The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1993.
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Respondent's decision to rescind a previous notice of award of a bid to Petitioner First Master Lessors, Inc., on the basis that the original bid was nonresponsive, was appropriate. If rescission of that bid award was proper, a secondary issue is whether Respondent was also justified in rejecting the competing bid submitted on behalf of Petitioner DSJ Realty Company Inc.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid in order to obtain a leasehold of 15,397 square feet of office space to house operations of its child support enforcement office in Lakeland, Florida, for a term of seven years with an option to renew the lease for two additional three year periods. The Invitation To Bid (ITB) states Respondent's reservation of the right to reject, if in the best interest of the State of Florida, any and all bids. Further, the invitation states a number of conditions that submitting bidders must meet in order for their bids to be deemed responsive. Among the stated conditions is the requirement that bids be submitted on the standardized bid submittal form enclosed in the ITB in compliance with conditions specified on that form. Further, bidders are directed to complete the bid submittal form providing acknowledgements requested by the form. Another stated condition of the ITB is the requirement that a bidder be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas offered for lease; or, if a lessee seeking to sublease, submit with the bid proposal documentation of authority to sublease the facility and parking areas. A further ITB condition requires each bid to be signed by the owner, corporate officers or legal representative of the bidding entity. Corporate, trade or partnership titles of the bidding entity are to be stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature. Bid submissions signed by an agent are required to be accompanied by written evidence from the owner of record documenting the agent's authority. All bid submittal signatures are to be notarized. Page 4 of the standardized bid submittal form enclosed in the ITB requires, in paragraph 11, that any bid offering premises for consideration (including parking areas), which are presently occupied or which will covered by other active leases on the anticipated lease effective date, must be accompanied by documentation executed by those tenants indicating their acknowledgement of the bid and their ability to vacate the premises by the proposed lease effective date. Submitting bidders are required to indicate whether this requirement is applicable to their bid. Page 4 of the standard bid submittal form contains a number of other conditions which require agreement by the submitting bidder. Proof of the bidder's agreement to those conditions is to be documented by the bidder's initials on each page of the bid submittal package and the bidder's notarized signature on page 16, the submittal form's concluding page. Among the conditions on Page 4 of the form is the agreement of the successful bidder to provide leased space to Respondent for exclusive use on a 24 hour basis, seven days per week during the term of any lease resulting from the bid. This condition further explicitly states that the space to be leased will be fully occupied during normal working hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the week and may be fully or partially occupied at other times as necessary in Respondent's discretion. Respondent's bid request specified that bidders must offer a minimum of 65 parking spaces in conjunction with premises proposed for lease. Of those spaces, two spaces were required to meet requirements of accessibility for handicapped parking. Of the remaining spaces, 52 spaces were required to accommodate full size automobiles. All parking was required to be provided as part of the lease cost to Respondent and under the "control of the bidder, off street, suitably paved and lined." On May 16, 1989, five bids were opened, including those submitted on behalf of Petitioner DSJ Realty Company Inc. (DSJ), and Petitioner First Master Lessors, Inc. (MASTER). Out of the five bids opened, only the bids of MASTER and DSJ were determined to be responsive. After evaluation of the bids by Respondent's personnel, the bid was awarded to MASTER on July 6, 1989. On July 11, 1989, and in response to the award to MASTER, a notice of intent to protest the award was filed by counsel for Dale S. Jones, as trustee; DSJ; and Elizabethan Development, Inc. (ELIZABETHAN). By letter dated July 12, 1989, Alan Taylor filed a protest of the lease award to MASTER. That letter simply stated its efficacy as a protest with the words "[w]e hereby protest the award of lease # 590:2087 to First Master Lessors, Inc." No particular factual or legal basis for the protest was stated. Taylor is associated with ELIZABETHAN and his letter is typed on stationary of that business entity. Taylor, designated the bidder on page one of the DSJ bid submittal, was authorized to act solely on behalf of DSJ in the submission of its bid by its president, Dale S. Jones, Jr. Documentation of that authority is contained in a May 8, 1989 memorandum attached to the bid package. There is no documentation in the bid submittal package of DSJ that Taylor was empowered to act on behalf of ELIZABETHAN, or that ELIZABETHAN was authorized to act on behalf of any entity in regard to the bid submittal. While not set forth in the bid package, testimony at the final hearing establishes that Jones is the sole owner of DSJ. Subsequent to the filing of the DSJ protest, Respondent determined to reject the bids of MASTER and DSJ as nonresponsive. By letter dated August 28, 1989, Respondent informed both counsel for DSJ and MASTER of this decision. As set forth in the August 28, 1989 letter, Respondent's decision to reject the bid of DSJ was based upon the failure of DSJ's bid submittal to reflect that its agent, Alan Taylor, or the proposed lessee designated in that bid submittal, DSJ Realty Company, had control of the property offered for lease to Respondent. The August 28, 1989 letter also stated Respondent's rejection of MASTER's bid due to a lack of control of the property sought to be leased, specifically control over parking spaces to be provided in conjunction with the premises to be leased. MASTER's bid submittal stated that the bid requirements in paragraph 11 of the bid submittal form requiring documentation of acknowledgements by any existing tenants of the premises (including parking areas) offered for lease, and ability of those existing tenants to vacate the premises, was not applicable. In response to the bid requirement for 65 parking spaces, MASTER's bid proposed 17 "exclusive" spaces on site and 48 "nonexclusive" spaces off site. An attachment to the bid response was a copy of a letter dated June 10, 1983, from the First Christian Church to a predecessor of MASTER, First Bank of Lakeland. The church, located across the street from the site proposed to be leased to Respondent by MASTER, granted "permission to the First Bank of Lakeland to use our parking lot for the convenience of their employees." Subsequent to the opening of bids and receipt of DSJ's bid protest, MASTER provided Respondent with another letter from the church reciting permission for MASTER to use 48 spaces within the church parking lot for the parking of Respondent's employees and clients, provided that the church reserved the right to use those spaces at any time upon the giving of one week's written notice to MASTER. The church also reserved the right to cancel the agreement at any time upon the giving of 60 days written notice. The letter was dated May 15, 1989. Also, as established at the final hearing, yet another letter was sent to MASTER's authorized agent from the church. That letter documents the rejection by the church of any "formalization" of a reciprocal parking arrangement with regard to the premises proposed to be leased by MASTER. However, the letter, dated July 20, 1989, restated the church's consent to the use of the parking lot by tenants of the premises proposed for lease by MASTER in accordance with its previous letter of May 15, 1989. Another letter attached to the bid submittal of MASTER, is also dated May 15, 1989. Directed to Respondent's facilities services manager, this letter is signed by an individual named Geneva Pettus as "[a]gent for First Master Lessors, Inc." The letter signed by Pettus references the 1983 letter from the church and states in pertinent part: We further guarantee your parking requirements during the term of the lease and will accommodate such spaces either within our own building or other locations if changes in the above parking facilities should occur. The MASTER bid submittal contains no documentation of authority of Geneva Pettus to act as agent for MASTER. Further, as established by the proof at final hearing, the vast majority of on site spaces controlled by MASTER are leased to present tenants or their employees. Remaining unencumbered parking spaces are inadequate to meet Respondent's bid requirements. The "guarantee" by Pettus, absent her lack of authorization to act for MASTER, is further invalidated by failure of MASTER to provide acknowledgements, as required by paragraph 11 of the bid submittal form, from the existing lessees of those parking spaces controlled by MASTER which would have to be vacated in order to comply with bid requirements. The proof establishes that MASTER did not have control of a portion of the property submitted for lease consideration by Respondent, specifically the proposed parking areas. Such lack of control is nonresponsive to Respondent's bid requirements. Notably, the May 15, 1989 date of Pettus' letter coincides with the May 15, 1989 letter to MASTER from the church. Respondent's facilities service manager, involved in evaluation of the bid submittals, was understandably concerned that this letter's existence was not disclosed to Respondent's personnel prior to August 17, 1989. The position of the church as reflected in the letter caused Respondent's personnel to reevaluate the issue of whether MASTER's bid demonstrated the requisite control over the property submitted for bid consideration and concluded that such control was absent. The DSJ bid submittal contains the notarized signature of Dale S. Jones, Jr., in the space on page 16 reserved for the signature of the bidder. His signature is followed by the title "PARTNER." That term is not further described, nor is a partnership or connection of that partnership with Jones identified in the bid package. At the final hearing, Jones confirmed his signature. However, the proof fails to establish that the required initials on each page of the DSJ bid package are those of Jones. Jones was unacquainted with the bid package submitted on his behalf, having merely looked through the package before affixing his signature. Further, the bid submittal form, on page 16, has a blank space for insertion of the name of the bidder submitting the bid package. The bid package submitted on behalf of DSJ contains no name in this portion of the submittal form. Page 16 of the bid submittal form also requires that the bidder indicate the name of the entity in whose name the subsequent lease is to be written, if that entity is one other than the bidder. The bid, signed by Jones and submitted by Taylor on behalf of DSJ, contains the statement that any future lease resulting from the bid should be titled in the name of "DSJ REALTY COMPANY as managing and Leasing Agent for Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." Also attached to the DSJ bid submittal package is a copy of an instrument entitled "DEED TO TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT." By terms of that instrument, the fee simple title to the property and appurtenances of the site of the building proposed to be leased by DSJ, was purportedly conveyed to Dale S. Jones, Jr., as "Trustee under Land Trust Agreement dated June 15, 1987". By terms of the deed, Jones is granted specific authority to convey, lease or otherwise exercise those rights to property which are commensurate with ownership. The grantor of the deed, dated July 7, 1987, is Florida Southern College. The bid package of DSJ contains no documentation that either Jones or DSJ is authorized to act as an agent on behalf of "Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." Further, the bid package of DSJ offers no explanation as to the identity of this entity. As established by Jones' testimony at hearing, the entities "Dale S. Jones, Trustee" and DSJ Realty, Inc., are not interrelated businesses. The DSJ bid submittal further contains no documentation of authority for ELIZABETHAN or Taylor to act as an agent on behalf of "Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." It is found that the bid submittal of DSJ is nonresponsive to the requirements of Respondent's ITB. In response to Respondent's letter rejecting the bids of Petitioners, counsel for both parties filed petitions dated September 8, 1989, protesting the decision and requesting administrative proceedings. The petition filed on behalf of DSJ, ELIZABETHAN, and Dale S. Jones, as Trustee, was entitled "PETITION FOR FORMAL HEARING AND FORMAL BID PROTEST" and alleges the submitting bidder to be ELIZABETHAN. The document, in support of the July 12, 1989 protest of the bid award to MASTER, sets forth specific grounds for that protest. Further, it is alleged in the petition that DSJ was appointed to act as the agent of Dale S. Jones, as trustee, in appointing ELIZABETHAN as his agent. It is found that these allegations, with regard to the identity of the submitting bidder, are not supported by any competent substantial proof; that Dale S. Jones, as trustee was not a submitting bidder; and that ELIZABETHAN was not a submitting bidder. Each petition filed in opposition to Respondent's August 28, 1989 rejection letter, was accompanied by a $5,000 cashier's check payable to Respondent. MASTER subsequently substituted this check with a surety bond. DSJ's July 12, 1989 protest of the bid award was not accompanied by any bond.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bids of MASTER and DSJ to be unresponsive; finding the cancellation of the award to MASTER to be justified; dismissing ELIZABETHAN and Dale S. Jones, as trustee, as petitioners in this proceeding; and rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner Master's Proposed Findings. Petitioner MASTER's proposed findings consisted of 21 pages encompassing unnumbered paragraphs dealing with an intertwined mixture of legal conclusions, argument and proposed factual findings. Therefore, MASTER's submission cannot be treated by the Hearing Officer in this appendix on an individualized basis for each proposed finding. However, MASTER's submission has been reviewed and addressed, where possible, by the findings of fact set forth in this recommended order. Otherwise, all disputed issues of material fact have been addressed by the evidence adduced at the hearing held in this cause. Petitioner DSJ's Proposed Findings. Addressed in substance, remainder rejected as unnecessary. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Addressed in substance. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 7.-1I. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Addressed in substance. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. 16.-21. Not relevant inasmuch as Jones, in an individual capacity or the legal capacity of trustee or partner, was not a bidder. 22.-23. Adopted in substance. Rejected, legal conclusion, relevancy. Addressed in substance. 26 Rejected, not supported by the evidence. Taylor was authorized to act on behalf of DSJ Realty, Inc., by the corporate president. 27.-28. Rejected, not supported by the evidence; no evidence that Jones was a bidder. 29.-32. Rejected as unnecessary in view of result. 33.-42. Adopted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1-12. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, FL 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Bruce Marger, Esq. 1700 66th Street, North Suite 501 St. Petersburg, FL 33710 David H. Simmons, Esq. 120 South Orange Avenue P.O. Box 67 Orlando, FL 32602 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award a contract to Intervenor Xerox Corporation pursuant to Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. 07-015- 040-RFP.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On December 15, 2006, PCS issued the 2007 RFP, entitled "Copier Program--Request for Proposals." The 2007 RFP was intended to provide a comprehensive copier program for the entire Pinellas County School District from the award date of the bid, then anticipated to be February 20, 2007, through June 30, 2012. The purpose of the 2007 RFP was stated as follows in Section 3.1 of the General Information section: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. PCS wishes to partner with a qualified vendor who will continue to improve information sharing, right size number of assets, and reduce the number of device types while lowering the district's cost. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid. . . . (Emphasis added) A statement of the 2007 RFP's "scope" set forth in the Special Conditions similarly provided: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets these needs and a district evaluation committee made up of participants from the focus groups will evaluate proposals and make the selection it feels best meets these needs based upon a set of criteria published in this document. . . . [Emphasis added] The 2007 RFP provided for proposals to be received no later than January 18, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. The 2007 RFP contained General Terms and Conditions, setting forth the standard boilerplate terms common to all PCS procurements, and Section 1 of "Special Conditions" particular to this contract.1 These were followed by: Section 2, "Personnel Matrix"; Section 3, "General Information"; Section 4, "Program Specifications"; Section 5, "Equipment Specifications"; Section 6, "Cost Proposal"; and Section 7, "Contractor Response." PCS has adopted the General Terms and Conditions as rules, codified in Part A of the PCS Purchasing Handbook. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions, "Freight Terms," provided: All items are to be bid FOB destination with all transportation charges prepaid and included in the bid prices and title transferring to the district at the time of delivery, unless otherwise stated in bid invitation. Any exceptions to these freight terms taken by the bidder must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal. The purchasing department will evaluate any such exceptions and determine if the exception constitutes grounds for rejection of the bidder's proposal. [Emphasis added] Paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Acceptance and Withdrawal of Bids," provided: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. By written request to the purchasing department, the bidder may withdraw from the bid process and ask to have their sealed bid proposal returned at any time prior to the closing date and time for the receipt of bid proposals. Paragraph 14 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Variance to Bid Documents," provided: For the purpose of bid evaluation, bidders must clearly stipulate any or all variances to the bid documents or specifications, no matter how slight. If variations are not stated in the bidder's proposal, it shall be construed that the bid proposal submitted fully complies in every respect with our bid documents. Paragraph 30 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Errors and Omissions," provided: In the event an error or obvious omission is discovered in a bidder's proposal, either by the purchasing department or the bidder, the bidder may have the opportunity of withdrawing their bid, provided they can produce sufficient evidence to document that the error or omission was clerical in nature and unintentional . . . This privilege shall not extend to allowing a bidder to change any information contained in their bid proposal; however, in the event of a minor omission or oversight on the part of the bidder, the purchasing department (or designee) may request written clarification from a bidder in order to confirm the evaluator's interpretation of the bidder's response and to preclude the rejection of their bid, either in part or in whole. The purchasing department will have the authority to weigh the severity of the infraction and determine its acceptability. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Basis of Award of Bids," provides: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." The standard form cover sheet to both the 2006 and 2007 RFPs contained a "Note to Bidder" that stated: "A signed bid submitted to the School Board obligates the bidder to all terms, conditions and specifications stated in this bid document, unless exceptions are taken and clearly stated in the bidder's proposal." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP included a provision titled "Acceptance of Vendor Responses," which stated: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested. Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP also included a provision entitled "Integrity of Bid Documents," which stated: Bidders shall use the original Bid Proposal Forms provided by the Purchasing Department and enter information only in the spaces where a response is requested. Bidders may use an attachment as an addendum to the Bid Proposal form if sufficient space is not available on the original form for the bidder to enter a complete response. Any modifications or alterations to the original bid documents by the bidder, whether intentional or otherwise, will constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. Any such modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal response and presented in the form of an addendum to the original bid documents. Both Xerox and IKON timely submitted proposals in response to the 2007 RFP. Evaluations of the responses to the RFP were based on a two-step procedure. First, a focus group of individuals from the Pinellas County School District would analyze the bids and award points based on the specifications and the Proposal Evaluation Form set forth in the RFP. The maximum award was 100 points, with 80 points constituting the threshold for further consideration. Second, those vendors which met the 80-point threshold would compete solely on price. Those bidders who did not score 80 points in the first stage would not have their price bids opened. By January 24, 2007, the focus group had finalized its evaluations, and the cost proposals were to be opened on January 26, 2007. Both IKON and Xerox scored above the 80 point level. IKON received a score of 87 points from the focus group and Xerox received a score of 81 points. Xerox's proposal included, among 15 unnumbered appendices, an appendix titled "Xerox Clarification Addendum to the RFP." This Addendum contained four "clarifications" of portions of the General Terms and Conditions, seven "clarifications" regarding the Program Specifications portion of the Special Conditions, and 12 items under the heading "Other Xerox Service Terms" that purported to set forth contractual provisions regarding service, personnel, risk of loss, limitations on liability, payment schedules, and other standard contract terms. PCS's purchasing department conducted a responsiveness review of the proposals prior to sending them to the focus group for substantive evaluation, but did not notice the Xerox Addendum. Mark Lindemann, the director of purchasing for PCS, testified that it is not customary for bidders to submit such an addendum, and, therefore, his staff was not looking for it when conducting their responsiveness review. On January 30, 2007, after the focus group had performed its evaluation of all the bids, and the cost proposals had been opened and the bid tabulations had been posted on the PCS website, Colin Castle of IKON brought to the attention of the PCS purchasing department the presence of the Xerox Addendum. Geri Pomerantz is the Xerox employee responsible for public sector solicitations in the Southeast United States. She is responsible for understanding the terms and conditions of a solicitation, for pricing the solution based on the customer's requirements, and for ensuring that Xerox submits a responsive proposal. Ms. Pomerantz signed and submitted Xerox's proposal in response to the 2007 RFP. Ms. Pomerantz believed that the Xerox Addendum complied with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision of the Special Conditions, quoted above. By submitting the Addendum, Xerox sought to clarify areas of the RFP, to explain how Xerox was meeting the requirements of the RFP, and to propose new items where Ms. Pomerantz believed the RFP was silent on important terms. Ms. Pomerantz testified that, to comply with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision, Xerox included the proposed clarifications in the body of its proposal, where that was possible, then further called them to the attention of PCS by placing them in the Addendum. Though unnumbered, the Xerox Addendum is clearly identified in the Table of Contents at the front of the Xerox proposal and on a separate tab on the side of the proposal. Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor, i.e., Section 4, the Program Specifications portion and Section 5, the Equipment Specifications portion. Xerox incorporated clarifications to the following Program and Equipment Specifications: Section 4.3.1-–Equipment Build Status; Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2 and 5.3.13 –-Price Offering; Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5-–Inspection and Acceptance; Section 4.10.2-–Response Time; Section 4.10.3-– Uptime; Section 4.10.4--Electronic Meter Reads; and Section 4.17–-Insurance Specifications for Contractors. The General Terms and Conditions did not call for a vendor response, and Xerox's clarifications or proposed modifications to those were made only in the Addendum. The introduction to the Xerox Addendum provides as follows: We have reviewed your Invitation to Bid ("Bid")[2] for a Copier Program, and have prepared a proposal that we believe addresses your requirements. However, some of the Board's requirements require that we make some limited clarifications to the terms and conditions included in your Bid. These clarifications are set forth below and are part of our Proposal. In addition, we have included some additional terms and conditions, which are also included as part of our Proposal. Should there be a conflict between the terms and conditions of the various documents the order of precedence will be this Addendum, followed by your Bid. Please note that if any of the terms or clarifications are inconsistent with Florida law or otherwise unacceptable to you, Xerox agrees to negotiate a reasonable alternative that is acceptable to both parties. Our team is also prepared to discuss the Xerox Proposal in greater detail and, if required, adjust our offering based on your final requirements, which may include a modification to our proposed equipment, support services, terms and conditions, and/or price offering. The Xerox Addendum expressly proposed clarifications or modifications to four provisions of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 1(g), set forth in full above, contains PCS's standard freight terms and describes the process by which a vendor may take exception to those terms: exceptions must be clearly stated in the proposal, and the purchasing department will determine whether the exceptions constitute grounds for rejecting the vendor's proposal. The Xerox Addendum proposed to transfer to PCS the cost of any "non-standard delivery or removal expenses, such as additional costs where additional time or resources are required to disassemble equipment due to lack of adequate facility access, or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to deliver equipment to upper floors of buildings.3 Ms. Pomerantz justified this variance by asserting that the 2007 RFP was silent regarding the issue of "non- standard delivery", and that Xerox was merely offering a clarifying solution to this problem. Mr. Lindemann believed this clarification to be salutary, based on disputes PCS has had with its current vendor, IKON, regarding unusual delivery issues. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions specifically allowed the vendor to propose exceptions to the standard freight terms, provided those exceptions were clearly stated and the vendor understood that its exceptions could be grounds for rejection of its proposal. Thus, it is found that the Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum also proposed modification of paragraph 11 of the General Terms and Conditions, which states that PCS has "sole and exclusive property" rights to any discovery, invention or work product produced under the contract. Xerox proposed that any work developed under this contract would be of a generic nature and would remain the sole property of Xerox. Mr. Lindemann reasonably opined that this was not a material deviation because there was no intellectual property involved in this RFP. The Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 41 of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 41 provided that unless otherwise specified in the Special Conditions, all items requested "must be new, the latest model manufactured, first quality, carry the manufacturer's standard warranty and be equal to or exceed the specifications" listed in the RFP. In this instance, the Special Conditions did provide otherwise. Section 4.3.1 of the Program Specifications provided, in relevant part, that vendors "may propose all used, all new or a combination of new and used equipment, but all equipment must meet the minimum standards outlined later in this section. To assure ease of operation for end users, if used equipment is proposed it should all be of the same brand and model within any given Group of copiers, within any given facility." The Xerox Addendum simply provided clarification regarding the company's terminology for its equipment. The equipment provided by Xerox would be either "Newly Manufactured," "Factory Produced New Models," or "Remanufactured," internal Xerox distinctions regarding the use of new, reconditioned or recycled components, and Xerox disclaimed any intent to use reconditioned, recycled, refurbished or used equipment as defined by industry standard. In this instance, Xerox submitted a clarification that did not deviate from or attempt to modify the Program Specifications. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions, the limitation of liability provision, which provided: The bidder guarantees to save [PCS], its agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind for use of any copyrighted or non-copyrighted materials, secret process, patented or unpatented inventions, articles or appliances, furnished or used in performance of the contract for which the contractor is not the patentee, assignee or licensee. The Xerox Addendum to paragraph 44 provided as follows: Xerox agrees that it will indemnify the Board from all copyright and patent information that is included in Xerox- branded equipment/software. However, Xerox will not indemnify the Board, its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, and agent [sic] for any patent infringement caused by complying with the Board's requirement to use, or the Board's use of, the Xerox- branded/supplied equipment with equipment or software not provided by Xerox. Mr. Lindemann testified that this modification of the limitation of liability provision would most likely require PCS to purchase additional contingent liability insurance, which would be a cost essentially passed on from Xerox to PCS. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed a second limitation of liability provision in the section titled "Other Xerox Service Terms," which was essentially a list of standard terms and conditions that Xerox proposed to take precedence over similar provisions in the 2007 RFP. This second limitation of liability proposal provided as follows: Excluding personal injury (including death), property damage, and intellectual property indemnification on Xerox branded equipment, Xerox will not be liable to you for any direct damages in excess of $100,000 or the amounts you've paid to Xerox, whichever is greater. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to this Agreement, whether the claim alleges tortious conduct (including negligence) or any other legal theory. Any action you take against Xerox must be commenced within two (2) years after the event that caused it. Ms. Pomerantz testified that when she read the RFP she focused on the indemnification language in paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions regarding copyright and patent issues. She thought the RFP was silent on broader indemnification issues, and she sought to clarify it with this proposed language. Mr. Lindemann testified that the $100,000 limitation of liability could result in costs to PCS in the event of a judgment against PCS and might require the purchase of additional liability insurance. Mr. Lindemann believed this proposed limitation on liability was a material deviation and formed the basis for his request to Xerox to withdraw the Addendum. Paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions states: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." (Emphasis added) It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. 34. Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program/Equipment Specifications related to the vendors' cost proposals provide: 4.3.4 Whatever type of pricing methodology is proposed, it shall include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to: all imaging devices, any peripheral equipment (file servers, etc.), delivery, removal, installation, training, dedicated technician(s), all supplies needed to operate the imaging devices except paper, delivery of supplies and removal of the equipment upon termination of this contract. * * * 5.3.2 Pricing should include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all imaging devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technicians and all supplies except paper needed to operate the imaging devices. * * * 5.3.13 Pricing must include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all copier devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technician(s), all supplies except paper, end-user training and semi-annual customer satisfaction surveys. The three quoted provisions state that price proposals must include all costs associated with the administration of the service in question, except for paper, delivery of supplies, removal of equipment upon contract termination, end user training, and customer satisfaction surveys. The Xerox Addendum sets forth a monthly minimum and cost-per-copy charge that would cover standard equipment, supplies, maintenance, delivery and removal, installation and user training, but would require PCS to pay for "optional accessories," "non-standard operating supplies," "excess rigging" needed due to inadequate site access or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to install or remove equipment,4 overtime service coverage, and expenses associated with site preparation. The Xerox Addendum attempted to vary the quoted Special Conditions that require the vendor's price to include all costs associated with delivery, removal, and installation and, thus, materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP. Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 of the Program Specifications required the vendor to "provide and pay for all material, labor, tools, transportation and handling, and other facilities necessary for the furnishing, delivery, assembly plus inspection before, during and after installation of all items specified herein." The Xerox Addendum to Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.17.1 of the Program Specifications required acceptance testing for each imaging device and accessory, including a period of four consecutive business days, each containing seven hours of operational use time, in which the equipment maintains a 95 percent level of performance. The Xerox Addendum to Section 4.17.1 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.10.2 of the Program Specifications provided requirements regarding service calls and response times. This condition defines "response time" as the interim between the user's call to the repair office and the appearance of a certified technician on-site who is prepared to effect repairs. Section 4.10.2 provides that the response time cannot exceed four hours. PCS would have the option of charging the contractor $50.00 per failure to meet this four-hour response time requirement. The Xerox Addendum proposed that service response times be averaged quarterly according to a formula by which "target response time" would be divided by "average service response time," which is measured by dividing the sum of all service call response times during the quarter by the total number of service calls. Xerox proposed that the $50.00 charge be imposed based upon Xerox's failure to meet "the 90-day 4 hour average unit response time commitment." IKON also proposed to calculate the response time using a quarterly average, providing for an average response time "of 2 to 6 hours for all customer service calls located within 30 miles of an IKON service center, and 4 to 8 hours for all customer service calls located 30 miles or more from an IKON service center." IKON's proposal did not clearly state how far IKON's nearest service center is located from any Pinellas County school site. Another section of IKON's proposal discusses the company's recent consolidation of its "customer care centers," which "provide direct customer support" and house "the field service call center and inside sales function for a geographical region," into four central locations, the closest to Pinellas County being in Atlanta, Georgia. In this instance, both Xerox and IKON have proposed material deviations from the RFP requirement. Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions set forth a simple response time requirement that PCS itself could monitor and enforce without input from the vendor. Both Xerox and IKON attempted to substitute complex formulas arriving at quarterly averages for response time. IKON's proposal further attempted to make its compliance with the four hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers. Section 4.10.3 of the Special Conditions requires a guaranteed uptime of 95 percent per machine for any 90-day period, and further requires that machines failing to maintain 95 percent uptime must be removed and replaced with an identical or comparable model at no cost to PCS. The Xerox Addendum announced an uptime objective of maintaining an average 95 percent equipment uptime performance based on a three-month rolling average, a variation in the wording of Section 4.10.3 that does not materially change the RFP requirement. Xerox also offered slight variations in the definition of "downtime" that are in the nature of clarifications rather than amendments to Section 4.10.3. The Xerox Addendum also contained 12 "Other Xerox Service Terms," essentially Xerox's standard terms and conditions dealing with service guarantees, personnel, substitution of equipment or software, risk of loss for equipment, treatment of confidential information, compliance with laws, vendor liability for customer-supplied items, the limitation of liability provision discussed above, force majeure, payment upon 45 days of invoice, breach of contract and remedies thereto, and a procedure for amendment of the contract. The 2007 RFP's General Terms and Conditions contain requirements for breach of contract, limitation of liability, standards of conduct for vendor personnel, and equipment substitution. Thus, the Xerox Addendum violated the following language in paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." In summary, the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the requirements of the 2007 RFP in the following ways: it varied from the limitation of liability requirements of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions; it offered a cost proposal that was not all-inclusive, in contravention of Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program Specifications; it attempted to limit inspections after installation and acceptance testing, in contravention of Sections 4.7.4, 4.7.5, and 4.17.1 of the Special Conditions; it varied from the response time requirements of Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions; and it attempted to substitute several of Xerox's standard terms and conditions for those of PCS, in violation of paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions. After learning of the Xerox Addendum from Mr. Castle on January 30, 2007, PCS reviewed the Addendum and concluded that it included material deviations to the terms and conditions of the RFP solicitation and that either the Addendum or Xerox's bid must be withdrawn. Negotiations commenced between PCS and Xerox. On February 2, 2007, Xerox offered PCS a revised Addendum. PCS rejected the revised Addendum and informed Xerox that the Addendum must be withdrawn in its entirety. On February 5, 2007, Xerox notified PCS by letter that it was withdrawing the Addendum from its proposal. Also on February 5, 2007, PCS posted its notice of intent to award the contract to Xerox. IKON's protest complained that Xerox's letter did not accomplish a complete withdrawal of the deviations included in the Xerox Addendum, because many of those deviations remained in the main body of the Xerox proposal. As noted above, Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the main body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor. These clarifications were included in Section 7.1.4 of the Xerox proposal, "Proposed Work Plan, Transition Plan." When Xerox withdrew its Addendum, it did not also submit a revised proposal that deleted the Addendum provisions from those places where they had been incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Nevertheless, both Xerox and PCS understood that withdrawal of the Addendum accomplished the complete withdrawal of the materials included in the Addendum, including where they were incorporated into the main body of the Xerox proposal. This understanding was reasonable under the circumstances. However, IKON raises a related objection that is more pertinent. Xerox was allowed to withdraw its Addendum, and then was awarded the contract. Thus, the winning proposal is different than the proposal that was reviewed and scored by the PCS focus group. IKON argues that it is very likely that Xerox would not have passed the 80-point threshold without the Addendum provisions that were incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Mr. Lindemann of PCS believed that Xerox's score would probably have been higher without the Addendum provisions. The salient point is that both sides are free to speculate about what the score of the winning bid might have been, because PCS proposes to award a contract on a proposal that was never reviewed or scored in the manner prescribed by the 2007 RFP. PCS argues that the withdrawal of the Xerox Addendum was entirely in keeping with the RFP, citing paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, quoted in full above and relevant portion of which provides: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. [Emphasis added] PCS contends that the emphasized language grants the purchasing department authority to allow a bidder to withdraw a portion of its bid after the bids have been opened. This is correct, if the portion in question is a timely submitted amendment to the original bid.5 In their arguments, both PCS and Xerox equate the terms "amendment" and "addendum," and assume that the Xerox Addendum could be withdrawn as an "amendment" to the Xerox proposal. However, the Xerox Addendum was not an amendment to the Xerox proposal; it was an integral part of that proposal. The Addendum did not amend anything contained in the Xerox proposal; rather, it attempted to "amend" the terms of the RFP. The underscored portion of paragraph 3 anticipates the late withdrawal of an entire bid or an amendment to a bid, not a wholesale grant of authority to the purchasing department to allow a bidder to save a nonresponsive proposal by withdrawing the objectionable provisions. PCS argues that Xerox was given no economic or competitive advantage in being allowed to submit and then withdraw its Addendum. Ms. Pomerantz testified that none of the items in the Addendum would have affected the price bid by Xerox, because they were essentially items of overhead that Xerox cannot "cost out" to include in a price proposal. However, the testimony by Mr. Lindemann convincingly made the point that some of the variations from RFP terms offered by Xerox would affect PCS's costs regardless of their impact on Xerox's price proposal. Passing on costs to the agency that have been absorbed by IKON and the other vendors in their proposals works to Xerox's economic advantage and to the detriment of PCS. Xerox had an obvious competitive advantage in being granted the opportunity to amend its proposal after the substantive proposals were opened and evaluated and the price proposals had been opened and posted. Xerox was also granted the option, afforded to no other bidder, of simply declining to withdraw its Addendum and thereby walking away from the procurement after submitting a proposal that, under the terms of the RFP, is supposed to bind the vendor for a period of 90 days. Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: In a protest to an invitation to bid or request for proposals procurement, no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. . . . The PCS rules and RFP provisions, correctly understood, do not contravene this statutory requirement. They grant the purchasing department the flexibility to allow a bidder, under special circumstances, to withdraw from a given procurement after submitting a bid, and they allow PCS to waive slight variations or minor irregularities in a bid. To the extent that PCS interprets its rules and RFP to allow Xerox to substantially amend its proposal after the opening,6 as occurred in this procurement, then PCS has violated its governing statutes in a fashion that is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. PCS argues that even if the Xerox Addendum contained material deviations, the RFP and PCS's rule permitted bidders to submit addenda with material deviations. PCS based this argument on that portion of Section 3.1 of the Special Conditions stating that bidders "may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid." When read within the context of the Special Conditions in their entirety, this language clearly contemplates allowing the vendors to offer creative solutions within their field of substantive expertise, i.e., the establishment of a comprehensive copier program countywide. It was rational for the drafters of the RFP to assume that a company such as Xerox enters the process in possession of more knowledge and experience in the field of copier installation, service, and repair than the school district possesses. PCS conducted focus groups to determine the top priorities of the school personnel who use the copiers and presented the bidders with specifications broad enough to allow maximum flexibility in crafting proposals responsive to the listed priorities. However, there are rarely "creative solutions" to boilerplate RFP terms such as shipping, limitation of liability, the requirement that cost proposals be all-inclusive, inspection of equipment prior to acceptance, and response time for repairs. These are areas in which the purchasing department of PCS may be presumed to have at least as much expertise as Xerox or IKON. Variations from the RFP's requirements proposed by a bidder regarding these items are likely to be self-serving efforts to protect the bidder's interests or pass on costs to the agency. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions recognizes this reality by stating that a bidder that substitutes its standard terms and conditions for those of PCS will be considered nonresponsive.7 PCS is correct that the "Integrity of Bid Documents" paragraph of Section 1 of the Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP allows bidders to submit addenda that clearly state "modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose." However, contrary to PCS's treatment of Xerox in this procurement, the RFP does not state that the bidder may propose modifications of the RFP terms without risk.8 The cited paragraph clearly warns bidders that proposed modifications or alterations constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. The paragraph does not, and under Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), could not, state that bidders will be given the opportunity to withdraw those portions of their proposals deemed nonresponsive after bid opening. PCS also emphasizes the first sentence of the "Acceptance of Vendor Responses" paragraph of the Special Conditions: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested." However, the next sentence of that paragraph states that the remedy is not after-the-fact withdrawal of the rejected portion of the proposal, but rejection of the proposal: "Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." Both PCS and Xerox raised the issue of the 2006 RFP in an effort to show that IKON was now attacking a process from which it earlier benefited. In the 2006 procurement, IKON was allowed to withdraw portions of an addendum after a competitor filed a protest. PCS ultimately rejected all of the 2006 Proposals because of confusion on the part of the bidders, partly related to the fact that IKON was allowed to withdraw its addendum but a competitor was not given the same opportunity. PCS then issued the 2007 RFP in December 2006 to procure the same copy services sought by the 2006 RFP. The 2006 RFP is relevant only to show that PCS has allowed the withdrawal of amendments in at least one previous procurement, a moot point because PCS has freely stated its position that it has the authority to reject an addendum without rejecting the entire proposal. Xerox's original proposal, including the Addendum, was nonresponsive for the reasons set forth above. PCS's effort to save Xerox's low bid by allowing it to withdraw the Addendum violated Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), as well as the terms of the RFP. The remaining question is whether IKON's proposal was responsive and may therefore be awarded the contract. As already found above, IKON's proposal materially deviated from Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions by substituting a complex formula for the simple response time requirement of the RFP and by making compliance with the four- hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers.9 Section 7.1.3 of the Contractor Response portion of the 2007 RFP, "Proposed Models and Equipment Configurations," provides the following: The respondent must provide a comprehensive description of its proposed standard models and equipment configurations for each of the various grade levels (elementary, middle, high school). Consideration should be given to the stated needs of the focus groups (Section 3), particularly "ease of operation", "accessibility" to machines and "reliability". Vendors should provide detailed, technical product literature for each piece of equipment proposed including all options. The respondent should also describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment as program needs change and how that will effect the amount billed according to the cost proposal plan proposed. [Emphasis added] Section 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, "Cost Proposal," provides the following: Respondent must include a complete, detailed cost proposal which encompasses all costs associated with the proposed program. The cost proposal must allow for flexibility to add or delete equipment as program needs change. The district will not entertain any proposals to purchase or lease any equipment. [Emphasis added] IKON's proposal contained the following paragraph within its response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions: As requested by PCS in Section 7.1.7 of the Invitation to Bid, IKON's cost proposal allows for flexibility. IKON will permit PCS to add or delete equipment as PCS' needs change by permitting PCS to upgrade or downgrade equipment at the beginning or at the end of its fiscal year. Under this program, PCS may replace upgraded or downgraded equipment with additional equipment that addresses PCS' needs. Specifically, IKON will permit PCS to identify up to [three] percent of the overall equipment fleet value procured by PCS from IKON, including models and specifications that are representative of the entire fleet population, as flexible equipment that may be upgraded or downgraded at the beginning or at the end of the fiscal year, while all other equipment may be canceled only in the event of a non- appropriation or termination for cause. The flexible equipment may also be relocated or otherwise used to facilitate a rightsizing program, as directed by PCS. PCS may utilize this flexibility program in its own discretion. In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages. Xerox contends that by limiting PCS to a three percent change in the overall equipment fleet value, IKON's proposal materially deviates from Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, which required that PCS have the flexibility to increase or decrease the size of the copier fleet to meet its needs. However, Section 7.1.3 did not prescribe the amount of "flexibility" required in the vendors' bids; rather, it expressly requested the vendors to "describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment." IKON's bid described the allowed flexibility as three percent of the overall equipment fleet value and was thus responsive on its face. The evidence presented at hearing was insufficient to determine whether a three percent limit would be so restrictive of PCS's needs to add or delete equipment as to render IKON's proposal nonresponsive. More problematic is the last sentence of the quoted paragraph: "In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages." Xerox cogently argues that if its own proposed limitation of liability is a material deviation, then this similar limitation of liability included in the IKON bid must also be found a material deviation. IKON responds that it is clear from the context that this limitation of liability provision, unlike that in Xerox's proposal, applies only to Section 7.1.3. For this reason, IKON contends, PCS determined that IKON's bid was responsive. IKON argues that its own limitation of liability provision is implicated only in the event that PCS requires additional equipment and that it does not limit any direct liability of IKON to PCS and concerns only a distinct class of damages: indirect, special or consequential damages. The position of the quoted sentence, at the end of the final paragraph of IKON's response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions, supports IKON's contention that the limitation of liability applies only to that section. However, the wording of the sentence ("In no event . . .") indicates a broader intended application. IKON also failed to explain why the requirement of additional equipment, and only the requirement of additional equipment, raised concerns within IKON that indirect, special or consequential damages might be claimed by either party to the contract. At best, this provision is ambiguous in the scope of its application and, in any event, seeks to limit the liability of IKON beyond the limits provided by the RFP. If Xerox's limitations of liability constitute material deviations, then so must IKON's. IKON's proposal thus contains two material deviations from the RFP, one regarding response time and one regarding limitations of liability. IKON's proposal is nonresponsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that PCS enter a final order that (a) declares Xerox's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rescinds the proposed award to Xerox; and (b) declares IKON's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rejects the same. Because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation as to whether PCS should award the contract to the next-lowest responsive bidder or reject all bids and start over. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid specifications, together with other applicable authority, require that a bid, in order to be responsive, contain any written list of subcontractors.
Findings Of Fact On September 26, 1989, Respondent issued a document entitled, Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, West Orange High School, Winter Garden, Florida, Engineers Project No. 89-016. As amended by three addenda, the above-described specifications shall be referred to as the "ITB." Respondent duly advertised for bids ore September 26, October 3, and October 10, 1989. The advertisement did not state that Respondent reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. In response to the ITB, Florida Mechanical, Inc. ("FMI") and B & I Contractors, Inc. ("B & I") timely submitted bids. For the base work and alternate 1, which Respondent ultimately decided to select, FMI bid $1,439,000, B & I bid $1,438,000, and a third bidder, S. I. Goldman, Company bid $1,621,000. These bids are recorded on a Bid Tabulation Sheet prepared by the engineer retained by Respondent for the project. The Bid Tabulation Sheet contains eight columns. Four columns record bid amounts for the base work and various alternates. The remaining columns are entitled, "Bidder," "Bid Bond," "Addenda," and "Subs." Each of the three bidders were named in one of the rows beneath the "Bidder," column. Each bidder had one "X" in its "Bid Bond" column and three "X"s in its "Addenda" column. However, only FMI and S. I. Goldman Company had "X"'s in their "Subs" columns. By resolution adopted on November 29, 1989, Respondent directed that all bids were rejected and that the Superintendent would correct any ambiguities and uncertainties in the ITB and solicit new bids. The resolution noted that Respondents staff had recommended that, if any bid were accepted, it should be that of B & I. However, [FMI] submitted with its bid a list of Major Sub-contractors of the form displayed in the [ITB], and B & I did not submit wish its aid a list of Major Sub-contractors[.] The resolution concluded that Respondent based on advice of staff and counsel, found that the [ITB is) ambiguous and/or uncertain as to whether or not a bidder must submit along with his bid a list of Major Sub-contractors, (b) that because of such ambiguity and/or uncertainty, it would be unfair and/or improper for [Respondent] to accept either of the bids received by it, and (c) that as a result thereof [Respondent] should reject all bids received by it for ,the Project and should solicit new bids for the Project as soon as is reasonably feasible after correction by [Respondents] staff of any ambiguity and uncertainty as aforesaid in the [ITB]. FMI and B & I each timely filed a notice of intent to protest and formal written protest of Respondent's decision to reject each company's respective bid. S. I. Goldman did not protest the decision and is not a party to the subject case. At a meeting on December 12, 1989, Respondent elected to refer the bid protests to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing., At the beginning of the hearing, the parties filed a written stipulation, which stated that the only issue for determination was which Petitioner should be awarded the contract and not whether Respondent should seek further bids or award the contract to another bidder. The stipulation also stated that the Petitioners and Respondent agreed to abide by the recommendation of the hearing officer. At the hearing, the parties further stipulated that the sole issue for determination is whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. In addition, the parties stipulated that both Petitioners had standing and the protests were timely and sufficient. The ITB requires that each bidder familiarize itself with all federal, state, and "Local Laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the work." Under the section entitled, "Preparation and Submission of Bids," the ITB states: "Each bidder shall use the Bid Form that is inserted herein, and may copy or reproduce the form on this own letterhead." Among other requirements, the ITB requires two bonds. The first is a "bid guarantee" of at, least five percent of the amount of the bid. The form of this guarantee may be cash or a Bid Bond." The other bond described in the ITB a 100% public construction bond. The surety on this bond must have been admitted to do business in Florida, must have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operation for at least five years, and must have at least a Bests Financial Rating of "Class VI" and a Bests Policyholder Ration of "A." The Bid Form contained in the ITB is two pages. Among other things, the Bid Form requires that the bidder receiving written notice of acceptance of its bid must provide the prescribed payment and performance bond and execute the contract within ten days after notification. The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "Form of Bid Bond." The provisions on this page identify the A.I.A. document to use and state that the Bid Bond "shall be submitted with the Bid Proposal Form." The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "List of Major Subcontractors." The List of Major Subcontractors states: Bidders shall list all major subcontractors that will be used if a contract is awarded. Additionally, bidders shall identify in the appropriate box whether or not that trade specialty is minority owned. Another paragraph defines minority ownership. The remainder of the form consists of ten rows for the "bidder" and nine major subcontractors, such as concrete, electrical, HVAC, and controls, and blanks where the bidder can indicate which of these entities are minority owned. The next document in the ITB is the Owner-Contractor Agreement, which is followed by tie Form of Construction Bond, General Conditions, and Supplementary General Conditions. Section 7.11 of the Supplementary General Conditions establishes certain requirements to be performed after the submission of bids. This section provides: Pre-Award Submittals: Before the Contract is awarded the apparent low bidder shall provide the following information to the owner. A copy of the Contractors current State of Florida General Contractor's or Mechanical Contractors License. Pre-Construction Meeting. After the Notice to Proceed and within eight (8) business days of the Owner [sic], the Contractor shall meet with the Owner, Engineer and Subcontractors that the Owner may designate... The Contractor shall provide the following to the Owner. * * * 2. A written list of all Subcontractors, material men and suppliers with such information as requested by the Owner or Engineer. * * * The remaining documents in the ITB are the technical specifications for the job. The three addenda supply additional technical information not relevant to this case. Respondent has promulgated rules with respect to the bidding process ("Rules"). The ITB does not refer to the Rules, which define and use many terms that are found in the ITB. For instance, Rule 1.1.25 defines the phrases, "Performance and Payment Bond," which is the same phrase used in the Bid Form in the ITB. The Rules define several other capitalized terms that are also used in the ITB, such as Bid Bond, Bid Guarantee, Bidder, and Contractor. Rule 4.1 similarly states that the bidder is familiar with federal, state, and "Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations that in any manner affect the Work." Rule 6.1 describes the process by which a bidder is to prepare and submit bids and the Bid Guarantee in language similar to that contained in the ITB. Rule 6.2 discusses the listing of subcontractors. Rules 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 state: General Contractor shall include as an integral part of his bid a List of Subcontractors he proposes to use. The Bidder shall enclose this list in a 4" x 9" envelope, sealed and marked "List of Subcontractors" and identified ... The Bidder shall enclose said envelope with his bid proposal in the mailing envelope. The List of Subcontractors enclosed with tee Proposal of each Bidder will be examined by the ... Engineer before the Proposal is opened and read. In the event that the form is not properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened... Rule 6.3 requires a Statement of Surety as another "integral part" of each bid. Rule 6.3.3 states: The Statement of Surety will be opened examined by the ... Engineer prior to the opening of the Proposal.... Although similar to Rule 6.2, Rule 6.3 lacks the warming that if the Statement of Surety is not "properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened." Rule 19.1 sets forth the requirements, for the surety. These requirements are different than those set forth in the ITB. Rules 19.1.1 and 19.1.2 require, as does the ITB, that the surety be admitted to do business in the State of Florida and shall have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operations for at least five years. However, Rule 19.1.1 requires that the surety be represented by a reputable and responsible surety bond agency licensed to do, business in the State of Florida and have a local representative in the Orlando area. Rule 19.1.3 requires minimum Bests ratings of "A" in "management," and, as to "strength and surplus," "AAA+" in financial rating and $12,500,000 minimum surplus. Rule 19.1.3.3 also requires that the surety be listed on the U.S. Treasury Departments Circular 570. The bids of FMI and S. I. Goldman Company contained a completed List of Major Subcontractors. The bid of B & I did not. No bidder included a Statement of Surety with its bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order awarding the subject contract to Florida Mechanical, Inc. ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of FMI All of FMI's proposed findings have been adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of B & I 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: adopted, except that the staff recommended that, if the bid was to be awarded, that it be awarded to B & I. 6: adopted in substance. 7: rejected as conclusion of law and, to the extent fact, subordinate. 8-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as unsupported by the greater height of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as subordinate. 22: rejected as beyond the scope of the issues and irrelevant in view of the stipulation. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the issue to be addressed would not be whether the intended agency action of Respondent was lawful (i.e., not arbitrary, fraudulent, dishonest, or otherwise improper), but rather whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Schott, Superintendent The School Board of Orange County, Florida P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802 Charles Robinson Fawsett, P. A. Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 James F. Butler, III Smith, Currie & Hancock 2600 Peachtree Center Harris Tower 233 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30043-6601 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esq. Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue P.O. Box 305 Orlando, FL 32803
The Issue Whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board), may reject all bids as proposed for Bid No. 2002-02-FC, Group A1, or whether such action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the entity charged with the responsibility of governing the public schools within the Broward County School District. As such, the acquisition of school properties and attendant improvements fall within the Board's legal authority. These cases involve the procurement of relocatable buildings suitable for classroom purposes. Pursuant to its authority, on or about December 27, 2002, the Respondent issued a bid that is the subject matter of the instant challenge. The bid, identified in this record as Bid 2002-02-FC, sought proposals for the procurement of district-wide relocatable buildings. In a prior time these buildings were known as "portable classrooms" or "portables." In the post-Hurricane Andrew world, these structures are now pre-engineered and constructed of concrete or steel (or a hybrid of both) and must be, by design, capable of being relocated to various sites. The Petitioners, Royal and Padula jointly, and the Intervenor, James B. Pirtle Construction Company, Inc. (Pirtle or Intervenor), design, construct, and install such structures. In these cases the bid sought several distinct proposals. First, the project sought vendors who would provide and deliver concrete relocatable buildings (Group A1). Group A2 (not at issue in this proceeding) sought steel relocatable buildings. Group B (also not at issue in the instant case) sought site adaptation prices for landscaping, lighted covered walkways, steps, ramps, and other engineering incidental to the installation of the buildings. The advertisement for the bid carried the same generic information as to all groups. The bid documents also contained many terms that were applicable to all groups. Pertinent to the issues of these cases are the following excerpts from the bid document (Joint Exhibit 2). The order of the excerpts should not suggest any significance. The excerpts are listed in this manner solely for convenience sake: BASIS OF AWARD In order to meet the needs of the school system . . . each Award will be . . . up to three responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Individual projects will be issued . . . based upon lowest cost among one or more bidders per project as determined by the project manager. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, and all items in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on Document 00410 Bid Form. SBBC [the Respondent] reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) work may be issued to multiple contractors if in the opinion of The School Board of Broward County, Florida or its staff the work cannot be completed by a single contractor in the specified time such as a Summer, Winter or Spring Break or if it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. ARTICLE 4 BIDDING PROCEDURES 4.01 FORM AND STYLE OF BIDS A. Bids shall be submitted on forms identical to Document 00410, Bid Form, and other standard forms included with the Bidding Documents. The following documents are required to be submitted with the Bid: * * * SIGNED SEALED ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS OF THE STRUCTURES TO BE PROVIDED (FOR RELOCATABLE BUILDINGS BID ONLY) 5.03 REJECTION OF BIDS AND IRREGULAR PROPOSALS * * * The Owner shall have the right to reject any or all Bids, reject a Bid not accompanied by a required bid security, good faith deposit, or by other data required by the Bid Documents, or reject a Bid which is in any way incomplete, irregular or otherwise not Responsive. The Owner may waive any formality in the bid requirements and award or not award the contract in the best interests of The School Board of Broward County, Florida. (Emphasis in original not shown) In addition to the foregoing, the bid documents contained detailed and specific design criteria that set forth information such as the slope of roofs, the roof spans, the mechanical systems, ventilation, plumbing, windows, and stoops. These design criteria covered hundreds of topics and encompassed virtually every facet of the structures. To review each bid proposal as to whether each design specification was met would require countless man-hours. The issue of how to review the bid proposals was not adequately anticipated by the Respondent. From the outset the bid document evolved from unusual circumstances. Whether the bid document was intended to be a request for proposals (RFP) or an invitation to bid (ITB) was a primary confusion among the Board's staff. If the proposals were to be deemed responsive or not and then ranked solely on price (thus making the bid process more like an ITB) how could staff effectively determine the threshold question of responsiveness? If the proposals were to be ranked based upon a point or qualitative approach (more like an RFP) where were the criteria by which to score the proposals? In fact, there were no objective criteria disclosed in the bid document by which a proposal could be evaluated. More curious is that no bidder brought this lack of evaluation criteria to the Board's attention during the mandatory bidder's conference. Moreover, no one challenged the bid specifications. Presumably, the bidders believed it was an "all or nothing" award. That is, if they were the lowest responsive bidder, they would receive the award. The question of who would be responsive and how that decision would be resolved did not come to light until after the bids had been opened. At the mandatory bidders' conference conducted on January 14, 2003, the bidders posed questions in the form of requests for information. In response, the Respondent issued six addenda intended to cover the questions posed. None of the responses addressed how the bid proposals would be evaluated. If anything, Addendum No. 3 added to confusion related to what documents must be submitted with the bid proposal. More specifically, Addendum No. 3 provided, in pertinent part: [Addendum 3, question and response to inquiry] 9. Can schematics be submitted with the bid instead of the signed and sealed architectural and engineering design drawings of the structures that are requested in Document Article 4.01.A.6? Response: Signed and Sealed Architectural/Structural Drawings are required to be submitted with the Bid. The Requirement for Mechanical and Electrical signed and sealed drawing is waived, however all engineering associated with the Relocatable Buildings will require engineer of record signed and sealed drawings and calculations prior to issuance of building permit DRC review. Nevertheless, when the bid proposals were opened on March 4, 2003, the Petitioners and the Intervenor were found to be the three lowest bidders. If responsive, the Intervenor would be considered the lowest bidder with the Petitioners being considered alternate vendors for the procurement. Unsatisfied with the preliminary determination that the Intervenor was the lowest bidder, the Petitioners timely challenged the bid award. The Petitioners maintained that the Intervenor had not timely provided sealed design drawings as required by the bid document. Petitioners argued that the Intervenor had attempted to impermissibly amend their proposal by late-filing a set of structural drawings for the bid. Thus the initial bid protest sought to determine what design drawings were required by the bid and whether the Intervenor had timely supplied such drawings. The Petitioners contended that the Intervenor's submittal should be rejected as non-responsive to the bid. Whether they had complied with the full dictates of the bid requirements was potentially at issue as well. While the initial bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for formal hearing, the parties continued to attempt to resolve the issues. It was apparent that the bidders had not submitted identical proposals. How the proposed products had been compared and evaluated was difficult to determine. From the Respondent's committee members came the disclosure that the decision of determining whether the bidders had complied with the bid ultimately came from three fashioned questions. If the structure proposed was pre- engineered, relocatable to various sites, and suitable for educational purposes, the entry was deemed responsive. Based upon this assessment the Petitioners and the Intervenor were deemed responsive and their bids ranked based upon price. This approach did nothing to discern if the designs were comparable in quality, if they met the bid design criteria, or if the drawings were even sufficient to comply with the dictates of the bid. The first posting of the bid award for Group A1 was entered March 18, 2003. On March 21, 2003, the Petitioners timely filed their notices of intent to protest the award of Group A1 to the Intervenor. Thereafter they timely filed the petitions to protest the award and the initial protest was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The protests did not encompass Group A2 or Group B. No bidder protested the proposed awards for Group A2 or Group B. In fact, the Respondent went forward on those procurements and awarded contracts for those groups on April 1, 2003. The Respondent did not award the contract award for the Group at issue in this proceeding. It must be noted that the instant procurement is not the Board's first experience with the procurement of concrete relocatable classrooms. In fact, the Board has purchased similar structures through a procurement contract that the Palm Beach County School Board holds with its vendors. One of the Respondent's concerns when the instant bids were reviewed was why the cost per unit for the bids in this case was higher than the Palm Beach County amount. As it turned out, the installation economy of multiple units at one site directly impacts the cost of the relocatable structures. Royal confirmed this information after the bids had been opened. When the Respondent's staff met with its counsel in preparation for the initial bid dispute (before the Board elected to reject all bids) the cost of the bid, the lack of full evaluation of the bidders' proposals, and the issues of the first protest were openly discussed. By that time any irregularities with the bid documents could not be repaired as to the contracts already awarded, but as to the instant matter the Respondent could revisit the circumstances and determine its best course. As a result of that reassessment, the Respondent elected to reject all bids regarding this group and attempt to re-bid the procurement with more certain terms. To that end on May 9, 2003, the Respondent issued a revised bid decision that provided in pertinent part: The Facilities and Construction Management Division intends to recommend that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, at the School Board meeting on June 3, 2003, reject all bids received for Group A1 and authorize revising the bidding documents and re-bidding. The rejection of all bids received for Group A1 is made due to serious flaws and ambiguities contained in Document 00200 4.01.A-6 as modified by Addendum No. 3. The Division intends to revise the bidding documents to delete the requirements that bidders submit plans with the bids; include ranges of unit quantities within the bid form; include one or more additional types of construction of the classroom buildings including a composite concrete/steel structure; and incorporate within the new Invitation to Bid all revised terms and conditions that were released through addenda in this procurement. The Petitioners timely filed protests regarding this new decision by the Board and the instant action ensued. By issuing the revised decision to reject all bids the Respondent intended to resolve all issues and to cure the perceived problem with the lack of consistent evaluation of the bidders' proposals. More specifically, the Respondent would be able to assure that the project design could comport with the specifications sought; specify whether architectural or engineering drawings were required and when (it was hoped that the confusion over "architect" vs. "engineer" could be eliminated); and obtain a substantial discount based upon economies from multi-unit purchases for a single site. None of the objectives sought were pre-textual or contrived. Additionally, by avoiding any process that would require a detailed reviewed of the bidders' proposals, countless man- hours could be saved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a Final Order affirming the decision to reject all bids in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November 2003 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Usher Larry Brown, Esquire Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A. 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Orlando, Florida 32801 Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esquire Schwarzberg & Associates Esperante, Suite 210 222 Lakeview Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas R. Shahady, Esquire Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the proposed award by the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) of the contract referenced herein to Everbridge, Inc. (Everbridge) is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 2015, DEM posted RFP-DEM-15-16-037 (RFP), titled ”Florida Statewide Emergency Alert and Notification System,” on the state’s Vendor Bid System (“VBS”). The purpose of the RFP is to procure a statewide emergency alert and notification system as mandated by section 252.35(2)(a)(6) Florida Statutes, which requires the DEM to “[e]stablish a system of communications and warning to ensure that the state’s population and emergency management agencies are warned of developing emergency situations and can communicate emergency response decisions.” DEM is a separate budget entity established within the Executive Office of the Governor. Tara Walters, the purchasing manager for DEM, was responsible for the RFP and the procurement process. According to the RFP, the system is to be “vendor- hosted” and capable of proving “mass notification” of “imminent or sudden hazards” through voice telephone calls, text messages, emails, social media, and “Telecommunications Device of the Deaf/TeleTYpewriter (TDD/TTY)” systems. ECN and Everbridge are vendors of mass notification systems. Section 5 of the RFP provided, in relevant part, as follows: RESPONSIVENESS Vendor. In order to qualify as a responsive vendor as that term is defined by section 287.012(27), Florida Statutes, a Proposer must submit a proposal that conforms in all material respects to this solicitation. Proposal. In order to qualify as a responsive proposal as that term is defined by section 287.012(26), Florida Statutes, a proposal must conform in all material respects to this solicitation. The Division shall not consider any proposal that contains a material deviation from the terms of this solicitation. However, the Division reserves the right to consider a proposal that contains a minor deviation or irregularity so long as that minor deviation or irregularity does not provide a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The Division shall not permit a vendor to amend a proposal after the due date for submissions – even if to correct a deviation or irregularity. * * * A proposal may fail to qualify as responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to: Failure to include a material form or addendum; Failure to include material information; Modification of the proposal specifications; Submission of conditional proposals or incomplete proposals; and, Submission of indefinite or ambiguous proposals. Section 28 of the RFP included specific proposal format instructions. Each proposal was to contain two parts: a “Technical Proposal” (Part I) and a “Price Proposal” (Part II). The RFP explicitly identified the contents to be set forth within each part. The Technical Proposal was to include multiple sections, including a table of contents, an executive summary, and a “Management Plan.” According to the RFP, the Management Plan was required to include four elements: the vendor’s relevant experience; significant examples of the vendor’s other clients and pertinent references; a project staffing plan; and a completed “data sheet,” the form for which was included in the RFP. The RFP also required that the Technical Proposal include a section identified as “Technical Plan/Minimum System Requirements” related to the “Scope of Work” necessary to implement the system. The referenced minimum requirements were explicitly set forth at Exhibit “A” to the RFP. Finally, the RFP required that the Technical Proposal include the vendor’s financial statements for the prior three years as follows: The Proposer shall provide information regarding its financial status in order to demonstrate that it is financially stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis. Proposers are to include financial statements created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the last three years. (Financial documentation may be combined into one file and are not included in the page count). The Division reserves the right to evaluate the financial status of any or all Proposers before making an award decision. The Price Proposal was to be submitted separately from the Technical Proposal by using the “Price Proposal Form” included in the RFP. According to the Schedule of Events set forth in the RFP, proposals were due on September 30, 2015. DEM received five proposals in response to the RFP. DEM determined that three of the proposals were not responsive, and they received no further evaluation. The two proposals that advanced into the evaluation process were those submitted by ECN and Everbridge. The RFP identified the process by which each proposal would be evaluated, including the formulas by which some scores would be calculated. Technical Proposals and Price Proposals were separately evaluated. The Technical Proposals were reviewed by a group of six evaluators, several of whom had extensive experience in emergency management and notification systems. The evaluators subjectively scored the three Management Plan elements pertaining to relative experience, examples/references, and staffing plan. Based on the evaluation, proposals could be awarded up to 30 points allocated between the referenced elements. The scores assigned by the evaluators to ECN and Everbridge for the three Management Plan elements were as follows: Evaluator ECN Everbridge Danny Hinson 13 30 Scott Nelson 30 30 Brian Misner 24 29 Phil Royce 29 27 Kevin Smith 24 25 Scott Warner 20 26 The fourth element of the Management Plan, the data sheet, was worth up to 20 points, and was scored through a formula included in the RFP. The data sheet required a vendor to identify a “guaranteed minimum number of concurrent recipient contacts” obtainable by various methods and timeframes. Using this formula, Everbridge received a data sheet score of 20 and ECN received a data sheet score of 3.99. An assertion by ECN that Everbridge cannot achieve the guaranteed minimums set forth on its data sheet was unsupported by evidence. The RFP specifically provided that the “Technical Plan/Minimum System Requirements” section of the Technical Proposal section would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as follows: The minimum requirements of the system are broken down in to five (5) sections in the Exhibit “A”, Scope of Work, and are as follows: Minimum System Requirements, Minimum Geographical Information System Requirements, Minimum Notification Requirements, Minimum Security Requirements, and Minimum Support Requirements. Vendor’s responses shall state each requirement and detail how the system they are proposing meets or exceeds that requirement. This portion of your response is very important as proposed systems that do not meet each of the minimum requirements shall fail the Responsibility Requirements of the RFP and shall not be considered for additional review or scoring. Three of the six evaluators determined that ECN’s proposal failed to comply with all of the minimum requirements and accordingly failed to comply with the “Responsibility Requirements” of the RFP. Nonetheless, DEM completed the review and scoring of the ECN proposal. Price Proposals were reviewed and scored by Ms. Walters according to a formula specified in the RFP. Pricing was worth up to 10 points. Everbridge received a price score of 7 points. ECN received a price score of 10 points. There is no evidence that Ms. Walter’s review of the Price Proposals failed to comply with the applicable requirements of the RFP. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, Everbridge’s total score was 54.83 and ECN’s total score was 37.32. On October 19, 2015, DEM posted its Notice of Intent to Award the contract under the RFP to Everbridge. ECN filed a Notice of Protest on October 20, 2015. ECN filed a Formal Written Protest on October 30, 2015. ECN asserts that at least some of the Management Plan scoring deviated from the RFP and the instructions provided to the evaluators. ECN specifically asserts that the evaluations conducted by three of the evaluators included consideration of information extrinsic to the RFP and the vendor proposals, that the information was flawed, and that the scores awarded were therefore inappropriate. The evidence fails to establish that the evaluation of the Management Plan materially failed to comply with procedures or criteria set forth in the RFP. The evidence establishes that the individuals selected to evaluate the proposals understood the requirements of the RFP, and that they conducted their evaluations according to their understanding of the evaluation criteria at the time the evaluations were performed. The evidence further fails to establish that any alleged deficiencies in the evaluation process, even if established, would have altered the total scores sufficiently to change the intended award of the contract as set forth in the DEM Notice of Intent. ECN asserts that the Question and Answer process employed by DEM was irrational and materially impaired the competitiveness of the procurement process. Pursuant to the RFP, vendors were permitted to submit questions to DEM. On September 21, 2015, DEM posted the questions and the DEM responses, including this question submitted by ECN: If a prospective bidder utilizes third parties for completing the RFP requirements, shall the bidder’s service level agreements (SLAs) with those third parties be submitted within the proposal response? DEM’s posted response to the question was “Yes.” Everbridge did not include SLAs within its proposal. ECN asserts that DEM should have rejected the Everbridge proposal as nonresponsive because Everbridge failed to include SLAs in its proposal. ECN submitted SLAs within its proposal, although the SLAs submitted by ECN were unexecuted or incomplete. There is no requirement in the RFP that vendors submit SLAs as part of a response to the RFP. Section 15 of the RFP (titled “Oral Instructions/Changes to the Request for Proposal (Addenda)”) provided in material part as follows: No negotiations, decisions, or actions will be initiated or executed by a proposer as a result of any oral discussions with a State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Division will be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the Division. Notices of changes (addenda) will be posted on the Florida Vendor Bid System at: http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu. It is the responsibility of all potential proposers to monitor this site for any changing information prior to submitting your proposal. All addenda will be acknowledged by signature and subsequent submission of addenda with proposal when so stated in the addenda. DEM’s response to the question posed by ECN did not amend the RFP. DEM did not issue any notice of change or addenda to the RFP that required a vendor to include SLAs within a response to an RFP. ECN asserts that Everbridge is not a responsible vendor because Everbridge failed to comply with Section 18 of the RFP (titled “Qualifications”), which provided, in relevant, part as follows: The Division will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. * * * In accordance with sections 607.1501, 608.501, and 620.169, Florida Statutes, foreign corporations, foreign limited liability companies, and foreign limited partnerships must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. “Foreign Corporation” means a corporation for profit incorporated under laws other than the laws of this state. Such authorization should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to posting of the intended award of the contract. ECN, a Delaware-incorporated limited liability company, complied with the referenced requirement. Everbridge, a Delaware-incorporated corporation, did not. Although Everbridge asserts that the statutes referenced in the requirement did not require it to be registered prior to the posting of the intended award, the issue is not whether Everbridge complied with state law, but whether Everbridge met the RFP’s qualification requirements. The RFP specifically provided that in order to qualify as a responsive vendor “as that term is defined by section 287.012(27) Florida Statutes,” proposals were required to conform in all material respects to the solicitation. The RFP provided as follows: The Division shall not consider any proposal that contains a material deviation from the terms of this solicitation. However, the Division reserves the right to consider a proposal that contains a minor deviation or irregularity so long as that minor deviation or irregularity does not provide a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The issue is whether the registration requirement was “material” to the RFP. It was not. The foreign corporation registration requirement was “boiler plate” language, apparently included by DEM in the RFP with little thought. Neither Ms. Walters, nor any other DEM employee, made any effort to determine whether the vendors that submitted proposals in response to the RFP complied with the requirement. The evidence fails to establish that the failure to comply with the registration requirement constituted a material deviation from the terms of the RFP. Everbridge obtained no competitive advantage over ECN or any other vendor through noncompliance with the registration requirement. ECN asserts that the Everbridge proposal was nonresponsive to the RFP because the Everbridge proposal included the following language: Legal Disclosure Everbridge's RFP response is provided for informational purposes and is not meant to form a binding contract for the provision of our critical communications suite. Upon request, Everbridge will engage in contract negotiations to execute a service agreement tailored to appropriately capture each party's applicable rights and obligations. ECN asserts that the cited language rendered the Everbridge proposal as conditional. The RFP provided that submission of a conditional proposal could result in a proposal being deemed nonresponsive. The evidence fails to establish that Everbridge submitted a conditional proposal in response to the RFP. Section 20 of the RFP (titled “Agreement Document”) provided as follows: The Division’s “Contract” document is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The terms and conditions contained therein will become an integral part of the contract resulting from this RFP. In submitting a proposal, the proposer agrees to be legally bound by these terms and conditions. One of the three submitted proposals rejected by DEM prior to evaluation was considered to be a conditional proposal, in part because the vendor struck through portions of the RFP in its response. Unlike that vendor, Everbridge unequivocally acknowledged, on page 127 of its response, the DEM’s “instructions regarding the terms and conditions that will ultimately form the service agreement between the state and its selected vendor.” Everbridge asserts that the ECN proposal failed to comply with the requirement that the Technical Proposal include “financial statements created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the last three years,” and that the failure renders the ECN proposal nonresponsive. The evidence supports the assertion. The phrase “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” (GAAP) refers to a set of financial reporting standards and procedures adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a private organization, and adopted throughout the accounting profession. Financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP include what are commonly identified as “notes” that disclose extensive and relevant information supporting the financial analysis reported in the statements. The financial statements submitted by ECN did not meet the requirements of the RFP. Although ECN asserted at the hearing that the financial statements it submitted were prepared in accordance with GAAP, the financial statements submitted by ECN were incomplete because they failed to contain the requisite notes. The RFP required that the financial information provided by each vendor “demonstrate that it is financially stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis.” The notes to ECN’s financial statements should properly have disclosed that the ECN statements contained financial information related to ECN subsidiaries, in addition to that of ECN. The absence of notes impeded determination of the reporting entity’s financial stability and resources. The Everbridge proposal fully complied with the requirement to submit financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP and included the notes. ECN’s failure to submit financial statements meeting the RFP requirement is a material deviation from the terms of the solicitation that may not be waived because it provided a competitive advantage over other proposers who complied with the requirement. Everbridge also asserts that the ECN proposal is nonresponsive because three of the six evaluators determined that, for various reasons, ECN’s technical plan failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Scope of Work. The RFP specifically provided that a failure to meet each of the minimum requirements would result in a proposal not being further reviewed or scored. Nonetheless, the ECN proposal was reviewed and scored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Emergency Management enter a final order dismissing the First Amended Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Emergency Communications Network, LLC, and awarding the contract to Everbridge, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2016, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The School Board of Palm Beach County advertised for sealed bids for a project consisting of structural modifications and reroofing at Atlantic Community High School, project no. 000881600. All bidders were required to be prequalified by the School Board prior to the bid opening and had to exhibit evidence that similar work of equivalent magnitude had been accomplished prior to this bid. Language in the bid advertisement notified potential bidders that the School Board reserved the right to waive minor informalities in the bids, or to reject all bids. On April 5, 1989, the bids for the Atlantic Community High School (Atlantic) project were opened and a tabulation performed. All bidders had been prequalified by the School Board and had properly submitted the required bid bond. The results of the bid tabulation established GRI as the lowest bidder, Anderson second, and Milne & Nicholls third. Only three bids were timely received. The amount indicated on the GRI bid was stated only in numbers, not written in words. The written numbers, however, were clearly noted and GRI has, at all times, stated it intends to be bound by the figures listed. No error in the amount has been suggested. On April 5, 1989, Dr. Louwers, as contract administrator for the School Board, notified GRI that its bid for the Atlantic project had been deemed nonresponsive. The basis for this determination was GRI's failure to submit the bid book intact, failure to submit bid Form 00420 at the time of the bid opening, the lack of a warranty letter at the time of the bib opening, and the failure to state the price of the bids in words. GRI sought review of the determination that it had been nonresponsive and an informal hearing was conducted on April 11, 1989. As a result of that hearing, GRI'S bid was deemed responsive and all bidders were notified. Thereafter, Anderson timely challenged the intended bid award to GRI. At the time of the bid opening, GRI did not submit its bid book intact. Instead, GRI submitted the proposal form with the amounts indicated for each section together with the bid bond. The bid proposal form required the bidders to indicate an amount in several categories. These categories included a base bid and six alternates numbered 1 through 6. The amounts listed by all bidders were tallied and are specified on joint exhibit no. 10. GRI's bid was the lowest of the three bids received. Once the bids were opened, and it was determined who the three low bidders were, GRI immediately submitted its list of major subcontractors on Form 00420. Within 24 hours of the bid opening, GRI submitted its list of subcontractors and suppliers, Form 00430. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions found in the Instructions to Bidders, section 00100 of the bid package: BIDDING PROCEDURES: 3.01 All bids must be prepared using the forms contained in these specifications and submitted in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders. * * * 3.05 Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: Each bidder shall use Proposal Form contained in these specifications, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for the alternates. Proposal Forms shall remain attached to the specifications.... Each proposal shall specify a unit price written in ink in both words and figures, * * * (d) The specification book is to be left INTACT, the cover signed by the Contractor, the proposal bid guarantee (Certified Check or Bid Bond) to be signed and filled out in the specification book which will be enclosed in a sealed envelope which shall be marked: * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the bid opening each bidder submitting a bid shall have in his possession a written list of the major subcontractors; namely, structural metal work and metal covering, structural manufacturer, lightweight insulating concrete, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical, whom he proposes to use on this work. The three (3) apparent low bidders will be required to submit Form 00420 (list of major subcontractors) to the Owner at the time of the opening of the bids.... Within 24 hours of the bid opening, the apparent low bidder shall submit Form 00430 (list of subcontractors and suppliers), completed in full to the Owner. Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive bid. * * * 6. REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received. In addition, the bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a bid if the bidder failed to furnish any required bid security, or to submit the data required by the bidding documents, or if the bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the bid of a bidder who is not in a position to perform the contract; and to re- advertise for other or further bid proposals. In addition to the foregoing, the apparent three lowest bidders were required to submit certifications to verify information regarding the roofing system included in their proposals. These certifications included: a certification verifying that the pre-engineered metal roofing system had been tested and approved by Underwriter's Laboratory as Class 90; a dealer certification verifying the supplier is a manufacturer's authorized and franchised dealer of the roofing system to be furnished including the date on which authorization was granted; an installer certification specifying that the installer had been regularly engaged in the installation of pre-engirieered metal buildings of same or equal construction to the system proposed including a list of successful installations performed within 200 miles of West Palm Beach, Florida; and a manufacturer's certification verifying that the manufacturer will provide warranties in accordance with the bid specifications. These certifications were to be provided with Form 00430, within 24 hours of being determined an apparent low bidder. GRI did not provide the certifications identified in paragraph 8 within 24 hours of April 5, 1989; however, all certifications were submitted prior to the final hearing in this cause. GRI was not deemed responsive by School Board personnel until after the informal hearing conducted on April 11, 1989. The letter to GRI notifying it of the results of the informal hearing was dated April 19, 1989. The issue of the certifications, therefore, did not arise until Anderson sought to challenge the decision reached by the informal hearing (that GRI was responsive). Anderson submitted all data required by the bid package at the time of the bid opening or within 24 hours of being determined an apparent low bidder. Anderson submitted the bid package intact and complete. According to bark Lottes, the project architect for the Atlantic bid, the manufacturer's certification required to be submitted within 24 hours of the the bid package was to assure the School Board that it would obtain the warranty designated in the bid specifications. Typically, a warranty is not issued until the work is completed. The purpose of the manufacturer's certication is to verify that the warranty, when issued, will be of the type and terms designated by the bid package. No structural deck replacement will be required for the Atlantic job. A general contractor would be required to perform structural deck replacement. GRI listed a general contractor, Mancini Building, among its list of subcontractors and suppliers. The roofing system proposed by GRI is to be manufactured by Varco- Pruden. The installer to perform the structural metal work for the roofing system proposed by GRI is Bretsnyder Netals, Incorporated (Bretsnyder). Bretsnyder has prior experience with metal roofs of the type designated by this bid project. Varco-Pruden has acknowledged Bretsnyder to be an authorized installer of the Varco-Pruden roofing system proposed by GRI. Varco-Pruden has provided a certification that it will warranty the roofing system pursuant to the bid specifications. GPI is registered as a roofing contractor with Gregg Wallick as its licensed roofing contractor. Anderson is a registered general contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order awarding the bid for the Atlantic project, project no. 000881600, to GRI, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division ofAdministrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2175BID Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Anderson: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Whether or not a general contractor is required to perform portions of the work for the Atlantic project is irrelevant to the resolution of the issue in this case. First, because a general cortractor was listed among GRI's subcontractors (the list of which was timely filed) and second, because the weight of the testimony established the project to be roofing in nature with no structural work required. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the School Board: Paragraphs 1 through 15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by GRI: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted to the extent that it states the GPI bid to be lowest; however, as to the exact amount of the difference, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument. To the extent that the paragraph is addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 4 and 5, it is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as conclusion of law or argument except as provided in paragraphs of the preliminary statement, together with paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack S. Cox Merola, McCarthy & Cox, P.A. 4114 Northlake Boulevard Suite 301 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Robert A. Rosillo Associate Counsel School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Nathan E Nason Gary N. Gerson Nason, Gildan, Yeager & Gerson, P.A. Post Office Box 3704 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue Whether Department of Transportation acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally, or dishonestly in issuing its intent to award RFP-DOT- 91/92-9012 bid to Trauner Consulting Services.
Findings Of Fact Public notice that DOT was seeking competitive bids was given, and DOT prepared a document entitled: Request for Proposal, which set forth in detail all of DOT's requirements. The purpose of the RFP was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent were as follows: All proposals were to be submitted in two parts; the Technical Proposal and the Cost Proposal. The Technical Proposal was to be divided into an Executive Summary, Proposer's Management Plan and Proposer's Technical Plan. The price proposal was to be filed separately. The RFP requested written proposals from qualified firms to develop and provide training on highway and bridge construction scheduling use as it pertains to Department of Transportation Construction Engineers. Proposals for RFP-DOT-91/92-9012 (hereinafter "RFP"), were received and opened by FDOT on or about December 14, 1992. Eleven companies submitted proposals. The technical portions of the proposals were evaluated by a three (3) person committee comprised of Gordon Burleson, Keith Davis and John Shriner, all FDOT employees. Gordon Burleson is the Engineer of Construction Training for FDOT. He administers the training for FDOT engineers and engineer technicians who work in FDOT's Construction Bureau. John Shriner is the State Construction Scheduling Engineer for FDOT. Keith Davis is the District 7, Construction Scheduling Engineer and Construction Training Engineer for FDOT. The Committee members evaluated the proposals individually then met as a group. The Committee established no formal, uniform evaluation criteria to be used by all committee members. The price proposals were not revealed to the Committee members until after the proposals were technically evaluated and scored. The price proposals were reviewed separately by Charles Johnson of the Contractual Services Office, Department of Transportation. The Committee evaluated the proposals based on the general criteria contained in the RFP. The RFP listed the criteria for evaluation to include: Technical Proposal Technical evaluation is the process of reviewing the Proposer's Executive Summary, Management Plan and Technical Plan for understanding of project qualifications, technical approach and capabilities, to assure a quality project. Price Proposal Price analysis is conducted by comparison of price quotations submitted. The RFP established a point system for scoring proposals. Proposer's management and technical plans were allotted up to 40 points each, 80 percent of the total score. The price proposed was worth up to 20 points, or 20 percent of the total score. Petitioner's proposal was given a total score of 90 points out of a possible 100. Trauner's proposal was given a total score of 92.04 points out of a possible 100. Petitioner's was ranked highest for price proposal, and received a total of 20 points for its proposed price of $18,060. Trauner's proposed price was $24,500, the next lowest after Petitioner and received 14.74 points. The technical portion of Trauner's proposal was given a total of 77.3 points, 38 for its Management Plan and 39.3 for its Technical Plan. The technical portion of Petitioner's proposal was given a total of 70 points, 36.7 for its Management Plan and 33.3 for its Technical Plan. Each plan was reviewed separately by the three Committee members, The individual, pre-averaged scores vary with committee member, Keith Davis' score varying the most from the others. The Committee members did not discuss the proposals until after they had individually reviewed and scored them. The Committee members had discussed the criteria prior to receiving and evaluating the proposals. There was insufficient evidence to show that Committee members scores were determined by fraud, or were arbitrary, capricious, illegal, or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed herein by Petitioner, Systems/Software/Solutions and awarding RFP-DOT-91/92-9012 to Trauner Consulting Services. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,5,11(in part) Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of evidence or irrelevant: paragraphs 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11(in part),12 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald F. Louser, Qualified Representative Systems/Software/Solutions 657 Sabal Lake Dr, #101 Longwood, Florida 32779 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS-58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
