campus to the PBX at the Central Campus and the other from the PBX at the Central Campus to the PBX at the South Campus. AT&T chose to feed each of the PBX installations at the North Campus, Central Campus and South Campus first into its own additional 45-Series multiplexor (the complex multiplexor, see Finding 10 above) so that a 45-Series multiplexor will handle T-1 connections from North Campus to a 45-Series multiplexor at Fort Lauderdale center, and to a 45-Series multiplexor at Central Campus. The PBX at Central Campus, because it has its own 45-Series multiplexor, then can be connected by T-1 lines to the 45- Series multiplexors at North Campus, South Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center. The PBX at South Campus, through its 45-Series multiplexor, then can connect to the 45-Series multiplexors at Central Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center (this configuration is shown on the final page of AT&T Exhibit 5). This is a more complex way to provide the T-1 connections between North and Central Campus and Central and South Campus than the addendum required, and uses four 45-Series multiplexors rather then one. AT&T argues its more complex solution was necessary so that both voice and data systems would be redundant, thus meeting the requirement in the addendum that the system be "fully redundant." The problem with the approach taken by AT&T is that it fails to follow the language of Addendum Two. There is no reference to alternative routing or redundancy for data, the redundancy is required to redirect calls, i.e., PBX or voice components. See the final quotation in Finding 40, above. Redundancy for data transmissions, something the AT&T solution provides, was not required. AT&T'S solution is overdesigned. This is not a pivotal issue, however, because for the reasons stated in the foregoing findings, the submission by AT&T was properly rejected by College staff as non-responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. NEC is the low responsive bidder. Software certification AT&T argues in pages 16 through 20 of its proposed recommended order that the bid of NEC fails to conform to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid. AT&T had not raised the issue of whether the bid of NEC was responsive in its Formal Written Protest, and the attempt to do so at the beginning of the final hearing was rejected. As a result, this is not an issue which should have been addressed in the proposed recommended order. Nonetheless, it may be easily disposed of. The bid documents require that each bidder provide the College with a certification that the bidder: [O]wns, leases or controls the software it offers in response to this bid. If the bidder does not own the software, their certificate must include the source from which the software shall be obtained, and that the bidder has a right to sell or lease this software (Bid Specifications at 26, AT&T Exhibit 4.) The bidder also must certify that it is "eligible to maintain and support the software." (Id.) In its certification, NEC stated: NEC is the manufacturer of the NEAX2400 IMS that has been proposed to Broward Community College. As the manufacturer, we developed all software utilized on the NEAX2400. NEC owns all the rights to the software and has over 600 software engineers in Dallas dedicated to maintain and support the software. (AT&T Exhibit 4, final page) AT&T objects that this certification goes only to NEC's hardware, and does not constitute a certification that NEC has the rights to convey to the College the software necessary to operate the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a product of AT&T Paradyne. When reviewing the submissions of both bidders, the College staff found that their software certifications were equivalent. Both companies certified that they had the right to sell the software to operate the system each offered to the College. The College is entitled to rely on the certification given to it by NEC. If NEC is wrong, and does not have the right to provide the necessary software because AT&T or AT&T Paradyne will refuse to permit it to use that software, NEC may be liable in damages for failure to meet its contractual obligations to the College. NEC did not offer at the hearing evidence on why it believes it is entitled to use the software for the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, because AT&T's attempt to raise this issue had been rejected when AT&T's motion to amend its Formal Written Protest of August 18, 1992 was denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Trustees of Broward Community College awarding Bid No. 3656, the rebid of the College-wide PBX system, to NEC for a bid price of $1,549,895.15. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of March 1993.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Department of Transportation's rejection of all bids in this case meets the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact In August 1996, the Department sought bids for several road projects to be constructed in Bradenton, Florida. The projects were identified as State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6501, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. The construction project includes utility relocation work to be performed on behalf of the Manatee County, the City of Bradenton, and GTE, the owners of various utilities within the project area. In preparing for road construction projects, the Department enters into joint partnership agreements with utility owners. The agreements identify the responsibilities of the parties related to performance of utility relocation/construction work related to the road project. Essentially, the owner and Department determine an estimated cost for the utility construction which the owner places into escrow and the Department assumes the responsibility for obtaining bids for the utility work. In the event that the bid exceeds the escrowed estimated cost, the utility owner may withdraw from the agreement. Upon such withdrawal, the joint partnership agreement provides that the owner may perform the work itself or the Department can pay the amount in excess of that which the owner has escrowed. If the Department agrees to pay the "excess" cost, the utility work remains included in the bid project. If the Department does not pay the "excess," the work is performed by the utility owner in accordance with the Department's construction schedule, and is deleted from the final contract negotiated with the winning bidder. Six companies filed bids in relation to the projects at issue in this proceeding, including Gator Asphalt Co., APAC- Florida, MacKenzie E.T. Company, Westra Construction Corporation, Smith and Co., Inc., and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bid of $6,586,034.13 was the low bid submitted. The Petitioner has been properly prequalified by the Department to perform the work that is the subject of the bid at issue in this proceeding. The date upon which the bids were opened is unclear, but by October 4, 1996, the bids had been opened and tabulated. By letter dated October 4, 1996, the Department notified the City of Bradenton of the bid tabulation. Although the estimated cost of work to be performed on behalf of the city was about $400,000, the letter indicates that the total amount of the deposited escrow should be $534,160.50. The letter provided a deadline of October 10 to provide certification to the Department that the funds had been escrowed. Although the Department's letter of October 4 does not address whether the Department was willing to pay the "excess," the request for additional city funds indicates that the Department was not offering to pay the additional costs associated with the work. By letter dated October 9, 1996, the City of Bradenton withdrew its participation from the project. The city portion of the work was State Project Number 13160-6501. The Department's technical review committee met on October 9, 1996. The committee reviews bid proposals and makes a recommendation to the awards committee. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the technical review committee meeting. No one who attended the technical review committee meeting testified at the hearing. At the hearing, a witness who did not attend the meeting reviewed minutes of the committee meeting and testified as to what the minutes appeared to indicate. The minutes were not offered into evidence. The awards committee met on October 15, 1996. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the awards committee meeting. No one who attended the awards committee testified at the hearing. Despite the lack of information as to what occurred during the committee meetings of October 9 and 15, the evidence establishes that the Department made no attempt to recalculate the bid amounts after the City of Bradenton withdrawal. On November 4, 1996, the Department posted notice of its intention to reject all the bids for State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. Four bids exceeding the maximum acceptable bid established by the Department were rejected. Two bids, including the Petitioner's, were rejected as nonresponsive for failing to meet requirements related to utilization of "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" (DBE) in the project. The Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's proposed rejection of all bids. The Department requires that each bid proposal either meet specific goals for DBE utilization or include an adequate "good faith effort" package identifying the efforts made by the bidder to meet the goal. The DBE goal for these projects was 12 percent of the total bid amount. Failure to either meet the DBE goal or submit an adequate "good faith effort" package renders a bid submittal nonresponsive. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive for failing to meet the DBE requirements. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's proposal did not include an adequate "good faith effort" package. The Petitioner's bid identifies DBE participation as 11.3 percent of its total bid. The Petitioner's total bid amount included the utility work for the City of Bradenton. The Petitioner asserts that a specification set forth in the bid package requires that the Department recalculate the bid proposals by deleting the City of Bradenton work from the project. Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications issued as part of the bid package at issue in this proceeding, states as follow: The Department reserves the right to delete the bid portion of the utility relocation work from the Contract. Deletion of any utility relocation work from the Contract will require the Contract bid tabulations to be recalculated based on the remaining project quantities. According to calculations made by the Petitioner, reducing the amount of his total bid by the cost of utility work related to the City of Bradenton, results in his DBE participation rising to 11.9777 percent of the revised total. The DBE reporting form supplied to bidders by the Department states that the "[g]oal may be rounded to the nearest tenth percent," indicating that his 11.977 percent could be rounded up to 12 percent. The Petitioner asserts that the withdrawal of the City of Bradenton from the project and the rounding of the goal results in his bid meeting the DBE requirement of 12 percent. The language of Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications is applicable, not to bid proposals, but to the contract negotiated between the successful bidder and the Department. In practice, the Department has implemented this provision according to the specification language. Items specifically related to withdrawn utility relocation work are deleted from the contract negotiated with the successful bidder. The evidence fails to establish the Petitioner is entitled to recalculation of his bid proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by the Petitioner in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Brant Hargrove, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary S. Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the School Board of Seminole County's, notice of intent to award Bid No. 102589, for air filter maintenance, service, and replacement to Filter Service and Installation Corporation was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Seminole County School District is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, created by Article IX, Section 4, Florida Constitution. The powers and duties of the school board are enumerated in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The Superintendent of the Seminole County School District is a constitutional officer, whose office is created by Article IX, Section 5, Florida Constitution. The powers and duties of the Superintendent are enumerated in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The Seminole County School Board issued a call for bids for air filter maintenance service and replacement under Bid No. 102589 on September 14, 1998. Bids were submitted by Con-Air Industries, Inc., the protester, and Filter Service & Installation Corp., the apparent low bidder. The bids were opened on September 28, 1998, and were evaluated. Each bidder was determined to be a responsible bidder to the CFB. Intervenor submitted the lowest numerical bid. On October 1, 1998, Respondent's staff recommended that the CFB be awarded to Intervenor. The decision to recommend the award of the filter service Bid No. 102589 complies with the bid specifications. The instructions to bidders, as stated on the Proposal Form, direct a bidder to total lines A-C and to enter the total at line D. The instructions state that a bidder is not to include the cost as stated at lines E & F in the total. The proposal form then states that the total cost, as stated at line D shall be used to determine the apparent low bidder. The bid proposal document stated that the total of the prices stated at items A, B, and C would be used to determine the lowest numerical bid. The bid proposal document stated that the Respondent reserves the right to negotiate unit cost proposed for item E. The line D total submitted by the Petitioner is stated at $3.45. The line D total submitted by the apparent low bidder, is stated at $2.60. Intervenor submitted the lowest numerical bid. Intervenor does business under the fictitious name Filter Sales & Service. That fictitious name has been registered with the Secretary of State for the State of Florida. Filter Service & Installation Corp., and Filter Sales & Service are one and the same. The reference by Intervenor at line F to "Per Price Sheet" and the failure of Filter Service & Installation Corp. to attach a price sheet to its proposal form is not a material deviation from the requirements of the bid specifications. The total at line D is the total used to determine the lowest bidder. Filter Service & Installation Corp. is the lowest and best bid from a responsive and responsible bidder. The Petitioner followed the procedure set forth in the bid proposal document in making a determination that the Intervenor was the lowest numerical bidder. Petitioner reserved the right to reject all bids and to waive any informalities. Petitioner failed to prove that the notice of intent to award the bid to Intervenor was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent award the contract for filter maintenance, service, and replacement under Bid No. 102589 to the Intervenor, Filter Service and Installation Corp., as recommended by its staff. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hering, President Con-Air Industries, Inc. 3055 Pennington Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County Public Schools Legal Services Department 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Robert W. Smith, Esquire 430 North Mills Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32803 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County Public Schools 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid protest of Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a city pool known as the George A. Pierce Swimming Pool at the Ferran Park complex in Eustis. The pool is nearly 40 years old and is in need of renovations and repairs. Deciding to renovate the old pool and build a new one next to it, Respondent obtained plans for the intended work from Project Engineering. These plans, which are dated January 31, 1990, consist of seven pages of blue-line drawings of the site, the existing pool, a new training pool, and various details, such as gutters (Blue Drawings). The Blue Drawings formed the basis of a request for proposals that Respondent issued at some point prior to the events at issue in the present case. The offers submitted in response to the request for proposals were unsuitable because they exceeded the money that Respondent had available for the job. At this point, employees of Petitioner learned that Respondent was seeking to repair and renovate the pool. Bill West, who is responsible for sales for Petitioner, visited with Norma Showley, who is in charge of purchasing for Respondent. She showed him the Blue Drawings and informed him that the proposals that had been submitted were double the budget. Mr. West agreed, at no charge, to prepare a new set of drawings for Respondent. Ms. Showley did not agree that Petitioner's drawings would necessarily be incorporated into a new request for proposals or invitation to bid. However, Ms. Showley explained that time was critical, and she needed his drawings in a hurry. She gave Mr. West the original set of Blue Drawings for his company to use in preparing the new drawings. Mr. West asked Jack Arthur to prepare the new drawings. Mr. Arthur does estimates and drawings for Petitioner and is a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in Florida and several other states. He is also a Florida-licensed commercial pool contractor. Mr. Arthur met with Ms. Showley a few days prior to March 12, 1990. Also attending this meeting was Harvey Spears, who, although not an employee of Respondent, assisted Ms. Showley on this project. Apparently, Mr. Spears was the contractor in charge of other work in the pool area, such as the construction of a bathhouse. Working 40-50 hours over the next three days, Mr. Arthur finished the plans, which bear the date of March 12, 1990 (Black and White Drawings). Mr. West then delivered the plans to Ms. Showley. Ms. Showley discussed with the City Comission the possibility of using the Black and White Drawings instead of the Blue Drawings as the basis of a new bid solicitation. The Commission directed her not to abandon the specifications contained in the Blue Drawings, but revise them as appropriate. No decision was ever made to use the Black and White Drawings, except for the purposes expressly indicated in the later-issued invitation to bid, such as to indicate the location of the bathhouse relative to the existing pool and the details of an alternate gutter system. On April 13, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid, which was identified as Bid NO. 026-90. The invitation to bid was accompanied by the Blue Drawings and the Black and White Drawings. The text, Blue Drawings, and Black and White Drawings are collectively referred to as the "ITB." Each of the pages of the Black and White Drawings were marked "Attachment `A,' `B,' `C,' or `D."' The ITB required that the bids, which had to be sealed, were to be delivered to a certain place, where they would be opened at a specified time on May 14, 1990. The ITB provided for a "bid evaluation period" of up to 30 days after opening. Other relevant provisions in the unlabelled introductory section of the ITB include: ACCEPTABLE FORMAT--Bid format provided by "the City is the only acceptable format on which a bidder may return his bid. Bids submitted, on any other format shall be disqualified. (Any additional information relative to the bid, should be submitted on a separate format.) * * * CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION OF BID ENTRY--The City of Eustis reserves the right to allow for the clarification of questionable entries and for the correction of obvious mistakes. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS--The City of Eustis reserves the right to reject bids containing any additional terms or conditions not specifically requested in the bid/proposal solicitation. * * * AWARD--This bid may be awarded in part or whole as best serves the interest of the City. All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to all applicable ordinances of the City of Eustis. RESERVATION--The City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive minor technicalities or informalities in bids received. * * * For information regarding bid specification, contact Norma M. Showley, General Services, Coordinator [telephone number provided in ITB]. The Scope section of the ITB provides that this is a bid to provide all labor, materials, equipment, supplies and incidental necessary for the performance of all work required for the proper and professional renovation of the existing City Pool with an additive alternate for addition of a . . . training pool . . . The following are suggested methods of renovating the existing pool and constructing the new pool. Plans that differ will be considered for award if determined to be in the best interest of the City. The Scope section explains that the existing pool was built in 1951 and is a "poured-in place pool . . . with no flood inlets." This part of the ITB also informs the bidder that separate contracts have been executed for the construction of a new bathhouse, including a new chemical and filter room, and the work may be performed concurrently with the renovation of the existing pool. The bathhouse layout is shown on Attachment "A". NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. The Scope section continues with a description of the base bid and alternates. The alternates are provided "[d]ue to the time restraint involved with the funding for this project" and Respondent's desire to complete the project quickly. The Scope section of the ITB states that the base bid for the renovation of the existing pool includes replacement of the filtering system with a D.E. filter system, replacement of the circulation system, replacement of the existing guttering system with a one foot open face overflow gutter, replacement of the Marcite on the walls, and addition of underwater lighting "as per plans prepared by Project Engineering (i.e., the Blue Drawings). Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the overflow gutter system and adds a stainless steel facing overflow system as shown on Attachment "B." Additive Alternate B eliminates the recirculating system shown in the Blue Drawings and provides for a proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner. Additive Alternate 3 eliminates the D.E. filter system, as shown in the Blue Drawings, and adds a high rate vacuum sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates the underwater lighting. The Scope section of the ITB describes the base bid for the new pool, which in fact is not an additive alternate, as located west of the existing pool and having a D.E. filter system and underwater lighting. Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the D.E. filter system and adds a pressure sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates underwater lighting. The next section of the ITB is the Instructions to Bidders. Among the provisions listed under the "Submittals" subsection are: License--Bidders shall submit with the bid response a copy of their license from the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. * * * Bidder Qualification-- * * * References shall be furnished with bid response Other relevant subsections of the Instructions to Bidders section of the ITB provide: Visit to Site--The bidder/contractor shall visit the site of the work to become fully informed as to the conditions that exist and under which he/she must work, and by bidding, represents that he/she has read and understands the bid documents. * * * Evaluation and Award--Bids will be evaluated on the basis of cost, bidder's ability to perform, previous experience, experience of personnel and required completion time. It is the City's intent to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder. However, the City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive technicalities or informalities in bids received. NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. Negotiation of Contract--If deemed in the best interest of the City, the City may, either before or after receipt of bids, select one or more persons or companies and negotiate a contract for the proposed work. The decision of the City as to the firm or firms with whom the City will negotiate will be final. During the negotiations, the right is also reserved to change the plans and specifications as the City may at that time determine to be in the best interest of the City. The section of the ITB devoted to Requirements and Specifications restates the base bids and alternates set forth above in the Scope section. Under the subsection entitled, "Work and Products Not Included," the ITB lists, among other items, "Concrete decking--bleacher area, bathhouse area." Under the subsection entitled, "Description of Work--Existing Pool," the ITB includes the demolition necessary to remove the existing overflow system, install a new one, and provide a recirculation system. Under a similar subsection for the new pool the ITB provides: Provide decking around new pool to match height of existing decking, 4" thickness, 3000 psi concrete, as shown on attachment showing pool layout. Decking shall slope three inches (3") in ten feet (10') away from pool or to deck drains. Minimum unobstructed deck width shall befour [sic] feet (4'). This subsection also refers the bidder to the Black and White Drawings for the curing of the floor of the new pool. For the renovation of the existing pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, three additive alternates, and one deductive alternate. For the construction of the new pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, one additive alternate, and one deductive alternate. Two bid addenda were issued. The first concerned additive alternate 3 for the existing pool and additive alternate 1 for the new pool. This addendum adds, respectively, a vacuum sand filter (instead of a high rate vacuum sand filter) and a high rate pressure sand filter system (instead of a pressure sand filter system). The second addendum, which was accompanied by "a new bid form for prices, adds an automatic water level sensor unit, as described in the Black and White Drawings, to the base bids for the existing and new pools. For the existing pool, the addendum added alternate 4, which replaces the existing main drain with a stainless steel drain, as described in the Black and White Drawings. The Blue Drawings contain four special notes and ten general notes. The first special note is that the final location of "pool and configuration of deck to be determined by architect." The first general note is that the bathroom floors, pool deck, and first 15 feet of connecting walkway are to be concrete or other impervious material, positively drained, and slip resistant. Three unrelated items are noted in red handwriting to be "in bathhouse contract," and one unrelated item is similarly noted to be "by City." Notes on the Black and White Drawings indicate that the contract does not include pool decking around the new pool and a retaining wall beside the new pool, which is in close proximity to a lake. The new pool clearly has to be built to the elevation of the existing pool because, among other reasons, the lake contributes to a high water table in the area of the pool. In order to achieve this elevation, the construction of the decking around the new pool would require either a retaining wall (with some fill) or a larger amount of fill sloped down to the ground level. Due to the close proximity of the lake, it is not entirely clear that the latter approach would work. Even though Mr. Arthur detected inconsistencies between the Black and White Plans and the remainder of the ITB, neither he, Mr. West, nor any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Showley regarding the decking and retaining wall. Following the issuance of the ITB but before the submission of bids, Mr. West met with Ms. Showley, but the conversation involved only the replacement of the main drain and installation of the automatic water level sensor unit. Ms. Showley covered these matters by the addenda described above. They also discussed the possibility of alternate bids with one based exclusively on the Blue Drawings and one based exclusively on the Black and White Drawings. However, Ms. Showley's ability to deviate significantly from the specifications depicted in the Blue Drawings was limited by the lack of time and the earlier directive of the City Commission to revise, rather than abandon, the specifications in the Blue Drawings. Ultimately, timely bids were submitted by only Petitioner and Intervenor, ignoring one or two "no-bid" bids. Petitioner's base bid for the existing pool was $92,399. Additive alternate 1 added $22,897. Additive alternate 2 added $12,383. Additive alternate 3 added $18,500. Additive alternate 4, which was the replacement of the main drain, was included in the base bid and all alternates, even though the only alternate specifying that the main drain be replaced was Additive alternate In fact and as evident from the bid, Petitioner would not perform the job without replacing the main drain due to concerns about the durability of the existing main drain. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $2500. For the new pool, the base bid was $38,389. Additive alternate 1 subtracted $3103. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $798. Intervenor's base bid for the existing pool was $107,170. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Additive alternate 2 added $25,601. The bid was apparently incorrectly filled out. Additive alternate 2, which was the proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner, in fact was not bid, and Additive alternate 1 was bid. Additive alternate 3 added $22 927. Additive alternate 4, which called for the replacement of the main drain, added $5340, but Intervenor noted on its bid form that it did not recommend this alternative. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $3444. Intervenor's based bid for the new pool was $50,472. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $920. Intervenor also bid three "Voluntary alternates." These alternates, which were not requested in the ITB, involved variations on equipment for the existing pool. Voluntary alternate 2, which totalled $143,253, included a full stainless steel gutter with grating and a high rate pressure sand filter with automatic backwashing feature. Petitioner's base bid for both pools was $130,788. Intervenor's base bid for both pools was $157,642. Intervenor's base bid for both pools, using Voluntary alternate 2, was $193,725. Both bid packages disclosed obvious problems. Petitioner had not bid on any decking or the retaining wall and fill. Ms. Showley and Mr. Spears called Mr. West and, after confirming these omissions, asked for a price. The additional labor and materials added $13,526 for the decking and fill, but apparently not the retaining wall as the slope approach would be used around the new pool. This would have raised Petitioner's base bid to $144,314. However, Petitioner still did not address the issue of the replacement of the main drain. Based on advice from Mr. Spears, Respondent did not want to replace the main drain. The process would require cutting the bottom of the pool. Due to the pool's location, age, and type (poured-in), Mr. spears felt, and Respondent agreed, that the main drain should not be disturbed. Intervenor's bid did not include a copy of its contractor's license or references. Ms. Showley obtained this information after the bid opening. She and Mr. Spears also spoke with Harold von Weller, owner and president of Intervenor, concerning the filtration and gutter systems described in Voluntary alternate 1 and where they had been used. In response to a question concerning the 2 approximate cost of the retaining wall and decking, for the purpose of making a deduction that would facilitate comparison with Petitioner's bid, Mr. Weller wrote a letter estimating the cost of these items as $7004.43. An informal committee consisting of Mr. Spears, Ms. Showley, the architect for the bathhouse, and the City Manager, Michael G. Steerman, considered the bids and determined, after consulting with staff, that Petitioner's bid was not responsive. The City Commission met on May 17, 1990, to award a contract for the renovation and construction of the pools. Mr. Steerman recommended that Respondent reject Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to Intervenor on its Voluntary alternate 2 bid for the existing pool and its base bid for the new pool less the Deductive alternate 1. The amount of $189,361 was derived by subtracting from the Voluntary alternate 2 amount of $143,253 the sum of $3444 for Deductive alternate 1, for a net amount of $139,809 for the existing pool. The new pool net of $49,552 thus generated a total figure of $189,361. It is not entirely clear whether Respondent viewed any of Intervenor's bids as responsive. Most likely, it was assumed by staff and the City Commission that the base bid and possibly the Voluntary alternate 2 bid were responsive. Petitioner and Intervenor are responsible bidders. They are highly qualified and experienced in the construction of commercial pools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the City of Eustis enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner. ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T1285 to Intervenor Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. ("K & R").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On May 14, 2008, the Department released its bid solicitation for Contract T1285. The proposed contract was for the construction of a one-way pair through Lake Alfred, including new construction, reconstruction, milling and resurfacing, widening, drainage improvements, lighting, signalization, signing and pavement marking and landscaping on State Road 600 (U.S. 17/92). Polk County, the location of the project, lies in the Department's District 1. Qualified contractors, including Mid-State and K & R, received an electronic disk containing the solicitation, bid blank, plans and specifications for Contract T1285. The letting date for this project was June 18, 2008. Bids were to be submitted on or before that date via Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. No party submitted a protest of the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The work to be performed on Contract T1285 included the installation of limerock road base to be paid for in accordance with line item 0175, Optional Base Group 09 ("Base Group 09"). The bid documents included a set of "Supplemental Specifications." Section 6 of the Supplemental Specification was titled "Control of Materials." Subsection 6-3.3, titled "Construction Aggregates," provided as follows: "Aggregates used on Department projects must be in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-103."2 Under the heading "Developmental Specifications" is a February 15, 2008, revision to the Construction Aggregates subsection that provides: Subarticle 6-3.3 (Page 54) is expanded by the following: 6-3.3.1 Department Directed Source for Aggregates: For this Contract, obtain aggregates for use in limerock base from the following vendor: Vulcan Construction Materials LP. Upon award of the Contract, provide the vendor and the Department a schedule of project aggregate needs. Once a schedule has been provided to both the Department and vendor, the Engineer will issue written authorization, with a copy to the vendor, for the purchase of aggregates from the vendor. This authorization is required before aggregates will be released by the vendor. Pick up the required aggregate such that the project schedule will be maintained. Payment to the vendor by the Contractor will be due upon receipt of the materials pursuant to the Department's Vendor Contract No. BDH50. This rate is the unit price agreed upon by the Department and the vendor and will be made available to bid proposal holders at the time of bid at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/aggregate /aggregate.htm. The Department will make payment to the Contractor for the aggregates on progress estimates as a part of the bid unit price for the appropriate pay items. The rate is subject to change and adjustments for such changes will be made to the bid unit price of the appropriate pay items. Disputes with the vendor concerning aggregate supply will not be cause for Contract time adjustments, time suspensions or monetary adjustments to the Contract amount. The Contractor will be solely responsible for providing the necessary advance notice to the vendor and other coordination to obtain timely aggregate supply for the project. The import of Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 was that all bidders would be required to obtain the limerock needed for Base Group 09 from a single vendor, Vulcan Construction Materials LP ("Vulcan"). The winning bidder would agree to pay Vulcan in accordance with a separate contract negotiated between Vulcan and the Department. The hyperlink provided in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.13 led to a document called "Aggregate Guidance" produced by the Department's State Construction Office. The front page of the Aggregate Guidance document contained "Bidder Information" consisting of a spreadsheet setting forth the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base and limestone coarse aggregate, with the price varying depending on the date and port of delivery. Between January and June 2008, the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base from both the Port of Tampa and Port Canaveral was $16.93. The Aggregate Guidance page contained additional hyperlinks with the following titles: "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," "Aggregate Vendor Contract," "Aggregate Vendor Projects List," "Aggregate Vendor Authorization Letter," "Aggregate Vendor Contract Frequently Asked Questions," and "Aggregate Price Adjustment Sheet." Alvin Mulford is the vice-president of Mid-State who, along with his estimator, put together his company's bid for Contract T1285. Mr. Mulford testified that his company has been bidding on Department work, and that he has never before seen a provision similar to Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Mr. Mulford directed his estimator to obtain clarification from the Department, to be sure that the bidders were required to purchase the limerock base from Vulcan. One reason for Mr. Mulford's concern was the "exorbitant" rate charged by Vulcan in comparison to other vendors. The restriction to a single supplier was so abnormal, and that supplier's rate was so out of line with the market, that Mr. Mulford decided to seek guidance from the Department through the question and response internet bulletin board provided by the Department for its projects. The question posed by Mid-State was as follows: Does the contractor have to use Vulcan materials for the limerock base at a rate of $16.93 per ton as stated in the Developmental Specifications 6-3.3.1? If so from which location is the material to be picked up? Is it also true that payment to the vendor (Vulcan Materials) will be due immediately upon receipt of the materials? I wanted to clarify this issue as it is unusual for the contractor to be limited to the use of only one vendor. The Department's response was as follows: The unit rate for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Pickup locations for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Payment should be issued by the Contractor to the Vendor (Vulcan Construction Materials LP) upon receipt of the materials as defined in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Because the Department's response did no more than redirect him to the Department's website, Mr. Mulford decided to look at the website in more detail. He investigated the hyperlinks, including the Vulcan contract with the Department. When he clicked on the hyperlink titled "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," he found a document that provided as follows, in relevant part: Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage by Districts With the execution of the contract with Vulcan Construction Materials LP, contract number BDH50, Vulcan has committed to provide aggregate in the types and quantities defined in the contract (attached). The process for this contract in Districts 1, 5, and 7, is as follows: Include in the projects identified in the attached spreadsheet the appropriate special provision beginning with the July 2007 lettings. The District Specifications Engineer and District Construction Office will need to coordinate this effort. There are two special provisions for the purpose of notifying construction contract bidders of the Department's intention toward the aggregate. The first special provision is the mandatory version that will direct the bidder to obtain aggregates for the specified work from Vulcan. The second special provision provides the bidder an option to obtain its aggregates from Vulcan. * * * After these projects have been awarded, the contractor is required to notify FDOT and Vulcan a schedule of its aggregate needs for the project. After receiving this schedule, FDOT's Resident Engineer will issue written authorization to the contractor, with copy to Vulcan. This authorization is required before Vulcan will release aggregate to the contractor. Payment to Vulcan will be from the contractor. FDOT will pay cost of aggregate on progress estimates as part of the contractor's bid price for the work. The contractor is required to include in its bid price for the work the cost of the aggregate at the Vulcan rate. The Vulcan rate will be posted on the FDOT State Construction Website showing the rate. When adjustments are made to the Vulcan rate, FDOT will make adjustments in the construction contract unit price. . . . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Mulford testified that he understood the underscored language in the hyperlinked document to be a directive to the bidders and therefore a mandatory requirement of the bid specifications. He did not ask the Department for further clarification because he believed the requirement was clearly stated in the hyperlinked document. David Sadler, the director of the Department's office of construction, testified that the hyperlinked document was developed by his office to offer guidance to the districts as to the concept behind and use of the aggregate vendor contract. The document was not a part of the bid solicitation document. Mid-State's bid price was $7,429,398.44. Mid-State's price for Base Group 09 was $619,645.80, or $19.30 per square yard. This price reflected the Vulcan rate for limerock base of $16.92 plus tax and Mid-State's costs for the work associated with Base Group 09. 19. K & R's bid price was $7,370,505.24, or $58,893.20 lower than the bid price of Mid-State. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $256,848.00, based on a stated unit price of $8.00 per square yard for limerock base. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $362,797.80 lower than that of Mid-State, accounting for more than the differential between the overall bids of Mid-State and K & R. Marcus Tidey, Jr., K & R's vice president in charge of its Florida division, testified that K & R was well aware that the Vulcan price for limerock base was $16.93, and that K & R understands its obligation to pay that price to Vulcan should K & R be awarded Contract T1285. Mr. Tidey testified that at the time of bid submission, he cut K & R's bid price to $8.00 per square yard as a competitive strategy to win the contract. Mr. Tidey made a conscious decision that K & R would absorb the difference between $8.00 bid price and the Vulcan price of $16.93. Mr. Tidey testified that K & R needed to win this job in order not to have its crews and equipment sit idle during the economic downturn, and therefore decided to take all of its markup, roughly $250,000, out of the bid. He could have made the $250,000 cut on any item or items in the bid, but decided on Base Group 09 because the limerock base was a big item and therefore easy to cut by a large amount. Mr. Tidey also testified that the contract provides a $400,000 incentive payment for early completion of the job, meaning that K & R will be able to work "faster and smarter" and make up for the price reduction at the end of the job. Mr. Tidey testified that he obtained the Vulcan prices from the Department's website as instructed by Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. He did not click on the hyperlinks, which appeared to reference the contract between the Department and Vulcan and therefore was of no concern to him. The Department and K & R dispute Mid-State's assertion that the underscored language of the hyperlink set forth in Finding of Fact 15 was a requirement of the bid specifications, based on Mr. Sadler's direct testimony and the underlying illogic and unfairness of requiring bidders to seek out hidden specifications. The Department and K & R concede that if the bid specifications did in fact require the bidders to include in Base Group 09 the full costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan, then K & R's bid is nonresponsive. Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 directed bidders to the Department's webpage for the purpose of obtaining the current Vulcan rate quote. It did not instruct the bidders to investigate the hyperlinks or to assume that the information contained therein was mandatory. Absent an instruction to bidders to review the information contained in the hyperlinks, the Department could not make such information mandatory without placing less curious bidders at a competitive disadvantage. The Department had no intent to play hide-and-seek with the bid specifications in the manner suggested by Mid-State. In addition, K & R points to three line items of the bid specifications in which the Department eliminates competition, instructing the bidders not to bid and inserting a fixed unit price and bid amount for all bidders as to those items. K & R reasonably asserts that the Department was fully capable of treating Base Group 09 in the same fashion, had it intended to require the bidders to pass through to the Department all the costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan. However, the Department supplied the bid quantity (31,106 square yards) and left it to the bidders to determine the price per unit they would bid. K & R's bid was responsive. Nothing in the bid specifications prevented K & R from absorbing part of the cost of the Vulcan limerock base and passing the savings on to the Department, or required bidders to pass on to the Department the full costs of complying with the bid specifications regarding Base Group 09. The sole remaining issue is whether K & R's bid, though facially responsive, was materially unbalanced. The Department routinely conducts reviews of bid line items that appear "unbalanced," i.e., for which there appear to be significant differences between the price bid and the Department's cost estimate, in order to determine whether the price difference is due to a quantity error by the bidder. The Department's review confirms that the bid quantity specified on the bid blank is accurate. If a quantity error is found, the bids are recalculated using the bidders' unit prices and the correct quantities to determine whether the bid rankings would change. A bid for which there is a discrepancy between the bid and the Department's estimate is termed "mathematically unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid that affects the ranking of the low bid is "materially unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid is acceptable, but a materially unbalanced bid affords the bidder an unfair competitive advantage and must be rejected. The Department followed its usual procedure in analyzing the K & R bid to determine whether it was unbalanced. Philip Gregory Davis, the Department's state estimates engineer, testified that there were some unbalanced items in the K & R bid, but no quantity errors that would have changed the ranking of the bids. Richard Ryals, the project designer who conducted the unbalanced bid review, testified that the quantities were correct for Base Group 09. As noted above, K & R's low bid for Base Group 09 was an intentional strategy, not the result of a quantity error. K & R's current bonded capacity qualification with the Department is $258 million in contracts at any one time. K & R posted a bid bond, and has more than enough capacity to comfortably perform this contract. There is no economic danger to the Department in accepting K & R's low bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Mid-State's formal written protest and awarding Contract T1265 to K & R. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 9th day of January, 2009.
