The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's notice of intent to award a contract for a Prescription Drug Monitoring System (PDMS) to Intervenor is, under section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications due to the nonresponsiveness of Intervenor's proposal or flaws in the scoring.
Findings Of Fact RFP On October 14, 2010, Respondent issued the RFP. RFP Section 3.1 states that the purpose of the RFP is to acquire and implement a customizable, commercial, off-the-shelf PDMS, in accordance with section 893.055, Florida Statutes. RFP Section 3.1 states that this statute provides for the establishment of a comprehensive, electronic database securely to collect and store data of the dispensing of Schedule II-IV controlled substances by prescribers and dispensers. Section 3.3 defines a commercial, off-the-shelf program as "computer software or hardware, technology, or computer products that are ready-made and available [to] the general public, which includes systems that are manufactured commercially, and then tailored for specific uses." RFP Section 3.2 states that the initial term of the PDMS contract is November 30, 2010, through September 30, 2011. The November 30 start date for this ten-month contract anticipated the posting of the intent to award on November 16, 2010 and no challenge to the proposed award. Section 3.2 states that the proposed PDMS should be delivered and accepted by Respondent within 90 days after execution of the contract. RFP Section 4.1 states: To participate in this solicitation the Proposer must provide documentation to answer all the qualification questions listed in Attachment I. Each mandatory question requires a "Yes" or "No" answer. Proposals that have any "No" answer to these mandatory requirements will be deemed non- responsive and will not be given further consideration. Proposers should use care and integrity in preparing their documentation supporting responses to the qualification questions, since these are mandatory requirements. The RFP contains a detailed statement of the scope of services,1 specific tasks,2 projected staffing profiles,3 qualifications,4 technical approach and implementation timelines,5 and other matters.6 Many of these provisions, such as the scope of services and specific tasks, are requirements imposed upon proposals. Among the requirements incorporated into the RFP is PUR 1001, which is the state of Florida "General Instructions to Respondents" to bid solicitation documents. Paragraph 4 of PUR 1001 states: "Failure to comply with terms and conditions, including those specifying information that must be submitted with a response, shall be grounds for rejecting a response." RFP Section 4.21 states that each proposer must submit a cost proposal, using the Cost Proposal Form that is Attachment XI. The cost proposal depicts the costs for the term of the contract plus three, one-year renewals. Of especial significance to this case, RFP Section 4.21 contains four bullet points and two flush paragraphs. Section states: The cost proposal must include the following items: The proposer must submit a cost proposal using the worksheet provided in Attachment XI, covering the entire period of the contract, including potential renewals. The cost proposal must show the cost for implementing the system, the cost for the maintenance of the system, the cost for hosting of the date through September 11, 2011, and the cost for providing operational support to the PDMS. The cost proposal shall include the costs necessary for the proposer to fully comply with the contract terms and conditions, RFP requirements including amendments, and the proposer's proposal. . . . Only costs incurred after the resulting contract's effective date specifically related to the implementation, maintenance, hosting, and operational support of contracted services should be included in the cost proposal. Proposers shall provide a firm fixed price for the tasks and deliverables outlined in this RFP. The fixed price shall take into consideration, including but not limited to, all staff hours, equipment, travel costs, overhead, and any profit or fees required for that deliverable. Immediately following these four bullet points, the first flush paragraph of RFP Section 4.21 provides: The Proposer must submit a narrative itemizing the costs included in the cost proposal. The narrative must specifically address the comprehensiveness of the proposed PDMS and any tasks or services that are excluded and are considered enhancements that may be implemented in the future. Proposed costs for prospective enhancements should be included. RFP Section 4.21 concludes with the second flush paragraph, which describes the scoring of the cost proposals. Section 4.21 provides that 50 points will be awarded to the lowest cost proposal. For higher cost proposals, the proposers will receive a score that results from multiplying 50 points times a fraction whose numerator is the lowest proposed cost and whose denominator is the proposed cost of the proposer under review. RFP Section 4.22 provides: Each qualified proposal will be evaluated and scored based on the criteria defined in Attachment II. Evaluation sheets will be used by the Evaluation Team to designate the point value assigned to each proposal. The scores of each member of the Evaluation Team will be averaged with the scores of the other members to determine the final scoring. . . . The proposer receiving the highest score will be selected for the award. RFP Section 5.8 provides: [Respondent] reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if [Respondent] determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. [Respondent] may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Attachment I is "Qualifying Criteria." This attachment states at the top: . . . All proposals will be screened for compliance. Failure to comply shall render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. . . . The nine qualifying criteria in Attachment I are stated as questions, and the form implies that Respondent will evaluate each proposal by answering "yes" or "no" to each of the questions. The qualifying criteria are: Does the proposal include a fully executed Statement of Financial Capability, including all supporting documentation? Attachment I. Does the proposer certify that they [sic] will comply with the Harold Rogers Grant #2009PM-BX-4004? (See Required DOH Certifications Attachment III) Does the proposal provide documentation that the prospective proposer currently hosts a PDMS as defined in this RFP in at least one other state for at least one year? See Section 3.2 Does the proposal provide documentation that the proposed system is a customizable, commercial-off-the-shelf data base system? See Section 4.6.1 Does the proposal provide documentation that the proposed system is compatible with existing PDMS used nationally? See Section 4.6.1 Does the proposal provide documentation that the proposed system collects electronic data in the format established by the American Society for Automation in Pharmacy (ASAP) 2007, version 4.1, Rules Based Implementation Guide for Prescription Monitoring Programs or its successor? See Section 4.2 Will the proposed system be hosted offsite and operate independently of any other systems or networks of the Department or the State of Florida? Does the proposed system comply with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPPA) as it pertains to protected health information, electronic protected health information (EPHI), and all other relevant state and federal privacy and security laws/regulations? See Section 4.2 Does the submitted Statement of Financial Capability and supporting documentation demonstrate the Proposer has the financial capability to complete the tasks of this RFP? For the last qualifying criterion, Attachment I adds: The Statement of Financial Capability . . . will be evaluated by an evaluator designated by the Department as having the knowledge and experience to determine if the Proposer is financially capable of completing all the services and tasks contemplated by this RFP. Failure to receive "YES" shall render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. Attachment II is "Evaluation Criteria." These are the technical scoring items of this RFP. Attachment II states: Evaluation sheets will be used by the Evaluation Team to designate the point value assigned to each proposal. The scores of each member of the Evaluation Team will be averaged with the scores of the other members to determine the final scoring. The proposer receiving the highest score will be selected for award. Point Value: Unless otherwise indicated, zero is lowest possible and the number indicated in this column is the highest possible. Attachment II lists 19 items to be scored. For each item, Attachment II prescribes what is to be scored, identifies the section of the RFP to which the item relates, and states the maximum available points. The RFP does not contain further guidance for the evaluators in terms of the meaning of the maximum score or a score less than the maximum. The 19 scoring items carry a maximum of 500 points. The scoring dispute in this case focuses largely on one evaluator's scores of Items 15-19, each of which has a maximum score of 20 points.7 The five, 20-point items in dispute are stated below, with the item number on the left. The RFP reference for each items is RFP Section 4.21. The five items are: How well does the cost proposal narrative explain the costs of the customization and the necessity of the costs for delivery of the proposed PDMS? How well does the cost proposal narrative explain the operational support costs and the necessity of those costs for the proposed PDMS? How well does the cost proposal narrative explain the system maintenance costs and the necessity of those costs for the proposed PDMS? How well does the cost proposal narrative explain the costs for hosting and the necessity of those costs for the proposed PDMS? How well does the cost proposal narrative explain the need for and the cost of prospective enhancements? In contrast to the first 14 items, which require the evaluator to assess "the proposal," Items 15-19 direct the evaluator to assess "the cost proposal narrative." Four of the five challenged items require the proposer to explain the costs for a particular PDMS cost category and the necessity of these costs. The final item requires the proposer to explain the need for, and costs of, enhancements. Attachment XI, which is the Cost Proposal Form, identifies five categories of costs on a single page. The form requires the proposer to state a total cost for the commercial, off-the-shelf product, which is complete on delivery at the start of the contract, and a total cost for the customization required to conform the off-the-shelf product to the technical specifications in RFP Section 4.6. The RFP defines customization to include implementation, hosting, and maintenance through September 30, 2011. Attachment XI calls for a total cost for each of the remaining three categories of costs, which are maintenance support, operations support, and hosting for each of the three one-year anticipated renewal periods ending September 30, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The form requires the itemization of these three categories of costs into monthly amounts, which are merely the total annual costs of each category of cost divided by twelve. Lastly, the form requires the totaling of these five categories of costs, so that the proposer states at the bottom of the completed Attachment XI its "grand total cost proposal." Responses Cost Proposals Petitioner's Attachment XI shows no cost for the commercial, off-the-shelf program. The total cost of customization is $94,380. The annual costs for maintenance, operations, and hosting are, respectively, $40,440, $66,912, and $49,536, and these costs remain unchanged over the three anticipated renewal years. Petitioner's grand total cost proposal is therefore $565,044. Petitioner Response, p. 190. Intervenor's Attachment XI shows the total cost for the commercial, off-the-shelf program is $96,730, and the total cost of customization is $115,068. The annual costs for maintenance, operations, and hosting are, respectively, $50,665, $132,976, and $41,455, and these costs remain unchanged over the three anticipated renewal years. Intervenors grand total cost proposal is therefore $887,059. Intervenor Response, p. 126. Item 15: Customization Costs and Their Necessity Petitioner Response For its narrative of the cost of customization and the necessity of this cost, Petitioner's response explains that the first part of the customization cost is $15,015. Petitioner Response, p. 191. This is the labor cost of customization. Petitioner Response, p. 192. The narrative explains that most of the features described in RFP Section 4.6.1 are already in the commercial, off-the-shelf program. The labor in customizing the off-the-shelf program includes: Time spent in requirement analysis meetings to arrive at the Requirements Definition for customization of the software. We propose to have two sessions. To customize the software such that application security can be configured per user to assign security roles to authorized department staff, dispensers, prescribers, and any other users authorized by law. To make necessary changes and modifications to the application software such that all of the web pages are tuned to comply with the business rules of the State of Florida as agreed upon in the requirements sessions. To include a statement in the software indicating that Florida's PDMS was made available using funds from a federal grant . . .. Provide for a method that allows the department to suspend the 15 day requirement during emergency events (e.g., hurricane) Provide a method that allows registered dispensers to request an extension to the reporting requirement (e.g., per individual or per pharmacy) in accordance with proposed Rule 64K-1, F.A.C. Create a method to coordinate and implement the initial mass registration of dispensers and prescribers. Petitioner Response, pp. 192-93. To customize its off-the-shelf program, Petitioner stated that it must perform requirements analysis; perform analysis, study, and design; perform design documentation and review; make changes to the database; make changes to the user interface; make changes to the business logic; conduct quality assurance and quality control; prepare user documentation; and perform project management. In documenting $15,010 in total labor for customization, Petitioner's response itemizes the labor costs by hourly rate and number of hours for the following positions: systems analyst, database administrator, senior programmer analyst, programmer analyst, quality analyst, technical writer, and project manager. Petitioner Response, p. 193. The second part of Petitioner's customization cost is $14,000. This is for all costs and expenses related to implementation, travel, training, setup and data collection for system software and system hardware (servers), and setup for the help desk. Petitioner breaks down these costs into skilled labor and travel expenses. The skilled labor covers individual tasks--e.g., hardware and server setup, data collection help desk setup, and implementation of customized PDMS--by position type, hourly rate, and hours. The travel expenses show airfares, food and per diem for particular tasks, such as the "kick off" and requirements session, and training by a specified number of staff for a specified number of days. The total is $28,000, but Petitioner discounts this item by half for what it anticipates will be a long-term relationship. Petitioner Response, p. 191. The third part of the customization cost is $65,370. This is for the hosting, maintenance, and operations support from the "go-live" date of April 8, 2011,8 through September 30, 2011, or five months. The monthly cost for each of these components is, respectively, $3370, $5576, and $4128. Petitioner Response, p. 192. 2. Intervenor Response For its narrative of the cost of customization and the necessity of this cost, Intervenor's response states: all associated start-up costs for development, configuration, and integration are part of the total proposed implementation price. [Intervenor] will fully host the RxSentry solution for [Respondent] utilizing our state-of-the-art co-location data center, AtlantaNAP. Hosting costs include all hardware, software, co-location data center fees, communication fees, maintenance, and technical support as required under the contract. Additional costs for implementation include travel, training, and administrative fees such as bond and FBI criminal background checks for key personnel per [Respondent] requirements. A one-time licensing fee for RxSentry is included in the implementation pricing. Ongoing operational support costs in terms of personnel expense, operating expense, systems expense, corporate overhead, and annual maintenance for RxSentry are included in the total pricing for the initial contract period. [Intervenor] project management, clinical, and technical support staff are provided to ensure a seamless transition from implementation to daily operations. Personnel costs include a primary contact as the PDMP Account Manager Ms. Sheila McCollough, access to clinical expertise from our Training Manager, Mr. Steve Espy, RPh, technical writing expertise for customized user guides and training materials, quality and contractual compliance oversight, and a highly skilled technical and customer service staff to maintain the RxSentry solution and provide customer service and support to both [Respondent] staff and the prescriber/dispenser population. [Intervenor] performs regular monitoring and maintenance for all our clients, including routine backup and recovery activity, data archiving and removal, and other system upgrades, improvements, and error corrections to ensure that RxSentry continues to meet our clients' needs and standards. Expense categories used in pricing the project include all line item costs shown in the following table [no costs are shown]: [Technical Lead] Information Systems Manager . . . Customer Support Manager [Training Coordinator] . . . Technical Support Manager . . . Technical Help Desk Staff Technical Writing Staff Operating Expenses: Travel Training Office Supplies Printing fees Mailings Administrative fees . . . System Expenses: Hardware leasing Software purchase (one time) RxPert License Fee (one time) AtlantaNAP Data Center Fees Communication Fees Software Maintenance Hardware Maintenance Intervenor Response, pp. 123-24. Under the heading, "Customization," Intervenor's response states that Intervenor will work with Respondent during the implementation requirement sessions to document all specifications for collecting and reporting controlled substance data. This includes: dentifying required fields and layouts for patient advisory alerts and reports, request forms and authorization requirements, user roles and access, standard and ad-hoc report content and layout, and customization of screens per [Respondent] request. The next section of Intervenor's response is "Assumptions." This section states: No inflationary increase has been added to ongoing operational pricing. Standard technical hours and support for data submitters and requestors will be provided Mon-Fri, EST, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM; excluding state and national holidays. Training materials for dispensers and practitioners will be hosted online along with computer-based training as required by [Respondent]. Notification letter mailing costs for uploaders is based upon 8,322 active pharmacies and approximately 7,312 active dispensing healthcare practitioners. All tasks and activities will be performed at the [Intervenor's] Corporate Office in Auburn, AL. Proposed pricing and annual maintenance for PMIX Hub is not included in the cost proposal but is provided in the following narrative section, "System Enhancements." Intervenor Response, p. 125. Item 16: Operational Support Costs and Their Necessity Petitioner Response For its narrative of the cost of operational support and the necessity of this cost, Petitioner's response states that the operational support costs are $5576 per month for each of the three one-year renewal terms. These costs include "all labor costs . . . to support the collection and uploading of prescription data." These services include collecting, validating, scrubbing, and uploading the data, as well as contacting the data collectors about prescription errors. Petitioner Response, p. 195. Petitioner breaks down the operational support costs by position, hourly rate, and hours per month. The positions are data collection help desk analyst and data collection senior help desk analyst. Other expenses include infrastructure and office space and telephone. Petitioner's response describes the positions in terms of work experience. 2. Intervenor Response Except for enhancements, Intervenor's entire cost narrative has been described above. Item 17: System Maintenance Costs and Their Necessity Petitioner Response For its narrative of the cost of system maintenance and the necessity of this cost, Petitioner's response notes that the system maintenance costs are $3,370 per month for each of the three one-year renewal terms. These services are to respond to all emails from Respondent. For system-down calls, Petitioner will respond within four hours; for severely impaired-impact calls, Petitioner will respond within 24 hours. For the remaining calls, Petitioner will respond within 72 hours. Petitioner breaks down the system maintenance costs by position, hourly rate, and hours per month. The positions are database administrator, programmer analyst, quality analyst, and project manager. The proposal assumes 36 hours of software support and maintenance, but acknowledges that there is no limit on hours of support that Petitioner will actually provide. 2. Intervenor Response Except for enhancements, Intervenor's entire cost narrative has been described above. Item 18: Hosting Costs and Their Necessity Petitioner Response For its narrative of the cost of hosting and the necessity of this cost, Petitioner's response notes that the hosting costs are $4128 per month for each of the three one-year renewal terms. Hosting is at a secure facility with redundant power and redundant data carriers. Petitioner breaks down the hosting costs by the single position, which is system/network manager, and her hourly rate and hours per month. Other itemized costs are relatively small and include a backup circuit and server. 2. Intervenor Response Except for enhancements, Intervenor's entire cost narrative has been described above. Item 19: Need for, and Cost of, Prospective Enhancements Petitioner Response For its narrative of the need for and cost of prospective enhancements, Petitioner's response notes that its software has an available PMIX interface software module. Because PMIX "is beyond the scope of the current proposed project," Petitioner's response proposes the module as a prospective future enhancement. Petitioner breaks down the cost of the PMIX enhancement into a one-time cost of $10,600, which consists of $7800 for customization and implementation, and $2800, which consists of travel costs for training. Monthly costs would increase $1000, which consists of $750 for maintenance and $250 for operations. Petitioner breaks down the one-time labor costs by position, hour rate, and hours, and the travel costs for two persons for one day in Tallahassee. Additionally, Petitioner's response offers a methodology for how it would approach proposals from Respondent for future enhancements, including the hourly rates of 12 positions that might be involved in such work. 2. Intervenor Response The final section of the cost worksheets in Intervenor's response is "System Enhancements." This section states that Intervenor "is currently developing interchange functionality for RxSentry that will allow the exchange of data between states." Intervenor's response warns: "Pricing for PMIX Hub is not included in the proposed contract pricing but is provided below as a prospective enhancement to the RxSentry solution." The following table lists "PMIX Implementation" at a cost of $40,035 and "PMIX Hub Annual Maintenance" at a cost of $15,000. Assessment and Scoring of Proposals Respondent received only the two proposals of Petitioner and Intervenor. After the submittal deadline had passed, Respondent's Chief of Bureau of Operations, Lola Pouncey, examined each of the two proposals for compliance with the first eight of nine mandatories contained in Attachment I. Respondent hired CPA Richard Long to examine each proposal for compliance with the ninth mandatory, which requires an assessment of demonstrated financial capability. Ms. Pouncey and Mr. Long determined that both proposals met all of the mandatories in Attachment I. These determinations are not at issue. Likewise, one of Respondent's representatives calculated the cost scores for both proposals--50 points for Petitioner and 31.85 points for Intervenor--and these determinations are not at issue. The five evaluators had been trained by Respondent's Administrative Lead Janice Brown. By memorandum dated December 7, 2010, she advised them to "evaluate each proposal individually" and not to meet with other evaluators to discuss a proposal. Providing a little more guidance for scoring than is found in the RFP, the memorandum adds: The maximum possible score for each category should only be awarded if the vendor addressed each element we requested for that section thoroughly. If a vendor does not address elements in that section, their scores should be reduced accordingly. The five evaluators scored all of the Evaluation Criteria of Attachment II. The technical scores for Petitioner averaged 409.2 points--ranging from Ms. Poston's score of 266 to another evaluator's near-perfect score of 496. The technical scores for Intervenor averaged 448.6 points--ranging from scores of 360 to a perfect score of 500. Ms. Poston's total score for Intervenor is 430. Her score for Intervenor is its second lowest. Two of the evaluators scored Petitioner's proposal higher by 21 and 18 points. Two of the evaluators scored Intervenor's proposal higher by 40 and 32 points. Ignoring Ms. Poston's scores, which favored Intervenor by a lusty 164 points, Intervenor would have emerged from the technical scoring with an 8.25-point advantage. Because Petitioner earned a 18.15-point advantage from its superior cost proposal, Ms. Poston's scores, in this sense, dictated the outcome of the procurement. However, if Ms. Poston had assigned Petitioner's technical proposal the average of the scores of the other four evaluators or even the score of Petitioner's second-lowest evaluator, Petitioner would have prevailed on total points. Combining the technical scores with the cost scores, Respondent determined that Intervenor earned 480.45 points, and Petitioner earned 459.20 points. After confirming that Intervenor's references were acceptable, on December 21, 2010, Respondent posted its intent to award the contract to Intervenor. Except for the above-described examination of the proposals for compliance with the nine mandatories of Attachment I, at no time while Respondent processed the proposals did anyone determine whether each proposal was responsive to all of the other requirements of the RFP. On December 23, Petitioner timely filed a notice of intent to protest the intended award to Intervenor. On or before January 3, 2011, Petitioner timely filed the Formal Written Protest with a proper and sufficient bond. Respondent transmitted the file to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 19, 2011. Determinations Concerning Responsiveness Respondent misreads the RFP in arguing that Attachment I is an exhaustive list of the requirements of the RFP to which a proposal must respond in order to be responsive. Attachment I lists nine requirements that, if unmet, will render a proposal unresponsive.9 But nothing in Attachment I implies that its nine requirements are an exhaustive list of the requirements of the RFP, or an exhaustive list of the RFP requirements that a proposal must satisfy to be responsive. Respondent's strained interpretation of its RFP creates an unnecessary conflict between Attachment I and paragraph 4 of PUR 1001, which warns proposers that Respondent may reject a proposal for a failure to comply with any RFP condition. On the basis of paragraph 4 of PUR 1001, as well as the authority cited in the Conclusions of Law, requirements contained in other RFP provisions, including Section 4.21, if unmet, may result in a determination that the proposal is nonresponsive, regardless of whether a proposal meets all of the mandatories set forth in Attachment I. As quoted above, Section 4.21 requires a "narrative itemizing the costs included in the cost proposal." (Emphasis supplied.) Intervenor's proposal does not itemize the costs of customization, operations, maintenance, and hosting. Intervenor's proposal minimally itemizes the costs of enhancement--$40,035 for PMIX Implementation and $15,000 for PMIX annual maintenance. The unitemized costs in Intervenor's cost proposal are: 1) $96,730 for the off-the-shelf program; 2) $115,068 for customization; 3) $50,655 for maintenance; 4) $132,976 for operations; and 5) $41,455 for hosting. The costs included in Petitioner's cost proposal are: 1) nothing for the off-the-shelf program; 2) $94,380 for customization; 3) $40,440 for maintenance; 4) $66,912 for operations; and 5) $49,536 for hosting. Petitioner's cost narratives itemize these costs in detail. The $94,380 for customization comprises $15,010 for customization labor, $14,000 for implementation, training, servers setup and data collection, and $65,370 for hosting, maintenance and operations through September 30, 2011, which is defined by the RFP as part of customization. Petitioner further itemizes the $15,015 of labor, $14,000 of implementation, training, servers setup and data collection, and $65,370 for hosting, maintenance and operations, which is merely the monthly costs for these items, as shown in Petitioner's Attachment XI, during the three annual renewal periods. Additionally, Petitioner's proposal itemizes the $3,370 per month for maintenance by showing hourly rates and number of hours by four positions; the $4,128 per month for hosting by showing the hourly rate and number of hours for one position plus various other monthly costs; and the $5,576 per month for operations by showing the hourly rate and number of hours for two positions and various other monthly costs. Lastly, for the PMIX enhancement, Petitioner itemizes the one- time customization costs of $7,800, which themselves are broken down; travel costs for training of $2,800, which themselves are broken down; and additional monthly costs of $1,000 for maintenance and operations. However, Intervenor's failure to itemize the costs in the cost proposal gave it no competitive advantage. Despite some unclear comments about a "cost-plus" proposal, Intervenor's proposal contains an unambiguous, enforceable statement of costs, as does Petitioner's. Each proposal locks in its proposer in terms of what it is agreeing to provide and at what cost. Nor did the requirement of itemization likely chill the bidding, so as to discourage potential vendors from competing for the PDMS contract. Attachment XI requires each proposer to identify the costs of customization and ongoing operations, maintenance, and hosting. To arrive at these broader category of costs, a diligent vendor probably would have had to assemble the underlying subcosts, so it would be easy to add them to the proposal. The effort in constructing the itemization appears minimal. The monthly costs of maintenance, operation, and hosting are relatively modest, so they do not have many subcosts, and the process of extending these costs for the term of the contract, plus renewals, is a simple matter of multiplication. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that Intervenor gained competitive advantage as follows: [Petitioner] recognized that this additional level of detail would enable [Respondent] to understand the level of commitment of resources of each respondent, and to hold the ultimate contract awardee accountable for the provision of the promised level of performance as reflected in the itemized costs. If a competitor fails to provide the detailed, itemized costs required by Section 4.21, it will enjoy a competitive advantage relative to bidders that do comply with that requirement. By failing to commit to any particular itemized cost, a bidder such as [Intervenor] may provide less training, and enjoy less expense, than another provider that itemized its costs. Failing to comply with Section 4.21 allows a bidder the flexibility not only to reduce its costs, but to also reduce the level and quality of services provided, without violating a commitment made to [Respondent.] Petitioner's proposed recommended order, p. 9. These arguments are that cost itemization: 1) enables Respondent to understand the level of commitment of each proposer; 2) enables Respondent to hold the selected proposer accountable for the promised level of performance; and 3) prevents a nonitemizing proposer from providing less services by reducing the level and quality of services provided. The second argument misses the purpose of itemization. Itemization breaks down the overall costs shown in Attachment XI. The accountability function that Petitioner mistakenly assigns to the itemization requirement is actually served by numerous other provisions of the RFP, such as the undertaking of to satisfy the scope of services, including specified data fields, data, and training10; the undertaking to provide the detailed tasks and services11; the specification of proposed staffing levels, which are enforceable conditions12; the detailed description of the design, capacity, and other features of host facility13; the detailed description of the proposer's approach to providing the technical services that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the project and includes a detailed description of the PDMS and how general maintenance and support services will be performed14; and the focus of the other 14 technical scoring items on various features of the PDMS.15 The first and third arguments are also unpersuasive. Respondent rejected the first argument in its preparation of the RFP. Omitting the Section 4.21 requirement of itemization from the five technical scoring items related to cost, Respondent implicitly decided that it did not need the additional insight into a proposer's level of commitment. This is not a complicated procurement. Each proposer has implemented at least one monitoring system of this type in another state. For the same reason that itemization may have been omitted from the scoring items, so it is not especially important in understanding the level of commitment of resources of each proposer. Also, the worries sometimes attendant to the association of underbidding with the failure to include all of the solicited goods and services do not apply here, at least based on the relative cost proposals of both proposers. The third argument implies that the cost narratives will be elevated into the contract itself. But nothing in the RFP compels a proposer to pay a help-desk employee or data programmer the rate of pay specified in any cost itemization. Perhaps, in a deflationary economy, the rate of pay of these employees may decline, as may the office rent and travel costs. The selected vendor may pocket these savings, just as it must absorb the additional expenses, if, in an inflationary economy, these items increase in cost during the term of the initial contract or three annual renewal terms. The floor on services is not provided by a few cost itemizations, but by enforceable contract provisions and the selected vendor's incentive to keep the contract for the three one-year renewal periods, and perhaps beyond. Determinations Concerning Scoring General Petitioner objects to Ms. Poston's scoring--in general, all of it, but, in particular, her scoring of Items 15-19. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner seems to make two arguments about Ms. Poston's scoring of its proposal. First, Ms. Poston favored Intervenor's proposal by such a wide margin as to call into question all of her scores. Second, Ms. Poston offered startlingly odd reasons, such as noncompliant formatting, for the relatively low scores of Petitioner's proposal. However, as in the Formal Written Protest and the hearing, Petitioner analyzes Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19 only. Preliminarily, Petitioner's approach to the scoring issue raises two problems. First, absent analysis of Ms. Poston's scoring of the other items, Petitioner fails to prove flawed scoring of these items under the Clearly Erroneous Standard, which is explained in the Conclusions of Law. For this reason, this recommended order will not otherwise consider Ms. Poston's scoring of these items. Second, Petitioner's challenge to Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19 suffers from a misreading of what these items require to be evaluated. Specifically, Petitioner misreads Items 15-19 to require the evaluators to evaluate how well the cost narratives itemize costs, among other things. One example of this misreading occurs at the last sentence of paragraph 18 of its proposed recommended order, which states: "In fact, the Section 4.21 requirement that each proposer submit an itemization of its costs . . . received twice as much weight as the cost proposal itself." Itemization of costs actually receives no weight in the five scoring items that pertain to the cost narrative. None of these five scoring items uses the word, "itemize" or "itemization." RFP Section 4.21 requires the itemization of various costs, and this requirement, as discussed in the preceding section, serves as a basis on which to determine the responsiveness of proposals. But Respondent did not include the itemization requirement of Section 4.21 in the scoring items for the cost narrative. In preparing the RFP, Respondent included some, but not all, of the requirements of Section 4.21 in these five scoring items, which are drawn from the first bullet and first flush paragraph of this section. The first flush paragraph requires a narrative that: 1) itemizes the costs in Attachment XI; 2) specifically addresses the comprehensiveness of the proposed PDMS; and 3) specifically addresses any excluded tasks or services that may be enhancements. The first flush paragraph encourages--through the use of the word, "should"--the inclusion within this narrative of a fourth element: proposed costs for prospective enhancements. The first four scoring items focus exclusively on the four cost categories--customization, operation, maintenance, and hosting--identified in the first bullet of Section 4.21. The five scoring items authorize scoring of the narratives only as to how well they explain the costs and their necessity. When compared to RFP Section 4.21, the five scoring items omit the requirements of an itemization of costs, a specific description of the comprehensiveness of the proposed PDMS, and a specific description of excluded tasks that may be enhancements, although this last requirement is covered to some degree by the fifth scoring item. At minimum, then, the narrative's itemization of costs and specific description of the comprehensiveness of the proposed PDMS receive no direct weight in scoring, except, as noted below, for the indirect value of each of these elements when scoring the cost narrative for its explanations of costs and their necessity. Further distinguishing RFP Section 4.21 from the five scoring items covering the cost narrative, the scoring items add two elements not found in RFP Section 4.21: 1) an explanation of the costs and 2) an explanation of the necessity of the costs. These elements are closely related to the provisions of Section 4.21, but are not explicitly required in this section. Petitioner's misreading of Items 15-19 undermines its scoring argument. This misreading attaches great significance to Petitioner's compliance with the itemization requirement of RFP Section 4.21 and Intervenor's noncompliance with this requirement--facts of some importance to the responsiveness issue discussed in the preceding section, but of no direct importance to the scoring issue discussed in this section. Also unhelpful to Petitioner's scoring argument is the fact that Ms. Poston's scores of Items 15-19 do not stand out among the evaluators. She gave each proposal 60 points, although she was the sole evaluator to score Intervenor's proposal higher than Petitioner's proposal on Item 15. One other evaluator scored the two proposals a tie on these five items, although his score was 100 points each. Another evaluator scored the two proposals a near-tie, with Petitioner's proposal earning 100 points and Intervenor's proposal earning 98 points. The remaining two evaluators scored these five items substantially in Petitioner's favor, with advantages of 39 and 20 points. The proper analysis of Ms. Poston's scores is based on the actual language of Items 15-19. The impact of the inclusion or omission of the itemized costs from these cost narratives is more nuanced than Petitioner argues in its scoring argument. A cost narrative may explain the cost of, say, customization and the necessity of this cost without itemizing or identifying the subcosts of customization, although a cost narrative that starts by itemizing these subcosts may facilitate its explanation of the overall cost and its necessity. Understandably, Petitioner stresses Ms. Poston's testimony at the hearing that she reduced Petitioner's scores in general, at least in part, for the failure of its proposal to conform to various stylistic requirements in the RFP. These nonconformities include excessively small font size, inadequate margins, other unidentified formatting errors, numerous typographical errors, poor organization in which information was just "dropped" into various places, and inconsistency in style where sometimes the proposal uses bullet points and sometimes it uses narrative. Ms. Poston's testimony in the preceding paragraph is problematic for two reasons. First, Ms. Poston's testimony attempts to justify, in part, her scoring on grounds that are not authorized by the provisions of Attachment II. Second, this testimony is inapt. As to Petitioner's cost narrative, at least, the Administrative Law Judge did not measure font size, but did not notice any problems with font size, legibility, margins, formatting, typographical errors, or inconsistencies in style. And the organization of Petitioner's cost narrative permitted the Administrative Law Judge to find the relevant information much more readily than he could find it in Intervenor's cost narrative, which, as seen above, combined most of its responses to Items 15-18 in one section. Ms. Poston's typewritten scoring notes offer more support than her testimony, although her notes for Item 15 incorrectly report that Petitioner's response explained only the labor costs of customization. But her notes for Item 17 suggest that she captured more detail from Intervenor's proposal's explanation of system maintenance costs. However, nothing in the record suggests in any way that Ms. Poston was guilty of bias, fraud, or collusion in scoring, nor does Petitioner suggest as much. When asked, Ms. Poston freely explained her scores on items, using her typewritten notes when she could. She testified candidly and matter-of-factly about her scoring. Although not at all apologetic, Ms. Poston never appeared unduly invested in her scores or Respondent's proposed award. While testifying, she never acted adversarially, as an ally of Intervenor or opponent of Petitioner. Nor are Ms. Poston's scores of Items 15-19 arbitrary or capricious. Notwithstanding her comments about formatting, proofreading errors, and organization, Ms. Poston's scoring of these items is neither illogical nor irrational. Her typewritten notes reveal a clear understanding of the RFP and Petitioner's proposal, suggest an organized pattern to her thoughtful approach to scoring the items in question, and dispel any randomness in the scoring. The sole remaining question is whether Ms. Poston's scores of Items 15-19 are within the range of the reasonable. Consideration of the reasonableness of Ms. Poston's scoring must start with the acknowledgement that the phrasing of Items 15-19 invites a wider range of scores than would questions imposing on evaluators a task requiring more precision. These open-ended scoring items ask only "how well" a response "explains" certain costs and their necessity or, in the case of Item 19, "how well" a response explains the necessity and cost of prospective enhancements. Scoring of Item 15: Customization For Item 15, Petitioner first explains the labor in terms of the communications with Respondent's staff to obtain particularized information about what Respondent needs, programming to customize the off-the-shelf program to ensure that it delivers these communicated needs, and specific methods to allow registered dispensers to request extensions for reporting events and the mass registrations of dispensers and prescribers required on the initiation of the PDMS. Detailing this explanation of the labor involved in the customization of the off-the-shelf program, Petitioner's response outlines the tasks, which largely comprise the expected activities of analysis, design, design review, quality assurance and control, user documentation, and project management, but also identify changes to user interface and business logic. Petitioner's response further explains the costs of customization by detailing, by numbers of hours, the work to be done by systems analysts, database administrators, senior programmer analysts, programmer analysts, quality analysts, technical writers, and project managers. Second, Petitioner explains the costs of customization by discussing the costs and expenses related to implementation, travel, training, setup and data collection for system software and system hardware (servers), and setup for the help desk. This discussion shows individual tasks, such as hardware and server setup, data collection help desk setup, and implementation of customized PDMS, but distinguishes itself by identifying the hours of work by position type. The travel expenses show airfares, food and per diem for particular tasks, such as the "kick off" and requirements session, and training by a specified number of staff for a specified number of days. Petitioner's explanation of costs is particularly relevant for this topic because it further explains that it has halved these projected costs. Third, Petitioner explains the costs of customization with respect to the operational support, hosting, and maintenance costs from the "go-live" date through the end of the original term of the contract. Petitioner's explanation of these costs is ample. For Item 15, Intervenor explains that it starts with an off-the-shelf program that necessitates the payment of a one- time license fee. From there, Intervenor's proposal states that it will perform "all associated start-up costs for development, configuration, and integration [that] are part of the total proposed implementation price." "Additional costs for implementation include travel, training, and administrative fees such as bond and FBI criminal background checks for key personnel per [Respondent] requirements." Intervenor's proposal identifies some "line item costs" by position type, but this table omits hours or total costs and pertains largely, if not entirely, to operational support, hosting, and maintenance. Intervenor's proposal addresses customization costs explicitly in a relatively brief section devoted to this component. Intervenor explains that it will identify required fields and layouts for patient advisory alerts and reports, request forms and authorization requirements, user roles and access, standard and ad-hoc report content and layout, and customization of screens, as requested by Respondent. Ms. Poston assigned 15 points to Intervenor's conclusory explanation of customization costs and their necessity and 10 points to Petitioner's detailed explanation of these costs and their necessity. A score that assigns more points to Intervenor than to Petitioner for Item 15 is outside the range of the reasonable by five points. Scoring of Item 16: Operational Support For Item 16, Petitioner explains that operational support costs include "all labor costs . . . to support the collection and uploading of prescription data." These services include collecting, validating, scrubbing, and uploading the data, as well as contacting the data collectors about prescription errors. Petitioner identifies two positions--two help desk analysts--and breaks down the operational support costs by hourly rate and hours per month. Petitioner's response describes these positions in terms of work experience. For Item 16, Intervenor explains ongoing operational support costs in terms of personnel expense, operating expense, systems expense, corporate overhead, and annual maintenance for RxSentry, all of which are included in the total pricing for the initial contract period. Intervenor explains that project management, clinical, and technical support staff will assist Respondent in the transition from implementation to daily operations. Intervenor identifies available personnel by name and position--although not the expected extent of availability or use. Ms. Poston assigned each proposal 10 points for Item Petitioner's explanation of hours per month is of some utility, but the range of personnel--two help desk analysts-- limits the value of this response when compared, say, to the wider range of labor tasks involved in customization. Although more explanation might have been expected of Intervenor on this item, given the large difference between the two proposals for operations costs, the two explanations of operations costs and their necessity are roughly comparable, and Ms. Poston's scores for Item 16 are within the range of the reasonable. Scoring of Item 17: System Maintenance For Item 17, Petitioner explains that these costs involve email responses to service calls from Respondent, and Petitioner provides call-back deadlines based on the severity of reported problems. Petitioner breaks down the system maintenance costs by position, hourly rate, and hours per month. The positions are database administrator, programmer analyst, quality analyst, and project manager. The proposal assumes 36 hours of software support and maintenance, but acknowledges that there is no limit on hours of support that Petitioner will actually provide. For Item 17, Intervenor explains that maintenance is included in hosting and it will undertake all software and hardware maintenance. Additionally, Intervenor explains that it will perform routine backup and recovery activity, data archiving and removal, and other system upgrades, improvements, and error corrections necessary for the PDMS. Ms. Poston gave Intervenor 15 points and Petitioner 10 points for Item 17. She may legitimately have valued Intervenor's emphasis on system solutions over Petitioner's emphasis on customer service, so Ms. Poston's scores for Item 17 are within the range of the reasonable. Scoring of Item 18: Hosting For Item 18, Petitioner explains that the hosting is at a secure facility with redundant power and redundant data carriers. Petitioner breaks down the hosting costs by a single position, which is system/network manager, and her hourly rate and hours per month. Other itemized costs are relatively small and include a backup circuit and server. For Item 18, Intervenor explains that the hosting is at its "state-of-the-art" data center. Intervenor explains that hosting costs include all hardware, software, co-location data center fees, communication fees, maintenance, and technical support as required under the contract. Ms. Poston gave both proposals a 10 for Item 18. She understandably found no difference between a secure facility with redundant power and redundant data carriers and a state-of- the-art data center, so Ms. Poston's scores for Item 18 are within the range of the reasonable. Scoring of Item 19: Prospective Enhancements For Item 19, both parties identified the PMIX hub as a prospective enhancement. For this item, the RFP requires an explanation of the need for, and costs of, any enhancement. Neither party addressed the need for the enhancement in any detail, but perhaps that is because the PMIX hub is in the RFP Scope of Services, at RFP Section 4.2, although it is not in the Tasks and Services, at RFP Section 4.6.1. Petitioner explains that its software has an available PMIX interface software module. Petitioner further explains this cost by breaking the PMIX enhancement into one-time costs of customization and implementation and travel costs for training and monthly costs for maintenance and operations. Petitioner breaks down the one-time labor costs by position, hour rate, and hours. Petitioner further explains this cost by describing a methodology for how it would approach proposals from Respondent for future enhancements, including the hourly rates of 12 positions that might be involved in such work. Intervenor warns that it "is currently developing interchange functionality for RxSentry that will allow the exchange of data between states." Intervenor identifies the implementation and maintenance costs of a PMIX hub. Ms. Poston assigned Petitioner 20 points and Intervenor 10 points for Item 19. Contrasted to Petitioner's detailed explanation of enhancement costs, Intervenor's proposal acknowledges a present inability to provide this service, which certainly limits its ability to explain the costs that will eventually go with this service, once it is developed. Ms. Poston's scores for Item 19 are within the range of the reasonable. Summary of Scoring Findings Another shortcoming in Petitioner's scoring challenge is its failure to explain why the flaws in Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19 should result in the rejection of all of her scores. To outpoint Intervenor, Petitioner needs over 100 more points from Ms. Poston. Items 15-19 are worth a total of 100 points, and Petitioner already received 60 points from her on these items, so Petitioner's scoring challenge, despite its focus on Items 15-19, necessarily seeks to overturn more than Ms. Poston's scores on these five items in Petitioner's proposal. But Petitioner does not seek more points from Ms. Poston. The gist of Petitioner's complaint with the scoring starts with the fact that it won or lost, by narrow margins, with the other four evaluators, but Ms. Poston's overall scoring margin--430 for Intervenor and 266 for Petitioner--determined the outcome of the scoring. Petitioner argues that Ms. Poston's scoring of Items 15-19 was illogical, irrational, and so outside the range of the reasonable that its effect cascades through all of her scores and, to preserve the integrity of the subject procurement, her scores must be thrown out in their entirety, resulting in a recommendation that Respondent rebid the PDMS contract or award it to Petitioner. Whatever the exact form of this argument, after close analysis of the five scoring items that Petitioner challenged, the Administrative Law Judge has found nothing arbitrary or capricious in Ms. Poston's scoring and only one item that falls outside the range of the reasonable--by only five points. As discussed in more detail in the Conclusions of Law, this finding provides no platform for Petitioner's larger attack on the reliability of Ms. Poston's overall scoring and its role in Respondent's overall evaluation of the two proposals.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Department) proposed award of certain contracts to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (BAYS), based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On July 2, 2003, the Department issued Request for Proposal (RFP) No. V6P01 for operation of IDDS programs in Judicial Circuits 1 through 20. The Department issued a single RFP and anticipated entering into 20 separate contracts, one for each circuit. Each contract was for a three-year period with the possibility of a renewal for an additional three-year period. The RFP was prepared based on a "contract initiation memo" generated within the Department and upon which the scope of services set forth in the RFP was based. The Department assigned one contract administrator to handle the procurement process. An addendum dated July 18, 2003, was issued to the RFP. As amended by the addendum, the RFP required submission of information in a tabbed format of three volumes. Volume I was the technical proposal. Volume II was the financial proposal. Volume III addressed past performance by the vendor. The addendum also allowed providers to submit some information in electronic format. The addendum requested, but did not require, that it be signed and returned with the submission. BAYS did not return a signed copy of the addendum in its proposal. Failure to sign and return the addendum was not fatal to the consideration of a proposal. The RFP set forth only two criteria for which noncompliance would be deemed "fatal" to a proposal. Failure to comply with a fatal criterion would have resulted in automatic elimination of a provider's response; otherwise, all responses submitted were evaluated. The proposals were opened on July 31, 2003. The contract administrator and staff reviewed the bids to ascertain whether required items were included, and noted the proposed costs on bid tabulation sheets. The first fatal criterion was failing to submit a properly executed "Attachment A" form to a submission. Attachment A is a bidder acknowledgment form. Both BAYS and JSP included a completed Attachment A in the responses at issue in this proceeding. The second fatal criterion was exceeding the Maximum Contract Dollar Amount. RFP Attachment B, Section XIII, provides in relevant part as follows: The Maximum Contract Dollar Amount will be the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount multiplied by the number of years in the initial term of the Contract . . . . EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS A FATAL CRITERION. ANY PROPOSAL WITH A COST EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE REJECTED. The information reviewed as to each provider's cost proposal was set forth in Volume II, Tab 1, which included RFP Attachment J. RFP Attachment J is a cost sheet where providers were required to set forth proposal costs identified as the "Maximum Payment" under their proposal. Attachment K to the RFP identifies the counties served in each circuit, number of available slots in each circuit, and the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount for each circuit. JSP appears to have simply copied information from Attachment K onto Attachment J. The Department's contract administrator was the sole person assigned to review Volume II of the responses. Volume II included the cost proposal, the supplier evaluation report (SER), and the certified minority business enterprise (CMBE) subcontracting utilization plan. Neither BAYS nor JSP exceeded the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount applicable to any circuit at issue in this proceeding. Both BAYS and JSP identified a Maximum Payment equal to the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount as their proposal cost. Both BAYS and JSP received scores of 100 points for cost proposals in all responses at issue in this proceeding. JSP asserts that the instructions as to identification of the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount were confusing and that its actual cost proposal was less than that set forth as the "Maximum Payment" on Attachment J. JSP asserts that it actually listed its cost proposal at the section identified on Attachment J as "renewal term dollar amount proposed." JSP asserts that the Department should have reviewed supporting budget information set forth in Attachment H to the RFP to determine JSP's cost proposal, and that the Department should have determined that JSP's actual cost proposal was less than that of BAYS. The Department did not review the budget information in Attachment H, but based its cost evaluation of the proposals on the total figures set forth on Attachment J. Nothing in the RFP suggests that underlying information as to cost proposals would be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on the information set forth on Attachment J was unreasonable or erroneous. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's scoring of the cost proposals was contrary to the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that JSP is entitled to have its cost proposal re-scored. One of the requirements of the RFP was submission of a "Supplier Evaluation Report" (SER) from Dunn & Bradstreet. The submission of the SER was worth 90 points. Dunn & Bradstreet transmitted most of the SERs directly to the Department, and the Department properly credited the providers for whom such reports were transmitted. The Department's contract administrator failed to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for the SER included within its proposal. The failure to credit BAYS for the SERs was clearly erroneous. BAYS is entitled to additional credit as set forth herein. The RFP sought utilization of a CMBE in a provider's proposal. BAYS proposal included utilization of The Nelco Company, an employee leasing operation. The Nelco Company is a properly credentialed CMBE. Under the BAYS/Nelco arrangement, BAYS would retain responsibility for identification and recruitment of potential employees. BAYS performs the background screening and makes final employment decisions. BAYS retains the right to fire, transfer, and demote employees. The Nelco Company would process payroll and handle other fiscal human resource tasks including insurance matters. The Nelco Company invoices BAYS on a per payroll basis, and BAYS pays based on the Nelco invoice. JSP asserts that under the facts of this case, the participation of The Nelco Company fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. BAYS proposals also included utilization of other CMBEs. There is no credible evidence that BAYS utilization of The Nelco Company or of the other CMBEs included within the BAYS proposals fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. The Department assigned the responsibility for service proposal evaluation to employees located within each circuit. The contract administrator and staff distributed appropriate portions of Volume I of each proposal to the evaluators. The evidence establishes that the evaluators received the documents and evaluated the materials pursuant to written scoring instructions received from the Department. Some reviewers had more experience than others, but there is no evidence that a lack of experience resulted in an inappropriate review being performed. In two cases, the evaluators worked apart from one another. In one circuit, the evaluators processed the materials in the same room, but did not discuss their reviews with each other at any time. There is no evidence that evaluators were directed to reach any specific result in the evaluative process. JSP asserts that there was bias on the part of one evaluator who had knowledge of some unidentified incident related to JSP. The evidence fails to establish the facts of the incident and fails to establish that the incident, whatever it was, played any role in the evaluator's review of the JSP proposal. JSP also asserts that another evaluator had contact with JSP at some point prior to his evaluation of the RFP responses. There is no evidence that the contact was negative or was a factor either for or against JSP in the evaluation of the RFP responses. The RFP required that each provider's proposal include letters of intent from "local service resources" indicating a willingness to work with the provider and a letter of support from the State Attorney in the judicial circuit where the provider's program would operate. The RFP indicates that Volume I of a provider's response should contain five tabbed sections. The RFP provides that "information submitted in variance with these instructions may not be reviewed or evaluated." The RFP further provides that failure to provide information "shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation." JSP included letters of support in Tab 5 of Volume I. BAYS included letters of support in a tabbed section identified as Tab 6 of Volume I. JSP asserts that information included in Tab 6 of BAYS proposals should not have been evaluated and that no points should have been awarded based on the information included therein. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Based on the language of the RFP, submission of information in a format other than that prescribed is not fatal to a proposal. The Department reserved the authority to waive such defects and to evaluate the material. Here, the Department waived the variance as the RFP permitted, and reviewed the material submitted by BAYS. JSP asserts that BAYS proposal breached client confidentiality by inclusion of information regarding an individual who has allegedly received services through BAYS. Records regarding assessment or treatment of juveniles through the Department are deemed confidential pursuant Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003). The evidence fails to establish that an alleged violation of Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003), requires rejection of the BAYS proposals. There is no evidence that the information was released outside of the Department prior to the bid protest forming the basis of this proceeding. The evidence establishes that JSP misidentified the name of its contract manager in its transmittal letter. The evidence establishes that the misidentification was deemed immaterial to the Department, which went on to evaluate the JSP proposals. The results of the evaluations were returned to the contract administrator, who tabulated and posted the results of the process. On August 25, 2003, the Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award contacts based on the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, the Department proposed to award the contracts for Circuits 5, 6, and 20 to BAYS. The Department received four proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 5 (DOAH Case No. 03-3671BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 651.8 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 642.6 points. White Foundation was the third highest bidder at 630.7 points, and MAD DADS was the fourth bidder at 442.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 5 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 741.8. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 6 (DOAH Case No. 03-3672BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 649.0 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 648.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 6 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 739.0. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 20 (DOAH Case No. 03-3673BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 644.2 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 620.6 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 20 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 734.2. MOTION TO DISMISS BAYS asserts that the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP must be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires that a protesting bidder post a bond or cash in an amount equal to one percent of the estimated contract amount by the time a formal written bid protest is filed. Item 8 of the RFP indicated that the bond or cash amount required was one percent of the total contract amount or $5,000, whichever was less. However, RFP Attachment "B," Section IX, indicates that it replaces RFP Item 8, and provides that the required bond or cash amount is one percent of the estimated contract amount. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), JSP had 72 hours from the announcement of the bid award to file a Notice of Protest and an additional ten days to file a Formal Written Protest. The notice of intended bid award was posted on August 25, 2003. Accordingly, the written protest and appropriate deposits were due by September 8, 2003. The Department's Notice of Intended Award referenced the bond requirement and stated that failure to post the bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,159.70 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 5. The contract amount was $647,910. One percent of the contract amount is $6,479.10. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $3,414.52 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 6. The contract amount was $1,025,857.50. One percent of the contract amount is $10,258.57. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,231.69 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 20. The contract amount was $669,507. One percent of the contract amount is $6,695.07. In response to JSP's insufficient cashier's checks, the Department, by letter of September 12, 2003, advised JSP of the underpayment and permitted JSP an additional ten days to provide additional funds sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. JSP, apparently still relying on the superceded language in the RFP, forwarded only an amount sufficient to bring the deposited funds to $5,000 in each case. By letter dated September 25, 2003, the Department again advised JSP that the deposited funds were insufficient and provided yet another opportunity to JSP to deposit additional funds. On September 29, 2003, JSP forwarded additional funds to provide the appropriate deposits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a Final Order as follows: Dismissing the Petition for Hearing filed by MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc., in Case No. 03-3670BID based on the withdrawal of the Petition for Hearing. Dismissing the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), and for the other reasons set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian Berkowitz, Esquire Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Room 312V 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Larry K. Brown, Executive Director MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc. 210 Northwest 12th Avenue Post Office Box 3704 Ocala, Florida 34478-3704 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire The Nelson Law Firm, P.A. Post Office Box 6677 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Greynolds Park Manor, Inc. (Greynolds), operates a skilled nursing home facility at 17400 West Dixie Highway, North Miami Beach, Florida. The facility was constructed in 1968 and has been certified in the Medicaid Program since 1971. It is licensed by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate 324 beds. However, its average patient census in 1979 through 1981 was between 220 and 225 patients. It is the largest nursing home in Dade and Broward Counties. HRS is the state agency designated to administer Florida's Medical Assistance (Medicaid) Program pursuant to Section 409.266, et seq., Fla. Stat. HRS and Greynolds have entered into a written agreement, "Agreement for Participation in Florida's Medical Assistance Program," for each fiscal year that Greynolds has participated in the program. Greynolds' fiscal year runs from June 1 through May 31. Effective October 1, 1977, HRS adopted the "Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan" (Plan). The Plan is a prospective reimbursement plan, designed to aid the State in containing health care costs for Medicaid recipients. The prospective reimbursement rate for a provider is based on the actual allowable costs of a provider for the previous fiscal year, to which an inflationary factor is added. The mechanics utilized to establish the prospective reimbursement rate under the Plan are clear. The provider is required to submit a uniform cost report within 90 days after the conclusion of its fiscal year. HRS audits the uniform cost report, determines allowable costs, adds an inflationary factor, and thereby sets the provider's prospective reimbursement rate. This rate is effective the first day of the month following receipt of the uniform cost report by HRS, and remains in effect until a new cost report is filed by the provider. Under the provisions of the Plan, all cost reports are desk reviewed within six months after their submission to HRS. HRS, under the terms of the Plan, may perform an audit on the cost report. An on-site audit is a more extensive review of the cost report than desk review. During an on-site audit the financial and statistical records of the provider are examined to ensure that only allowable costs were included in the cost report. The audit findings prevail over those made at desk review. Greynolds submitted its cost report for fiscal year 1979 on September 27, 1979. Previously, by letter dated September 10, 1979, Greynolds had been advised by HRS that an on-site audit was to be done of its ficsal year 1979 cost report, and that Greynolds' Medicare cost report would be a subject of inquiry. The cost report Greynolds submitted to HRS on September 27, 1979, did not make a Medicare cost adjustment, and none was made at desk review. 1/ A rather anomalous situation existed in 1979 through 1980 which lent itself to potential abuse. The Medicare cost adjustment was never made at desk review. It was only made if there was an audit. Yet only one in three providers were designated for audit each year, and even if designated the audit could be terminated at any time. Consequently, if no audit were made, or if terminated prematurely, the provider would not be required to make a Medicare adjustment and would reap a substantial windfall. Greynolds was fully aware of HRS' practice. In 1981 HRS altered its practice and began to make the Medicare adjustment at desk review. The audit of Greynolds' cost report for fiscal year 1979 was actually begun in October 1979 by the Fort Lauderdale Office of HRS. At the same time, the desk review of the cost report was undertaken by HRS' Jacksonville Office and was ultimately finalized on February 29, 1980. The desk review findings contained adjustments to expenditures totaling $46,592, but made no Medicare adjustment, consistent with HRS policy at that time. Based upon these adjustments, HRS' desk review established prospective reimbursement rates effective October 1, 1979. However, HRS advised Greynolds that these rates were "subject to change by any on-site audit." Greynolds used these rates for the period October 1, 1979 through August 31, 1980. In June 1980, HRS' Supervisor of Audit Services requested additional information before the field audit of the 1979 cost report could be completed. Greynolds presumably furnished this information because the field work was completed in September 1980. On June 24, 1981, Greynolds was notified by letter that the audit had been completed and was pending final review. The letter further advised Greynolds that "since this audit will supersede the desk review, the adjustments we made in our desk review letter of February 29, 1980, must stand until the on- site audit results are released." On June 9, 1982, HRS' Fort Lauderdale Office advised Greynolds that its on-site audit of the 1979 cost report had been completed. The audit adjustments to the cost report had been increased from $46,592 to $803,592. Most of this was due to a Medicare adjustment in the amount of $654,282. An exit conference was held by HRS' field representatives and Greynolds on June 21, 1982. None of the adjustments were changed as a result of this meeting. At that time, Greynolds first requested that it be allowed to file an interim rate change. Greynolds was advised, however, that the Office of Audit Services had no authority to approve such a request. On September 23, 1982, the final audit report of Greynolds' 1979 cost report was issued. The audit concluded that the reported allowable expenses of Greynolds would be reduced by $725,953, resulting in an overpayment of $288,024. Most of this was, again, the result of the Medicare adjustment of $654,282. The report further advised Greynolds of the right to request that any audit adjustment in dispute be addressed in a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. Greynolds duly petitioned for a Section 120.57 hearing on the audit adjustments of September 23, 1982. This matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and docketed as Case No. 82-3208. At the outset of the hearing in that case, Greynolds withdrew its challenge to the Medicare adjustment of $654,282. Following receipt of the final audit report of September 23, 1982, Greynolds requested, by letter dated November 2, 1982, an interim rate change for its fiscal year 1980, "in accordance with the Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan IVA-10." The reasons assigned by Greynolds for making the request were: A substantial decrease in Medicare patient days in the fiscal year ended May 31, 1980 and the corresponding decrease in the Medicare adjustment; and A change in the percentage of skilled and intermediate Medicaid patients. The request was denied by HRS on January 12, 1983, on the ground that "interim rates will not be granted for a closed cost reporting period." HRS' denial failed, however, to inform Greynolds of its right to request a hearing. On June 7, 1983, Greynolds renewed its request for an interim rate change for its fiscal year ended May 31, 1980. This request was denied October 12, 1983, on the ground that: To grant an interim rate for a closed cost reporting period would be the same as making a retroactive payment to a nursing home whose costs exceed annual payment. Retroactive payments such as this are specifically prohibited by Section 10C-7.48(6)(1), Florida Administrative Code, which was in effect during the cost reporting period in question. Greynolds filed a timely request for a Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., hearing. The circumstances relied on by Greynolds to justify an interim rate request were primarily the result of a substantial decline in its Medicare patient census resulting from a staphytococcus bacterial infection among its patients. The bacterial infection arose in February 1979 and continued through May 31, 1980 (the end of Greynolds' 1980 fiscal year). Greynolds is a dual provider facility, treating both Medicare and Medicaid eligible patients. The bacterial infection, which was contained within the Medicare section of the facility, resulted in a 45 percent decline in Medicare admissions during the period. Under the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement systems, a provider is required to first request payment from Medicare if the patient is Medicare eligible. Medicare reimburses at a higher rate than does Medicaid. Consequently, a substantial decrease in the number of Medicare patient days would result in a substantial decrease in the revenue received by the provider. Greynolds was fully aware of the change in the patient mix, as it occurred, during fiscal year 1980. Greynolds opined that it did not apply for an interim rate request at that time because the prospective reimbursement rate which had been set October 1, 1980, based on its cost report for fiscal year 1979, was "adequate" until the Medicare adjustment was finally made. The facts, however, reveal a different motivation. Under the Plan, whether on desk review or on audit, a Medicare adjustment is made to a provider's uniform cost report when developing a prospective reimbursement rate. The Medicare adjustment is made by excluding the Medicare patient days and Medicare costs from the provider's cost report, since these items are reimbursed by Medicare. The reimbursement rate is then established by adding an inflationary factor to the remaining patient days and costs. This reimbursement rate remains in effect until the provider files its next cost report. If the provider maintains its costs under the reimbursement rate, it may retain the difference; if the provider's costs exceed the reimbursement rate, it will not be reimbursed for its inefficiency. The Plan is predicated on a cost containment methodology. It is designed to encourage efficient administration by nursing home providers when providing services to Medicaid recipients. The Plan does, however, permit an adjustment to a provider's prospective reimbursement rate ("an interim rate") when unforeseen events during that fiscal year occur which were not contemplated in setting the provider's prospective reimbursement rate predicated on the previous year's costs. Greynolds was aware of the change, as it occurred, in its 1980 patient mix. Therefore, it could have applied for an interim rate adjustment at that time. To have done so, however, would have required it to make the Medicare cost adjustment to its 1979 cost report since its justification for an increase was the substantial decrease in Medicare patients and the corresponding decrease in the Medicare adjustment it was currently experiencing. To raise the Medicare adjustment issue was not, however, to its financial advantage. If it "escaped" the Medicare adjustment to its 1979 cost report, it would profit by the amount of that adjustment ($288,024). Greynolds' request for an increase in its reimbursement rate for 1980, after the 1980 cost reporting period was closed, also raises the disquieting specter that Greynolds will be reimbursed for the same costs twice. Since each year's reimbursement rate is based on the previous year's cost report, to retrospectively pick one reimbursement period from the series of years is disruptive of all the rates which were subsequently established. Under the Plan, if a provider experiences a substantial decrease in Medicare patient days and costs for a cost reporting period, the Medicaid reimbursement rate for the next period, based on that cost report, would substantially increase. Accordingly, Greynolds' 1981 reimbursement rate would be reflective of the loss of Medicare patient days in 1980. To now ignore the effect 1980 costs had in establishing 1981 reimbursement rates, and to reimburse Greynolds for 1980 without regard to the reimbursement rate for the subsequent year, ignores reality. Greynolds has on one other occasion availed itself of an interim rate request. On June 17, 1981, Greynolds applied for an interim rate for its fiscal year 1981. Greynolds' request was based on the fact that it had negotiated a union contract effective April 1, 1981, which resulted in a substantial increase in salaries for its employees. Since this factor was not reflected in its cost report for fiscal year 1980, upon which its current reimbursement rate was predicated, HRS, by letter dated July 29, 1981, granted Greynolds' request. Greynolds asserts that the granting of its 1981 interim rate request occurred after the close of its 1981 cost reporting period and is, therefore, evidence that the denial by HRS of its interim rate request in this case is inconsistent and improper. HRS asserts that the granting of Greynolds' interim rate request in 1981 was proper, and that it was not granted outside a closed cost reporting period. HRS interprets "cost reporting period" to be that period within which the provider must file its cost report for the previous fiscal year ("the cost report period"). Rule 10C-7.48(5)(c), F.A.C., in effect at the time, provided A cost report will be submitted as prescribed by the Department to cover the facility's fiscal year, along with the facility's usual and customary charges to private patients receiving comparable medicaid service, within 90 days after the end of the cost report period. According to HRS, the "cost reporting period" would be closed when the provider submits its cost report, which could be as much as 90 days after the "cost report period" had ended. HRS' interpretation is certainly reasonable, within the range of possible interpretations, and is therefore adopted. The interim rate request, granted Greynolds in 1981, was not granted after a closed cost reporting period. The reimbursement rate in effect on June 17, 1981, had commenced September 1, 1980. This rate remained in effect until the interim rate was granted, which interim rate remained in effect until Greynolds submitted its cost report for fiscal year 1981. Greynolds' 1981 cost report was submitted August 31, 1981, and its new reimbursement rate was therefore effective September 1, 1981. Accordingly, the grant of Greynolds' 1981 interim rate request was not inconsistent with the position it has adopted in this case. Had Greynolds "timely filed" its interim rate request in this case, HRS concedes the circumstances which gave rise to the request would have entitled the request to consideration under the provisions of Florida Title XIX Long Term Care Reimbursement Plan, paragraph IVA-10. However, since HRS rejected Greynolds' interim rate request as untimely, it never addressed, by review or audit, the accuracy or prospective impact of Greynolds' request.
The Issue Whether the decision of Respondent, the Florida Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), to award the contract contemplated in its Invitation to Negotiate No. 1819-01 ITN TR, e-Payment Collection and Processing Services, to Intervenor, NIC Services, LLC (“NIC”), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the solicitation specifications; if so, whether that decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; and whether Petitioner, PayIt, LLC (“PayIt”), has standing to protest DFS’s decision.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Claims at Issue DFS, through Florida’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), is authorized to contract with vendors that process and collect electronic payments by credit card, charge card, debit card, and funds transfer (“e-Payment services”). § 215.322(4), Fla. Stat. DFS issued Invitation to Negotiate No. 1819-01 ITN TR (“ITN”) to procure a new contract for those services. NIC, headquartered in Olathe, Kansas, is an e-Payment services company focusing exclusively on government procurements. NIC is the intended recipient of the e-Payment services contract. PayIt, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, is also an e-Payment services company focusing exclusively on government procurements. DFS eliminated PayIt from negotiations after the first round. PayIt timely protested the intended award after receiving DFS’s notice of intent to award the contract to NIC. PayIt raises the following four claims: DFS did not make an appropriate best value determination by failing to: (A) consider vendor pricing before eliminating seven vendors during negotiations; (B) understand the pricing of the five remaining vendors before determining that NIC provided the best value to the State; and (C) consider whether making multiple awards would result in the best value to the State; DFS made the following material changes to the ITN during negotiations that improperly gave NIC a competitive advantage: allowing NIC to propose different pricing structures for individual agencies; (B) allowing NIC to waive the limitation of liability and parent company guarantee terms; and (C) allowing NIC to propose pricing based on a promise of exclusivity; DFS violated Florida law and the ITN by awarding the contract to NIC, a non-responsive vendor; and DFS violated Florida law and the ITN by failing to conduct the procurement in a transparent manner by: (A) holding a public meeting where no meaningful discussion occurred as to the reasons the negotiation team members voted in favor of an award to NIC; and (B) failing to prepare a short plain statement detailing the basis of its decision prior to awarding the contract to NIC. E-Payment Services and the ITN DFS is the state agency in charge of procuring contracts for and managing the processing and collection of e-Payment services, which include credit card, debit card, e-Check, and ACH transfer payments made in person via a point-of-sale device (“POS”), over the phone, or online. All state agencies and the judicial branch are required to use the e-Payment services vendor(s) with whom DFS has contracted unless otherwise approved. Local governments may choose to use the vendor(s), too. Approximately 20 state agencies and 95 other government entities use the e-Payment services contract. Each agency has unique needs depending on the type and number of transactions. The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) processes about 80 percent of the State’s e-Payment transactions per year, whereas the Department of Revenue (“DOR”) processes the largest dollar amounts per transaction. Some agencies have more web-based transactions while others have more POS transactions. In 2019, the State processed 1.7 billion transactions in e-Payments totaling about $52 billion. Bank of America (“BOA”) is DFS’s current e-Payment services vendor and its contract expires in 2021. BOA generally provides the services needed, but it uses subcontractors to manage different platforms utilized by the government entities, which has created continuity and reliability issues. BOA also replaced its dedicated team in Tallahassee with employees in Tampa and Orlando, which DFS believes has reduced the level of service it expected. DFS began the competitive procurement process in early 2018 to ensure a smooth implementation of a new e-Payment services contract. In March 2018, DFS conducted a business needs analysis and chose to use an ITN so it could negotiate with multiple vendors to meet the goals of the e-Payments program and provide the best value to the State. DFS wanted the best solution, not the lowest price. That is why it decided against an invitation to bid (“ITB”), as an award would have to go to the lowest bidder rather than the one with the best solution. DFS also decided against a request for proposals (“RFP”), as it could not define the specific services needed. DFS drafted the ITN over three to five months. DFS relied on its own experience, but also received input from DOT, DOR, and other agencies that utilize the contract so it could accommodate their needs and preferences. Based on that process, DFS finalized its primary needs and desires. Specifically, it wanted a single company that would: (1) perform all of the required services, in part to avoid difficulties it experienced by the current vendor’s use of subcontractors and multiple platforms; (2) provide customization to individual agencies and meet their customer service needs, including a year’s worth of data migration to the new platform, at least 15 participant-defined fields, and a dedicated team in Tallahassee; (3) provide contactless-capable POS devices, of which there are currently 600-800 in use; provide interactive voice response software (“IVR”) in at least English and Spanish so that individuals could make payments over the phone, which is consistently used; (5) have experience implementing a contract of this magnitude, given the billions of transactions and dollars processed each year; and (6) ensure the best value to the State. In November 2018, DFS issued the ITN. The ITN specifications detailed the procurement process, the selection methodology, and the award. Numerous sections of the ITN reflected the preferences just discussed, including 1.2 – Solicitation Objective, 1.3 – Background, 1.4 – Questions Being Explored, 1.5 – Goals of the ITN, 3.5.2 – Mandatory Criteria, 3.5.4 – Business References, 3.6.1 – Narrative on Experience and Ability, 3.6.2 – Respondent’s Proposed Solution, and 4.6 – Selection Criteria. The Solicitation Objective stated that DFS intended to make a single award using the Standard Contract, though it reserved the right to make multiple awards or no award at all. The ITN attached the Standard Contract, including a Statement of Work and Standard Terms and Conditions with several provisions of particular relevance: (1) Guarantee of Parent Corporation - requiring the vendor’s parent company (if any) to guarantee the vendor’s obligations under the contract; (2) Limitation of Liability – limiting DFS’s liability for any claim arising under the contract to the lesser of $100,000 or the unpaid balance of any compensation due for the services rendered to DFS under the contract; and (3) Nonexclusive Contract – providing that the contract would not be an exclusive license to provide e- Payment services, as DFS could contract with other vendors to provide similar or the same services. The ITN made clear that vendors had to notify DFS in their responses of any exceptions they had to the Standard Contract or its attachments. The ITN noted that the terms of the Statement of Work, the conditions, costs, different price adjustments, and related services may be negotiated, and required vendors who successfully negotiated such terms and conditions to submit a revised Statement of Work and attach it to their best and final offer (“BAFO”). The ITN also gave DFS discretion to negotiate and finalize terms with the vendor to whom it decided to award the contract. The ITN process involved three phases: solicitation, evaluation, and negotiation. DFS assigned Amy Jones as the procurement officer. She became the sole point of contact during the procurement process. The Solicitation Phase During the solicitation phase and prior to submitting responses, potential vendors could submit questions about the ITN. In response to 90- plus questions, many of which concerned pricing, DFS published answers to the following questions, among others, in a written document (“Q&A”): In response to a question as to whether DFS was open to a more simplified transaction pricing approach that provided a standard/blended rate across all card types and authorization levels, it clarified that it was interested in potential options that may exist and expected responses to propose the solution/approach the vendor believed provided the greatest value to the State. DFS confirmed that if the vendor did not charge a per transaction fee, it should enter a “0” on the spreadsheet but include the cost in the Total Fees. In response to questions concerning the ability to negotiate the terms of the Statement of Work, the contractual documents, or the Guarantee of Parent Corporation, DFS again confirmed that it reserved the right to negotiate the Standard Contract and that vendors had to fully describe any exceptions to such terms in their responses. In response to a question concerning the effective date, DFS indicated that it would be the date of contract execution, which should be in June 2019, but depended on the length of the ITN process. In response to a question as to the start date, DFS stated that the Project, defined in the Standard Terms and Conditions as the activities required to transition all agencies from the current vendor’s platforms to the new vendor’s platforms, should begin immediately upon contract execution. The Evaluation Phase DFS set the deadline for responses and the evaluation stage ensued. The ITN required each response to include three volumes: (1) Response Qualification Documents; (2) Technical Response; and (3) Price Response. The Response Qualification Documents had to contain financial documentation, including three years of audited financial statements, a completed business reference form, and a signed mandatory criteria certification, among others. The Technical Response had to include a narrative on the vendor’s experience, ability, proposed solution, any value-added services offered, any proposed exceptions to the terms and conditions in the Standard Contract, the requisite bond, and a security audit. The ITN stated that a vendor may be rejected if its “past performance, current status, or [r]esponse do not reflect the capability, integrity, or reliability to fully and in good faith perform the requirements of a contract.” The ITN, thus, gave DFS authority to reject a vendor regardless of its price if it could not fully perform the contract. The Price Response detailed the pricing requirements and confirmed that vendors had to complete an Excel spreadsheet provided by DFS. The spreadsheet had sheets for POS pricing, tiered pricing, non-tiered pricing, additional tiered pricing, and additional non-tiered pricing. All fees and pricing for each category, including credit card usage fees, had to be listed and additional rows had to be added if necessary. Tiered pricing represented the transaction-based services whereas non-tiered pricing represented the unit-based services. Pricing had to reflect the cost of the services as described in the Statement of Work. Any additional services had to be included in either the tiered or non-tiered pricing sheets depending on how they would be charged. The tiered and non-tiered sheets automatically populated a summary sheet based on a flat fee-per-transaction model, which would be used to compare the vendors’ pricing. Although the spreadsheet had to be completed as directed, the ITN did not prohibit more detailed explanations as to pricing elsewhere in the response. The Q&A also made clear that DFS encouraged alternative pricing arrangements. DFS received responses from 13 vendors, including BOA, Govolution, Alacriti Payments, NIC, PayIt, Fidelity Information Services (“FIS”), JetPay, JP Morgan, Official Payments, Point & Pay, Suntrust, Hancock Whitney, and Wells Fargo. As the ITN required, many of the vendors listed exceptions to the Standard Terms and Conditions and Statement of Work in their responses. NIC noted that it wanted to revise the language of the limitation of liability term and strike the parent guarantee term in its entirety, among other exceptions. PayIt chose not to list any exceptions in its response. Ms. Jones conducted an administrative review and identified deficiencies with ten of the responses, including PayIt’s. Ms. Jones did not deem NIC’s response deficient. Of particular relevance here, NIC listed four states and two federal agencies as business references to highlight its experience with payment processing services. NIC noted that these partners represented a small sample of the more than 50 governmental agencies that use its payment processing platform. NIC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NIC, Inc., which has a number of other subsidiaries. Of the agencies listed in its response, NIC has contracts with only two of them. Although the other agencies listed have entered into contracts with NIC-related entities, NIC owns the payment-processing platform and provides e-Payment services to all of the agencies through those related entities. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, NIC accurately listed its experience providing the same e- Payment services at issue here in the states listed in its response. Ms. Jones notified the deficient vendors and gave them an opportunity to cure.1 At the end of the cure period, Ms. Jones deemed all but one vendor (Alacriti Payments) responsive, though the ITN authorized DFS to reconsider responsiveness and responsibility at any time during the procurement. Ms. Jones also reviewed the Price Responses and realized that the spreadsheet formulas had issues that could render the pricing information inaccurate. Several vendors utilized percentage-based pricing per transaction while others put text in the fields. Because the tiered pricing sheet formula only could use fees expressed in dollars and cents, the use of percentages or other text resulted in inaccurate pricing information and rendered the spreadsheet practically meaningless for scoring the Price Responses. 1 As explained later, PayIt’s responsiveness and responsibility (or alleged lack thereof) are not relevant considerations because it challenges the fundamental fairness of the process and seeks a re-bidding. However, for purposes of a complete record, PayIt’s deficiency concerned its failure to include three years of audited financial statements. Upon receipt of the deficiency notice, PayIt timely submitted audited financial statements for 2016 and 2017 (2016 was its first year being audited) and an unaudited financial statement for 2018. PayIt informed DFS that it would submit the audited 2018 statement in April 2019 once the auditors were finished. DFS waived this deficiency as a minor irregularity and moved PayIt on to negotiations. Although PayIt never ultimately submitted the 2018 audited financial statement, DFS ended negotiations with it on other grounds, as detailed below. For instance, PayIt utilized a percentage fee per credit card transaction. When it included the percentage in the tiered pricing spreadsheet, the spreadsheet automatically converted the percentage to pennies and inaccurately reduced its pricing for credit card transactions. NIC also utilized a percentage fee per credit card transaction. Instead of including the percentage in the spreadsheet, it included an “N/A” notation in the description column, which resulted in $0 being calculated for credit card fees in the spreadsheet. Although the Q&A instructed vendors to use $0 if they “would not charge a per-transaction fee for different card types and authorization levels,” it required them to provide “instead a total cost for Total Fees.” NIC failed to include the total fees that it would charge for credit card transactions elsewhere in the spreadsheet, resulting in a tiered pricing sheet that included fees only for ACH transactions and inaccurately reduced its total pricing. That said, NIC explained elsewhere in its response that it charged percentage fees for credit card transactions and described generally how those fees would apply. DFS did not issue deficiency notices to PayIt, NIC, or any other vendor as to the Price Response. However, because the spreadsheet could not accurately depict pricing for many of the vendors, making it impossible to accurately score this component during the evaluation phase, DFS had to make a decision. It could reject all bids and start over, create a revised spreadsheet that could suffer from similar formulaic errors, or issue an addendum that removed consideration of pricing from the evaluation phase. DFS chose the latter because it would allow for and encourage vendors to use creative pricing without having to start the procurement process over. It issued Addendum 4, which confirmed that pricing would not be scored or considered during the evaluation phase. Instead, technical scores would be utilized to establish a competitive range and pricing would be addressed in the negotiation phase. Although Addendum 4 noted that the Price Response would be used, it deleted the form’s instructions and confirmed that vendors did not need to resubmit it. The weight of the credible evidence showed that this decision was reasonable; it ensured that all vendors were treated fairly and equally when it came to pricing, were not excluded from negotiations simply because the spreadsheet was too rigid to accurately score their pricing, and it allowed all vendors to address and answer questions about their specific pricing during negotiations. Addendum 4 provided the requisite notice about filing a specifications challenge within 72 hours. No vendor filed such a protest. Ms. Jones sent the remaining 12 responses to the evaluation team for a qualitative review. The evaluation team reviewed the responses against the evaluation criteria and completed score sheets for each vendor. The scores ranged from 66 to 99 out of 141 possible points. Ms. Jones reviewed the scores to establish a competitive range of vendors that appeared reasonably susceptible to an award. Because there was no natural break in the scoring, Ms. Jones included all 12 vendors within the competitive range and DFS commenced negotiations with all of them. The Negotiation Phase The negotiation team included Jennifer Pelham, Teresa Bach, Tanya McCarty, and Rick Wiseman, who collectively have substantial experience in negotiating contracts, procurement, and e-Payment services. The team also invited subject matter experts, including individuals from the three largest users, DOT, DOR, and the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“DHSMV”), to participate in the negotiation and strategy sessions and provide their input. The ITN required the team to conduct the negotiations and make an award recommendation after determining which vendor presented the best value to the State in accordance with the following Selection Criteria: The Respondent’s articulation, innovation, and demonstrated ability of the proposed solution to meet the Department’s Solution goals and the requirements of this ITN; Experience and skills of the Respondent’s proposed staff relative to the proposed solution; and The Respondent’s pricing and overall cost to the State. The ITN gave DFS substantial discretion. It could eliminate vendors from further consideration, end negotiations at any time and proceed to a contract award, or reject all responses and start the process over. It could request clarifications and revisions to any vendor’s response (including BAFOs) until it believed it had achieved the best value. It could negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if it believed such changes provided the best value. And, it could arrive at an agreement with a vendor and finalize principal terms of the contract. The team conducted its first round of negotiations with the 12 vendors. Prior to the meetings, the negotiation team closely reviewed the vendors’ responses and prepared agendas with questions as to their ability to fully perform the required services, their proposed solutions, and their pricing models, among other things. The agendas asked the vendors to explain their pricing and each had that opportunity during their presentations. The team met immediately after each presentation to discuss the vendor, its ability to meet the Statement of Work and provide all of the required services, its experience, and any other issues that arose during the presentation. The team conducted a strategy session after the first seven presentations to discuss the same issues and tentatively decided with which vendors to move forward. The team conducted a similar strategy session after the final five presentations. Despite responses indicating otherwise, it became clear that several vendors did not fully understand or appreciate the scope of the required services. Several vendors also lacked the capability or demonstrated ability to perform all of the required services. Based on the presentations and strategy discussions, the team ended negotiations with seven vendors—i.e., BOA, JP Morgan, Govolution, Point & Pay, Suntrust, Hancock Whitney, and PayIt—for the following reasons: PayIt – did not offer IVR in Spanish, as required; claimed experience with POS devices, but failed to answer questions about that experience or about the specific types of equipment it could offer; failed to follow the agenda and answer specific questions/concerns raised by the team; experience limited to web and mobile, rather than POS or IVR; limited experience with individual agencies in states, but not an entire state contract, and only had been in business for a few years; lacked adequate resources and staff to handle the contract at the time, with only a promise to hire more staff later. BOA – did not offer IVR; could not provide all requested services, so BOA proposed two contracts with other entities, which would cause additional administrative difficulty. JP Morgan – lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN; lacked a detailed implementation plan; could not offer participant defined fields for agencies to customize the platform or the required data migration; offered only a piecemeal solution relying on the current vendor to continue providing services. Govolution – lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN; only offered payment technology, but lacked the ability to provide the processing component; lacked a detailed implementation plan; could not offer the required data migration. Point & Pay – lacked experience with both government contracts and contracts of the scope, complexity, and scale of this contract; focused more heavily on payment technology, rather than processing. Suntrust - lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN; offered only a piecemeal solution relying on the current vendor to continue to provide services; could not provide data migration for the 15 participant fields needed for agency customization; lacked a plan to replace POS devices. Hancock Whitney - lacked an understanding of the Statement of Work or the ITN, including that the contract included SunPass or that local governments had to be converted during the implementation period; could not provide required data migration or 15 participant fields needed for agency customization. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team asked the vendors to discuss their pricing and considered it, but reasonably decided to end negotiations with these seven vendors—who could not offer all of the required services, lacked an understanding of the required services or a solid plan for providing them, failed to follow the agenda and provide the specific information requested, or lacked sufficient experience—consistent with the ITN and Florida law. The team continued negotiations with NIC, FIS, Official Payments, JetPay, and Wells Fargo. The team created agendas for the second round of negotiation sessions so that it could delve deeper into the vendors’ ability to perform all of the required services, their unique solutions for doing so, and their pricing. The team created a chart to conduct a side-by-side comparison of the vendors’ experience, their individual solutions, and their ability to provide the requisite services and value-added services. Although not required by the ITN, the team also created a chart listing the five vendors’ prices for the required services to try to do an apples- to-apples comparison. However, doing such a comparison remained a challenge because of the vendors’ different pricing structures. But, the team generally understood what the vendors charged for the services, including that Wells Fargo and FIS had cheaper transaction fees than NIC. After the second round, the team ended negotiations with JetPay and Wells Fargo for the following reasons: JetPay – Did not meet the information transfer requirements, forcing agencies to undergo extensive programming efforts to switch over; lacked experience with contracts of this size and scope; would not commit to a dedicated staff in Tallahassee. Wells Fargo – Did not use a single platform and had a multi-vendor solution; lacked a plan for replacing POS devices; could not meet the requirements for data migration or copies of batch files for processing payments that agencies requested; elaborate and extensive pricing. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team understood and considered the vendors’ pricing, but reasonably decided to end negotiations with JetPay and Wells Fargo—two vendors who lacked the demonstrated ability and experience to perform all of the required services of the ITN— consistent with the ITN and Florida law. The third round of negotiations continued with FIS, Official Payments, and NIC. The team met with each vendor again to obtain additional information about their ability to provide all of the required services, their solutions, and their pricing. In order to focus more closely on pricing, the team provided the vendors with past monthly invoices for DOT, DOR, and DHSMV and each completed the invoices based on their own pricing. This exercise allowed the team to understand the total cost to the State that each vendor would charge based on the services currently provided by BOA and compare those total costs both amongst each other and with BOA. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team reasonably decided to do this pricing exercise only with these three vendors because they were the only ones that it believed at the time were reasonably susceptible to an award. Nothing in the ITN required the team to conduct this pricing exercise with all vendors, much less those who already had been reasonably eliminated for failing the other two selection criteria. After the third round, the team ended negotiations with Official Payments for several reasons. First, it could not commit to a deliverable for next-day settlement of transactions, which BOA currently provided to agencies. Second, some of its references confirmed that it had not implemented the number, level, and complexity of services required by the ITN. Third, it offered to provide only one representative in Tallahassee who only had one year of experience with e-Payments. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team reasonably decided to end negotiations with Official Payments consistent with the ITN and Florida law. The team continued negotiations with FIS and NIC. It met with both vendors, checked their references, and reviewed their pricing exercises. The team understood that FIS offered lower prices than NIC, but decided to end negotiations with FIS for the following reasons distinct from price: FIS had no contactless payments or IVR services currently available and the team remained concerned that it had never implemented these services before. Although FIS promised to make those services available later in 2020, the team preferred (and, based on the language of the ITN and its answers in the Q&A, believed that the ITN required) that vendors be able to provide the services on the date they signed the contract to ensure implementation could begin immediately and the transition run smoothly. The team had concerns about FIS’s ability to live up to its promises, as it twice delayed meetings during negotiations and its references noted a lack of responsiveness to issues and implementing new services. FIS only offered one representative in Tallahassee and, at that, only during the implementation period. PayIt argues that the team misunderstood how much cheaper FIS was than NIC and ignored merchant fees during the pricing exercise. The weight of the credible evidence showed otherwise. PayIt contends that the team misunderstood FIS’s price because a spreadsheet it utilized contained an error as to FIS’s fee per transaction, which rendered FIS’s costs lower than the team realized. However, the team already knew that FIS’s prices were generally lower than NIC’s and the testimony confirmed that the error had no effect on their decision. Indeed, the team utilized the spreadsheet merely as a tool. It also cannot be ignored that, although NIC charged higher fees per transaction, FIS charged fees for monthly maintenance and equipment replacement, and charged hourly fees for customization development, which NIC offered for free. More importantly, based on the weight of the credible evidence, the team reasonably chose to eliminate FIS from negotiations despite its lower price because it fell short on the other two selection criteria—demonstrated ability and experience to meet the requirements of the ITN—and the team acted within its discretion under the ITN and Florida law in doing so. The team continued negotiations with NIC and solicited a BAFO only from it because no other vendor was reasonably susceptible to an award. NIC submitted its BAFO in December 2019. Consistent with its initial response, NIC proposed adjustments to the limitation of liability term and removed the parent guarantee term, and it attached those changes in its proposed Standard Terms and Conditions, as the ITN required. Although NIC understood that it would be the single awardee, its proposed Standard Terms and Conditions included the original non-exclusivity provision, making it clear that DFS was not granting NIC an exclusive license to provide the e-Payment services at issue. The BAFO also included a pass-through plus pricing model, which NIC proposed back in July 2019 during the pricing exercise. This pricing model passed through banking and merchant fees, reduced its fees per transaction from its original proposal, and included a discounted fee for DOT transactions. These adjustments generated significant savings to the State as compared to what the State currently pays BOA, which is exactly why DFS encouraged vendors to propose creative pricing in the ITN and the Q&A. PayIt argues that the team irrationally ignored merchant fees associated with credit card transactions during the pricing exercise, which would be a pass-through cost to the State. However, the weight of the credible evidence showed otherwise. Unlike processing fees (charged by NIC) and interchange fees (charged by the credit card company), merchant fees are charged by the intermediary that provides security and tokenization for the credit card transaction. Although the sample invoices submitted by FIS, Official Payments, and NIC during the pricing exercise did not itemize merchant fees, the total cost shown on the invoices included those fees. Thus, the team understood how the merchant fees would impact the total cost to the State, even if they did not understand exactly what those fees were. More importantly, agencies have the option to pass through merchant fees to the customer through a convenience fee and many of them do just that. In fact, agencies charged approximately $8.3 million in convenience fees in 2017-2018. By passing those fees through to the customer, they are not costs borne by the State. Because it is up to the agency to choose whether to pass through such fees, it is impossible to determine whether and to what extent the State will be responsible for those fees and how much they would cost the State. The Best Value Determination The team reviewed NIC’s BAFO and determined that it represented the best value to the State. The weight of the credible evidence established the following justifications for that decision: NIC was the only vendor that could provide all of the required services and exceed them, including contactless payments, POS devices, IVR in 21 languages, and next-day settlement with midnight cut-off so payments would be disbursed to the agency within one business day. NIC had over 25 years of government experience with states as large as Florida and had the demonstrated ability to perform all services effectively and immediately. NIC owned a single proprietary platform designed specifically for government entities with over 200 configurable elements that agencies could tailor to their own individual needs. NIC proposed a dedicated four-person team in Tallahassee for the duration of the contract, which was important due to the number of agencies utilizing the contract and the number of moving parts. NIC had a detailed project management plan for implementing the services to the agencies and local governments. NIC offered value-added services exceeding those required by the ITN, such as free replacement of all POS devices, a yearly device allowance, a mobile platform, and payment through text messages, among others. Although the team understood that choosing NIC may be more expensive than FIS, it determined that it was willing to pay more for a better solution that exceeded all of the ITN’s requirements from a more established vendor. The team did not want Florida to be a test case and it had confidence that NIC was battle-ready on day one. Given the importance of this billion- dollar contract and the number of agencies involved, the weight of the credible evidence showed that the team reasonably made this determination. The team’s almost year-long effort culminated in a public meeting on January 3, 2020. At that point, the team had conducted over 30 negotiation sessions with vendors, many of which spanned an entire day, and held over 100 strategy sessions averaging around four to six hours each. At the meeting, Ms. Pelham reviewed the selection criteria and each team member voted in favor of NIC. Although the team members did not detail the reasons for their vote at the meeting, they had spent hundreds of hours meeting with vendors and strategizing about their capabilities, solutions, and pricing, and discussing these issues at length during the strategy sessions. It is true that the team was to arrive at its recommendation by “discussion” during a public meeting, but the ITN did not define that term or require a specific level of detail. In any event, the failure to provide such details during the meeting resulted in no prejudice to any other vendors, all of whom already had been reasonably eliminated from negotiations. After the meeting, Ms. Pelham drafted a memorandum recommending the award to NIC. The memorandum confirmed that NIC provided the best value to the State based on its price and the selection criteria. Although the memorandum did not provide a more detailed explanation, the ITN contained no such requirement. Instead, the ITN stated that the negotiation team would make an award recommendation after determining which vendor presented the best value in accordance with the selection criteria and that the CFO or his designee will make the final determination based on that recommendation. Mr. Fennell, the deputy CFO, was tasked with making the final decision. As the deputy CFO of a large agency, he must rely on the advice of the division directors, deputies, and bureau chiefs who oversee the day-to-day operations of the divisions within his purview; this procurement was no different. Based on his confidence in the team and Mr. Collins, who had been involved throughout the ITN process, participated in some of the strategy sessions, and provided high-level updates to Mr. Fennell about the progress of the procurement, Mr. Fennell approved the team’s recommendation. Based on the weight of the credible evidence, DFS did not contravene the ITN, let alone in a material or prejudicial way, through the process by which it recommended the award. The negotiation team followed the dictates of the ITN by holding the public meeting, at which the selection criteria were reviewed and the team voted for the recommended action, which was then set forth in the team’s memorandum. Mr. Fennell complied with the ITN by making a final decision based on the memorandum and the confidence he had in the negotiation team’s recommendation. On January 13, 2020, DFS issued its notice of intent to award the contract to NIC. Upon receipt thereof, PayIt timely filed its bid protest. Assuming that DFS and NIC are successful in this protest, they will execute the contract. Thereafter, DFS will create a contract file, place the contract in it, and confirm that it contains a short plain statement explaining the basis for the award, as required by section 287.057(1)(c)5., Florida Statutes. The contract itself is often sufficient to meet this requirement. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the statute, the undersigned finds that DFS has no obligation to create such a file or prepare the statutory statement until the contract is signed, which cannot occur until this protest is finally resolved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services issue a final order dismissing PayIt, LLC’s Amended Formal Written Protest Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 6th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Brittany B. Griffith, Esquire Department of Financial Services Office of the General Counsel 200 East Gaines Street, Room 612B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) James A. McKee, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Alexandra Akre, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Eugene Dylan Rivers, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Erik Matthew Figlio, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Mallory Neumann, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Marion Drew Parker, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) John A. Tucker, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should award a contract to Intervenor to provide physical and occupational therapy services to approximately 1,300 exceptional education students who qualify for such services in 77 public schools in Brevard County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor is the incumbent contractor for physical and occupational therapy services provided to Respondent. Intervenor has provided such services to Respondent for approximately six years. On February 24, 1999, Respondent issued its request for proposals ("RFP") for occupational and physical therapy services. The RFP consists of eight unnumbered pages. Ten companies responded to the RFP. However, only the proposals of Petitioner and Intervenor are at issue in this proceeding. A four-member evaluation committee ranked each proposal on the basis of six categories. The six categories were: experience; qualification; recruiting ability; location of office; and responsiveness. The evaluation committee also considered the hourly rate and mileage to be charged by each proposer. The evaluation committee met as a body. Each member of the committee then returned to his or her respective office to complete a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet listed each proposer's name in a column down the left side of the sheet and the six categories for evaluation from left to right across the top of the sheet. A column down the right side of each sheet listed the hourly rate to be charged by the proposer identified in the column down the left side of the sheet. The RFP does not prescribe a scoring formula to be used in completing the scoring sheets. In relevant part, the RFP merely states: . . . The Selection Committee shall rank the firms in order of preference and will submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. All four members of the evaluation committee ranked Intervenor's proposal first and Petitioner's proposal second. However, the hourly rate in Petitioner's proposal was the lowest of all proposers, at $34.75, and $4.25 less than the $39 hourly rate quoted in the proposal submitted by Intervenor. The proposal submitted by Intervenor charged mileage in addition to the hourly rate while the hourly rate quoted by Petitioner included mileage. Before May 11, 1999, when the Board selected Intervenor as the proposer, the evaluation committee met. The committee asked Respondent's buyer assigned to the contract if the committee was required to recommend the proposal with the lowest price. The buyer advised the committee that the contract was for professional services and did not require the committee to recommend the lowest-priced proposal. The committee determined that Ms. Eva Lewis, one of its members and the Director of Program Support for Exceptional Student Education in Brevard County, should telephone Intervenor and ask if Intervenor would match Petitioner's price. Ms. Lewis telephoned Mr. Rick McCrary, the manager for Intervenor, and asked if Intervenor would accept the contract price of $34.75. After consultation with his superiors, Mr. McCrary agreed to the straight-rate price of $34.75. On May 11, 1999, Ms. Lewis presented the recommendation of the evaluation committee to the Board. The Board asked Ms. Lewis if Intervenor's price was the lowest price. Ms. Lewis disclosed that the evaluation committee preferred the proposal submitted by Intervenor, asked Intervenor to lower its price to meet that of Petitioner, and that Intervenor agreed to do so. The Board voted unanimously to select Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. The parties directed most of their efforts in this proceeding to the issues of whether competitive bidding requirements apply to the proposed agency action and whether the scoring formula used to rank the proposers complied with those requirements. Petitioner asserts that the selection of Intervenor by the Board violates the competitive bidding provisions in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated). Intervenor and Respondent contend that Section 120.57(1), rather than Section 120.57(3), controls the Board's selection of Intervenor for the contract. Although the document used by Respondent to obtain proposals from vendors describes itself as an RFP and describes the responses as either proposals or bids, Respondent and Intervenor suggest that the document is not an RFP but merely a "solicitation." Respondent and Intervenor further argue: . . . that the . . . Board . . . did not attempt to comply with the requirements for competitive procurement under Section 120.57(3) or Chapter 287. . . . And . . . that the . . . Board was never required to comply with those statutes. . . . these are contracts for professional, educational and health services, contracts uniquely and specifically exempted from [the] competitive bid procurement process. Transcript ("TR") at 40. It is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Section 120.57(1) or the competitive procurement provisions in Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 control Respondent's selection of Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. In either event, the proposed agency action is contrary to the specifications in the RFP. Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 do not apply to the contract at issue in this proceeding, Respondent failed to comply with RFP specifications. As Intervenor and Respondent point out in their joint PRO, Section F.8. of the RFP states: The . . . Board . . . and the selected proposer will negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions for submission to the . . . Board for consideration and approval. In the event an agreement cannot be reached with the selected proposer in a timely manner, then the . . . Board reserves the right to select an alternative proposer. (emphasis supplied) Intervenor and Respondent are also correct that the phrase "negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions" includes terms and conditions such as the contract price. Contrary to the provisions of Section F.8., the Board did not first select a proposer at its meeting on May 11, 1999, and then negotiate a contract price with the selected proposer. Rather, the evaluation committee negotiated a contract price with Intervenor before May 11, 1999, and the Board then selected Intervenor as the successful proposer. The evaluation committee is not the Board and does not have authority to act on behalf of the Board. As the RFP states, the evaluation committee has authority only to: . . . rank the firms in order of preference and . . . submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. The last sentence in Section F.8. makes clear that the right to select a proposer is the sole province of the Board and not the evaluation committee. Even if one were to ignore the legal distinctions between the evaluation committee and the Board and the authority of each, the RFP specifications fail to provide adequate notice to potential proposers of the true purpose for the RFP. As Respondent and Intervenor state in their joint PRO: . . . the . . . Board used the proposals it received to test the market for physical and occupational therapy services in Brevard County. The . . . Board then used the information it developed from the proposals as negotiating leverage to obtain a price concession from its incumbent contractor. The . . . Board's negotiation tactics permitted it to secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor. PRO at 33. The RFP fails to disclose that Respondent intended to use potential proposers to obtain negotiating leverage with the incumbent contractor. The failure of the RFP to disclose its purpose violates fundamental principles of due process, adequate notice, and fairness to potential proposers. It creates a gap between what agency staff knew of the Respondent's intent for the RFP and what potential proposers could know from reading the specifications in the RFP. The failure of the RFP to disclose its true purpose suggests that its authors recognized the chilling effect such a disclosure would have had on the response of potential proposers. The lack of responses from potential proposers, in turn, would have frustrated Respondent's intent to "secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor." Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) controls the contract award at issue in this proceeding, Respondent's proposed agency action violates relevant provisions in Section 120.57(3)(f). In relevant part, Section 120.57(3)(f) provides: In a competitive procurement contest, other than a rejection of all bids, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. . . . (emphasis supplied) As previously found, the proposed award of the contract to Intervenor is contrary to the RFP specifications, including specifications for the evaluation and selection process described in paragraphs 7 and 17, supra. The proposed agency action is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). It violates fundamental notions of due process, adequate notice, and a level playing field for all proposers. All of the proposers who were induced by the terms of the RFP to expend the time, energy, and expense required to prepare and submit proposals were entitled to rely in good faith on the specifications in the RFP and to require Respondent to adhere to its own specifications. The proposed agency action is also contrary to competition within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). The economic incentive to respond to an RFP would likely diminish over time if the proposed agency action were to persist. Potential proposers would eventually recognize the RFP process as a device intended to reduce the contract price of the incumbent provider rather than as a bona fide business opportunity for potential proposers to gain new market share. Such an economic environment would not likely induce potential proposers to incur the time and expense necessary to prepare and submit proposals. The pool of potential proposers would shrink, and Respondent would lose negotiating leverage with the incumbent vendor. The likely result would be an erosion of negotiating leverage and an accretion in costs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the selection of Intervenor for the contract award is contrary to the RFP specifications and contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Sawyer, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699 Harold Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier, Miniclier and Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Cocoa, Florida 32922 Jonathan Sjostram, Esquire Steel Hector and Davis, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward J. Kinberg, Esquire Edward J. Kinberg, P.A. 2101 South Waverly Place Suite 200E Melbourne, Florida 32901
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining to award the bid for its district office to Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) and whether the petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid under the terms of the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact GENERAL BACKGROUND - STIPULATED FACTS Petitioners received a formal Invitation to Bid on Lease No. 590:1784 from HRS, District V. The purpose of the ITB was to obtain competitive proposals for the leasing of office space by HRS within a specifically defined area. Petitioners timely submitted their bid in response to the ITB. All timely received bids were first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. Petitioners' bid was determined to be responsive to the technical requirements of the ITB. Responsive bids were then presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. In comparing the various responsive bids and formulating a recommendation for award, the members of the bid evaluation committee were required to visit each proposed facility and to apply the evaluation criteria as contained in the ITB package. By memorandum dated July 30, 1986, the bid evaluation committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger although petitioners submitted the lowest rental price. On or about August 5, 1986, petitioners received notice from HRS of its intent to award Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. By letter dated August 6, 1986, petitioners notified HRS of their intent to protest the intended award of Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. The Notice of Intent to Protest was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10- 13.11, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the petitioners timely filed their formal written protest. Petitioners are substantially affected by the decision of HRS to award the lease to Koger. THE BIDDING PROCESS The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form (ITB) seeking approximately 39,968 net rental square feet of office space in Pinellas County, Florida, to be used as the district administrative offices. The ITB set forth the method in which the bids would be evaluated as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsive- ness. This includes submittal on bid submittal form, inclusion of required information and data, bid signed and notarized, etc. Non responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for com- parison and formulation of a recom- mendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed facility and application of the evaluation criteria. The committees recommendation will be presented to the department's official having award authority for final evaluation and determin- ation of successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form. The ITB also provided that "the department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interests of the department and the state." In accordance with the ITB a pre-bid conference was held on April 29, 1986; however, neither petitioners nor any representative of petitioners attended the pre-bid conference. Further, petitioners made no oral or written inquiries concerning the ITB or the evaluation criteria to be utilized. Bids received from the following providers were determined to be responsive and presented to the bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of the recommendation for award: James P. & Margaret R. Gills (1100 Building) Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) LTBCLH Partnership (Justice Building) Procacci Real Estate Management Co., Inc. (ICOT Building) Elizabethan Development, Inc. (Handy City Building). BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE The bid evaluation committee was composed of the following people who, along with their staffs, would occupy the leased property: Robert Withrow, Chairman of the Committee and District Administrative Services Director; Samuel Kinsey, Financial and Accounting Director for District V; Patricia Bell, Program Manager for Aging and Adult Services; Fredrick M. O'Brien, General Services, Manager for District V; and Pegi Hollingsworth, Personnel Officer. Each member of the evaluation committee received a bid package consisting of the bid specifications and the bids submitted. Each member also received a bid evaluation sheet which was used to rate each bidder. They received no other instructions with regard to the evaluation criteria. Although each specific evaluation criterion was weighted, i.e., given a comparative value, the committee members were not specifically instructed as to how points should be assigned for each category. The evaluation committee went to each of the proposed buildings for the purpose of making a comparative evaluation based on the evaluation criteria provided. However, the primary focus was on the Koger Building and the petitioners' 1100 Building because they had submitted the lowest rental rates of the five bidders considered. After the viewing process, the members of the committee, except Mr. Withrow, discussed the factors that should be considered in applying each of the evaluation criterion. Although the committee members had not formulated the evaluation criteria to be used, they were uniquely qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided to the specific needs and requirements of the HRS offices that would occupy the building. Though the committee members were in agreement as to the various factors to be included in each of the criterion listed, they did not discuss the points that would be awarded to each facility. Each member independently assigned points to each facility based on his or her own evaluation of the facility's comparative value in each of the listed categories. Koger received the best evaluation from all five committee members with point totals of 98, 98, 98, 98 and 99 out of a possible 100 points. Petitioners' building was ranked last of the five buildings evaluated by four of the members, with point totals of 75, 77, 71 and 75, and fourth by Mr. Withrow with a total of 81 points. Based on the comparative evaluation of the buildings, the committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger. By letter dated July 30, 1986, the District V office received authorization from the HRS Director of General Services to award the bid to Koger as being in the best interest of the department and state. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA The ITB included the evaluation criteria list used by the committee to ascertain the relative value of each building. At the top of the page it is stated: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated... The evaluation criteria are divided into three general areas: (1) Associated Fiscal Costs, (2) Location, and (3) Facility. Each general area includes subcategories, with each subcategory being given a total maximum value. Each of the criteria disputed by petitioners is discussed below. 1(a) Rental rates for basic term of lease. (Weighting: 45) All of the bids received by HRS were within the rental limits established by the Department of General Services and also much lower than expected. Even the highest bid was lower than anticipated, and Koger's and petitioners' bids were considered especially desirable. The bids received, listed at present value for the ton year basic lease period, are as follows: BIDDER TOTAL COST AMOUNT MORE THAN LOW BID 1100 BUILDING $1,881,690.1 KOGER 1,993,131.4 $111,441.3 JUSTICE 2,473,559.8 591,869.7 ICOT 2,655,306.1 773,616.0 HANDY CITY 3,223,202.0 1,341,511.9 Rental rates for the basic term of the lease were given a weighted value of 45. All of the committee members gave petitioners 45 points, as the low bidder, and all gave Koger 44 points as the next low bidder. However, four of the members simply agreed that the low bid would receive the maximum amount of points with each subsequent low bidder receiving one less point than the one before it, which resulted in the high bidder receiving 41 points even though its bid was 1.7 times greater than the low bid. Only Mr. Withrow made an attempt to prorate the points based on the differences in the amount bid, thus resulting in the high bidder receiving only 20 points. However, even Mr. Withrow awarded Koger 44 points based on the minimal difference between the Koger bid and the petitioners' bid. Both Mr. Withrow and Mr. Kinsey explained the award of 44 points to Koger by comparing the difference in the amounts bid to the HRS District V budget or the budgets of the entities using the facilities. However, the purpose of the evaluation was to compare each facility to the other facilities. Thus, the award of points for rental rates should have been based on a comparison of the rates offered. Although it was reasonable to assign the maximum number of points to petitioners, as the low bidders, the amount of points assigned to the remaining bidders should have been based on a comparison of the amount of each bid to the low bid. This would have made a significant difference in the points awarded to Justice, ICOT, and Handy City; however, even using a strict mathematical computation would not significantly affect the points awarded Koger due to the minimal difference in Koger's bid and petitioners' bid. Koger would receive no less than 42 points, only 2 points less than awarded, regardless of the method of mathematical computation used. 1/ 2(a) Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of mad boundaries (Weighting: 5) All the members of the committee agreed that Koger is in the most preferred area because its location is more accessible to the employees and the persons who visit the office than any of the other buildings. Koger is in northeast St. Petersburg, minutes from the interstate. The 1100 Building is located in a more congested area in downtown Clearwater on the extreme northern boundary of the designated area. In making a comparison Of the building locations, all of which were located within the map boundary, the committee jusifiably determined that the building that was the most strategically located, in terms of accessibility, would be considered to be in the most preferred area. Thus, Koger was awarded five points by all committee members. The 1100 Building received 2, 0, 1, 3 and 1 points. Although all committee members awarded Koger the highest points, only one committee member resided closer to the Koger Building than the other buildings. Mr. Withrow, who lives closer to the 1100 Building than Koger, gave the 1100 Building only 1 point because it was more inaccessible to the district clients and employees. Further, the District Administrator, who approved the lease to Koger, resides closer to the 1100 Building. 2(b) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space (Weighting: 5) Both Koger and the 1100 Building received the maximum of five points in this category except from Mr. Withrow who gave the 1100 Building four points. The committee members felt that the bus transportation as about the same for each building. Although the 1100 Building had more buses passing the facility due to its location in downtown Clearwater, the committee considered the destination of the buses and concluded that a person would wait the same length of time for a bus to take him to his destination from either the Koger Building or the 1100 Building. Mr. Withrow differed on the points awarded because he considered the Koger location to be better due to its proximity to the airport. The district office has a large number of people that visit from Tallahassee and other districts in the state. 2(c) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 3) Koger received the maximum of 3 points from every committee member in this category; the 1100 Building received 0 points from every member. Although this category is listed within the general area of "Location", the committee members followed the category requirement and considered all environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building. In the 1100 Building, committee members noted problems with the air conditioning system and the elevators. The building was not maintained well, and the bathrooms were small and poorly ventilated. The HRS parking at the 1100 Building was not conveniently located. To get to the parking lot from the building an employee would have to cross a parking lot adjacent to the building, cross an intersection and then walk up to a block to get to his or her car. Many of the office employees work late and would be walking to their cars after dark, and there was concern expressed for employee safety considering the parking arrangement offered by petitioners. Koger had none of the problems observed at the 1100 Building. Further, Koger was better suited for the handicapped because there was no need to use a ramp as there was at the 1100 Building. 3(a) Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighing: 10) 3(b) Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 10) 3(c) Provisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations...within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) Koger's bid is for a two-story building containing approximately 39,000 square feet. The 1100 Building is a 15-story building. It would provide approximately 39,000 square feet on the second, fourth, fifth, part of the eighth, part of the ninth, and twelfth floors. The space allocation in the 1100 Building, spread over 6 floors, would provide a major problem in efficiently locating the staff. Certain offices could not be placed on certain floors because of space restrictions, and related offices could not be placed in close proximity to each other. Offices that needed to be on the same floor could not be located on the same floor. Because the space offered by petitioners is spread over 12 floors, accessibility to related offices would be much more difficult. Further, the limited space per floor makes it more difficult for HRS to properly utilize the space provided. None of the testimony provided by the committee witnesses related the "conformance of the space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid" (e.s.) The ITB lists the offices and rooms required, giving sizes for each. Other than the total square footage, which petitioners met, there were no other specific requirements contained in the ITB. None of the committee members compared the conformance of the space offered to the specific room and office requirements. Indeed, the testimony of the committee members indicate that accessibility of the space was considered under criteria 3(a) rather than the conformance of the space to the ITB. Since the space offered by petitioners apparently complied with the requirements of the ITB, petitioners should have received 10 points for that category. The points awarded under 3(b) and 3(c), however, were proper. The space offered by the 1100 Building is not susceptible to an efficient layout or good utilization of the space offered. Further, the committee legitimately differentiated between the single buildings offered by each bidder, under 3(c), by considering where the space was located within the building. Obviously, factor 3(c) reflects a concern that the space offered not be too separated. It clearly provides that proposals for space in two separate buildings will get fewer points than single building proposals, and there is no indication that all single building proposals should receive the same maximum points. This factor clearly relates to the proximity of the spaces offered to one another, with contiguous space getting the most points. 3(d) Offers providing street-level space (Weighting: 2) Approximately half of the space offered by Koger is street-level space. Koger received two points. The 1100 Building provides no street-level space; it received no points in this category. Petitioners do not contend that they should have gotten any points, but assert Koger should only have gotten one point because not all its space was street-level space. THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION The evaluation committee members were very conscientious in comparing the relative values of the buildings offered based on the criteria provided and their observations. Their evaluations were not made arbitrarily, but based upon the factors set forth in the evaluation criteria. Although errors were made in calculating the values awarded for categories 1(a) and 3(a), these errors were not due to arbitrary action by the committee members. Further, should the appropriate points under 3(a) be added to petitioners evaluations and three points be subtracted from Koger's evaluations (two points for 1(a) and one point for 3(d)), petitioners evaluations would be 79, 80, 76, 80 and 84, and Koger's would be 95, 95, 95, 95 and 96. The strategic plan for HRS, 1986-1991, Goal 12, is to enhance employee morale and job satisfaction in several ways, one of which is to replace or upgrade 90 percent of substandard physical work environments by December 31, 1990. The testimony and evaluations show, and the committee members found, that the Koger Center would provide a better work environment than the petitioners' 1100 Building. Based on the criteria set forth in the ITB, the Koger bid is the "lowest and best" bid.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Florida Cities Water Company, to increase the ratios it charges customers for water service in Lee County should be granted. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Conclusions: Factors pertinent to ratemaking and enumerated in Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, have been considered in this pro- ceeding. The Petitioner utility has not justified use of "year-end" rate base; those adjustments which it has supported with a preponderance of evidence have been accepted, those lacking sufficient eviden- tiary support have been rejected. Peti- tioner's application for rate increase should be granted to the extent provided in this Recommended Order; the resulting rates are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unjustly discriminatory. Recommendation: That the Commission recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the result- ing additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Order, and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the Base facility charge concept designed to generate the addi- tional and total annual gross revenues so specified.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By its application, the UTILITY seeks authority to increase its rates sufficiently to generate additional annual gross revenues of $1,483,300. It attributes the need for increased revenues to extensive additions recently made to its water plant pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 6209 entered in Docket 74176-W. The UTILITY claims that the increased investment and higher operating expenses associated with such plant additions effectively reduce its rate of return to 4.2 percent; it asserts that the requested additional revenues are necessary to allow it to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return of 12 percent. (Testimony of Reeves, Cardey; P-2, P-8.) II. Rate Base There are three issues involving the proper determination of rate base in this case: (1) whether "year-end", rather than "average" rate base should be used, (2) whether an Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) for post-test period additions allowed in rate base is proper, and (3) whether connection fees collected from 1969 to 1973 should be recorded as Contributions in Aid of Construction (CIAC) "Year-end" v. "Average Rate Base In determining rate base, absent extraordinary or emergency conditions or situations, "average" rather than "year- end" investment during the test period should be used. City of Miami v. Florida Public Service Commission, 208 So.2d (Fla. 1968). The Florida Supreme Court has suggested that average investment "should not be departed from except in the most unusual and extraordinary situations where not to do so would result in rates too low as to be confiscatory to the utility." Id. at 258. Year-end investment may be used only when a utility is experiencing extraordinary growth. Citizens v. Hawkins, 356 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1978). The UTILITY has not established that it meets the standard for utilization of "year-end" rate base, i.e. , that it has experienced unusual and extraordinary growth. Its customer growth rate averaged 8.2 percent for the last seven years, with a 10.56 percent gain during the test year. This growth rate has been experienced by many other Florida utilities of similar size and is neither extraordinary nor unusual. Neither is the UTILITY's growth extraordinary when measured in terms of water sold. Between 1975 and 1979, its growth in water sales averaged approximately 11 per- cent, in 1980--6 percent. In terms of plant growth, the UTILITY averaged 19.37 percent over the last seven years; the growth rate for 1979 was 12.03 percent. However, in 3980, its investment in gross plant grew at a 33 percent rate. The UTILITY's growth rate was repeatedly described as "substantial" by its consultant, K. R. Cardey, but substantial growth does not equate to extraordinary or unusual growth as defined by the Florida Supreme Court. Furthermore, the UTILITY did not establish that failure to use "year-end" rate base would reduce its rates to a confiscatory level. See, City of Miami, supra. It follows that "average" investment during the test period is the proper method to utilize in determining rates in this case. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding.) Appropriateness of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) After the test period, the UTILITY completed five major additions to its plant, all of which were required by previous order of the COMMISSION. (Order No. 6209, Docket 74176-W.) The COMMISSION agrees that, since it required these post-test period additions, they should be included in rate base at full weight. Since these additions, which total $5,966,569, were under construction during the test period, the COMMISSION contends they should be recorded as Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). The UTILITY agrees that these additions should be included in rate base but seeks to include, as well , an AFUDC allowance in the amount of $326,422.2 AFUDC represents interest that was capitalized on each of these additions while they were under construction during and after the test period. Since these additions are already included in rate base at full weight, the inclusion of AFUDC in rate base would allow the UTILITY to duplicate earnings on its investment. Such a result would be unreasonable, improper, and should not be allowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-10, R-2.) Connection Fees: CIAC or Revenue From 1969 through 1973, the UTILITY operated under the regulatory jurisdiction of Lee County, not the COMMISSION. During those years, it was the UTILITY's practice and policy to record connection fees, which totaled $226,582, as revenue, not CIAC. Since connection fees are ordinarily considered CIAC, the COMMISSION proposes to adjust CIAC by $226,582. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) Contributions in Aid of Construction are defined as monies used to offset the acquisition, improvement, or construction cost of utility property used to provide service to the public. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). The UTILITY's consultant testified that connection fees collected and credited to revenue by the UTILITY during 1971, 1972, and 1973, totaling $176,773, were "not used to offset the improvements or construction costs of the [UTILITY's] property. (P-8, p. 6.) The COMMISSION, on cross-examination, did not question the accuracy or impeach the credibility of this statement; neither did it present any evidence to controvert or rebut the UTILITY's assertion as to how the connection fees were used. The only evidence on the question presented by the COMMISSION consisted of its accountant's conclusion: "During the years from 1969 to 1973, Florida Cities Water Company recorded many tap-in fees collected as revenue. These should properly be recorded as contributions in aid to construction. This adjustment [of $226,582] adds these contributions." p. 5.)(Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In its Proposed Recommended Order, the COMMISSION asserts that the UTILITY has the burden of showing: (1) the correctness of collecting funds normally authorized for service availability and using them for another purpose, and (2) the exact manner in which the funds were used. (Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6.) However, there was no evidence in the record to show that the UTILITY's treatment of connection fees during 1971 through 1973, was incorrect or violative of Lee County's regulatory standards. Neither is there any evidence to show that the connection fees collected in those years were used as contributions in aid of construction, i.e., to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. The only evidence presented as to how those fees were actually used was that of the UTILITY's consultant; he testified that those funds were used only to defray operation and other expenses associated with the new customers. This evidence was sufficient to shift to the COMMISSION the burden of presenting evidence on the question or discrediting the evidence presented by the UTILITY. The COMMISSION did neither. It is found, therefore, that the $176,773, representing connection fees collected between 1971 and 1973, do not constitute CIAC, the UTILITY's testimony in this regard being persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-8, R-2.) However, as to the years 1969 through 1970, the UTILITY presented no evidence that the $48,809 in connection fees collected during that time were used only for operating and maintenance expenses and not to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. In the absence of such evidence, the COMMISSION testimony that connection fees should ordinarily be treated as CIAC is persuasive. The connection fees collected during 1969 and 1970, calculated to be $49,809, are therefore properly included as CIAC. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In light of the above findings and the absence of disagreement concerning other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the elements of the UTILITY's adjusted rate base are: RATE BASE Test Year Ended March 31, 1980 Utility Plat in Service $ 11,178,094 Construction Work in Progress 5,966,569 3/ Accumulated Appreciation (626, 160) CIAC,(Net of Amortization) (3,041,747) 4/ Advances for Construction (111,567) AFUDC (326,422) 5/ Working Capital Allowance 146,911 Materials and Supplies 117,450 Income Tax Lay [To be calculated based on additional gross revenues rec- opmended herein.] RATE BASE [To be determined upon recalculation.] In order to determine the adjusted rate base which should be utilized, Income Tax Lag requires recalculation in a manner consistent with the above findings and Section III below. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) III. Operating Income Operating Expense: Water Royalty Charge In calculating operating income for the test year, the UTILITY included $18,577 as an operating expense attributed to a $.03 per gallon royalty charge it paid an affiliate for water pumped from the Green Meadows well field. The UTILITY operates this water field on a 21-acre site and has easements to locate 26 wells. It pays no other cost for the water. The COMMISSION disputes the reasonableness of this charge because it is not an arms-length transaction, and the UTILITY has not explained the basis of the $.03 charge, the cost to the affiliate of the land involved and its subsequent sales price (the affiliate reserving the water use rights) , and the identity of the present owner. The COMMISSION's accountant testified that reasonableness of the charge could be determined by analyzing the costs of the rental of the land based on the original cost of the property to the affiliate. In response, the UTILITY established that the $18,577 expense is less than it would cost tide UTILITY, in terms of annual revenue requirements, to purchase the land involved. But the UTILITY failed to address the cost of renting the property, based on the affiliate's acquisition costs, or furnish information necessary to make such a determination. The COMMISSION is entitled to clearly scrutinize the expenses claimed by a utility and require that their reasonableness be shown. Tide UTILITY did not adequately explain or support the reasonableness of its claimed royalty expense, and it should therefore be disallowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-6, R-2.) Depreciation and Taxes: Adjustments Attributable to Post-Test Period Plant Additions The parties disagree on whether adjustments should be made to test year operating expenses to reflect increases in depreciation and taxes due to the five post-test year plant additions completed subsequent to the test period. The evidence is uncontroverted that these plant additions, including the Green Meadows water treatment plant and related facilities, were required by prior COMMISSION order and that they were necessary to provide service to existing customers of the UTILITY. The parties have also agreed that the full cost of these additions should be included in rate base, at full weight. The operating expenses of the UTILITY during the test year should be adjusted as was rate base, for known and no net changes in order to reflect conditions which will prevail when the rates become effective. The UTILITY's 2.1 percent composite depreciation rate should thus be applied against the new plant additions, and tide resulting depreciation expense included in the cost of providing service. Similarly, taxes (other than income) on the $5,960,569 worth of plant additions are known and eminent, are a cost of providing service, and should be included as an adjustment to test year taxes. The COMMISSION presented no policy or factual justification or explanation for its opposition to these adjustments to test year operating expenses. It does not contend that these expenses are other than known and eminent, attributable to the government-ordered plant additions, and will be part of the cost of providing service during the period the new rates will be in effect. The UTILITY's evidence in support of these adjustments is therefore persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R-2.) Similarly, the UTILITY contended that test year income tax should be adjusted to reflect changes in revenue, operating expenses, depreciation, taxes, and interest expenses attributed to operation of the new plant addition. The COMMISSION offered no reason or explanation why such an income tax adjustment should not be made; changes in income tax due to the operation of the plant additions are known and eminent, and should be allowed as adjustments to test year expenses in order to adequately represent the UTILITY's future costs of service. However, due to the findings herein relating to use of "average rate base, the AFUDC allowance, treatment of connection fees previously collected, the water royalty charge, depreciation, and taxes, the income tax adjustment proposed by the UTILITY requires recalculation. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-0, P-10, R-2.) In light of the above findings, and the UTILITY's lack of opposition to other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the known elements of adjusted operating income are: operating revenues of $2,419,437 and operating expense (operation) of $1,175,291. In order to determine adjusted operating income which should be used in this case, depreciation, taxes other than income, and income taxes require recalculation consistent with the findings contained in Sections II and III, infra. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) IV. Capital Structure, Cost of Capital, and Rate of Return The parties agree that UTILITY's capital structure and cost of capital are as follows: CAPITALIZATION COMPOSITE WEIGHT Rate 15 pct. 16 pct. Long-Term Debt 49.33 pct. 10.68 pct. 5.27 pct. 5.27 pct. Equity Capital 41.25 15-18 6.19 6.60 Subtotal 90.58 pct. 11.46 pct. 11.87 Deferred Federal Income Taxes 4.74 pct. -0- -0- -0- Customer Deposits .90 8.00 .07 .07 subtotal 96.22 Investment Tax Credit 3.79 pct. Average 11.53 .45 pct. 11.94 pct. .45 TOTAL 100.00 pct. 11.98 pct. 12.39 pct. They are also in agreement that a 12 percent return on the UTILITY's rate base, including a 15-16 percent return on equity, is a fair and reasonable rate of return. (COMMISSION's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7; P-8, P-5.) V. Additional Required Revenues In order to determine the additional gross revenues which the UTILITY should file rates designed to generate, the authorized operating income should be computed by multiplying 12 percent times the adjusted rate base computed pursuant to Paragraph 10 above. The UTILITY should then be authorized to earn additional gross revenues equivalent to thee difference between the authorized operating income and the adjusted test year operating income computed pursuant to Paragraph 14 above. VI. Rate Structure and Rates The UTILITY proposes, with the COMMISSION's concurrence, that its new rates be structured in accordance with the Base Facility Charge Rate Design (BFC) and that the 25 percent surcharge currently imposed on general service customers be eliminated. The new BFC rate structure design contains a customer charge and a gallonage charge, both of which are directly related to the cost of providing the service. The customer charge assures that all customers pay their pro rata share of certain fixed and operating costs of the UTILITY which are not related to the amount of water used by the customer. The gallonage charge is based on the actual amounts of water used. With implementation of the base facility charge system, the UTILITY should lower its current $20 charge for reconnections during working hours to $10; similarly, its current $25 charge for reconnection after working hours should be reduced to $15. These lower charges are sufficient to cover the costs associated with the service rendered. The UTILITY also proposes various increases in its service availability, or connection charges. These increases, based on increased construction costs, will be used to finance additional facilities and stabilize rates to existing customers. The BFC rate design system proposed by the UTILITY is fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the "alternative" rate structure which was presented to the COMMISSION staff on the day of hearing. With such time constraints, meaningful review of the "alternative" rate structure proposal was not possible. (Testimony of Byrd, Collier; R-1, R-3.) VII. Adequacy of Service Customer testimony criticized the 25 percent surcharge currently Imposed on general service customers, and the magnitude of the requested rate increase. Several customers complained of the quality of the water supplied. Under the proposed rate structure, tide surcharge on general service customers will be eliminated. While several customers complained of sediment in their drinking water, testimony established that the new Green Meadows softening plant should help alleviate that problem. The water supplied by the UTILITY meets all regulatory and health standards of the Health Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The UTILITY is currently under no citation for violation of any regulatory standards. It is found that the quality of the water service offered by the UTILITY is adequate. (Testimony of Collier, Reeves, Customers; P-7.) VIII. Franchise Fees The UTILITY has collected $395,000 in "franchise fees" for Lee County, but has not paid them to the county due to questions surrounding the legality of the franchise fee. Neither have the funds been placed in a special escrow account pending resolution of this controversy. The UTILITY should ensure that such franchise fees are deposited in a special interest-bearing escrow account, and take steps to ensure that this controversy is resolved without further delay. (Testimony of Cardey; Late-filed Exhibit P-12.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the COMMISSION recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the resulting additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Orders and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept designed to generate the additional and total annual gross revenues so specified. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The findings below are based on the undisputed facts set forth in Petitioner's Protest and supplements thereto, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and representations by the parties during the motion hearing. On October 7, 2009, Respondent electronically posted its final ranking of firms which had submitted proposals to provide mechanical engineering services for six HVAC projects for Respondent in 2010. Respondent's electronic posting of the final ranking of firms included the following language: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." On October 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the final rankings. On October 22, 2009, Petitioner filed its Protest. Although Petitioner's Protest was timely filed, Petitioner initially did not file a bond or other security. The Protest alleges that Petitioner was not required to file a bond, because Respondent did not include in its final ranking notice that a failure to post a bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings under Subsection 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Protest alleges that Respondent: (1) failed to provide Petitioner with notice of the estimated contract amounts within 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays and state holidays, of the filing of a notice of protest as required by Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) because Respondent had not provided that notice, Petitioner was unable to calculate the amount of the bond required and was, therefore, relieved of the obligation to file a bond. On October 30, 2009, Respondent, through counsel, wrote to Petitioner. In this correspondence, Respondent informed Petitioner that Section 287.042, Florida Statutes, did not apply to Respondent because it was not an "agency" for purposes of that law. Respondent further informed Petitioner that Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, allowed Respondent to require a bond in the amount of two percent of the lowest accepted bid or $25,000. Respondent also notified Petitioner that because it was protesting all six project awards, all awards must be included in the calculation of the bond amount required. Finally, Petitioner was allowed ten days within which to post a bond. On November 3, 2009, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a cashier's check in the amount of $3,143.70 and noted that the check was intended to serve as security for the Protest "as required by F.S. 287.042(2)(c)." In the letter which accompanied the check, Petitioner also noted that: (1) the amount of the check was determined by calculating one percent of the largest proposed contract award amount of $314,370.00; and (2) Petitioner was providing that amount "under duress," because Respondent had "just published the contract award amounts." The relief requested by Petitioner in the Protest is that: (1) it be awarded one of the six HVAC projects comprising the final ranking; and/or (2) alternatively, all six awards be rescinded and "start the entire process over." The final ranking which Petitioner protests included six separate projects, each of which had a separate construction budget. Those projects and their respective construction budgets are as follows: Northwest--$1,144,000; Tampa Palms--$2,649,081; Yates--$2,770,828; Ferrell--$2,550,758; Stewart--$2,805,437; and Erwin--$4,191,603. The proposed fees for each project were as follows: $97,240 (Northwest); $211,926 (Tampa Palms); $221,666 (Yates); $204,061 (Ferrell); $224,435 (Stewart); and $314,370 (Erwin).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Protest filed by Petitioner, RHC and Associates, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2010.
