Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida. KE Realty Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On February 26, 1993, the Department issued a RFP to solicit offers on the SR 7 contract. This RFP was identified as RFP-DOT-92-93-4008. Proposals submitted in response to the request were to be opened March 26, 1993, and the bid tabulations were to be posted on April 29, 1993. Four vendors submitted proposals in connection with the subject RFP: the Petitioners; Gulf Coast Property Acquisition, Inc. (Gulf Coast); The Urban Group; and Keith and Schnars, P.A. Each proposal was scored based upon four criteria: technical plan; price; certified DBE; and executive judgment. The points available for each were preset and known to all vendors. The technical plan could receive a maximum of 75 points, price could receive 20 points, and each of the other criteria could receive 5 points. Obviously, the technical plan portion was the more weighted criterion. The technical plan portion of each vendor's proposal was evaluated by a Technical Review Committee (TRC). This committee consisted of Claire Tronel, Kevin Szatmary, Steve Gonot, Lynda Parsons, Van Neilly, and Cheryl Balogh. The membership of the TRC was not kept secret and Petitioners knew, and perhaps other vendors as well, who would be evaluating the proposals. Each member of the TRC scored the proposals independently. The average of all of the independent scores for each proposal was then computed as the technical plan score. The vendors received the following technical plan scores: Petitioners a 67.42; Gulf Coast a 56.79; The Urban Group a 36.42; and Keith & Schnars a 29.71. To determine the price score, the lowest priced proposal received the maximum number of points (20). The other proposals received a fraction of the twenty points available based upon the relation of their price to the lowest price. According to the formula, Keith & Schnars received the highest price score (20), then The Urban Group (17.20), Gulf Coast (15.60), and finally, Petitioners (10.60). Petitioners received the lowest price score because it submitted the highest priced proposal. The ratio of its price with the lowest priced proposal multiplied by 20 resulted in the 10.60 score. The scores for the DBE criterion are not in dispute but were assigned as follows: Petitioners, 5.0; Gulf Coast, 5.0; The Urban Group, 0.0; and Keith & Schnars, 2.0. The TRC did not know the prices submitted with the proposals until it had completed the technical scores for each vendor. The final criterion, executive judgment, was determined by the Selection Committee which consisted of: Rick Chesser, James Wolfe, and Joseph Yesbeck. This committee considered two factors in assigning its five points. First, the vendor's ability to do the work; and second, the cost of the work. The scores for executive judgment were: 0 for The Urban Group and Keith & Schnars because their technical proposals were poor; 1 for Petitioners because, while their technical proposals were good, their price was high; and 5 for Gulf Coast. Following tabulation of all criteria scores, the vendors were ranked as follows: Petitioners with 84.02; Gulf Coast with 82.39; The Urban Group with 53.62; and Keith & Schnars with 51.71. On April 29, 1993, the Department posted the foregoing tabulation and its intent to award the SR 7 contract to Petitioners on May 3, 1993. Thereafter, allegations of impropriety and/or conflict of interest were raised by an unsuccessful vendor. The claims were: that members of the TRC had family members who were either employed by or under contract to Petitioners; that Petitioners had conversations with Department employees prior to the submission of the proposals regarding a revised Department budget for the SR 7 contract; and that an employee of the Department served as the registered agent for Petitioners. Gulf Coast met with the Department and alleged that improprieties had occurred or conflicts of interests existed that had affected the technical evaluation of the bids. Based upon the allegations, the Selection Committee decided to avoid the appearance of any impropriety and to rescind the intent to award to Petitioners and to reject all proposals submitted. The decision reached by the Selection Committee was hurried as the Department believed it was bound, by law, to reach such decision before 8:00 a.m., May 4, 1993. A complete investigation into the truthfulness of the charges was not finished prior to the imposed deadline. On May 5, 1993, the Department posted its formal notice of its intent to reject all proposals. The basis for such decision was "perceived improprieties in the selection process and possible conflict of interest." There were no actual conflicts of interest in the review of the subject proposals. Further, there were no actual improprieties in the proposal review or scoring. With regard to the allegations related to family members employed by Petitioners, no such conflict existed. Claire Tronel's husband has a contract with Petitioners unrelated to any of the issues of this case. Such contract is well-known in the industry and was known to the vendors prior to the assessment of these proposals. Further, the Department knew of such relationship prior to Ms. Tronel being selected for membership on the TRC. Mr. Tronel is not an officer, partner, director, or proprietor of either Petitioner. Nor does he have a direct or indirect ownership interest in more than a five percent of the total assets or capital stock of either company. Ms. Tronel had refrained from serving as a scoring member of earlier technical review committees because of her husband's contractual relationship. Ms. Tronel's supervisor was aware of the relationship Mr. Tronel had to Petitioners and did not consider his limited business relationship to be a conflict. Ms. Tronel was chosen to serve on the TRC because of her experience in right-of-way services, and the relative lack of experience of some of the other committee members. Before serving on the TRC, Ms. Tronel consulted with the district general counsel in order to determine whether her participation would violate Florida Statutes or the Department's ethical standards. After receiving advice and making same known to her supervisors, it was decided Ms. Tronel should serve as a committee member. The contractual relationship between Mr. Tronel and Petitioner did not effect Claire Tronel's evaluation of the proposals. In fact, if the scores assigned by Ms. Tronel to the technical plans of each proposal were subtracted from the average scores, the margin between Petitioners' technical score and the next highest score would widen. Ms. Tronel showed no favoritism or bias in favor of Petitioners. Gulf Coast did not complain about improper conflicts related to their proposal yet Michael Sheridan, the son of TRC member Linda Parsons, is employed by O.R. Colan, an appraisal firm which was listed as a subcontractor in Gulf Coast's proposal. Perhaps Gulf Coast did not complain about Ms. Parsons' membership on the TRC because Ms. Parsons' relationship to Michael Sheridan is also widely known in the vendor community. Petitioners knew of such relationship but did not dispute the accuracy or fairness of Ms. Parsons. If Ms. Parsons' score were deleted from the scoring, Gulf Coast would have received the highest score. Ms. Parsons, who is the chief review appraiser, generally serves on the technical review committee for projects which include appraisal services. Since her son became an employee of O.R. Colan, Ms. Parsons has served on technical review committees which evaluated proposals submitted by O.R. Colan and those submitted by vendors who listed O.R. Colan as a subcontractor. Michael Sheridan is not an officer, partner, director, or proprietor of either Gulf Coast or O.R. Colan and does not own, either directly or indirectly, more than five percent of the total assets or the capital stock of either company. While Ms. Parsons has been instructed not to serve on technical review committees in the future when her son is reflected as a participant in one of the proposals, she has not been instructed to refrain from participating whenever her son's employer participates in a proposal. Ms. Parsons showed no favoritism toward Gulf Coast in her evaluation of the proposals. The facts do not support even an appearance that Ms. Parsons showed any favoritism toward Gulf Coast. Ms. Tronel and Ms. Parsons did not disregard their public duties in favor of a private interest. Therefore, no impropriety by reason of their participation resulted. The Department's decision to rescind the award to Petitioners and to reject all bids was also premised, in part, on concerns regarding contacts between Petitioners and the Department employees before proposals were submitted. Petitioners contacted the Department to ask questions because during the course of preparing its proposal an issue of pricing became apparent. An inconsistency between the amounts that they were developing for the project and the amounts reflected in the Department's work program budget for the project became obvious. Because of the disparity between the Department's budget for the project and the prices that Petitioners developed, Mr. Thomas became concerned that he was misinterpreting the RFP. Mr. Thomas called the Department and spoke, first, to Van Neilly and, subsequently, to Claire Tronel about his concerns. Ms. Tronel confirmed that all services, including appraisal, were to be included in the proposals submitted. Ms. Tronel did not tell Mr. Thomas that the Department intended to revise its budget for the project, nor did Mr. Thomas tell Ms. Tronel or Mr. Neilly what Petitioners' price for the SR 7 proposal would be. Subsequently, the Department did revise its budget for the SR 7 contract by forty to fifty percent. The revised budget exceeds the price bid by Petitioners. The Department's work program budget is a public document which lists all of the projects planned by the Department for a five-year period and includes the Department's price estimate for each project. Petitioners submit bids for Department projects and normally submit proposal prices which exceed the Department's budget. Petitioners normally submit proposals which are highly ranked for their technical quality. It was not improper for Petitioners to ask the question regarding the inclusion of appraisal services and it was not improper for a Department employee to confirm that appraisal services were to be included in the project. It is common practice for vendors to call Department employees before the submittal of proposals. However, vendors are warned not to rely upon information which is not provided to them in writing. In addition, it would be improper for a Department employee to share information with one vendor, which could be advantageous to that vendor, without also providing the information to all other vendors. Petitioners received no information which gave them an advantage over the other vendors. Rick Conner is a Department employee who was, until recently, the resident agent for KE Realty Services, Inc. Mr. Conner served in this position without compensation. He was not involved in any way in the RFP or the evaluation of the subject proposals. His role as resident agent had no effect on the scoring of proposals, and was not a factor in the Department's decision to rescind the award to Petitioners. There was no evidence offered at the hearing to suggest that the relationship between Rick Conner and KE Realty gave the appearance of impropriety. Petitioners expended approximately $40,000 in the preparation of the proposal; and, if there is a rebid, will incur additional amounts to prepare a new proposal. Petitioners hired additional employees for the SR 7 contract, so that it could report in its proposal that it had the staff on hand to begin work immediately. If the SR/7 Contract is not rebid until late 1993 or early 1994, the opportunity to recoup the overhead expenses associated with these additional employees will be lost. In addition, Petitioners' ability to rebid is adversely affected by the Department's decision since Gulf Coast made a copy of the proposal and may now benefit from the technical ideas and suggestions developed by Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order awarding job no. 86100-3576/2508 for the SR 7 project to Petitioners. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. 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 17th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3034 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioners: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 through 48, 50, 51, and 53 through 61 are accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as a statement of law, not fact. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 30 is accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or comment. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 17, 21, and 22 are accepted. While paragraphs 18 through 20 accurately state the rationale expressed by the selection committee (one member of which changed his opinion after a thorough review of the facts), the ultimate facts expressed by the paragraphs (for example, that there was an appearance of impropriety) are rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Not one person from the public or from the other vendors testified. The Department took the unfounded allegation of an unsuccessful bidder (not even corroborated at trial) as proof that an appearance of impropriety existed. Paragraph 23 is rejected as argument, conclusion of law, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 27 are accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument and contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Martha Harrell Chumbler CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. First Florida Bank Building 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Background On May 6, 1988, Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), issued an invitation to bid (ITB), numbered DIT-87/88-26, whereby it sought to establish a 12-month germ contract for the purchase of Unisys personal computers, peripheral equipment and accessories. On May 9, 1988, Petitioner, Palm Beach Group, Inc., requested a copy of the ITB from the Department, and was mailed a copy of the ITB that day. Petitioner received its copy of the ITB on May 14, 1988, and filed its bid with the Department on May 19, 1988. By May 20, 1988, the bid opening date, three bids had been filed with the Department. Pertinent to this case are the bids of Unisys Corporation, which bid total unit prices of 140,792.00, and petitioner, which bid total unit prices of 16, 753.002 On May 23, 1988, the bid results were posted by the Department. The bid results revealed that the bid of petitioner had been rejected as nonresponsive to the ITB because it did not include page 13 of the ITB, and therefore did not include a bid on the 14 items listed on that page of the ITB. The bid results further revealed that the Department proposed to award the contract to Unisys Corporation. Petitioner timely filed its notice of protest and formal protest with the Department. On May 24, 1988, petitioner submitted to the Department page 13 of its bid, and proposed to supply the 14 items listed on that page at "no charge." The bid documents The ITB consisted of 18 consecutively numbered pages. Page 1 included the bidder acknowledgment form an some of the general conditions of the bid. Page 2 Included the remainder of the general conditions. Notably, page 1 of the ITB conspicuously provided that it was "Page 1 of 18 pages." Pertinent to this case, the ITB contained the following general conditions: SEALED BIDS: All bid sheets and this form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope....Bids not submitted on attached bid form shall be rejected. All bids are subject to the condition specified herein. Those which do not comply with these conditions are subject to rejection. * * * BID OPENING:...It is the bidder's responsibility to assure that his bid is delivered at the proper time and place of the bid opening. Bids which for any reason are not so delivered will not be considered....A bid may not be altered after opening of the bids... PRICES, TERMS, AND PAYMENT * * * (c) MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications, delivery schedule, bid prices, extensions and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services. Failure to do so will be at a bidder's risk.... INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No Interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006 Florida Administrative Code. Fail to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. NOTE ANY AND ALL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FRONT THESE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE. ATTACHMENTS: Special Conditions-Page 3 Bid sheets-pages 4-16 Minority Certification-Page 17 Attachment to all bids, etc.-page 18 Among the special conditions which appeared on page 3 of the ITB were the following The purpose of this bid is to obtain competitive prices per unit for the purchase of UNISYS personal computers, peripheral equipment and accessories for the Department of Insurance. * * * No substitutes or equivalents will be acceptable to the Department. The bid shall be awarded on an "all or none" basis using the low total bid price comprised of the total of all sections. Following the special conditions of the ITB appeared the bid sheets; pages 4-16 of the ITB. These sheets were divided into 10 sections: processors, displays, display controllers, keyboards, diskette drive, hard disk drives, memory, operating systems, miscellaneous devices, and lan options. Under each section the Department listed by part number and description the items that must be bid. The last page of the bid sheets, page 16, provided space to total the prices bid on sections 1-10. Notably, the following language appeared at the bottom of page 16: NOTE. RETURN ENTIRE UNIT PRICING, SECTION 1 THRU 10, PAGE 4 THRU 15 WITH THIS BID SHEET FOR EVALUATION AND AWARD PURPOSES. Petitioner did not protest the bid specifications or conditions within 72 hours after receipt of the ITB, nor did it raise any question or seek any interpretation of the conditions or specifications. The bid protest At hearing, petitioner contended that it should be excused for failing to include page 13 of the ITB in its bid and to bid those items, because such page was not included In the ITB forwarded to it by the Department or, alternatively, that its to include page 13 and to bid those items was a minor irregularity that could be cured by its submittal, after bid opening, of page 13 with an offer to supply the items on that page at "no charge." Petitioner's contentions and the proof offered to support them are not persuasive. First, the proof failed to establish that page 13 was not included in the ITB forwarded to the petitioner. Second, there was no ambiguity in the ITB. Rather, the ITB clearly provided as discussed supra, that the bid sheets consisted of pages 4-16, and that the bid sheets must be submitted to the Department for evaluation and award purposes. Under such circumstances, even if page 13 had been missing from the ITB forwarded to the petitioner, petitioner can not be excused for its failure to include page 13 and to bid the items on that page, and the Department's invalidation of petitioner's bid for such failure cannot be deemed arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. A minor irregularity? Minor irregularity is defined by Rule 13A-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code, as: ...a variation from the invitation to bid... which does not affect the price of the bid..., or give the bidder... an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders..., or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Variations which are not minor can not be waived. The items listed on page 13 of the ITB were an integral part of this bid, which was to be awarded on an "all or none" basis. Under such circumstances, the deficiency cannot be deemed minor, because it could affect the price of the bid or give petitioner an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. Succinctly, petitioner could revisit its bid after the bids had been made public and, considering how badly it wanted the contract, bid or not bid the omitted items. If it elected not to bid the items, petitioner could effectively disqualify itself and withdraw its bid. The other bidders who timely submitted their bids would not have an opportunity to revisit their bids to the Items listed on page 13 or to withdraw their bids, but would be held to the provision of the ITB that prohibited such withdrawal for 45 days after bid opening.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the formal protest filed by Palm Beach Group, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In September 1992, respondent, Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA), issued Invitation to Bid No. CF-0310-92 (ITB) inviting contractors who held certificates of prequalification to bid on Department of Transportation (DOT) projects to submit proposals for performing construction work on 1.6 miles of State Road 9A in Duval County, Florida. The contract to be awarded was the third contract of three contiguous construction projects on State Road 9A and was commonly known as contract 3. It was to be completed within twenty-four months. Essentially, the work involves the widening of that road from two to four lanes, and adding connector ramps, a median, and other associated improvements. The project is more specifically identified as project number 72002-3533. The ITB called for sealed bids to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 23, 1992, with an award of the contract to be made to the lowest responsive bidder at JTA's meeting on September 29, 1992. The ITB provided further that "the right is reserved (by JTA) to reject any and all bids." A total of six contracting firms filed bids in response to the solicitation. They included petitioner, Hubbard Construction Company (Hubbard), and intervenor, Petticoat Contracting, Inc. (PCI), both of whom were prequalified. Hubbard is a large construction firm headquartered in Orlando, Florida, and has been in the construction business for some seventy years. In 1992 alone, it bid on more than 300 jobs and did approximately $180 million in business. Conversely, PCI is a much smaller firm headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, with approximately forty-five employees. It has been in business for almost seven years and is minority (female) owned and operated. Hubbard was the lowest dollar bidder with a bid in the amount of $6,257,722.38, while PCI was the second lowest bidder with a bid in the amount of $6,270,121.43, or approximately $12,400.00 higher than Hubbard. After the bids were opened, they were evaluated by JTA's engineering consultant, Sverdrup Corporation, a Jacksonville engineering firm. Concluding that Hubbard's bid was "unbalanced" in several material respects and thus was irregular, the consultant recommended that the contract be awarded to PCI, the second lowest bidder. This recommendation was concurred in by JTA's staff and was presented to JTA at a meeting held on September 29, 1992. After a discussion regarding the bid proposals, including consideration of comments from Hubbard and PCI representatives, JTA voted to award the contract to PCI. Hubbard then timely filed its protest. In its protest, Hubbard generally contended that JTA had erroneously determined that Hubbard's bid was unbalanced, and by doing so, JTA had imposed upon Hubbard a bid requirement not encompassed within the ITB. It also contended that under the standard used by JTA, all other proposals, including that of PCI, were unbalanced. Finally, the protest argued that PCI was not actually a disadvantaged business enterprise and thus should have been required to furnish documentation concerning its compliance with minority subcontractor requirements. As to this latter contention, no proof was submitted at hearing, and thus no discussion of that allegation is required. The ITB Requirements JTA has its own set of specifications that were distributed to each of the bidders on the project. Among other things, the ITB provided that "(a)ll work is to be done in accordance with the Plans and Special Provisions, and the Standard Specifications of the State of Florida Department of Transportation." The latter reference was to the 1991 edition of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction used by DOT. Those specifications are included in the ITB because JTA must build its roads and bridges to state road specifications. In this regard, article 2-6 of those specifications provided in relevant part as follows: A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if . . . it shows irregularities of any kind; also the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. The ITB also contained an Appendix A which included supplemental specifications to accompany the DOT document. However, it did not modify article 2-6. The ITB further contained a section entitled Special Provisions which represented "modifications and additions to the corresponding Articles" in DOT's Standard Specifications and the supplemental specifications set forth in Appendix A. Again, article 2-6 was not changed but section 4-1 of the Special Provisions, which constitutes an addition to DOT's specifications, provided that all items which are constructed or installed will be paid for at the unit price bid regardless of the total quantity utilized. Unit prices shall represent the actual costs and profit earned for labor, equipment and materials used in completing the unit of work bid. Therefore, the DOT standard specifications, and specifically article 2-6, were controlling on this contract. In construing the foregoing provisions, JTA considers a bid item to be "irregular" when it is far higher or lower than the engineer's estimate and the average of the other bids. When an irregularity is discovered in a bid, a decision is then made as to whether the irregularity is material or significant in terms of its affect on the competitive process and ensuring that no bidder receives a substantial advantage over other bidders. The potential effect of any irregularity on JTA's interest is also considered in deciding whether the irregularity is material such that the bid should be rejected pursuant to article 2-6 of the specifications. In conjunction with the above analysis, JTA compares the other contractors' bids with the engineer's estimate, and if they are closely approximated, it deems the estimate to be accurate. Conversely, where the average bids and the estimate are not close, JTA concludes that the estimate may be erroneous. It is noted that the consultant relies on the DOT specifications and DOT's historic pricing methods when preparing his estimates. The ITB called for each bidder to submit a unit price for each component of work required under the contract. This required each bidder to estimate the cost for providing services for more than one hundred sixty items, including item 110-1-1 (clearing and grubbing), item 102-2 (topsoil), and item 715-91-120 (high-mast lighting poles), which items are of particular concern in this controversy. The amount of the bid upon which award of the contract was to be based equaled the sum of the prices for the listed items. Item 110-1-1 is a lump sum item, rather than work on a per unit basis, and required the contractor to clear and grub 79.489 acres of land. This work is done at the outset of the project and is generally completed within the first ninety days of the job. Item 102-2 involved the placement of 120,041 square yards of topsoil on the embankments which was to serve as a layer for seeding the grass. However, the parties agree that the contractor had the choice of using either topsoil or a muck blanket extracted from the job site through excavation. If the latter option was chosen, this would eliminate the need to procure topsoil from off-site. Even so, to avoid the possibility of a change order by the contractor, which had occurred on several earlier projects, JTA expected the contractor to estimate his actual cost for topsoil as if the topsoil was to be obtained from off-site. The final disputed item required the contractor to furnish and install fifteen 120-foot street lighting poles. Bidders were required to give a price for a single pole and then multiply that price times the estimated quantity that would be required. This work is generally completed during the last phase of the job. The Submissions As noted earlier, six contractors filed bids in response to the ITB with prices ranging from a low of $6,257,722.38 by Hubbard to a high of $6,997,656.41 by the highest bidder. Hubbard proposed to complete the job in thirteen months even though the ITB allowed twenty-four months while PCI intended to use the full amount of time. As to the three items in dispute, the record reflects the engineer's estimated cost, Hubbard's cost, PCI's cost and the average cost for all bidders excluding Hubbard were as follows: Item Estimated Cost Hubbard PCI Average costs 110-1-1 $150,000.00 $545,000.00 $176,600.00 $147,100.14 102-2 33,011.28 1,200.41 82,828.29 71,064.27 715-91-120 180,000.00 25,500.00 204,750.00 199,701.54 In preparing its bid, Hubbard assumed that the DOT standard specifications would be interpreted and supplied in conformity with DOT's historical interpretation. Therefore, Hubbard prepared its bid in the same manner as it always had, including prior JTA submissions, and this resulted in the above deviations from estimated and average costs for the following reasons. Hubbard obtained a copy of the plans and specifications approximately two weeks before the date for filing its bid and then assigned a team of estimators to prepare the numbers in the bid package. Because several items are subcontracted out, including grassing, striping and electrical work, Hubbard had to wait until the subcontractors returned their prices before it knew the actual cost of those services. As is true in almost every case, the subcontractors did not furnish their prices until the final day or hour. Hubbard was reluctant to leave those items blank until the last moment fearing it would be difficult for the persons filing the bid in Jacksonville to complete the lengthy proposal before the deadline, and an error might be made by them in their haste to change the prices on multiple items for which they received price quotations in the last hour. Accordingly, in filling out the items on which subcontractors would be used, Hubbard used its best estimate of the subcontractor prices based upon its prior experience on other jobs. However, to allow for variances that might occur between the actual subcontractor prices and the estimated prices, Hubbard left blank one lump sum item so that this item's estimated cost could be adjusted up or down at the last moment depending on the other variances. In this way, the total amount of the bid would not change. As it turned out, there were variances in twenty to thirty items which were based on subcontractor prices, with one item (high mast lighting poles) coming in substantially higher than originally estimated. As noted above, Hubbard did not change the estimated subcontractor prices but rather calculated the difference between its estimate and the actual subcontractor prices and added that number to the lump sum price for clearing and grubbing. This resulted in increasing the cost for clearing and grubbing from an actual cost of around $150,000.00 to $545,000.00 while the estimated cost for fifteen high mast lighting poles ($25,500.00) was substantially below its actual cost of more than $170,000.00. According to Hubbard, it follows this practice on virtually every bid document it prepares, including those filed with JTA, and has never had one rejected on the ground certain items were materially unbalanced. Testimony that these preparation procedures are standard in the industry and enable contractors to give the public the best possible prices by allowing for last minute changes while protecting against error was not contradicted. In preparing its topsoil estimate, Hubbard determined that the anticipated muck and subsoil excavation would eliminate the need to procure topsoil from off-site. Therefore, it proposed a cost of only one cent per square yard for adding topsoil to the embankment on the theory that no topsoil would be procured from off-site. Because Hubbard's computer would not take a zero cost, and the cost was already included in the embankment charges, Hubbard put the next lowest price, or one cent, as the cost for topsoil. The final relevant item, high mast lighting, was to be subcontracted out to a specialty contractor. Hubbard originally estimated a cost of $1,700.00 per pole for fifteen poles, or a total cost of $25,500.00. At hearing, Hubbard conceded that this estimated cost was either a mistake on the part of the person filling out the proposal or "a mistake of judgment" by an estimator, and that its actual costs were substantially higher. However, it felt that there was no disadvantage to JTA by preparing its bid in that manner. In its proposal, PCI used a cost of $176,000 for clearing and grubbing, 69 per square yard, or a total cost of $82,828.29, for topsoil, and $13,650 for each high mast lighting pole, or a total cost of $204,750.00. These estimates did not substantially deviate from the bidders' average or the engineer's estimated costs. As to the topsoil item, PCI also intended to use muck excavated from the job site in lieu of topsoil. However, it was not sure that the amount of muck excavated would be adequate, and thus it estimated the amount of topsoil that would be required if the soil was obtained off-site, added a component for overhead and profit, and arrived at a total cost of 69 per square yard. Finally, PCI's estimated cost for pile splices, mobilization, maintenance of traffic and prestressed concrete beams were unbalanced to some degree and constituted a violation of section 4-1. However, these variances were relatively minor in nature and were not material. The Evaluation Process JTA utilized the services of an outside engineering firm to serve as consultant on the project. Immediately after the bids were opened, the consultant's duties were to verify that certain basic requirements were met and that the contractor had the capacity to perform the work. He was also required to prepare a bid tabulation listing the contractors' estimates with the engineer's estimate and to determine if any irregularities were present. A recommendation would then be submitted to the JTA staff regarding the award of the contract. The staff was also required to review the bids and to make a recommendation to the JTA. During the course of his evaluation of Hubbard's bid, the consultant noted a marked variance between estimated costs for clearing and grubbing of $150,000.00 and Hubbard's price of $545,000.00, particularly since the average cost of all other bidders was $147,100.14. He next noted the proposed cost for high mast lighting poles ($25,500.00) and found it to be "extremely low" in relation to the engineer's estimated price ($180,000) and the average cost of almost $200,000.00 submitted by the other bidders. In addition, he found the engineer's estimated cost for topsoil of $33,011.28 to be much higher than Hubbard's proposed cost of $1,200.41, especially since the other bidders averaged $71,064.27. Finally, the consultant conducted a similar review of PCI's proposal, and while he found some irregularities in its bid, he did not consider them material. Thereafter, in a letter to JTA's executive director on September 28, 1992, the consultant noted that: Upon examination of the bids, it became evident that some of Hubbard Construction Company's unit prices are unbalanced. Item No. 110-1-1, Clearing and Grubbing, is a lump sum item and is one of the first pieces of work to be performed in this project. Hubbards' bid amount is $545,000.00. The engineer's estimate is $150,000.00 and the average of all other bidders is $147,000.14. Item no. 715-91-120, High Mast Lighting Pole Complete (Furnish and Install)(120'), also appears to be unbalanced. This work would be performed near the end of the contract. Hubbard's bid amount is $25,500.00. The engineer's estimate is $180,000.00 and the average of the other bidders is $199,701.54. Hubbard's bid amount will not cover the cost of the materials required of this item based on reasonable expected costs. Both of the items are in contradiction to Section 4, Article 4-1 which states "Unit prices shall represent the actual costs and profit earned for labor, equipment and materials used in completing the unit of work bid." Item 102-2, Topsoil, shows an inconsistency. Hubbard's bid amount is $1,200.41. The engineer's estimate is $33,011.28 and the average of the other bidders is $71,064.27. Based on the results of the bid review noted above, it is recommended that Hubbard Construction Company's bid proposal be considered irregular as per Article 2-6 of the Standard Specifications, and therefore rejected. A similar evaluation process was subsequently conducted by the JTA staff, and it reached the same conclusion as the consultant. Its recommendation to reject the bid of Hubbard on the ground the bid was "irregular as per Article 2-6 of the JTA Standard Specifications" and to award the contract to the second lowest bidder, PCI, was conveyed by memorandum to the JTA Highway Committee on September 29, 1992, and was approved by JTA the same date. Was the Agency's Action Arbitrary? JTA's conclusion that Hubbard's bid was materially unbalanced and irregular and thus violated article 2-6 was based on two principal concerns. First, JTA considered the adding of nearly $400,000.00 in costs to clearing and grubbing to be "front-end loading" and thus improper. This means the bid was structured so that a large amount of money, not commensurate with the amount of work actually performed, would be paid at the beginning of the project. In this case, clearing and grubbing would be completed within the first ninety days of the project yet Hubbard would receive almost $400,000.00 in excess of its actual costs to perform that work. JTA believed that this would reduce its control over the performance of the contract, it would be unfair to other bidders on the project, the money would be used to finance other portions of the work, and the possibility existed that Hubbard might not complete performance on the job after being paid the up-front money. Second, and based on what it says has happened on other jobs, JTA feared that by allowing Hubbard to underprice its topsoil item, Hubbard could conceivably request a change order increase of more than $100,000.00. This amount was calculated on the theory that Hubbard might have a $60,000.00 overrun on muck (120,000 cubic yards x 50 ) because it was using the muck to meet the topsoil requirement, and a $1,200.00 underrun on topsoil (which represents the amount bid) because no topsoil would be used, or a net overrun of $58,800.00. At the same time, JTA feared that an overrun on muck would lead to an overrun on subsoil excavation. At a price of $5.00 per cubic yard for any overruns on this item, JTA would be forced to spend as much as $53,000.00 more on a change order for this item. Assuming this actually occurred, PCI would then be the low bidder by almost $88,000.00. Initially, JTA's concerns must be tempered by the fact that on the previous contract for State Road 9A, known as contract 2, Hubbard structured its bid in the same manner as on contract 3. On that contract, its bid was almost three times the engineer's estimate for clearing and grubbing and exceeded the engineer's estimate for mobilization by more than four fold. Even so, Hubbard was more than $200,000.00 lower than the second low bidder and was $400,000.00 lower than the engineer's estimate. On that project, JTA awarded the contract to Hubbard and did not raise the contention, as it did here, that the bid was materially unbalanced. At hearing, the consultant was unable to give a satisfactory explanation as to why the prior bid was "regular" but the instant bid was "irregular" even though both bids had been prepared in the same manner and contained "obviously unbalanced items." In this case, JTA did not give bidders any notice that it intended to construe article 2-6 any differently than it had on prior contracts. In addition, in preparing its bid, Hubbard assumed that article 2-6 would be interpreted in the same manner as did DOT since the ITB provided that the DOT specifications would apply. Moreover, there was nothing in the ITB Special Provisions which gave notice that JTA intended to place a different interpretation on article 2-6 than was customarily done by DOT. According to uncontradicted testimony, DOT has consistently interpreted article 2-6 in the following manner. DOT does not find balancing in and of itself to be a sufficient basis to reject a bid as being irregular under article 2-6. Indeed, virtually every bid submitted for any highway construction project, including those of PCI and Hubbard here, are unbalanced in some respect. If DOT has serious concerns about an unbalanced bid, the terms of article 2-6 require that a study be made to see if the unit prices are "either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values." To do this, DOT performs a study of the time value of money related to the major components of work in a contract on an item by item intra-bid basis, compares the results of that analysis to an irrevocable schedule of construction, and then determines whether the taxpayers would be detrimentally affected by awarding the contract to a bidder with the unbalanced items. In other words, a contractor is paid as units of work are completed, and to the extent major items of work are unbalanced so that payments are deferred or accelerated, the cash flow of the agency may be adversely affected. Without a time value of money analysis, a determination cannot be made as to whether the taxpayers are detrimentally affected by an unbalanced bid. Indeed, out of several thousand bids over a twelve year study period (1975-1987), DOT rejected no more than six because of unbalancing, and then only after such an analysis was performed. As to Hubbard's bid, a former DOT secretary expressed the view that Hubbard's bid did not even rise to the level necessary to invoke the analysis. In any event, by failing to follow its own specifications and performing such a study, JTA could not fairly conclude that the awarding of a contract to PCI would positively impact its net present value of money. This is especially true here since Hubbard proposed to complete the project in thirteen months and PCI in twenty-four months, and neither party submitted a construction schedule with its bid. Therefore, JTA had no basis to conclude that article 2-6 had been violated. Finally, there was no evidence to support the contention that JTA would lose control of the project if Hubbard was paid the excess monies for clearing and grubbing. JTA's concern that Hubbard might fail to complete the job if it received a large payment up front is also without merit. While front end loading is a legitimate concern where a contractor might not finish the project, the facts dispel that concern here. Besides having to post a performance bond, Hubbard would also be disqualified from bidding on other jobs in the event a project was abandoned. Given Hubbard's size and reputation, and the fact that the contract itself provides for JTA retaining a percentage of the payment of work until all work is completed, it is found this concern is not legitimate. As to the concern over topsoil, there was insufficient evidence to establish that muck was more likely to overrun than any other item. Indeed, JTA acknowledged at hearing that the engineer's estimate for muck excavation was as accurate as it could be and no analysis or testing had been performed which would support a change in position. In addition, a JTA board member testified that the topsoil pricing was not considered the primary basis for rejection of Hubbard's bid. Finally, the use of a one cent price for topsoil did not affect the overall price of the bid or give Hubbard an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent awarding the contract for project no. 72002-3533 to Hubbard Construction Company. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6302BID Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 7-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 12. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 12. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 12. 16-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 23. Accepted in finding of fact 4. 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27-29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 33. Rejected as being unnecessary. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 39-40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 41. Rejected as being unnecessary. 42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. 43. Rejected as being unnecessary. 44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. Respondent: Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in findings of fact 15 and 17. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Intervenor: Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 5-10. Partially accepted in finding of factg 15. 10A-C. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 16. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the more persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles N. Francis, Jr. Executive Director Jacksonville Transportation Authority P. O. Drawer O Jacksonville, Florida 32203 F. Alan Cummings, Esquire Mary M. Piccard, Esquire P. O. Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Cindy A. Laquidara, Esquire Kenneth A. Tomchin, Esquire P. O. Box 4099 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Herbert R. Kanning, Esquire 12-14 East Bay Street Suite 302 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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 The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On the evidence, it is found and determined that: I. The RFP and Stage I, II and III Evaluation Respondent issued the RFP on August 19, 2004, seeking competitive proposals for a contract for administration of the FCAT. Respondent's intent in this procurement is to contract with a qualified vendor who will be capable of performing the contract at the lowest possible cost to the State. This contract impacts all Florida public schools. The RFP included the following provisions regarding the general scope of the requirements and bidder responsibilities. 1.0 . . . A contract, if awarded, will be awarded by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the state, while taking into consideration price and other criteria specified by the RFP. 1.3 . . . This RFP defines the requirements for implementing the FCAT assessment program. The RFP and the selected contractor's proposal, together with clarifying documents, define the work to be conducted under contract. These documents will be incorporated into the contracts resulting from the FCAT project award. Because the FCAT assessment program is technical and complex, it is possible that a responsive proposal may not totally or clearly reflect RFP requirements in all details. If the proposal of a contractor selected as a result of the bidding process is inconsistent with the RFP, the requirements of the RFP prevail; the selected contractor will be expected to perform all RFP requirements without an increase in cost above the proposed cost. * * * 5.18 Acceptance of a Proposal The Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in a proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the RFP that does not affect the price of the proposal, or give one bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impact the interest of the Department. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the bidder from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the bidder is awarded the contract. Rejection of Proposals Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of this RFP may be rejected by the Department. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal contains unauthorized amendments, either additions or deletions, to the requirements of the RFP. The proposal is conditional or contains irregularities that make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous. The proposal is received late. The proposal is not signed by an authorized representative of the bidder. The bidder is not authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida or has not included a statement that such authorization will be secured prior to the award of a contract. A bid bond is not submitted with the proposal. The proposal contains false or misleading statements or provides references that do not support an attribute, capability, assertion, or condition claimed by the bidder. The proposal does not offer to provide all services required by this RFP. Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received. 5.22 . . . In the event of conflict between the language of a proposal and the language of the RFP, the language of the RFP shall prevail. * * * 7.1 Stage I: Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements (Part I) During the Stage I evaluation, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will determine if a proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will evaluate each proposal according to the process described in this section. The RFP required prospective vendors to submit sealed proposals in two parts, a technical proposal and a price proposal. The technical proposals were reviewed and scored by an evaluation committee prior to opening of the sealed cost proposals. Failure of a bidder to meet every item on the Stage I list would not necessarily result in elimination of the proposal from consideration. A proposal would be eliminated only if it contained a material irregularity. "Stage I" of the process was identified in the RFP and is basically a check list of documents and commitments that are to be included with proposals. In accordance with Section 7.1, the purpose of the Stage I review is to determine whether the proposals are sufficiently responsive to be considered by the evaluation committee. Two of Respondent's employees opened the technical proposals and checked the proposals against the Stage I list to make certain "Mandatory Documents and Statements" required by Section 7.1 of the RFP were present. They did not make any substantive judgments about the extent of compliance. In performing this Stage I review, Respondent's employees followed the department's standard operating procedures. No scoring points were associated with the Stage I check list review. The technical portions of the RFP were categorized into two parts: Part II titled, "Bidder Qualification and Experience"; and Part III titled, "Technical Proposal for Administration." Bidders could receive a maximum of 50 points for Part II and a maximum of 50 points for Part III, a total maximum possible points of 100 for the technical proposals. The RFP is designed to ensure that only qualified, responsible bidders will be eligible for award of the contract. In order to be considered eligible, a bidder was required to receive a minimum of 70 cumulative points for the technical proposals. Each of the two parts of the technical proposals was broken down into ten categories or criteria. The RFP provided that an evaluation committee would assign scores from one to five, with five being the highest possible score, for each of the criteria. The RFP consists of approximately 200 pages of technical specifications, instructions, and guidelines including appendices and addenda issued after the original release date. Each of the bidders submitted technical proposals in excess of 400 pages. The RFP provided that evaluation of proposals would be based on a holistic approach so that the proposals could be scored based on consideration of the whole package proposed by the bidders without artificial limitations on the evaluators' ability to evaluate the entire proposal and score it accordingly. The evaluation process was designed to be as objective as possible, but a degree of subjective judgment is involved in the scoring of the proposals. The 20 scoring criteria for Parts II and III were designed to cover broad categories of qualifications against which the proposals were judged. Because of the holistic evaluation approach, there was no intent to evaluate proposals on the basis of an item-by-item determination. The committee evaluating the proposals was selected to include representatives familiar with various aspects of the FCAT, which were covered in the proposals. It also included a person not employed by Respondent as required by new procurement guidelines and also included a parent representative. The evaluation committee was selected so that each member brought a different expertise or perspective to the process. The evaluation committee was instructed on how the evaluation process was to be accomplished. The evaluators took their responsibility seriously and did a thorough job. For Part II, the rating scale ranged from five (excellent) to one (unsatisfactory). A score of five means the evaluator found that the bidder demonstrated superior qualifications and experience to perform the required tasks. A score of one meant the bidder demonstrated insufficient experience and capability to perform the required tasks or did not establish its qualifications and experience. The RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of Overall Bidder Qualifications and Experience will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix M." The "holistic" approach referenced in the RFP means that Respondent looks at the proposal as a whole. The RFP and the administration of the FCAT is very complex and the evaluators are not required to look at each component of the proposal, but are to judge the whole proposal. For Part III, the rating scale also ranged from five to one. The criteria for what merited a five or a one changed, however, from Part II. A score of five means that the bidder proposed superior solutions to the requirement of the RFP and has proposed products and services that are desirable for use in the FCAT administration program and are likely to create a high quality assessment program that meets sound psychometric standards that are clearly feasible to implement. A score of one under Part III means that the bidder proposed inferior or incomplete solutions to the requirements of the RFP or has proposed products and services that would be technically indefensible, would create a flawed assessment program not meeting psychometric standards, or would not be feasible to implement. Again, the RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix N." The proposals were scored independently based upon the proposal's compliance with applicable RFP criteria; the proposals were not scored based upon how they compared to each other. Indeed, the evaluators were instructed not to discuss their scores so that each evaluator would establish their own internal criteria that was consistent across proposals. Although none of the proposals were deemed non- responsive in this stage, there are indications that failure to meet certain RFP requirements were noticed by the evaluation committed and scored accordingly. Stages II and III of the evaluation process took four days. Representatives of the bidders, including its attorney, attended all of the Stage II and III evaluation sessions. Documentation of Subcontractor Information. The RFP included the following specifications relating to documentation of subcontractors and printers. 4.6.1 Subcontractors The test administration contractor may choose to employ subcontractors for the completion of one or more tasks. If the bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor(s), the qualifications and experience of the subcontractor(s) will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as those of the bidder. A separate chart in the proposal will identify all of the subcontractors proposed to be involved in the project and the services they are expected to provide. All subcontractors must be approved by the Department. It is assumed that the contractor will use outside printers for some materials. Printers will be documented as subcontractors, and the management plan will identify the proportion of materials to be printed by the contractor and by outside vendors. Procedures for quality control and security during printing are to be described. Destruction of secure materials is addressed in Section 3.7.4. The contractor will assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they are performed or produced by the contractor or by subcontractors. The Department will consider the selected contractor to be the sole point of contact for contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. Other specifications in the RFP contained similar or identical language. The RFP also provided the following in Section 5.31 with respect to subcontractors: Any change of subcontractors must be approved in advance by the Department. In the event of poor performance by a subcontractor, the Department reserves the right to direct the contractor to replace that subcontractor. While Item 10 on Page 77 of the RFP required a representation from the vendors that they had identified all subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed directly by each subcontractor, the only investigation that Respondent undertook to confirm the accuracy of these statements was the Stage I evaluation. The Stage II and Stage III evaluators did not check to ensure that all of the subcontractors had been documented as required by the RFP. The RFP specifically required that all printers be identified and documented as subcontractors. Section 6.3 of the RFP requires the management plan to specifically identify the proportion of materials to be printed by outside vendors. Section 4.6.1 of the RFP on Page 53 states that if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the qualifications and experience of the subcontractors will be documented in their proposal at the same level of detail as the bidder. That section also provides that "printers will be documented as subcontractors." The timeliness, accuracy, and security of the printing operations are very important to the FCAT program; and the qualifications and experience of the printers, who would actually print the materials, is an important component of this procurement. As it relates to the "back-end" printing of the student and parent reports, there are privacy concerns that are particularly sensitive. The RFP provisions were included to ensure that, if a vendor was going to use outside printers for some of the activities, Respondent would be able to tell from the response who all of those printers were and what services they were going to perform. The RFP was drafted to ensure that Respondent was dealing with vendors who were qualified and experienced and able to deliver the products requested in the RFP. There were specific requirements in the RFP as to how the bidders were supposed to identify prior contracts, provide contact information, and document the printers who were going to do any of the actual printing. Section 6.2 on Page 74 of the RFP required that all vendors were to document contracted services for previous assessment projects similar to the one described in the RFP. For each of those projects, the documentation was supposed to include a description of the services and products delivered, the contract period, the name, address, and telephone of the contract person for each of the contracting agencies. This provision was applicable to all of the printers who were involved in this contract. The printers were also supposed to document how they were going to monitor security and provide quality control during the printing process itself. The intent of the RFP was to have bidders document who was going to do the printing, whether it was subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, or sub-sub-subcontractors. Section 5.27 on Page 65 of the RFP states that "if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the subcontractor's qualifications and experience will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as that of the bidder. Procedures for quality control and security of the work tasks performed by the subcontractors are to be described." These provisions are not discretionary. They are mandatory and require all vendors to provide a description of the quality control and security measures to be employed by all subcontractors, including the printers who must be documented as subcontractors. CTB's proposal identified The Grow Network as the entity that would be responsible for printing requirements. The Grow Network is an affiliate of CTB. CTB's proposal included documentation regarding The Grow Network's qualifications to perform the printing. In its response to the RFP, CTB provided extensive documentation and met all of the requirements of the RFP with respect to its front-end printers. Indeed each of those printers was identified in paragraph 10 of the transmittal letter that accompanied the CTB proposal. The Grow Network was also responsible for providing the back-end printing for the reports to be sent to the parents and students. The Grow Network was identified as doing 20 percent of the printing. However, the Grow Network does not actually do any printing themselves. At the hearing, the Grow Network claimed that it was the "print publisher" of the back-end reports. It stated that the Grow Network utilizes a "distributed printing approach." This, in fact, meant that the printing was going to be subcontracted out. The services that would be subcontracted out by the Grow Network include digital printing, collating, packing, distribution, and tracking. CTB's proposal states that GDS, a digital imaging company, will be the print facility utilized by the Grow Network to perform these aspects of the FCAT report printing requirements. CTB's proposal describes the corporate capabilities and experience of GDS, including descriptions of the California and New Jersey projects where GDS was utilized by the Grow Network as its print facility. The RFP also required bidders to provide examples of materials to demonstrate the quality of the work done on similar projects. Accordingly, CTB included sample reports printed by the Grow Network in conjunction with GDS, for the California and New Jersey projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing detailed documentation of both the Grow Network and GDS, Petitioner asserts that CTB failed to comply with the RFP because the CTB proposal indicates that much of the printing work will be out-sourced without disclosing who is actually going to be providing these services. However, CTB's proposal identifies only one printing facility, GDS, that will be utilized as the print facility under its distributed printing approach. CTB's proposal specifically states that "Grow currently uses GDS to support their California and New Jersey projects, and they will employ GDS' services for the Florida reporting project." CTB's proposal identifies other printing facilities, Delzer, R.R. Donnelley, and Bowne, that Grow could utilize on the FCAT with Respondent's approval. These other companies were potential "backup" printers, which were identified in case Respondent preferred using another printing facility. Otherwise, the Grow Network intended to utilize GDS as the sole printing facility on the FCAT and has a commitment from GDS to perform the tasks required. The RFP does not require commitment letters from subcontractors. The RFP required only the identification of the proposed printers, which could be changed with Respondent's approval. CTB has also indicated in its response that it will utilize 180 employees of Kelly Services, at three different locations, to supervise approximately 3,000 scorers. However, nowhere in the proposal has CTB documented Kelly Services as a subcontractor, nor provided information regarding their experience and qualifications to perform this work. CTB uses Kelly Services as a recruiting service provider. CTB is responsible for the hiring, training, and directing of the Kelly Services personnel and ultimately for the deliverables received from those employees. Kelly Services is not a subcontractor as contemplated in the RFP, because they are not held accountable for their deliverables. Accordingly, CTB's proposal is not deficient for failing to document Kelly Services as a subcontractor. Even if the failure to so document Kelly Services were a deficiency in CTB's proposal, the lack of detail would only lower CTB's score, not make it non-responsive. The Post-submittal Clarification Process. The RFP provided at Section 7.0 that each bidder would be required to make a presentation to the evaluation committee after the technical proposals were opened and that information presented or issues clarified during the presentation might affect the number of points an evaluation committee member assigned to a given proposal. On the first day of the evaluation process, the bidders were required to make separate oral presentations to the evaluation committee. Following those oral presentations, the evaluation committee was to begin the process of scoring the proposals based on the various RFP criteria. This was to be a "closed session" during which the vendors were not permitted to interact with the evaluation committee members; likewise, the evaluation committee members were not permitted to direct any questions to the vendors. RFP Section 7.0 spells out the rules and processes for conducting the oral presentations of the vendors. This includes the imposition of time limits on the presentations and questions from evaluators, which were to be strictly followed. Section 7.0 states, in pertinent part: The purpose of the presentation will be for the bidder to describe its offering of products and services and make any statements that will enhance understanding of its offering. The proposal evaluation committee will NOT evaluate the presentations or otherwise award points for the quality of the of the presentation. Information presented or issues clarified during the presentation MAY affect the number of points a proposal evaluation committee member assigns to a given proposal. . . . The presentation shall not exceed 30 minutes with an additional 15 minutes reserved for proposal evaluation committee member questions. These meetings will be open to the public; however, only members of the proposal evaluation committee may ask questions of the bidder. The above-quoted language in the RFP does not contemplate written submissions by vendors following the oral presentations. Nothing else in the RFP specifically authorizes vendors to clarify information in their proposals after the presentations have concluded. Thus, the oral presentation part of the evaluation process is the only RFP-authorized mechanism available to evaluators for seeking clarification of the proposals. Because clarifications are permissible during the vendor presentations, the RFP expressly states that such clarifications may affect scoring of the proposals. By contrast, nothing in the RFP authorizes the evaluators to seek or consider in scoring the proposals any vendor clarification made in any other form or at any other point, whether before or after the oral presentations. In fact, considering any information received from the vendors outside of the oral presentations would be inconsistent with RFP Section 5.3, which restricts communications by bidders with Respondent's staff. In short, to the extent a clarification of a proposal was needed, under the RFP, it should have been provided orally during the vendor presentations. Each of the bidders made a presentation to the evaluation committee. During the presentations, members of the evaluation committee asked bidders various questions relating to their respective responses to the RFP. One of the members sought clarification regarding the total number of full time equivalent ("FTE") hours for the persons identified in the proposals. Although the evaluation team was not given any specific standards or base lines to utilize in scoring the staffing and personnel commitments submitted by the parties, a bidders' commitment of personnel resources was an important factor for several of the criteria in the RFP. The bidder representatives for CTB and Petitioner were not able to provide the requested FTE information at the time of the presentation. Harcourt's representatives, who had had the benefit of hearing the presentations made by Petitioner and CTB, were able to answer the FTE question at the presentation. Because the evaluators had lingering questions on staffing, Respondent made a decision to send out questions to two of the three vendors following completion of the oral presentations. No scoring was done on any of the proposals prior to the time Petitioner's and CTB's responses were presented to the evaluators. At least some of the evaluation committee members felt that the staffing information was critical. The questions were not based on the presentations by the vendors, but were based on the evaluation committee members' concerns that had not been resolved by the oral presentations. The questions reflected areas that the evaluators were not able to understand from the initial proposals submitted. After the presentations, Respondent delivered letters dated August 30, 2004, to Petitioner and CTB, but not to Harcourt, asking them to provide the requested FTE information by the following day. CTB and Petitioner both promptly provided the information requested. CTB's August 31, 2004, written response to the FTE question included a chart that identified all personnel and the associated FTEs that would be assigned to the project. This FTE chart was prepared by Diane Driessen, CTB's senior program manager who was one of two CTB employees primarily responsible for preparing CTB's response to the RFP. As a format for its written response, CTB utilized the existing chart for Professional Personnel Responsible for Major Contract Activity (Figure 9), which was in its proposal. CTB added to this chart the additional personnel to reflect the total FTEs for the project as a whole. CTB took the material in the proposal and presented it in a consolidated format. CTB combined the monthly activities by program chart, which was Table 9, with the key personnel chart, which was Figure 9, and handscoring resources presented in the proposal. The additional named personnel in its response were not named in the original figure of key personnel because they were not considered responsible for major contract activities. It was an oversight that the chart still retained the heading, "Time Task Chart for Key Project Personnel" when it actually reflected the 330 total FTEs for the whole project team as requested by Respondent. The cover letter to Respondent explained that CTB was listing all personnel, not just "key personnel." All of the unnamed persons added to the chart are identified by position in the original proposal. As part of its written response to Respondent's written requests for additional information, CTB also included a written recap of the questions and answers from its oral presentation. The evidence demonstrated that the information provided by CTB after receiving Respondent's staff's questions included corrections of errors contained in CTB's initial response to the RFP. This information was presented to the evaluators for them to review and consider in the scoring process. No one from Respondent made an analysis to determine whether the information in the supplement was contained in the original proposal before it was presented to the evaluators. The RFP also required the vendors to provide all required information by the deadline that the proposals were to be received. Respondent was obligated to follow these provisions and not accept any information in a manner inconsistent with them. In addition, bidders were required to commit to complying with all requirements of the RFP if awarded the contract: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal including but not limited to, certification requirements. . . . The supplemental information submitted by CTB should have been included in CTB's initial submittal. The fifth bullet point of Section 4.6.2 of the RFP on Page 54 required bidders to indicate by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities with an estimation of the amount of time and full-time equivalencies each person was going to devote to the tasks under the contract. The proposal was also supposed to include a vitae for all such professional personnel. This bullet point was not limited to only those who had a supervisory role. It was the intention of the bullet point that the individuals should be identified by name, including software development staff. Much of CTB's software development staff was not identified by name in its initial response, but they were identified in the supplement. The RFP required vendors to provide the total time commitment for key personnel in the initial submission and required that the bidders identify by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities. The time commitment for some of the key project personnel that CTB identified in its initial proposal were significantly "revised" in its supplement. These "revisions" purportedly correct "errors" in the initial response and include changes to the time commitment for "key project personnel," including the project manager for manufacturing, senior research scientists and the scoring director for one of the major scoring sites. There are six new names that appear in CTB's supplement, as well as numerous revisions to the time commitment of key personnel. In its written questions to the vendors, Respondent did not request any revisions or corrections of error with respect to any of these key personnel. The evidence is clear that there are "revisions," corrections of errors and significant reformatting that were tailored to address lingering concerns of the evaluators. CTB's supplemental proposal also included a new chart broken down with many different allocations of days that did not appear anywhere in the original proposal. This submittal also included a number of different "to be assigned" categories that were not specifically included on the chart in the initial submittal and a re-categorization of some of the positions. The evaluation committee members would not have had enough time to make an assessment as to whether that information was in the original proposal. Had CTB not provided its supplemental information, the evaluation team would have had a significantly different view point on CTB's staffing. After the oral presentations, Petitioner also received a written question regarding staffing from Respondent. Petitioner's response was a listing of the FTEs taken from the charts already contained in the original proposal. Petitioner was concerned with the procedure that was being implemented, but after seeking advice of counsel, submitted the response nonetheless. Harcourt was not given this opportunity. RFP Section 5.16 does not address proposal clarifications, but it does impose limitations on the consideration of proposal "amendments." Section 5.16 states that, absent a specific request by Respondent, any "amendments, revisions, or alterations to proposals will not be accepted after the deadline for the receipt of proposals." In addition, Section 5.16 does not address when, during the evaluation process, Respondent may request a vendor to amend a proposal. This timing issue is only addressed by statute in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that "no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered." However, the timing of when Respondent could request a proposal amendment under Section 5.16 is not at issue in this case. Respondent acknowledges that it made no such request in this case. Absent a specific request, Section 5.16 precluded Respondent from considering any amendment to a proposal offered by any vendor. CTB's written responses to Respondent's written questions amount to a clarification of their bid proposal, since then were submitted only after Respondent requested the information. The responses do not constitute an amendment or supplement to the proposal. The Evaluation Process Immediately following the bidders' oral presentations and receipt of the bidders' responses to the evaluators' questions, the evaluation committee met as a body and reviewed each of the proposals. Dr. Orr and Dr. Melvin were co-chairpersons of the committee and facilitated the evaluation committee review of the technical proposals. They did not participate in the actual scoring of proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the three proposals consecutively, evaluating them against the criteria in the RFP. Open discussion about the criteria and the locations within the proposals where criteria were addressed was encouraged and took place. Whether one bidder was slightly better than another bidder was not the basis for determining the contract award. The RFP provided a balanced formula that sought to ensure the competency of the awarded by requiring a minimum technical score of 70 while rewarding the competent bidder that submitted the lowest price. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation committee assigned holistic ratings to the technical proposals, judging them based on the quality of the proposals as a whole. Each evaluator independently scored the proposals by assigning a score from one to five for each of the 20 criterion in the RFP. The evaluation committee did not compare the proposals to each other. The evaluation committee completed the evaluation of the first proposal before considering the second proposal and completed the evaluation of the second proposal before completing the evaluation of the third proposal. Alternative Proposals. The RFP permitted bidders to propose alternative approaches for meeting Respondent's objectives, but provided that no cost savings or increases for alternative proposals could be referenced in the technical proposal. Any cost savings or increases for alternative proposals were required to be submitted in a separately sealed package and clearly labeled. None of the bidders included any reference to cost savings or increases in their technical proposals. Petitioner's proposal clearly marked its alternatives. CTB sometimes identified its alternatives with a special marker and sometimes simply described them within the text of the RFP. Harcourt generally did not clearly designate its alternatives. During the Stage II and III evaluation process, a committee member raised a question regarding assigning points for alternative proposals. Because the RFP did not provide a mechanism for evaluating the alternatives, an internal decision was made by Respondent not to consider the alternatives at all in connection with scoring the proposals. The members of the evaluation team were told to disregard the references to alternative proposals submitted by each of the bidders. There was no provision in the RFP that was relied upon in making that determination. The evaluators were given no guidance as to which provisions of the various proposals should not be considered. This led to inconsistencies in what was treated as an alternative and not scored, versus what was treated as part of the base proposal and scored. It is clear that the decision not to consider alternatives resulted in confusion and inconsistency in the evaluation process. For example, one evaluator, Clarence Reed, indicated that if a proposal went beyond the requirements of the RFP and offered something that was not required, but was an enhancement, he viewed that as an alternative and would not have considered it. Similarly, the chairperson of the evaluation committee and one of the facilitators for the evaluation process, Dr. Orr, testified that "enhancements" should not have been considered. By contrast, most of the evaluators viewed offerings by vendors that went beyond the requirements of the RFP and did not include a cost to Respondent as "enhancements" that could be considered in their evaluation of the proposals. Likewise, Dr. Melvin, one of Respondent's facilitators for the evaluation team, believed that an "augmentation" was not the same as an "alternative." Thus, in many instances, when a vendor offered something beyond the requirements of the RFP, at no cost to Respondent, and did not identify it as an "option" or "alternative," it was considered in the scoring by at least some of the evaluators. The evidence is clear that there are portions of the proposals submitted by Harcourt and CTB that was essentially the equivalent of no cost "alternatives" that were considered by the evaluators while Petitioner's clearly identified "alternatives" were not. In sum, whether a particular proposal was an "augmentation," "option," "alternative" or an additional clarification created confusion among the evaluators. As a result, there was no consistency in terms of what the evaluators could consider in the proposals and what they could not consider. While it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of the decision not to consider alternatives, it is clear that Petitioner's bid received a disproportionate negative impact because many of its important enhancements, which were being offered to Respondent at no cost were listed as "alternatives" and never factored into the evaluation process. There were several alternatives proposed by Petitioner that would have been enhancements to the current program and would have been made available at no cost to Respondent. Thus, Petitioner's score was artificially influenced in a negative way. By contrast, the evidence is clear that CTB and Harcourt, in many instances presented different ways to accomplish tasks without specifically utilizing the term "alternative" or "option" and such matters were factored into the evaluation. The claim by Respondent and CTB that the decision not to consider alternatives was applied even-handedly is not supported by the evidence. Because there was not a consistent manner in which the various companies presented their "enhancements," "augmentations," "options" or "alternatives," Respondent's determination to exclude consideration of "alternatives" precluded the evaluators from fairly determining what each of the vendors could actually provide to the program. It also meant that the vendors were not evaluated on an equal footing. Thus, the decision was contrary to the bid specifications. In spite of these concerns, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent's instruction to evaluators not to consider alternatives rendered the proposed agency action clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and/or arbitrary and capricious because Respondent was not obligated to accept any of the alternatives offered by a bidder. The Price Proposals. Respondent's evaluation of the three bidders' proposals established that each of the bidders was capable and qualified to perform the work under the contract. The bidders' price proposals remained sealed until after the evaluation committee completed its scoring of the technical proposals. The price proposals were evaluated based on a formula that awarded 50 points to the bidder with the lowest price. The remaining bidders received points based on a proportion or ratio that compared their price to the low bidder's price. The RFP provided at Section 7.4, Page 82, in pertinent part: A total of 50 points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Cost Proposal. Proposals with higher costs will receive the fraction of 50 points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposal cost to the higher cost proposal. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to one decimal place. For example, if the lowest responsive cost were $50,000.00, the bid would receive 50 points. If the next lowest responsive cost proposal were $75,000.00, it would receive 33.3 points. If the highest responsive cost proposal were $100,000.00, it would receive 25 points. Upon opening the three bidders price proposals, it was determined that Petitioner's bid for the base and renewal period was $224,969,699; Harcourt's bid was $167,055,970; and CTB's bid was $140,107,439. On September 23, 2004, Respondent posted a Notice of Intent to Award the contract for the FCAT administration to CTB. The posting showed the final scores of the three vendors as follows: Proposers Mandatory Bidders Technical Total Cost Total Requirement Qualifications/ Quality Points Proposal Points Met Experience Stage III (Stages Stage IV Stage Stage II II&III) V Pearson Yes Educational Assessment 44.6 44.3 88.9 31.4 120.3 Harcourt Yes 42.7 42.2 84.9 42.4 127.3 CTB/McGraw Yes Hill 43.8 44.9 88.8 50 138.8 CTB's price for performing the contract over a five-year period is approximately $85 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $27 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt. Over a three year contract period, CTB's price for performing is approximately $53 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $14 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of the Department of Education adopt this Recommended Order and enter an final order awarding the contract for RFP No. 2005-01 to the low bidder, CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Donna E. Blanton, Esquire Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A. 313 North Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10967 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jason K. Fudge, Esquire Florida Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact By Invitation to Bid for Lease NO. 590:1944, Respondent invited lease proposals for approximately 15,206 square feet of office space "located within the following boundaries: On the North, Aloma Avenue/Fairbanks Avenue the East, Semoran Boulevard the South, Colonial Drive, and on the West, Mills Avenue." The geographic area includes as many as 100 office buildings, although the invitation only generated three bids. The Invitation to Bid announced a Pre-Bid Conference on December 22, 1987. Interested parties were directed to contact Linda N. Treml, whose telephone number was provided, for "bid specifications and information regarding the space." The Invitation to Bid stated that "[a]ny questions concerning this project are to be directed to [Ms. Treml]" and "prospective bidders are encouraged to consult with [Ms. Treml] beforehand in an attempt to enable as correct a bid submittal as possible." The Invitation to Bid required that certain attachments accompany the bid proposal and referred the prospective bidder to paragraph 9 of the Bid submittal Form. The required attachments included a scaled floorplan "showing present configurations with measurements," net rentable square footage calculations using floorplan measurements, and a preliminary site layout. The Invitation to Bid stated that Respondent reserved the right to waive any minor informalities or technicality and seek clarification" of bids received, when such is in the best interest of the state. Responding to Respondent's newspaper advertisement and direct-mail solicitation for bids, James W. Boyle, who is a real estate broker active in leasing and property management, requested from Ms. Treml an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form. Mr. Boyle regularly reviews announcements of forthcoming leasing activity by state agencies. If he is aware of a building that appears to meet the agency's requirements, he contacts the building's owner or manager and informs him or her that he may have a prospective tenant. After receiving the bid materials for Lease No. 590:1944, Mr. Boyle contacted Kathryn Doyle, who is the leasing manager of Petitioner, and learned that Petitioner could accommodate Respondent's space needs for the term sought in the Lakeview 436 office building. Mr. Boyle assisted Ms. Doyle in the preparation of the Bid Submittal Form for Petitioner. In his first conversation with Ms. Doyle, Mr. Boyle ascertained that Petitioner's building carried a Semoran Boulevard street address and in fact had direct access to Semoran Boulevard. Petitioner's building lies on the east side of Semoran Boulevard, which serves as the eastern boundary of the geographic area described in the Invitation to Bid. Three bids were submitted in response to the subject Invitation to Bid. When they were opened, Ms. Treml and her supervisor, George A. Smith, determined that bids of Petitioner and a third party were nonresponsive because their office buildings were outside the geographic area specified in the Invitation to Bid. These bids were not considered further. Mr. Boyle had previously represented the owners of the FARE building several months earlier in a bid for Lease No. 590:1895. The Invitation to Bid in that case, which was issued by Respondent and named Ms. Treml as the contact person, provided that the proposed office space must be located within the following boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of US 17-92 and Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the intersection of Edgewater Drive, then north on Edgewater Drive to the intersection of Kennedy Blvd. . ., then east on Kennedy Blvd. . . . to the intersection of US 17-92, then south on US 17- 92 to the point of beginning." Although Mr. Boyle's client was not awarded Lease NO. 590:1895 for reasons not relevant here, his client's bid, as well as the bid of another unsuccessful bidder owning a building on the east side of the highway serving as the east boundary of the geographic area, were considered responsive and thus within the specified geographic area. Ms. Treml interpreted the boundary description in Lease NO. 590:1944 differently from the boundary description in Lease NO. 590:1895. The description for Lease NO. 590:1895 defined the boundaries by "beginning" at a certain intersection, then proceeding "on" a highway, and so on. The description for Lease NO. 590:1944 defined the boundaries by identifying landmarks "on the north," then the "east," and so on. At the time of assisting in the preparation of Petitioner's bid, Mr. Boyle was also aware of an Invitation to Bid issued by Respondent for Lease NO. 590:1875. In this case, Respondent specified office space "in the following area of Brevard County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and State Road 50, then West on SR-50 to the intersection of 1-95, then North on 1-95 to the intersection of SR-406 . . . then East on SR-406 to the intersection of U.S. 1, then South on U.S. 1 to the point of beginning." In the case of Lease NO. 590:1875, the bid contact person, Lynn Mobley, issued a clarification letter stating that any building located on either side of the boundary road with an address on the boundary road would be considered to be within the boundary. Ms. Mobley and her supervisor, Ernest Wilson, who are Respondent's District 7 Facilities Services Assistant Manager and Manager, respectively, have consistently advised potential bidders that a building located on a boundary highway is included in the geographic area even though it would be outside the area if the dividing line were the centerline of the highway. Mary Goodman, Chief, Bureau of Property Management of the Department of General Services, testified that, in the course of her review of leasing activities by various state agencies, she has historically guided agencies that, if a building abuts a boundary highway but is not, strictly speaking, within it, the agency "could waive that as a minor technicality and consider it a responsive bid." Neither Mr. Boyle, Ms. Doyle, or any other representative of Petitioner spoke to Ms. Goodman prior to submitting the subject bid proposal. Ms. Treml customarily waives minor irregularities in bid submittals. However, she does not treat the location of a building outside the geographic area as a minor irregularity. To do so would be unfair to owners of other buildings outside the geographic area who took the geographic description at its face value and never submitted bids. Ms. Doyle received the bid materials from Mr. Boyle after the Pre-Bid Conference had taken place. However, Mr. Boyle elected not to attend the Pre- Bid Conference at which Ms. Treml explained, among other things, her interpretation of the specific geographic area. He chose not to attend because he felt that he would not learn anything relevant at the conference, which was attended by a representative of Intervenor. Neither Mr. Boyle, Ms. Doyle, or any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Treml prior to submitting Petitioner's bid. Mr. Boyle, whose compensation in this case is entirely contingent upon a successful bid, estimates that he spent about 20 hours working on Petitioner's bid. Ms. Doyle estimates that she spent about 40 hours working on the bid. Petitioner also spent $800 in obtaining an "as-built" drawing of the space that accompanied its proposal. By letter dated February 22, 1988, Respondent notified the bidders of its decision to award the lease contract to Intervenor. Petitioner filed a notice of intent to protest the award by letter dated February 24, 1988. Ms. Treml met Mr. Boyle and Ms. Doyle on March 1, 1988, and cited the location of Petitioner's building as the only reason for the determination of nonresponsiveness. The attempt at mediation having failed, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the award by letter dated March 3, 1988. Petitioner attached to its bid proposal an "as-built" drawing. Although drawn to scale, the drawing did not bear the measurements of the then- present interior tenant improvements, mostly walls, nor did it disclose on its face any calculations showing how the rentable area was computed from the gross area. These omissions were due to Mr. Boyle's advice to Ms. Doyle that such information would be unnecessary in this case. The omissions from Petitioner's "as-built" drawing were rendered less critical by the fact that Respondent would have the right under the lease to require the landlord, at its expense, to remove the present improvements and re- configure the space to Respondent's demands. However, one purpose of the floorplan is to show where the space is located within the building. Another purpose is to verify the rentable area calculation by showing the measurements of items, such as restrooms, that should not be included in the rentable area for which Respondent is charged rent. The drawing is supposed to show the rentable area computation. Additionally, even though Respondent could insist on a total renovation of the premises, Respondent might wish to evaluate whether it could use a portion of the existing space in order to reduce the possibility of construction delays. George A. Smith, the Senior Management Analyst for Respondent who reviewed Ms. Treml's determination of nonresponsiveness prior to the award of the subject lease, testified that the deficiencies in Petitioner's "as-built" drawing were not a "minor irregularity."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the Department issued an Advertisement for Bids (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (Department Project No. NV-30A, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving the expansion of the water treatment facility at the Martin Correctional Institution. The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a two-volume Specifications Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") that was made available for public inspection. Section B of the Manual's first volume contained the Instructions. Section B-2 2.A.(11) thereof provided that "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications must be submitted and the qualifications listed therein must be satisfactory to the Owner and the Engineer. " "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications" was a "Bidder's Qualification Form, Reverse Osmosis Treatment System Component" (hereinafter referred to as the "R.O. Form"), on which the bidder was to provide "R.O. [Reverse Osmosis] System Supplier" information. The R.O. Form repeated the directive that the bidder was to "[r]eturn [the] [c]ompleted [R.O.] Form [w]ith [its] proposal." Section B-14 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "preparation and submission of bids" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Bidder shall copy the proposal form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the Base Bid and for alternates on which he bids. . . . Proposals containing . . . . items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Section B-16 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "disqualification of bidders" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that a Bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the same work will cause the rejection of all proposals in which such Bidders are believed to be interested. The subject of "contract award" was addressed in Section B-21 of the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The qualified bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that bidder who has submitted the lowest price for the base bid, or the base bid plus additive alternates or less deductive alternates, taken in the numerical order listed in the bid documents in an amount to be determined by the Owner. The Order of the alternates may be accepted by the Owner in any sequence so long as such acceptance does not alter the designation of the low bidder. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. Section C of Volume I of the Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use to indicate their bid prices. The following statement appeared at the bottom of the second page of the Proposal Form: There is enclosed: A certified check, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or Bid Bond in the amount of not less than five (5) percent of the Base Bid payable to the Department of Corrections, as a guarantee. An executed Trench Excavation Safety Certification, Section F-13. An executed Experience Questionnaire and Contractor's Financial Statement and Public Entity Criminal Conviction Form, Section L. An executed Bidder's Qualifications Form (Reverse Osmosis), Technical Specification Section 01420. While one completed R.O. Form had to accompany each bid, there was no provision in any of the bid documents issued by the Department requiring a bidder to submit only one such completed form and no more. Petitioner, McMahan and R.J. Sullivan Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sullivan") were among the contractors that timely submitted bids in response to the Advertisement. McMahan's and Sullivan's bids were each accompanied by more than one completed R.O. Form. Petitioner, on the other hand, provided the Department with only one completed R.O. Form along with its bid. Of the bids submitted, McMahan's was the lowest, Sullivan's was the second lowest and Petitioner's was the third lowest. McMahan's base bid price was $857,000.00. Petitioner's was $905,000.00. McMahan's total price, including the nine additive alternates accepted by the Department, was $948,000.00. Petitioner's was $1,032,600.00, $84,600.00 more than McMahan's. By letter dated July 1, 1993, the Department advised McMahan of its intent "to award the contract [for Department Project No. NV-30A] to [McMahan] as the lowest responsive bidder." On July 9, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the preliminary determination to award the contract to McMahan alleging that McMahan was not a responsive bidder inasmuch as McMahan "submitted Reverse Osmosis ("R.O.") Qualifications Forms for more tha[n] one vendor." According to Petitioner, "[t]his [was] not in conformance with the Bid Documents and gave [McMahan] an unfair advantage."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order finding Petitioner's bid protest to be without merit and awarding McMahan, as the lowest responsive and qualified bidder, the contract for Department Project No. NV-30A. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued a Call For Bids, in Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 15, No. 38, September 22, 1989, for a construction project referred to as the Reitz Union Addition, BR-116, University of Florida. The Call For Bids provided that at least 15 percent of the project contract amount would be expended with minority business enterprises certified by the Florida Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If 15 percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder. The Call For Bids provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their Bid Proposal in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2, provides in pertinent part that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual Index provides that "L-Special Conditions" pages are numbered separately. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders B-23, as revised by Section L, Special Conditions, Supplement #1, at supplement page 2, provides that the contract will be awarded by Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified bidder, provided it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the provisions of Section 237.0945, Florida Statutes, and the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than 15 percent participation in the contract by MBEs. Demonstrated good faith effort as set forth in the Special Conditions would be in lieu of all or part of the 15 percent requirement. The contract award will be made to the bidder that submits the lowest responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The aggregate bid shall consist of the base bid plus accepted additive alternate bids, or less accepted deductive alternate bids, applied in the numerical order in which they are listed on the bid form. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, provides that the Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17, provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and shall strictly adhere to their requirements. A representative from D.E. Wallace Construction Corp., Ms. Betsy Wallace, attended the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting on October 5, 1989. One of the purposes of the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting was to explain the MBE program to the general contractors and others in attendance. Mr. Larry Ellis, the minority purchasing coordinator for the University of Florida, provided the contractors with information as to how they could obtain the 15 percent minority participation requirement or how they could satisfy the requirements of the good faith effort. Mr. Ellis informed those in attendance that the listing of subcontractors form required that the bidder reveal the 15 percent MBE participation on the face of the form, that such form was located in the Special Conditions section, and that the form must be completed and submitted at the time of bid opening, if in fact the general contractor was seeking to show he or she had met the 15 percent participation requirement. Sealed bids for BR-116 were opened on October 19, 1989. Petitioner was the lowest monetary bidder. Anglin Construction Company, Intervenor, was the second lowest monetary bidder. Petitioner was notified by letter dated October 24, 1989, that its bid proposal was found not to be in compliance with the requirements of the Project Manual because an incorrect list of subcontractors form was submitted, that Petitioners proposed MBEs were not identified at the time of bid opening, and that Petitioner failed to show a good faith effort in meeting the 15 percent MBE participation. By letter dated October 30, 1989, the University of Florida recommended to the Respondent that the construction contract for BR-116 be awarded to the Intervenor for the base bid and alternates 1 through 9 in the amount of $991,272 The Project Manual for BR-116 contains Section L, Special Conditions, which contains Supplement 1, with pages numbered supplemental pages 1 through The Call for Bids provides that bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual. The Project Manual provides that bidders are required to examine carefully the drawings, specifications, and other bidding documents and to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner affect the work. Mr. D.E. Wallace testified that he is a certified general contractor licensed by the State of Florida for 13 years and that as part of his licensing examination he was required to demonstrate proficiency in reading and understanding bidding documents, manuals, instructions, plans, and drawings. Mr. Wallace testified that he skimmed over the Project Manual and the Special Conditions section but that he really did not review them. Petitioner submitted its list of subcontractors on an outdated form, dated January 20, 1988, contained in the Project Manual at Section D, page 21. In Supplement #1 of Section L, Special Conditions, at page 1, of the Project Manual, the bidder is instructed to delete the January 29, 1988, version of the subcontractors form and substitute in lieu thereof the List of Subcontractors form included in the Supplement dated June 15, 1988. The form was revised to allow contractors who could not meet the MBE requirements to show good faith effort in obtaining participation, to restrict MBEs, to those certified by the Florida Department of General Service, and to eliminate any bid shopping attempts by requiring that contractors reveal their MBE participation at the timed of the bid opening. Petitioner admitted that the wrong list of subcontractors form was used when its bid was submitted. The Respondents Project Manual contains a licensed version of a standard American Institute of Architects (AIA) document which could not be revised without AIA permission. The revised list of subcontractors form and revised MBE requirements were placed within the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual, which did not require AIAs permission. It is not unusual, in the construction industry, have supplemental or special conditions within a project manual. The construction budget for this project was $1,096,800. Petitioner did not submit its MBE subcontractors at the time of bid opening. Petitioner submitted its MBE plan on October 26, 1989, seven days after bid opening. Petitioners MBE subcontractor participation was less than 15 percent of the contract sum required for BR-116. The contract sum is comprised of the base bid and the alternates for the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Regents enter a Final Order rejecting Wallace Construction Corporations bid for project BR-116, denying the protest, and awarding the contract for project BR-116 to Anglin Construction Company. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6844BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, D.E. Wallace Construction Corp. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(7). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9 are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Florida Board of Regents 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-16(1-16). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Anglin Construction Company Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding Of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(6); 5,(8); and 6(16). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, and 4 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Moody Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 2759 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Jane Mostoller Assistant General Counsel Gregg A. Gleason General Counsel Florida Board of Regents 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1522 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 Raymond M. Ivey Attorney at Law 703 North Main Street, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 Chancellor Charles B. Reed State University System of Florida 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 =================================================================
