The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Florida Department of Transportation’s (the Department or FDOT) determination that Intervenor Miller Electric Company (Miller) is a responsive design-build proposer was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact This protest arises out of FDOT's April 19, 2010, request for a design-build proposal (RFP) relating to the Project referenced above. The RFP requires the services performed by the Proposer to be in compliance with all applicable manuals and guidelines. FDOT issued three addenda to the RFP, the last of which (Addendum #3) was issued two days prior to the advertised proposal submission deadline. The specific services were outlined as follows in the RFP: The ITS Project (Project) consists of the installation of ten (10) arterial dynamic message signs (ADMS), interconnection with the existing FDOT District 2 and City of Jacksonville fiber optic networks (FON), installation of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera subsystem with eighteen (18) CCTV cameras, and the upgrade of eighteen (18) existing signal cabinets for central command and communication. The Project shall also include all ancillary components and device configuration adjustments needed to connect and operate a complete ITS. The RFP is a low bid design-build technically acceptable procurement. The RFP states that after the public bid opening: The FDOT shall open all bids received at a public bid opening on the date found in Section II of this document. The FDOT Technical Review Committee will review the Technical Proposal of the lowest bidder. The Technical Review Committee will then establish if the Technical Proposal is responsive or non-responsive based on the criteria described in the document. If the proposal is responsive, that Proposer will be awarded the project. If the proposal is found to be non-responsive, the FDOT Technical Review Committee will review the Technical Proposal of the next lowest bidder and establish if the Technical Proposal is responsive or non-responsive based on the criteria described in this RFP and so on. In a low bid design-build procurement, price is particularly important because bidders are eliminated solely on price. In this RFP, bidders were to base their technical and price proposals on the RFP package as well as the addenda and question and answers issued by FDOT. In Section III, Subsection H, the RFP states as follows in relevant part: The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposals by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. Any design submittals that are part of a proposal shall be deemed preliminary only. Preliminary design submittals may vary from the requirements of the Design and Construction Criteria. The Department, at their discretion, may elect to consider those variations in awarding points to the proposal rather than rejecting the entire proposal. In no event will any such elections by the Department be deemed to be a waiver of the Design and Constructions Criteria. The Proposer who is selected for the project will be required to fully comply with the Design and Construction Criteria for the price bid, regardless that the proposal may have been based on a variation from the Design and Construction Criteria. In Section III, Subsection I, the RFP addressed modification of proposals. Proposers could modify previously submitted proposals at any time prior to the proposal due date. The Department opened eight proposals on June 9, 2010. Miller was the low bidder with a total price of $1,549,875.00. ALS was the second lowest bid with a total price of $1,564,189.00, a difference of $14,314.00. Miller’s proposal was submitted to the Department's Technical Review Committee (TRC) for a determination whether its Technical Proposal was responsive or non-responsive. The TRC was comprised of the following members of FDOT's staff: (a) John Kell, ITS Project Manager; (b) Jerry Ausher, P.E., Traffic Operation Engineer; and (c) Amy Williams, P.E., Senior Project Manager. Kathy Thomas, P.E., District Two Consultant Design Engineer, was not a member of the TRC but provided guidance to it. The Department has adopted Design Build Guidelines (the guidelines) that address the role of the TRC in low bid design- build procurements. In Section 4.13, the guidelines state that the "TRC shall review the design concepts and preliminary designs of the lowest bidder proposed in order to assess the responsiveness of the lowest bidder’s technical proposal compared to the Design and Construction Criteria Package." The guidelines also state as follows in pertinent part: In the event the lowest bidder's technical proposal is found to be non-responsive, the TRC will then review the next lowest bidder's technical proposal to determine its responsiveness . . . A Bid Proposal is considered non-responsive if it does not contain all of the required information and level of detail, or is non-compliant with the design and construction criteria defined in the RFP. It may be appropriate for the Department to contact the non-responsive firm to discuss/clarify its concerns prior to moving on to the next lowest bidder. However, once determined that the low bidder is non-responsive, the process shall continue until the lowest bidder having a responsive proposal is found. The Department has also adopted a Design-Build Procurement and Administration Policy (the policy) which specifically references the guidelines and contains language similar to the guidelines with respect to the role of the TRC. The policy authorizes the Department to contact a firm to discuss or clarify its concerns before moving on to the next lowest bidder. Sometime before the Department issued the RFP, it had a meeting with some of its staff, including Ms. Thomas. During the meeting, the Department's staff was advised that they were scrutinizing technical proposals submitted by low bidders too thoroughly. The new philosophy was for TRCs to ask clarifying questions of the low bidder if they had concerns and if those questions were not answered correctly, to find the low bidder non-responsive. The TRC in this case met for the first time on June 15, 2010. During that meeting, the TRC developed a list of concerns they had with Miller’s proposal and submitted those to the Department’s procurement staff. The Department forwarded three questions to Miller. First, the TRC questioned whether Miller intended to reference "mast arm" structures or cantilever sign structures in a section of the proposal. Second, the TRC questioned whether Miller’s bid included the installation of new conduit at Shad Road as opposed to using the less expensive existing conduit. Third, the TRC questioned whether Miller’s proposal included the deletion of the wireless assembly at Shad Road. On or about June 16, 2010, Kirk Townsend, Miller’s Senior Project Manager, responded to all three questions. The next day, the TRC met and voted unanimously to recommend the award to Miller. The TRC did not look at each requirement in the RFP. Instead, the TRC looked at the overall intent of Miller’s technical proposal. Mr. Kell, a member of the TRC, stated at hearing that the procurement process for this RFP was different from any other procurement that he has participated in and that he did not make a specific responsiveness determination. Mr. Kell also stated that Miller's proposal did not contain all of the information required by the RFP and that under the guidelines and policy manuals, the proposal would have been deemed non-responsive. However, under the terms of the RFP, Mr. Kell found that there was sufficient information in Miller’s preliminary plans to understand how Miller would prosecute the work to his satisfaction. Mr. Ausher, another member of the TRC, testified at the hearing. According to Mr. Ausher, the essential items in the RFP were included in Miller’s technical proposal. Mr. Ausher was of the opinion that the role of the TRC was to review the requirements of the RFP, review the proposal, and verify that the proposal met the intent of the RFP. Ms. Williams was the third member of the TRC. She evaluated Miller’s proposal and found it to be responsive. She did not believe that any additional clarification was needed, but heard Miller’s response to the three clarifying questions and found the response satisfactory. On June 22, 2010, the Department posted its notice of intent to award the contract to Miller. When ALS learned of the Department’s intended contract award to Miller, ALS requested a copy of Miller’s technical proposal from the Department. ALS then reviewed the proposal and identified a number of issues that ALS believed would render the Miller proposal non-responsive. James Hardiman is Vice President of ALS. Mr. Hardiman contacted Jane Jones, FDOT’s Purchasing Director, and asked if she would meet with him to discuss issues that ALS had with the intended contract. Ms. Jones met with Mr. Hardiman after June 22, 2010, but prior to the protest period running on June 25, 2010. Ms. Jones made a list of ALS’ concerns and provided the list to Ms. Thomas by e-mail. Ms. Thomas provided a revised list of issues to Ms. Jones with instructions to question Miller regarding the revised issue list. Ms. Thomas’ revised list reflected only those questions that she felt needed to be asked of Miller. Ms. Jones sent an e-mail to Mr. Townsend, Miller’s Senior Project Manager on June 24, 2010. The e-mail stated that the Department would like to clarify certain contract requirements. The e-mail asked Miller to verify that it would complete the scope in the RFP for the price bid and within the contract duration. The e-mail requested Miller to provide the required listing of categories for the Schedule of Values. On the evening of June 24, 2010, Mr. Townsend responded by e-mail, stating that Miller would complete the scope required by the RFP within the 360-day contract duration. The following morning, Mr. Townsend sent an e-mail to Ms. Jones, providing the "preliminary schedule of values as required by the RFP." The clarifications from Miller, as a result of the allegations by Mr. Hardiman, were not received or considered by the TRC. The TRC did not meet again following the posting of the intended award to Miller. There is nothing in the RFP, the guidelines or the policy that authorizes the Department to ask clarifying questions of a bidder or to ask the bidder to provide additional information not included in the technical proposal after the intended award has been posted and prior to the protest period running. It concerned Ms. Jones that the Department was asking Miller questions about its proposal during this time period. On July 2, 2010, ALS filed its formal written protest with the Department. The protest alleges in relevant part that Miller’s technical proposal was non-responsive for the following reasons: (a) Miller’s preliminary schedule failed to provide 45 days for Department shop drawing review; (b) Miller failed to provide splice boxes at all fiber optic splice field locations; (c) Miller failed to include a preliminary listing of categories for the Schedule of Values; (d) Miller failed to comply with the requirements for guardails; and (e) Miller did not show a 60- month warranty period for the Ethernet Field Switches. To support its protest at hearing, ALS relied heavily on a strict interpretation of RFP language requiring a technical proposal to contain all required information and level of detail in order to be responsive. However, if that language was strictly enforced, the Department could never award a contract. With a design-build project there is more than one way to build something. The technical proposals submissions are preliminary in nature. The RFP would be the controlling document if there is an unacceptable variance in the proposal. Schedule of Values ALS has complained that Miller failed to provide the "preliminary listing of categories for the Schedule of Values" with its technical proposal. Typically, the Department does not request a Schedule of Values in a design-build proposal. It is true that Miller’s original proposal did not include the Schedule of Values. In Section V, Subsection P, the RFP states the "[t]he Proposer shall submit a preliminary listing of categories for the Schedule of Values with the Technical Proposal. No price information shall be provided in the Technical Proposal." A Schedule of Values usually is the way a contractor breaks down items for payment. It is a tool that the Department uses to make sure that a contractor does not front load payments on a job. In this case, the Department wanted to see a preliminary listing of the categories of the Schedule of Values so that it would know what the pay items would be and that they would cover the contract. Mr. Kell, as a member of the TRC, testified on direct examination that the use of the word "shall" in the RFP made the requirement for a Schedule of Values a mandatory requirement. Mr. Kell also testified that under the terms of the guidelines and policy manuals, the failure to include the Schedule of Values would mean that Miller’s proposal was non-responsive. Mr. Kell testified that he helped develop the RFP but did not know why the Department used the word "shall" in requiring a Schedule of Values. His testimony that the word "shall" was included in the RFP only because the Department used a generic form to write the RFP is not persuasive. Dale Cody is Senior Vice President over production for Metric Engineering. Mr. Cody served as Miller’s proposal designer. At the hearing, Mr. Cody admitted that the plans included in Miller’s proposal were not designed to show all of the required parts of the RFP. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the TRC overlooked the missing Schedule of Values in Miller’s proposal. Allowing Miller to provide the schedule after announcing the contract award permitted Miller to supplement its proposal. In this case, the omission of the Schedule of Values had no affect on the pricing of the project. During the hearing, Phil Karaganis, Supervisor for ALS, admitted that the failure to timely submit a Schedule of Values had no price impact on the bid. However, the absence of the mandatory schedule deprived the Department of having knowledge of the proposed pay items and knowledge that they would cover the contract. Cantilevered Sign Supports ALS contends that Miller’s technical proposal is non- responsive based on a typographical error in one place of Miller’s proposal that references mast arm structures instead of tricord cantilever structures. Miller’s proposal clearly included tricord cantilever sign supports. Several areas of the technical proposal demonstrated Miller’s understanding that cantilevered sign supports were required. This issue was resolved pursuant to the clarifying questions asked by the Department before making the award. Preliminary Schedule ALS asserts that Miller’s proposal is non-responsive based on alleged omission in the preliminary schedule submitted with Miller’s technical proposal. The schedule provided with the technical proposal is preliminary and simply shows that the proposer possesses a basic understanding of the requirements of the RFP. The RFP required a construction schedule to be included in a bidder’s technical proposal with a maximum contract duration of no more than 360 calendar days. Failure to complete the project in 360 days would negatively impact the Department’s interest and increase the cost of the project. In Section VI, Subsection I, the RFP initially stated as follows: The Proposer must account for a 10 working day shop drawing review time by the Department in its schedule. On June 7, 2010, the Department issued Addendum #3, which changed the time to 45 working days for the Department’s shop drawing review time. The addendum did not extend the maximum contract duration of 360 days. Miller’s proposal provides for only 14 calendar days for review of shop drawings. Miller’s proposal identifies review and approval of shop drawing as a critical item by showing a red "critical bar" next to this item on the schedule. Despite showing only 14 days for the Department’s review and approval of shop drawings, Miller’s schedule would not have to be significantly revised in order to complete the project in 360 days. Miller can adjust its activities during the 90 percent design phase by overlapping the shop drawing review with the plans development period. The scheduling can be accomplished by sliding certain activities and using "negative lag" to allow for shop drawing review during the plans development period. Mr. Ausher, as a member of the TRC, testified that he reviewed Miller's preliminary schedule and was satisfied that Miller could meet the 45-day shop drawing review and approval requirement. Ms. Ausher made this determination by noting the 50-day float in Miller’s schedule with respect to shop drawing submittal. In contrast, ALS’ proposal expressly provided for a 45- day period as required by Addendum #3. After receiving the addendum, ALS adjusted its schedule to account for the 31 additional days. ALS also adjusted its price to add additional dollars for overtime, equipment costs, and possible night work that it believed would be needed to accommodate the additional review and approval time. If ALS had not been required to include 45 days for Department review of shop drawings in its schedule, ALS’ price would have been approximately $20,000 less. On the other hand, there is no persuasive evidence that Miller’s accommodation of additional time for shop drawing review and approval in the design phase would modify the price of Miller’s proposal or impact the bid price. New Conduit at Shad Road ALS complained that Miller’s proposal did not account for new conduit at Shad Road as provided in Addendum #1 to the RFP. However, upon receipt of the addendum, Miller adjusted its price proposal to account for new conduit at Shad Road. Miller also confirmed its intent to install the new conduit in response to the Department's clarifying questions prior to the award of the contract. Splice Boxes ALS complained that Miller’s technical proposal included pay item references to pull boxes instead of splice boxes. The RFP required a proposer to "furnish and install splice boxes at all fiber optic field locations as shown on the plans and at other locations as required." The plans that were part of the RFP specifications require splice boxes at four locations. A splice box is different from a pull box. A splice box is larger, deeper, and more expensive than a pull box. Miller’s plans include references to Pay Item No. 783- 5-1 at locations where the RFP calls for splice boxes. That pay item is for a pull box. Pay Item No. 783-6-1 is the pay item for a splice box. However, the plan sheets submitted by Miller clearly identify the utilization of splice boxes. Miller’s failure to use specific language referencing splice boxes was due to a technician oversight. Most importantly, Miller’s Price Proposal included the use of splice boxes. The typographical error in omitting specific references to splice boxes in the technical proposal had no impact on the method used to arrive at Miller’s Price Proposal. Guardrails ALS complained that Miller failed to provide guardrails at locations required by the RFP. The RFP states that guardrails will only be permitted upon the written approval of the Department. Chapter 2 of the Department's Plans Preparations Manual (PPM) provides that if a sign has to be placed in the clear zone, it must be protected with a barrier. Based on the plans included in the RFP, two of the Arterial Dynamic Messaging Sign (ADMS) structures for the Project have to be placed in the clear zone due to overhead power lines in the area. Chapter 4 of the PPM addresses roadside safety. This chapter of the PPM provided that a non-breakaway sign, such as the ADMS signs required by the Project, are normally considered more hazardous than a roadside barrier, such as a guardrails. Miller’s proposal did not include any guardrails and was priced accordingly. Including the guardrails added approximately $18,000.00 to ALS’ price proposal. Miller’s decision not to include guardrails was an engineering determination based on the application of the Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) criteria in Chapter 25 of the PPM. The RRR criteria provide for more relaxed clear zone requirements and would eliminate the requirement for a guardrails in this case. Chapter 2 of the PPM states that “design criteria for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation are presented in Chapter 25 of this volume and are applicable only on programmed RRR projects.” The Project here has not been programmed as and is not an RRR project. Further, Chapter 25 of the PPM states that it does not apply to strategic intermodal systems (SIS) or to new construction. The instant Project is both. In this case, Miller presented persuasive evidence that the PPM is an engineering guide to design. Miller’s design engineer, Mr. Cody, pointed out that sections of the PPM establish that RRR criteria can be used on projects not specifically designated as RRR. In determining that guardrails were not required, Mr. Cody considered Chapters 2, 7, and 25 of the PPM. Based on the only engineering testimony provided, the Design-Build Criteria Requirements do not require the installation of guardrails. Warranty A table in Miller’s technical proposal relating to warranties included a typographical error referencing a 36-month warranty period instead of the specified 60-month period for Ethernet Switches. That same page of Miller’s proposal included language clarifying and demonstrating Miller’s knowledge that a 60-month warranty was required for the switches. The error had no price impact on the bid. ALS’ Proposal ALS alleged in its formal protest that its proposal was fully compliant with the RFP. At hearing, Miller introduced evidence in an attempt to show that ALS’ proposal was not responsive, and therefore, that ALS had no standing. FDOT has never reviewed ALS’ proposal. ALS’ construction schedule does not use the words "operational test." However, the 14-day operational test is included in the portion of the ALS schedule entitled Systems Integration. Thus, ALS would not have to revise its construction schedule to include the 14-day operational test. ALS’ construction schedule has no task that specifically accounts for preparation of shop drawings. Even so, there is no persuasive evidence that the failure to include time for preparation of shop drawings would make ALS’ proposal non- responsive. Similarly, although ALS did not specifically identify environmental permit acquisition in its proposed schedule, this was included under the heading of "Permitting" in ALS’ construction schedule included in its technical proposal. ALS’ proposal does not include pay items for a fiber jumper or Gbic. There is no such pay item because the Gbic is part of the Ethernet Switch included in ALS’ proposal. Additionally, jumpers are covered based on a plan note in the ALS proposal. ALS’ proposal shows a directional bore for the fiber optic conduit and cable, and uses the pay item 555-1-1 for the directional bore. The proposal also uses a pay item for underground conduit where there is a median. Language in the RFP refers to CCTV cameras in MPEG2 format. The ALS proposal includes a cut sheet for a CCTV camera that uses MPEG4 encoding, which is a better camera and cost about the same as the camera required in the RFP. The evidence relative to ALS’ proposal shows that it has standing to challenge the contract award to Miller. The evidence presented regarding ALS’ proposal does not speak to the responsiveness of ALS’ proposal as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order rescinding its intended award to Miller, finding Miller’s proposal non-responsive, and providing for review of ALS’ proposal by FDOT’s TRC. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 1st day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony B. Zebouni, Esquire Regan Zebouni & Walker, P.A. 9905 Old St. Augustine Road, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie C. Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. 06-DC-7727 to Communications Engineering Service Company is contrary to the Department of Correction’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. 06-DC-7727 on October 27, 2006. The purpose of the ITB was to solicit bids for maintenance and repair of radio equipment owned by the Department in each of its four regions. The original deadline for submitting bids in response to the ITB was November 30, 2006, but the deadline was extended to December 15, 2006, through an addendum to the ITB. First Communications, CES, and Motorola, Inc., submitted bids for Region I. Another company, Econo Communications, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Communications, also responded to the ITB, but it did not bid on Region I. It was stipulated that First Communications’ bid was responsive to the ITB. The Department determined that the bid submitted by Motorola was not responsive to the ITB. That determination was not challenged. The Department determined that the bid submitted by CES was responsive, despite the issues discussed below. CES was determined by the Department to be the lowest responsible bidder. The bid submitted by CES was $2,571 per month.1 First Communications was the next lowest bidder. Its bid was $3,408.85 per month,2 which is 32.6 percent higher than CES’s bid. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB states that “it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5 with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements).” Section 5.1 of the ITB lists the “mandatory responsiveness requirements” for bids, and states that: The following terms, conditions or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to the ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory.Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. (Emphasis in original). Nearly identical language is contained in Sections 1.7 and 4.3.6.1 of the ITB, and in the ITB Review Manual used by Department staff in reviewing the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Indeed, the ITB Review Manual refers to the mandatory responsiveness requirements as “fatal criteria.” The mandatory responsiveness requirement in the ITB that is most pertinent to this case is in Section 5.1.2,3 which states: It is mandatory that the bidder supply one original signed Bid and three (3) copies of the signed bid. . . . . (Emphasis in original). The bid package submitted by CES did not include the original signed bid. It only included the three copies of the signed bid. This omission was noted by Christina Espinosa, the procurement manager for the ITB who opened the bids on the afternoon of December 15, 2006. However, after Ms. Espinosa consulted with her supervisor and the Department’s legal staff, it was determined that the omission was not material and that CES should be given an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit the original signed bid. As a result, Ms. Espinosa contacted CES and gave it 24 business hours to “cure” the deficiency. CES delivered the original signed bid to the Department on the morning of December 18, 2006, which is three days after the bid submittal deadline in the ITB, but within the 24-business hour deadline given by Ms. Espinosa.4 CES did not have a representative at the bid opening, and there is no evidence that CES knew it was the lowest bidder, either when Ms. Espinosa gave CES an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit an original bid on December 15, 2006, or when it submitted the original bid on December 18, 2006. It is undisputed that the original signed bid submitted by CES on December 18, 2006, is identical in all respects to the three copies of the bid that were timely submitted by CES on December 15, 2006. Ms. Espinosa reviewed the bid submitted by CES despite its failure to include the original signed bid. According to ITB provisions referenced above, that omission should have resulted in the bid being rejected and not further reviewed. The CES bid included at least one other deviation from the specifications in the ITB. The bid stated in the “service delivery synopsis” that the turnaround time for the repair of fixed equipment would be 15 working days. A 15-day time period was referenced in the original ITB, but it was changed to eight days in an addendum. Ms. Espinosa contacted CES about this discrepancy, and on January 3, 2007, CES advised Ms. Espinosa by e-mail that it “acknowledges the change in repair times from 15 days to 8 days.” CES was not the only bidder that Ms. Espinosa contacted after the bids were opened to obtain clarification or information omitted from the bid. For example, she contacted First Communications to obtain copies of its articles of incorporation and business licenses that were not included in its bid; to get clarification regarding First Communications’ use of subcontractors; and to confirm that First Communications acknowledged the eight-day turnaround time for repair of fixed equipment since its bid did not contain a service delivery synopsis. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB authorizes the Department to “seek clarifications or request any information deemed necessary for proper review of submissions from any bidder deemed eligible for Contract award.” However, Section 4.3.1 also states that “no modifications by the bidder of submitted bids will be allowed.” The ITB authorizes the Department to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids, and on this issue, the ITB states: Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this solicitation. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by the bidder. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation there from is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of terms or services bid, or the prices submitted to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities: A variation from the solicitation terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. A minor irregularity will not result in a rejection of a bid. (All emphasis in original). The Department relies on these sections of the ITB as its authority to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids with respect to any provision of the ITB, including the mandatory responsiveness requirements. On January 4, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract for Region I to CES. In the same posting, the Department rejected all bids for the other three regions. The rejection of all bids for the other regions is not at issue in this case. First Communications timely filed a notice of protest and, then, a formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract to CES. The Department provided notice of this proceeding to CES, as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. CES did not file a petition to intervene or otherwise seek to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing First Communications’ protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of April, 2007.
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 Whether the School Board of Seminole County's, notice of intent to award Bid No. 102589, for air filter maintenance, service, and replacement to Filter Service and Installation Corporation was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Seminole County School District is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, created by Article IX, Section 4, Florida Constitution. The powers and duties of the school board are enumerated in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The Superintendent of the Seminole County School District is a constitutional officer, whose office is created by Article IX, Section 5, Florida Constitution. The powers and duties of the Superintendent are enumerated in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The Seminole County School Board issued a call for bids for air filter maintenance service and replacement under Bid No. 102589 on September 14, 1998. Bids were submitted by Con-Air Industries, Inc., the protester, and Filter Service & Installation Corp., the apparent low bidder. The bids were opened on September 28, 1998, and were evaluated. Each bidder was determined to be a responsible bidder to the CFB. Intervenor submitted the lowest numerical bid. On October 1, 1998, Respondent's staff recommended that the CFB be awarded to Intervenor. The decision to recommend the award of the filter service Bid No. 102589 complies with the bid specifications. The instructions to bidders, as stated on the Proposal Form, direct a bidder to total lines A-C and to enter the total at line D. The instructions state that a bidder is not to include the cost as stated at lines E & F in the total. The proposal form then states that the total cost, as stated at line D shall be used to determine the apparent low bidder. The bid proposal document stated that the total of the prices stated at items A, B, and C would be used to determine the lowest numerical bid. The bid proposal document stated that the Respondent reserves the right to negotiate unit cost proposed for item E. The line D total submitted by the Petitioner is stated at $3.45. The line D total submitted by the apparent low bidder, is stated at $2.60. Intervenor submitted the lowest numerical bid. Intervenor does business under the fictitious name Filter Sales & Service. That fictitious name has been registered with the Secretary of State for the State of Florida. Filter Service & Installation Corp., and Filter Sales & Service are one and the same. The reference by Intervenor at line F to "Per Price Sheet" and the failure of Filter Service & Installation Corp. to attach a price sheet to its proposal form is not a material deviation from the requirements of the bid specifications. The total at line D is the total used to determine the lowest bidder. Filter Service & Installation Corp. is the lowest and best bid from a responsive and responsible bidder. The Petitioner followed the procedure set forth in the bid proposal document in making a determination that the Intervenor was the lowest numerical bidder. Petitioner reserved the right to reject all bids and to waive any informalities. Petitioner failed to prove that the notice of intent to award the bid to Intervenor was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent award the contract for filter maintenance, service, and replacement under Bid No. 102589 to the Intervenor, Filter Service and Installation Corp., as recommended by its staff. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hering, President Con-Air Industries, Inc. 3055 Pennington Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County Public Schools Legal Services Department 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Robert W. Smith, Esquire 430 North Mills Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32803 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County Public Schools 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited contractors to replace a chiller in Building #45 at its Sunland facility located in Marianna, Florida. The project number for the replacement was HRS-95203000. The vendors were allowed until 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, August 24, 1995, to submit responses to the request for bids. On August 24, 1995, Respondent received four responses. The responses were from Petitioner, Neel, JLS International and Smiths, Inc. On August 24, 1995, when the bids were opened JLS International and Smiths, Inc. were disqualified as nonresponsive bidders. On August 24, 1995, Respondent determined that Petitioner had submitted a base bid in the amount of $141,185.00 and as described on the tabulation form, an alternate bid in the amount of $14,750.00 for confined space compliance. The Neel bid as reflected on the tabulation was a base bid for $142,000.00. The forms upon which Petitioner and Neel had submitted their bid prices were forms identical in their format. The format was required by the Respondent. The Petitioner's bid stated: Base Bid: $141,185.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ N/A Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. *If Required (not included in base bid) ITEM UNIT PRICE Compliance for confined space for refrigerants & equipment *Note: Base bid price is compiled costs for construction duration & equipment delivery of 18 weeks. When Petitioner submitted its response to the request for bids, it offered no further explanation concerning the $14,750.00 price for "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" than has already been described. The Neel bid stated: Base Bid: $142,000.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. ITEM UNIT PRICE Respondent had provided written instructions to the bidders concerning execution of the bid proposal form to the effect: Omit mention of alternates entirely, if there are none. Unit prices are to be used only if unit prices are applicable and approved by the Project Director. This project did not call for alternate bids or unit prices. The request for bids did not contemplate a quotation other than the base bid for all items, to include any costs associated with implementation of a design that complies with all applicable codes associated with the installation and with any laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Posting of the bid evaluation/tabulation and notice of contract award recommendation was given on September 8, 1995, indicating Respondent's intent to award to Petitioner in the amount of $141,185.00 as the base bid for the project. Prior to the posting of the bids on September 8, 1995, as was customary, Thomas McAuley, an account representative for Petitioner, who had submitted Petitioner's bid response had met with Respondent's project manager Glen Jenkins, a Professional Engineer III. The meeting was held to discuss Petitioner's bid response as the apparent responsive lowest and best bidder. In the conversation held between Messrs. McAuley and Jenkins, they did not discuss the $14,750.00 separate price quotation in the Petitioner's bid. They did discuss compliance with the codes that were going to be applicable to the project and whether the base price quotation took into account the code requirements. McAuley indicated his opinion that the base price quotation did account for compliance with code requirements contemplated by the terms in the request for bids. McAuley was specifically asked whether Petitioner was complete and thorough in its compliance with the bid specifications and in its prices, inclusive of all the items that were going to be mandated by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services. McAuley answered that question in the affirmative. In the specifications, under Article 7, Miscellaneous Provisions, within the request for bids is set forth Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 related to permit and code compliance issues, which state as follows: State Building Permit. Current DMS requirements for state building permit applications and for permit inspections are attached. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to apply for and pay all costs associated with the state building permit (including the cost of preparing any permit documents on which the state building official may require the seal of a registered engineer). It shall further be the Contractor's responsi- bility to comply fully with all permit inspection requirements. Code Compliance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement a design complying with all codes applicable to this installation, and with all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall be held responsible for stating or setting forth (in this or any other document, or verbally) any code requirement which may be applicable to this project. By disseminating this "Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions", the Owner merely sets forth minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, and neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall thereby be held liable, in full or in part, for the Contractor's adherence or non-adherence to any governing code and/or legal requirement. Special Terms and Conditions for Cont- racts Under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Due to partial project funding under a federal NECPA grant, Contractor compliance with federal laws and regulations are a special requirement of this project. Special terms and conditions pertaining to wages and payrolls, records retention and access, apprenticeship and training, equal opportunity access, are set forth in the attached "Special Terms and Conditions for Contracts Under the National Energy Conserva- tion Policy Act". The contractor shall responsible for full compliance with the attached special terms and conditions. In the meeting between McAuley and Jenkins discussion was made concerning compliance with pertinent electrical codes. One question was asked about pipes in the system being installed in a manner to allow variable speed drives to be placed above the pipes. Jenkins considered that speed drive placement underneath the pipes would be contrary to code requirements. Related to the mechanical features in the project there was discussion about the provision of refrigerants in compliance with the mechanical code that pertained. In the meeting there was little discussion about code compliance within confined spaces, because the two individuals did not perceive that there would likely be a code requirement concerning confined spaces. Mention was made that some code inspector or code official who came to the job site might require attention to the confined spaces, even though that requirement was not found in the code. According to Jenkins, in his recount of the meeting with McAuley, if a code official required compliance for an item in the confined spaces that was not set forth in the code, that would constitute an item about which the Respondent had not requested information to be included in the base price quotation offered by the Petitioner. Further, Jenkins stated there would not be a problem for failing to offer a quotation for the features required by the inspector, because it was not sought by the Respondent in designing the bid requirements. As Jenkins describes, Petitioner's unit price for that work had been made known. This is taken to refer to the $14,750.00 quote for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. In that circumstance, Mr. Jenkins told Mr. McAuley that if a code official required something that was not contemplated by the code and the Respondent did not consider it worth fighting over, then Respondent would have to process a change order to install that equipment. This is taken to mean that Petitioner would be paid additional money under a change order for installing the equipment in the event that the Respondent did not choose to contest the decision of the code official. At the time that McAuley and Jenkins had the meeting, counsel for Neel had contacted Jenkins about protesting the decision to award the contract to Petitioner. That individual had stated the opinion to Respondent that Petitioner's discussion of confined space for refrigerants and the equipment at the additional cost of $14,750.00 might be perceived as potentially a code exclusion in violation of the requirements of Section 7.3 to the request for bids. Neel's counsel stated his belief that the vendors were expected to be in compliance with all codes and laws, even if it was not known to be a code requirement at the time the bid was submitted. He was concerned that someone might try and make it a requirement in the future. The Neel attorney explained that the reference to compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment set forth in Petitioner's bid response might be construed as a comment on code requirements through the contingency of someone's interpretation of the code. He believed that the responses to the request for bids needed to address that contingency as part of the basic quotation, not as a separate quotation. At the time McAuley and Jenkins had their meeting, Jenkins did not know of any requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment based upon his experience, but he had not researched the issue. Through information which Neel imparted to Mr. Jenkins before the meeting was held between Jenkins and McAuley, the Neel attorney expressed the opinion that there was not a present code requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, a view held by McAuley and Jenkins. At the time the meeting was held between McAuley and Jenkins, Jenkins was of the opinion that the requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment was not foreseen to be a likely code requirement. As contrasted with Neel's view, as explained to Jenkins, that its base bid was intended to cover the eventuality that there might become a requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, Neel's representative stated that Petitioner's bid had segregated that contingency for consideration by quoting the price of $14,750.00 separately. Neel did not appear at the hearing and there was no direct proof that the $142,000.00 base bid by Neel addressed the contingency that a future requirement might be imposed for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. However, it may properly be assumed the Neel bid met the requirement for a base bid quotation to cover all costs to Respondent absent proof to the contrary. Later, when Respondent decided to award the contract to Neel, Respondent implied that the $142,000.00 base bid would meet code requirements contemplated by Section 7.3. Concerning the responsibility to determine which code requirements pertained and when, Respondent expected the vendors to derive that answer. This case was unlike most projects by the Respondent in which design professionals, engineers or architects create design documents that are completed in view of code requirements and the vendors assume that the bid documents prepared would be in conformance with code requirements. At hearing Mr. Jenkins, as project manager, opined that Section 7.3 obligated the contractor to meet existing requirements of the permitting authorities, and if during the pendency of the contract there was some change to the codes or code requirements set forth by code inspectors, then the contractor must assume the risk. Moreover, when the bids were opened and tabulated initially and the preliminary decision was made to award the contract to Petitioner, Mr. Jenkins perceived the quotation of $14,750.00 set forth in the Petitioner's bid to be a unit price for a scope of work that was not expected to be required at any point and was not been asked for by Respondent. Jenkins considered this quote as an alternate that was being proffered, something that Respondent might opt for in the future. Although not set forth in exact terms, Mr. Jenkins perceived this information in the Petitioner's bid response to be related to an alarm system and breathing apparatuses. He held this belief based upon his experience in association with compliance for confined spaces. Mr. Jenkins surmised that what was being described by the Petitioner was the type of installation that you would put into a closed mechanical room where a refrigeration machine was located that contained toxic refrigerant, which if released might kill a serviceman. In that connection when discussing refrigerant compliance with Mr. McAuley in their meeting, Mr. Jenkins indicated that the discussion had been limited because the type of machine proposed by the Petitioner was a 134A machine which is "ozone friendly" and not restricted by clean air amendment regulations. Following the posting on September 8, 1995, which recommended that the contract be awarded to Petitioner, Neel had 72 hours to file a protest. That protest was filed. Having considered the remarks by Neel's attorney in support of that protest, Mr. Jenkins became persuaded that Petitioner might not have intended to describe an alternate (unsolicited) purchase when discussing the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment for a price of $14,750.00; instead, Petitioner may have been describing how to comply with future code requirements. Consequently, Mr. Jenkins attempted to settle the issue by presenting the opportunity for the Petitioner to obtain a letter from the Department of Management Services permitting office establishing that the equipment described in the bid by Petitioner for compliance for confined space refrigerants and equipment was not then a code requirement. Mr. Jenkins wanted that information to be in writing. This opportunity to submit information was imparted to Stuart Zaritsky, Branch Manager for Petitioner in its Tallahassee office. Petitioner did not take the opportunity to send written information concerning the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as not being required by applicable codes. Instead, Mr. Zaritsky called Mr. Jenkins and told him that Petitioner had placed calls to the Department of Management Services permitting office and was unable to get a definitive response at that time. On September 26, 1995, Mr. Zaritsky wrote to Mr. Jenkins and stated: The confined space for refrigerants and equipment compliance is based on ASHRAE recommendations only. If any of these items are required by code, then we will install it at no cost. Our base bid of $141,185 is based on the specifications, including paragraph 7.3 on page 13 and all other portions of the contract documents without any qualifications. If it is determined by the owner, that they wish to upgrade the machine room to ASHRAE 15 standards, and it is not required by code, the $14,750 would be the price to add refrigerant monitors, refrigerant purge fans and self-contained breathing apparatus. Should the jurisdictional authority of code compliance determine that these items are required by code, they will be installed as part of our base bid of $141,185. On September 29, 1995, Respondent gave notice of an amended bid tabulation finding Neel to be the responsive lowest and best bidder for the project in its quotation of $142,000.00. The September 29, 1995 correspondence notified the Petitioner that: After further review of issues raised by responsive bidders on the above project, the Department has determined that the bid sub- mitted by Natkin Service Co. on the above referenced project either: is nonresponsive, because the bid was not in compliance with Section 7.3 of the Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions, since it exempted its bid from certain refrigerant handling requirements; or if responsive, is in the amount of $155,935.00. In either case, the bid submitted by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $142,000.00 is the lowest responsive bid. The September 29, 1995 determination that Petitioner was not responsive led to Petitioner's present protest. Sometime shortly before the amended posting of the bid tabulation on September 29, 1995, Mr. Jenkins spoke to Mr. McAuley concerning the opportunity to present information to address the question concerning whether compliance for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment was a code requirement. To assist the Petitioner Mr. Jenkins provided information which had been received from the Department of Community Affairs related to code provisions under enforcement by the Department of Management Services. This information was not provided by Mr. Jenkins as a determination of code requirements; it was provided to inform Petitioner concerning what Mr. Jenkins understood to be the latest code requirements. The expectation was still held that Petitioner would submit separate information from the Department of Management Services that would settle the issue concerning the possible need to comply with code requirements for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment. As Mr. Jenkins described at hearing, the basis for finding the Petitioner's bid unresponsive was alternatively stated. First, the Respondent believes that Petitioner tried to avoid the responsibility for complying with code requirements, whatever they may be during the contract pendency; or second, Petitioner split its bid into two parts. One in the amount of $141,185.00 for matters unrelated to code compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment and the second in an amount of $14,750.00 for such compliance. If the former view is taken, Petitioner's bid is unresponsive. If the latter view is taken Petitioner's bid is responsive but exceeds the quotation by the responsive bidder Neel. At hearing it was not proven by competent evidence whether there was any necessity to meet code requirements for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as described in Petitioner's bid response at any point in time. Other provisions within the request for bids that pertain to the manner in which the vender would address its price quotation are as follows: 1.5 The Contract Sum shall initially be that lump-sum amount which the Contractor shall have enclosed in his sealed bid proposal. Subject to additions and deduc- tions by Change Order, the Contract Sum shall be the amount which the Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work, subject to the terms and conditions as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6 The Contractor shall apply for, and pay all costs associated with, any permit which may be required by the Department of Management Services. Such permitting costs for which the Contractor shall be responsible shall include the preparation of any permit documents on which the building official may require the seal of a registered engineer. B-9 Instruction for bidders; They (the bidders) are also required to examine carefully any drawings, specifications and other bidding documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner effect the work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest based upon the unresponsive of its bid and awards the contract for Project No. HRS- 95203000 to Neel. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 20th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph B1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B2 is rejected in the suggestion that Respondent should be bound by resort to extrinsic evidence to determine Petitioner responsive to the bid invitation. Paragraph B3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B4 is rejected in the suggestion that it was inappropriate to defer to the Neel protest as a means for Respondent to reconsider its position. Paragraph B5 is rejected in the suggestion that Neel has controlled the outcome in this case. Paragraph B6 is rejected in the suggestion that Petitioner has complied with the bid invitation requirements. Paragraph B7 is rejected in the suggestion that the contrary position stated by the Respondent in the informal review wherein Petitioner had been preliminarily determined to be the responsive bidder and the point of view at hearing would preclude a decision favoring the Respondent. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy McAuley, Account Manager Natkin Service Company 3428 A. Garber Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Chavers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Informational Copies: JLS International, Inc. P. O. Box 490 Foley, AL 36536 Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. P. O. Box 1916 Thomasville, GA 31799 Smith's, Inc. of Dothan P. O. Box 1207 Dothan, AL 36302
The Issue Whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's bid on the grounds that the bid did not meet a fatal item requirement.
Findings Of Fact On April 24, 1992, Respondent published a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of housekeeping services to South Florida State Hospital. Attached to the RFP as Appendix I was a blank copy of Respondent's "Standard Contract" which is also referred to as its "core model contract". Paragraph 1.a. of Section D of the RFP contains the following instructions to bidders: BIDDER RESPONSE a. State of Florida Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, Pur 7033 The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, Appendix II must be signed and returned ... with the proposal or submitted by itself if you choose not to submit a proposal and wish to remain on the department's active vendor list. Paragraph 1.g. of Section D of the RFP, contains the following instructions to bidders: Required Bidders Certification Contract Terms and Conditions The proposal must include a signed statement in response to the RFP indicating acceptance of the terms and conditions of provisions of service as specified in the RFP and contained in the core model contract. Bidders were provided a copy of the RFP rating sheet which contained the following under the heading of Fatal Items: The following criteria must be met in order for the proposal to be considered for evaluation, failure to receive a "Yes" response for any time [item] will result in automatic rejection of the proposal. * * * Does the proposal include a statement agreeing to terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP? Petitioner was represented at a "Bidders' Conference" held May 15, 1992, at which the fatal items were discussed. Bidders were advised that it would be necessary for the responses to contain a statement agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract. The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, contains the following certification: I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same contractual services, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. In submitting a proposal to an agency for the State of Florida, the proposer offers and agrees that if the proposal is accepted, the proposer will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the State of Florida all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of Florida for price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the proposer. The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, was signed by Richard A. Cosby on behalf of Petitioner and submitted as part of Petitioner's response to the RFP. Upon receipt of all responses, Respondent convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the responses. The evaluation committee determined that the response submitted by Petitioner did not contain the required statement agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. Consequently, the evaluation committee rejected Petitioner's proposal from further consideration. Petitioner does not challenge the specifications of the RFP, but, instead, asserts that Mr. Cosby's execution of the State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, was sufficient to meet the requirement the evaluation committee found lacking. The language of the Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, that most closely approximates the certification that the bidder accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and of the RFP is as follows: I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. The proposal submitted by Petitioner did not contain any other statement which could be construed as accepting the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. The broad language of the Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, upon which Petitioner relies does not state that the bidder accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. The evaluation committee properly determined that Petitioner's response failed to meet this fatal item. In this proceeding, there was evidence that the Respondent routinely inserts in its Request for Proposals the fatal item requirement that the bidders agree in writing to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP, and that Respondent has never waived that fatal item requirement. There was no evidence that Respondent was using this fatal item requirement to discriminate against or in favor of any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent dismiss Petitioner's bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4311BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are accepted in material part by the Recommended Order. Petitioner's conclusions based on those facts are rejected for the reasons discussed in the Recommended Order. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Cosby, Vice President National Cleaning of Florida, Inc. 1101 Holland Drive, #32 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Colleen A. Donahue, Esquire District 10 Legal Office Room 513 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's proposed action, the award of the contract in question to WRS Infrastructure and Environment, Inc., is contrary to its governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In March 1999, the Department issued a request for proposals, RFP-DOT-99/2000-6026DS ("RFP"), requesting that experienced firms submit proposals "for the purpose of providing district-wide contamination assessment and remediation services" in the Department's District VI, which consists of Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties. The RFP solicited proposals for an indefinite quantity contract, with a term of three years and a maximum value of $5 million. The proposals were to be presented in two separate, sealed packages, one containing the proposer's Technical Proposal and the other containing the proposer's Price Proposal. Pursuant to Section 1.16 of the RFP, the Technical Proposal were to be opened and evaluated before the Price Proposals were opened. Section 1.8.2 of the RFP is entitled "Responsiveness of Proposals" and provides: All Proposals must be in writing. A responsive Proposal is an offer to perform the Scope of Services in accordance with all the requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving a score of seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. Proposals found to be non- responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A Proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional Proposals, incomplete Proposals, indefinite or ambiguous Proposals, and improper or undated signatures. (Emphasis in original.) Eight firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP, including WRS, OHM, and Metcalf & Eddy. A three-member Technical Review Committee was assembled, and the Technical Proposals were submitted to the Technical Review Committee for evaluation; all eight Technical Proposals received a score of 70 points or more. The Price Proposals were then opened and evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP. The Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award on August 26, 1999, in which it stated its intention to award the District VI contract to OHM. OHM was the highest-ranked proposer with a total score of 125.879 points; WRS was the second-highest-ranked proposer with a total score of 125.675 points; and, Metcalf & Eddy was the third-highest-ranked proposer with a total score of 118.569 points. It was noted in the Notice of Intent to Award that all eight proposals were accepted as responsive. On August 31, 1999, WRS filed a notice of its intent to protest the intended award of the District VI contract to OHM, and it filed its Formal Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on September 10, 1999. Metcalf & Eddy did not file a protest with regard to the August 26, 1999, Notice of Intent to Award. As a result of information obtained by the Department subsequent to the filing of WRS's protest, OHM's proposal was re-evaluated, and, on October 20, 1999, the Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award (Revised), in which it stated its intention to award the District VI contract to WRS. The scores of WRS and Metcalf & Eddy remained unchanged as a result of the re-evaluation of OHM's proposal, but OHM's score decreased to 124.212 points. As a result, WRS became the highest-ranked proposer, OHM became the second-highest-ranked proposer, and Metcalf & Eddy remained the third-highest-ranked proposer. On October 25, 1999, Metcalf & Eddy filed its Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department, and it filed the Formal Protest of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., on November 4, 1999. A settlement conference was conducted on November 17, 1999, but the Department and Metcalf & Eddy were unable to resolve the issues raised in Metcalf & Eddy's protest. As a result, the Formal Protest of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 28, 1999, and initiated this proceeding. On December 9, 1999, the Department's Awards Committee met to re-consider its decision of October 15, 1999, to award the District VI contract to WRS in light of the issues raised in the protests filed by OHM and Metcalf & Eddy. The Awards Committee decided not to disturb the decision reflected in the October 20, 1999, Notice of Intent to Award (Revised). SPURS Number Section 1 of the RFP provides that the "State of Florida Department of Transportation Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgement (Pur #7033) . . . will be handed out at the mandatory pre-proposal meeting." The form itself is entitled "State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Bidder Acknowledgement" ("Bidder Acknowledgement form"). A box that appears near the top of the Bidder Acknowledgement form is labeled "STATE PURCHASING SUBSYSTEM (SPURS) VENDOR NUMBER."3 The Bidder Acknowledgement form also includes a statement of General Conditions, which provides in pertinent part: Execution of Proposal: Proposal must contain a manual signature of authorized representative in the space provided above. Proposal must be typed or printed in ink. Use of erasable ink is not permitted. All corrections made by proposer to his proposal price must be initialed. The company name and SPURS vendor number shall appear on each page of the bid as required. . . . WRS, OHM, and Metcalf & Eddy included an executed copy of the Bidder Acknowledgement form at the beginning of their proposals. The Bidder Acknowledgement form is not a part of either the Technical Proposal or the Price Proposal. Metcalf & Eddy inserted "042428218-003" in the box reserved for the SPURS number; WRS inserted "P13202"; and OHM inserted "#94-1259053." "042428218-003" is a SPURS number assigned by the Department of Management Services, and Metcalf & Eddy is a vendor registered with that department. "P13202" is not a SPURS number. "#94-1259053" is OHM's federal identification number, and is the number that they commonly use as their SPURS number in the proposals they submit to the Department. Both WRS and OHM are registered as interested vendors with the Department of Management Services, pursuant to Section 287.042(4), Florida Statutes.4 Metcalf & Eddy included its name and its SPURS number on each page of the proposal it submitted in response to the District VI RFP. Neither WRS nor OHM included the name of the company and the SPURS number on each page of their proposals. There is no requirement in the District VI RFP that the name of the company and the SPURS number be included on each page of the proposal. Section 1.8.6 of the RFP is entitled "Waivers" and provides: The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in Proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposal by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Proposers. Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions set forth on the Bidder Acknowledgement form provides in pertinent part: "AWARDS: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all proposals or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received. " Nancy Lyons is the Contractual Services Unit Administrator for District VI. Ms. Lyons reviews the proposals to determine if they are responsive and to determine if an irregularity or omission is minor and can be waived under the terms of the RFP. It is Ms. Lyons practice to waive as a minor irregularity the omission of a SPURS number or the inclusion of an incorrect SPURS number to be a minor irregularity because, if a vendor is registered with the Department of Management Services, the SPURS number is readily available to the Department. In addition, the SPURS number does not effect either the technical content of the proposal or the price in the proposal. The WRS and OHM proposals were not rejected by the Department's District VI Contractual Services Unit even though WRS and OHM failed to include their SPURS numbers on the Bidder Acknowledgement form and failed to include the company name and SPURS number on each page of their proposals. Disparate treatment. In 1998, Metcalf & Eddy submitted a proposal in response to a Request for Proposals issued by the Department's District IV. In its Price Proposal, Metcalf & Eddy failed to include a price or a zero in three blanks reserved for the daily rate, weekly rate, and monthly rate for an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Spectrum Analyzer; Metcalf & Eddy included as the "Total" for this item "$0.00." Metcalf & Eddy's District IV proposal was rejected as non-responsive as a result of these omissions. Metcalf & Eddy filed a Formal Written Protest and Request for Formal Administrative Hearing and challenged the decision to reject its proposal as non-responsive. After informal efforts to resolve the issue raised in the protest were unsuccessful, Metcalf & Eddy withdrew its protest; the Department entered a Final Order on August 11, 1998, dismissing the protest. Summary The evidence presented by Metcalf & Eddy is not sufficient to establish that the Department's decision to accept the WRS and OHM proposals as responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The omission of the SPURS number on the Bidder Acknowledgement form is a minor irregularity that did not give WRS or OHM a substantial advantage over Metcalf & Eddy and was of no consequence to the Department because it has ready access to the SPURS numbers included in the database of interested vendors maintained by the Department of Management Services. Furthermore, WRS and OHM were not required to include their company name and SPURS number on each page of the proposal because this requirement was not included in the specifications in the RFP. Finally, Metcalf & Eddy has failed to present evidence to establish that it is the victim of disparate treatment by the Department; the decision of the Department to reject the proposal it submitted to District IV in 1998 is irrelevant to the issues raised in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order dismissing the Formal Protest of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 30th day of July, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The invitation to bid on state Project Nos. 86906-9093, 86906-9094, and 86906-9085 (the "ITB") contained, among other things, 43 pages of Technical Specifications Roadside and Slope Mowing ("Technical Specifications"). Paragraph VI.A. of the Technical Specifications contained the following provision: When mowing areas within ten feet of the travel way, the equipment shall be operated in the direction of the traffic. This provision does not apply when the specific worksite (sic) is protected in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation Roadway and Traffic Design standards [attached]. 3/ Respondent amended the ITB by letter dated May 1, 1990, which contained Addendum Nos. 1 and 2. Addendum No. 1 amended the invitations to bid on State Project Nos. 86906-9093 and 86906-9094 by deleting the "last" word "attached" from Paragraph VI.A. Addendum No. 2 amended the invitations to bid on State Project No. 86906-9085 by deleting the "last" word "attached" from Paragraph VI.A. No other changes were made in the amendments to the invitations to bid on the three state projects at issue in this proceeding ("Amended ITB"). The ITB contained a requirement that all bidders attend a Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference to allow bidders an opportunity to speak to Respondent's maintenance engineers about any concerns over the ITB. Petitioner attended the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference conducted on April 26, 1990, for the ITB. 4/ The ITB and the Amended ITB contained a requirement that each bidder visually inspect the roadside areas to be mowed. Petitioner knew of the requirement for visual inspection and complied with that requirement. Petitioner had previous experience in mowing roadside areas for Respondent. The Florida Department of Transportation Roadway and Traffic Design standards ("Standards Index") was not attached to either the ITB or the Amended ITB. Paragraph 9 of the General District Contract Specifications provided that the successful bidder "...shall adhere to the requirements of Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD")." Neither the ITB nor the Amended ITB included a copy of either the MUTCD or Part VI of the MUTCD. Petitioner received the ITB on April 12, 1990, and requested a copy of the Standards Index at that time from Teresa Martin, Assistant District Contracts Administrator, District Four, Florida Department of Transportation. Ms. Martin advised Petitioner on April 12, 1990, that no copies of the Standards Index were available locally and further advised Petitioner of the location and means for obtaining a copy of the Standards Index in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner made no attempt to obtain a copy of the Standards Index at that time. Petitioner again requested a copy of the Standards Index from Ms. Martin on May 2, 1990, and was advised again at that time of the location and means of obtaining a copy of the Standards Index. The bid package did not fail to contain any "plan" referred to in: Section 4, Scope of Work, paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2; Section 5, Control of the Work, paragraph 5.2; Section 12, Work Assignment and Planning for Routine Contract Maintenance, paragraphs 2 and 4-6, page 5, paragraph 1.2, page 20, Section II D., III A., page 24, Section IX, and page 64, Proposal. Petitioner presented no evidence or authority describing the applicable standard for defining a "plan". The ITB and Amended ITB contain a description of which roadsides are to be mowed, the manner in which the work should be performed, each pay item and the quantity estimated for each item, the estimated number of mowing cycles, and numerous other detailed provisions regarding mowing operations, operator safety, equipment maintenance, and conversion charts. While the ITB and Amended ITB are standard forms of contract issued by the Department of General Services, they are tailored to meet the specific needs of a mowing contract by means of the Technical Specifications. In the absence of evidence or authority to the contrary from Petitioner, the ITB and Amended ITB are found to include all relevant plans. Respondent failed to include either the "form of Contract" or "Bond" referred to in pages 1, 10, and 64 of the ITB and Amended ITB. Page 64 contained a form of bid proposal which required each bidder to sign a statement that the bidder had "...carefully and to [its] satisfaction examined the...form of Contract and Bond.. The ITB and Amended ITB did not fail to state standards for what is "customary to the mowing operation". The ITB and Amended ITB were prepared on a standard form of contract issued by the Department of General Services and used by Respondent to solicit bids for various types of commodities and services. The ITB and Amended ITB were used to solicit mowing services for specified roadside areas In Broward County, Florida. They were composed of general specifications, bidding documents, technical specifications, and mowing guidelines. The term "custom" by definition refers to the prevailing practice that has been established over time within a geographical area rather than the written terms of a contract. 5/ The definition of grass or vegetated roadside areas to be mowed, which is set forth in Section I, Description A, page 19, excludes certain plants and vines which are present in the areas to be mowed. 6/ Such a definition does not take into account the different toughness and clumping characteristics of each type of grass or weed within the mowing area. Differences in toughness and clumping characteristics of grasses and weeds can adversely alter the uniformity of cutting height. The Technical specifications neither define the term "routine mowing", as used in Sections II.D. and III.A., nor prescribe how high grass or weeds should be allowed to grow before Respondent issues a work order or a notice to proceed. Grass, weeds, plants, and vines in a roadside area that are left for several months without a work order being issued can grow to a height of 10 feet, develop very hard stems, or lay down during mowing and later rebound. The Technical Specifications do not contain a definition of minimum mower size. The frequency with which Respondent issues work orders or notices to proceed depends on growth conditions in the particular roadside area including rain and drought. The topography of the roadside areas to be mowed includes holes, boulders, and un-repaired washouts. The topographical characteristics of the roadside areas and the toughness and clumping characteristics of the grasses and weeds in the roadside areas adversely affect the ability of a successful bidder to comply with cutting height and green streak requirements in the Technical Specifications. 7/ The ITB and Amended ITB were neither arbitrary, capricious, nor beyond Respondent's discretion. The terms of the ITB and Amended ITB were not inherently uncertain or unreasonable. No evidence was presented that Respondent abused its discretion in soliciting the bids, that the accepted bid, if any, was not a reasonable price for the work solicited, that the law was not complied with, or that the contract to be awarded was not fair and capable of just and lawful enforcement. The ITB and Amended ITB were sufficiently precise to protect the public against collusive contracts, prevent favoritism toward contractors, and secure fair competition upon equal terms to all bidders. The ITB and Amended ITB afforded a basis for an exact comparison of bids among all bidders and did not reserve to an officer of the public body the power to make exceptions, releases, and modifications that would afford opportunities for favoritism after the contract is let.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's written formal protest be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of August, 1990.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent should award a contract in accordance with an invitation to bid to the Petitioner, to some other bidder, or reject all bids and reissue an invitation. Petitioner contends that it was the low bidder in response to the invitation; that its bid was responsive; and to the extent that it was not responsive, any defects were of a minor sort which should be waived. Petitioner contends that the Respondent has previously waived irregularities such as existed in the Petitioner's bid and should therefore waive them in this case. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner's bid was not responsive, that the irregularities in Petitioner's bid are not minor, that any mistakes the Respondent has made in past acquisitions should not be repeated, and that the contract should be awarded to another company.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent issued an invitation to bid for a project known as the "Animal Science/Dairy Science Building" at the University of Florida. The project was given No. BR-108 by the Respondent. Petitioner was the lowest bidder in response to the invitation. The next lowest bidder, Charles R. Perry Construction Company, submitted a bid approximately $37,000 higher than Petitioner's bid. Perry has not filed any formal protest nor intervened in this proceeding. Petitioner is a responsible contractor and has in the past entered into construction contracts with the Respondent. Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Respondent. The Petitioner protested the rejection of its bid in a timely manner. Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications provides in pertinent part, as follows: In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent sub- contractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit with his Proposal a list of the subcontractors who would perform the work for each Divi- sion of the Specifications as indicated by the "List of Subcontractors" form contained in these Specifications... only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. * * * No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section "B" of the invitation for bid provided space for the bidder to list the name and address of subcontractors for the roofing, masonry, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, meat processing equipment, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. In Section "B" of its bid, Petitioner listed two subcontractors for the plumbing, mechanical, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. Listing two subcontractors does not comport with the bid specification requiring that only one subcontractor be listed for each phase. Petitioner listed two subcontractors because one of the subcontractors submitted a proposal to Petitioner only fifteen minutes prior to the time when the bid had to be submitted, and Petitioner was unsure of whether the last-minute proposal included all of the work that the Petitioner anticipated would be required. In addition, Petitioner felt that one of the subcontractors may not have been acceptable to the Respondent. The requirement that bidders list only one subcontractor for each phase of a project helps to discourage "bid shopping." Bid shopping is a practice whereby a contractor who receives a bid from a subcontractor approaches another subcontractor with that bid and encourages the other subcontractor to reduce its price. If the other subcontractor responds, this reduced price can be taken back to the original subcontractor. The original subcontractor is then confronted with the choices of either lowering its bid or losing the project. Bid shopping that occurs after a bid has been accepted by the owner does not benefit the owner. It benefits only the bidder, who is able to reduce its costs and therefore increase its profit. Requiring that one subcontractor be listed for each phase cannot serve to completely eliminate bid shopping. A contractor could still bid shop by listing itself as the subcontractor, then after winning the contract shop between several subcontractors. A contractor could also bid shop by changing subcontractors after the bid award. In either case, however, the contractor would need to secure the approval of the owner. The practice is thus discouraged. If a bidder lists two subcontractors for a phase of the project, that bidder would have an advantage over those who listed only one subcontractor. Listing two subcontractors enables the bidder to make a choice as to the best subcontract bid at a time later than the choice is made by bidders who list only one subcontractor. In addition, listing two subcontractors makes it easier for the bidder to engage in bid shopping, which would be more difficult for bidders who listed only one subcontractor. Paragraph "B-24" of the bid specifications for this project provides in pertinent part: The Contract will be awarded . . . to the lowest qualified bidder pro- vided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. * * * The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The listing of two subcontractors for phases of the project is not a mere informality in the bid. It is directly contrary to Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications. It would not be in the interest of the owner to accept a bid in which two subcontractors are listed for phases of the project. The integrity of the acquisition process would be damaged by allowing such a deviation because a bidder who listed two subcontractors would have gained an advantage over bidders who complied with the bid specifications. It is not in the best interest of the Respondent to waive the defect in the Petitioner's bid. On at least two prior occasions, the Respondent awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor per phase of the work. One of these projects was for a gymnasium at Florida Atlantic University (Project No. BR-603). Another was for a window replacement project at Florida State University (Project No. BR-342). In at least three other projects, the Respondent awarded contracts where the bidder failed to list the name of any subcontractor for one or more phases of the work. These were for the cancer center at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-569), the student housing facility at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-576), and an expansion project at Florida A & M University (Project No. BR-343). The bid specifications for all of these projects were not offered into evidence; however, the Respondent had utilized the same specifications as required in this project at all pertinent times. Failing to list any subcontractor for a phase of a project constitutes approximately the same defect in a bid response as listing two subcontractors. It provides even greater opportunities for bid shopping and an advantage to the bidder over those who list subcontractors as required by the specifications. In several other projects, it appears that the Respondent has awarded contracts to bidders whose bids contained defects of the same magnitude, but a different sort than the listing of two subcontractors. It does not appear that the Respondent has awarded contracts where bidders have listed more than one subcontractor, no subcontractor, or otherwise violated bid specifications because of any policy or because of any expressed waiver of the defect. Rather, it appears that the Respondent has not adequately policed bids to determine responsiveness to the bid specifications. This is especially true with respect to the listing of subcontractors. It appears that no one on the Respondent's staff took the responsibility to consider whether one subcontractor was listed for each phase of a project as required in the specifications. The only policy that the Respondent established was a policy of being too lax in examining bids. The Petitioner did not list two subcontractors for various phases of this project because of any reliance on past conduct of the Respondent. Petitioner's agent overlooked the bid requirements in Preparing its bid response. In prior bids submitted by the Petitioner in response to bid invitations issued by Respondent, Petitioner listed only one subcontractor, as required. Generally, unless it is otherwise required, Petitioner prefers to list two subcontractors because of the flexibility it provides to the owner and to Petitioner. Petitioner was not aware that Respondent had previously awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor for a phase of the work when it submitted its bid in this instance.
