The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
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: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's intention to award the contract arising out of Invitation to Bid 12/13-44 (the ITB) to Paragon Construction is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, Respondent’s rules on policies, or the ITB specifications.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts On November 16, 2012, the Department posted its ITB for demolition and renovation at the Pompano State Farmers Market. The ITB specified that bids were to be submitted to the Respondent at 407 South Calhoun Street, Mayo Building, Room SB-8, Tallahassee, Florida. The bid opening for the ITB was scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on December 21, 2012. Petitioner's response was received by the Department on December 21, 2012, at 11:07 a.m. Three other responses, from Bi-Tech Construction, Inc., JW Anthony Builders, Inc., and Eagle Enterprises, were received by Respondent prior to 2:00 p.m. on December 21, 2012. Five responses, from Paragon Construction, West Construction, State Contracting and Engineering Corporation, Real Concepts, and Anzco, Inc., were delivered by FedEx to the Department's mailroom at 2:02 p.m. on December 21, 2012. Each was tendered to FedEx on December 20, 2012, for delivery to the Department by 8:30 a.m. on December 21, 2012. The five responses were logged in by the Department's employees on December 21, 2012, between 2:03 p.m. and 2:04 p.m. Petitioner's response and the responses of Bi-Tech Construction, Inc., JW Anthony Builders, Inc., and Eagle Enterprises were opened at approximately 2:10 p.m. by Tina Peacock, assistant to the Department's purchasing director, Christie Hutchinson. Ms. Hutchinson advised Petitioner at 2:15 p.m. on December 21, 2012, via e-mail that Petitioner had provided the apparent low bid of $114,500. At 2:30 p.m. on December 21, 2012, the Department's mailroom personnel delivered the five additional responses to the Department's purchasing bureau in room SB-8 and left them unopened on Ms. Peacock's desk. Ms. Peacock had already left for the day. Ms. Hutchinson discovered the responses and opened them at approximately 2:40 p.m. on December 21, 2012. At 2:56 p.m., Ms. Hutchinson advised Petitioner that Petitioner was no longer the apparent low bidder and that the apparent low bidder was Paragon Construction, with a bid of $98,873. The Department was initially advised by FedEx on January 9, 2013, that the delay in delivering the five responses was due to weather delays in FedEx's Tennessee processing center. FedEx later confirmed that the delay was caused by their internal package sorting network and not due to weather conditions. The tabulation sheet showing the Department's intention to award a contract to Paragon Construction was posted on January 7, 2013. Petitioner timely filed its Petition challenging the Department's intended award. Findings of Fact Based on the Evidence of the Record Under “Special Terms, Conditions and Specifications,” the ITB states in the "Purpose" section that the "project budget is estimated to be $120,000.” All mail and express courier deliveries addressed to the Department are delivered to the Department's central mailroom, which is located in a different part of the building from Ms. Hutchinson's office. Mailroom personnel log in the delivered item, then deliver the mail or item to the room specified on the envelope or package. The normal bid opening procedure used by the Department is for bids to be opened by Ms. Peacock in Ms. Hutchinson's office. In this instance, both Ms. Peacock and Ms. Hutchinson were present for the opening of the first four bids that were received before 2:00 p.m. Bid responders are notified in the ITB that they may, but are not required to, attend the bid opening, which is public. At approximately 2:33 p.m. on December 21, 2012, Ms. Hutchinson received an e-mail from one of the bidders, West Construction, inquiring if the Department received their bid package by the deadline. She sent the tabulation sheet to West Construction. Ms. Hutchinson went to Ms. Peacock's desk at approximately 2:40 p.m. to return the file with the tabulation sheet, and discovered the additional envelopes on Ms. Peacock's desk. She went to the mailroom to find out when the packages were received by the Department, then sought advice from the Department's legal counsel. Upon receiving that advice, Ms. Hutchinson proceeded to open the late arrivals. By that time, Ms. Peacock had gone home, so Ms. Hutchinson personally opened them. There is nothing in the record to indicate that anyone else was in the room with Ms. Hutchinson when she opened the late-arriving bid responses. Between the time of delivery of the responses to the Department, and the opening of the same, the five bid responses remained sealed. Ms. Hutchinson testified that prior to the opening of the five late bids, she did not know what comprised the contents of each bid and had no way of knowing whether the late bids were higher or lower than those already opened. Her testimony in this regard was credible and is accepted. Paragraph 16 of the General Instructions to Respondents reads as follows: Minor Irregularities - Right to Reject. The buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. The “Evaluation and Award” section of the ITB also informs the bidders that "[a]s the best interests of the state may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." The ITB contains the following language regarding late bids: LATE BIDS Bids received after the bid opening time and date will be rejected as untimely and will not be opened. A late bid notice will be sent to the bidder upon the posting of award notice with instructions for its return. Unclaimed late bids will be destroyed after 45 days. Offers from vendors listed on the Department's posted award notice are the only offers received timely in accordance with the Department's bid opening time and date. After leaving work shortly after 2:00 p.m. on Friday, December 21, 2012, Ms. Peacock did not return to work until January 2, 2013. She then contacted FedEx to inquire about the reason for the delay in the delivery of the late responses. Initially, she was informed that the delay was due to weather. However, by letters dated January 29, 2013, the Department was informed by FedEx that the delay was caused by their package sorting network. Whether the delay was caused by the weather or the package sorting network is of no consequence. In either event, the lateness of the five bids which arrived at the Department two minutes after the posted bid opening time was due to problems of the courier, and was not caused by the bidders. The January 29, 2013, letters also informed the Department that the late packages, including the one containing the bid from Paragon Construction, were tendered to the courier service for morning delivery on December 21, 2012.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the bid protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 26th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's proposed award of a contract to Daniels Janitorial Service is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the specifications of the Invitation to Bid (ITB).
Findings Of Fact In April 2004, DOT issued ITB-DOT-04/05-5002-PDW (the ITB) seeking to contract for janitorial services at two state office buildings in DeLand, Florida. The ITB included a "bid blank," upon which vendors were directed to submit their cost proposals. The bid blank was titled "MONTHLY JANITORIAL SERVICES PER SCOPE OF SERVICES." The bid blank included three spaces where each bidder was to provide cost information. The three spaces were titled as follows: "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5000 - X 12 MONTHS," "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5001 - X 12 MONTHS," and "TOTAL YEARLY AMOUNT BOTH BUILDINGS." In response to the ITB, DOT received 18 bids. The bids were opened at 3:00 p.m. on April 29, 2004. The lowest bid was $5,185.76, submitted by Daniels Janitorial Service, including: $4,895.76 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5000 - X 12 MONTHS," $200.00 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5001 - X 12 MONTHS," and $5,186.76 identified as "TOTAL YEARLY AMOUNT BOTH BUILDINGS." The second lowest bid was $10,686.00, submitted by Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems, including: $9,971.00 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5000 - X 12 MONTHS," $715.00 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5001 - X 12 MONTHS," and $10, 686.00 identified as "TOTAL YEARLY AMOUNT BOTH BUILDINGS." The third lowest bid was $67,777.77, submitted by the Petitioner. The remainder of the bids ranged between $69,600.00 to as much as $201,464.64. At the time of the opening, Diane Warnock, a DOT District Contract Specialist and Purchasing Agent in charge of the bid opening, observed that two of the bids (the Daniels Janitorial Service and the Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems bids) appeared to be very low in relation to the other bids. Ms. Warnock believed that the two lowest bids submitted were likely set forth on a monthly basis rather than annual amount, and that the bidders had failed to extend the monthly charges to an annual cost. Ms. Warnock contacted David Callaway, a DOT Procurement Analyst with statewide contract responsibilities, to discuss her observations. Mr. Callaway advised Ms. Warnock that she could contact the two low bidders and ascertain whether the bids submitted reflected a monthly or an annual cost. Ms. Warnock separately contacted each of the individuals responsible for submitting the low bids and inquired as to whether the bids reflected a monthly cost or an annual cost. Ms. Warnock learned that each vendor had submitted a monthly bid amount. Ms. Warnock multiplied the monthly amounts submitted by the two vendors by 12 to arrive at an annual cost. On the bid tabulation form, Ms. Warnock included the bid amount submitted by each bidder. For the two bidders who submitted monthly cost information, Ms. Warnock included the monthly costs submitted and the annual cost figures she had calculated. Based on annual costs, the lowest vendor was Daniels Janitorial Service with an annual bid amount of $62,229.12. Section 13.2 of the ITB provides as follows: 13.2 RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS Bids will not be considered if not received by the Department on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. All bids must be typed or printed in ink. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid in accordance with all requirements of this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non- responsive will not be considered. Bids may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A bid 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, modifying the bid requirements, submitting conditional bids or incomplete bids, submitting indefinite or ambiguous bids, or executing forms or the bid sheet with improper and/or undated signatures. Section 13.4 of the ITB provides as follows: 13.4 WAIVERS The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other bidders. Minor irregularities are defined as those that do not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and does not effect the price of the bid by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order awarding the contract for ITB-DOT-04/05- 5002-PDW to Daniels Janitorial Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Anthony Payne 1031 Eagles Forrest Drive Apopka, Florida 32712 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services currently leases approximately 22,000 square feet of space from Nelson P. Davis. The space is contained in two separate buildings, both located at 417 Racetrack Road, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. The Department and Davis were involved in a legal dispute involving the currently leased premises, which concluded in 1986 with the entry of judgment in Davis' favor. While some antagonism remains between the parties related to the legal action instituted by Davis, Davis has been an acceptable landlord in all other respects. The current lease expires February 1, 1989. Davis has been aware, since late February or early March of 1988, that the Department would need space in excess of the currently occupied 22,000 square feet, but was not aware of the actual additional space requirements until the issuance of the invitation to bid. In general, the Department's space requirements have increased annually. In response to the anticipated need for additional space, Davis initiated plans for design of a third Racetrack Road building that could meet the additional need, but did not construct the facility. In response to the space requirements of previous years, Davis has constructed additional space. The Department has occupied the additional space in such proportions as to avoid the competitive bidding process, however, the current need for additional space exceeds the maximum which can be leased without competitive bidding. The Department on May 11, 1988, issued an invitation to Bid for approximately 26,165 square feet of space in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. (HO #1) In response to the invitation, Davis submitted a bid proposal. The Davis proposal, the sole proposal received by the Department, was disqualified by the Department as non-responsive. On June 23, 1988, the sole bid was opened by Joseph Pastucha, HRS District One Facilities Manager, who initially reviewed the Davis bid. Mr. Pastucha identified items of concern related to the responsiveness of the bid and then provided the information to his supervisor, who in turn provided the information to Mr. James Peters. The Department did not contact Davis for further information or to provide the opportunity to correct any defects. James Peters, HRS's District One Manager for Administrative Services has expressed on at least one occasion a desire to avoid entering into business arrangements with Nelson P. Davis. The bases for Peters' opinion is the earlier litigation between the parties. Peters was on the committee which was to have evaluated bids submitted in response to the invitation. However, Peters has stated that his personal opinion would not influence his participation in the bid solicitation process. The evidence did not indicate that Peters based his opinion regarding the Davis bid submission solely on the earlier litigation or that any other person involved in the agency's action permitted personal opinions to affect the decisional process. Davis' bid proposal included the two buildings constituting approximately 22,000 square feet located at 417 Racetrack Road which the Department currently occupies, plus a third building of approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposed square footage and lease cost were acceptable. The third building was to be either a planned, unconstructed building located at the 417 Racetrack Road location or an existing building located "7/l0ths of a mile southeast of the present HRS offices," (the off-site building). However, a memorandum attached to Davis' submission stated that he did not intend to use the off-site building for HRS purposes, (HO #2). Further, Davis had previously indicated in conversation with the HRS manager of the 417 Racetrack Road offices that he planned to utilize the off-site space otherwise. On page one of the bid submittal form Davis indicated the address of the proposed location as 417 Racetrack Road. By letter dated July 5, 1988, the Department notified Davis that his bid offering was deemed non-responsive and that the Department expected to readvertise for space in Ft. Walton Beach. The letter made no mention of any opportunity to protest the determination. The statement, "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes," which is required to be included in the notice of agency decision by Section 120.53(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was omitted by the Department. (HO #3) On or about July 7, 1988, Davis contacted the Department of General Services to express his dismay regarding the disqualification of his submittal. A meeting, held on or about July 19, 1988, between Davis and Department representatives, did not alter the Department's position. On or about July 25, 1988, the written notice of protest and request for hearing was filed. The Department forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The letter dated July 5, 1988, advising Davis that his bid was deemed non-responsive enumerated five reasons for the Department's decision. The reasons stated were: No photograph of the proposed facility was submitted as requested; No floor plan of the facility was submitted as requested; A substituted site was submitted Proposed space was not an existing building and was not measurable; Three buildings in bid proposal constitute three locations and are unacceptable. The letter was signed by Chuck Bates, DHRS Deputy District Administrator, District One. The letter was drafted by James Peters. (HO #3) Mr. Bates relied upon Peters and Pastucha to provide information sufficient to justify the disqualification of the bid, and was satisfied that the action was justified prior to signing the letter. Examination of the bid submittal package reveals that Davis failed to acknowledge by initial the requirements of page seven, but that he did, on that page, appropriately respond to questions related to proposed parking spaces being bid. The Department did not base the disqualification of the bid on the failure to acknowledge the page and did not include the failure to initial the page in the stated reasons for deeming the bid non-responsive. Paragraph 9(a) of the bid submittal form requires the submission of a clear photograph of the exterior front of the building. (HO #2) Davis submitted no photographs. Paragraph 9(b) of the bid submittal form requires the submission of a scaled floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. (HO #2) Davis submitted floor plans for the proposed-to-be-constructed building and for the off-site building, but failed to submit floor plans for the two buildings which the Department currently occupies. The bid also failed to include calculations of net rentable square footage related to the omitted floor plans. The letter to Davis stated that an additional reason for disqualification of his bid from further consideration was the submission of a substituted site, (HO #3). The "substituted site" refers to Davis' inclusion of the off-site building not identified in the bid submission other than by the statement that the building was located seven-tenths of a mile southeast of the present HRS office location. No map, street address, legal description, or other identifying information was submitted. The proposal submitted by Davis included plans to construct a third building at 417 Racetrack Road, which was rejected as not measurable. The invitation to bid states that to be considered, the space must be existing, dry and physically measurable, at the time of bid submitted. (HO #1) The proposed third building clearly fails to meet this requirement. While the Department may permit the correction of minor deficiencies, the deficiencies were adjudged by the Department to be more than minor. The proposal's inclusion of nonexisting space (Racetrack Road building #3) or in the alternative a building, the location of which can not be determined from the bid information and which the bidder apparently intends not to provide, is non- responsive to the specifications of the invitation. As to the fifth enumerated reason for disqualification of the bid (three buildings/three locations) the Department and Petitioner presented extensive testimony related to paragraph 3(b) of page 15 of the bid submittal form. Page 15 of the bid submittal form is titled "Evaluation Criteria" and contains a list of weighted factors which were to be used in the evaluation of bids. (HO #2) Paragraph 3(b) states, as one factor for consideration in evaluation, whether the bid provides for the required aggregate square footage in a single building, and continues, "[p]roposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within yards of each other." (HO #2) The space left for the specification of maximum yardage was erroneously left uncompleted by the Department and the Department did not learn of the error until the bid was submitted. The Department's disqualification of the bid on this basis relies on the Department's assertion that the three buildings included in the Davis proposal constitute three locations and that a responsive bid may contain not more than two locations. The Department's position is that "location" and "building" are synonymous and that paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria prohibits consideration of a bid submission including more than two buildings. The Department's position is rejected as arbitrary. The bid package does not state that proposals including more than two buildings will be disqualified. The sole reference to the number of buildings in a responsive bid submission is as stated and contained on the page of "Evaluation Criteria", wherein it is identified with a weighting factor of five percent of total possible points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing Case No. 88-3868BID. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3868BID The following constitute rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner: Accepted in part. The use of the word "required in the fourth sentence is rejected. The referenced section relates to evaluation factors, not specific requirements. Accepted. Accepted in part. The third building was proposed as either the off-site building or the planned, non-existent space. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as restatement of testimony. Other testimony indicated that Petitioner planned to use the off-site location for non-HRS purposes. Rejected, immaterial. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted in part. The use of the word "technical" is rejected. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. The change between the two invitations to bid was to clarify the obvious confusion related to the use of terms "location" and "building" and was made not to the bid specifications but to evaluation criteria. Rejected as restatement of testimony. Rejected, conclusion of law. Accepted so far as relevant. While the Davis bid was disqualified as non-responsive, the right to reject any and all bids encompasses the disqualification of a bid as non-responsive to the specific requirements of an invitation to bid. Respondent: Rejected, conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Floor plan of the off-site building was submitted showing that the building is essentially a hollow, box-like structure. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, irrelevant. While the usual distance may be 100 yards, the actual bid specifications do not state such. Further the sole reference to the distance between "locations" was contained in evaluation criteria. At no time prior to the June 23, 1988 bid opening did the Department attempt to identify the preferred distance between locations. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887, Suite 105 151 Mary Esther Cutoff Mary Esther, Florida 32569 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Acting District One Legal Counsel Post Office Box 8420 Pensacola, Florida 32505-8420 Joseph J. Pastucha 3300 North Pace Boulevard Room 109 Town & Country Plaza Pensacola, Florida 32505 Jan Kline 417 Racetrack Road Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 James V. Peters Department of General Services 160 Governmental Center Fourth Floor, Room 412 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Tom Batchelor Staff Director House HRS Committee The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued a Call For Bids, in Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 15, No. 38, September 22, 1989, for a construction project referred to as the Reitz Union Addition, BR-116, University of Florida. The Call For Bids provided that at least 15 percent of the project contract amount would be expended with minority business enterprises certified by the Florida Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If 15 percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder. The Call For Bids provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their Bid Proposal in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2, provides in pertinent part that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual Index provides that "L-Special Conditions" pages are numbered separately. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders B-23, as revised by Section L, Special Conditions, Supplement #1, at supplement page 2, provides that the contract will be awarded by Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified bidder, provided it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the provisions of Section 237.0945, Florida Statutes, and the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than 15 percent participation in the contract by MBEs. Demonstrated good faith effort as set forth in the Special Conditions would be in lieu of all or part of the 15 percent requirement. The contract award will be made to the bidder that submits the lowest responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The aggregate bid shall consist of the base bid plus accepted additive alternate bids, or less accepted deductive alternate bids, applied in the numerical order in which they are listed on the bid form. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, provides that the Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17, provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and shall strictly adhere to their requirements. A representative from D.E. Wallace Construction Corp., Ms. Betsy Wallace, attended the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting on October 5, 1989. One of the purposes of the pre-solicitation/pre-bid meeting was to explain the MBE program to the general contractors and others in attendance. Mr. Larry Ellis, the minority purchasing coordinator for the University of Florida, provided the contractors with information as to how they could obtain the 15 percent minority participation requirement or how they could satisfy the requirements of the good faith effort. Mr. Ellis informed those in attendance that the listing of subcontractors form required that the bidder reveal the 15 percent MBE participation on the face of the form, that such form was located in the Special Conditions section, and that the form must be completed and submitted at the time of bid opening, if in fact the general contractor was seeking to show he or she had met the 15 percent participation requirement. Sealed bids for BR-116 were opened on October 19, 1989. Petitioner was the lowest monetary bidder. Anglin Construction Company, Intervenor, was the second lowest monetary bidder. Petitioner was notified by letter dated October 24, 1989, that its bid proposal was found not to be in compliance with the requirements of the Project Manual because an incorrect list of subcontractors form was submitted, that Petitioners proposed MBEs were not identified at the time of bid opening, and that Petitioner failed to show a good faith effort in meeting the 15 percent MBE participation. By letter dated October 30, 1989, the University of Florida recommended to the Respondent that the construction contract for BR-116 be awarded to the Intervenor for the base bid and alternates 1 through 9 in the amount of $991,272 The Project Manual for BR-116 contains Section L, Special Conditions, which contains Supplement 1, with pages numbered supplemental pages 1 through The Call for Bids provides that bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual. The Project Manual provides that bidders are required to examine carefully the drawings, specifications, and other bidding documents and to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner affect the work. Mr. D.E. Wallace testified that he is a certified general contractor licensed by the State of Florida for 13 years and that as part of his licensing examination he was required to demonstrate proficiency in reading and understanding bidding documents, manuals, instructions, plans, and drawings. Mr. Wallace testified that he skimmed over the Project Manual and the Special Conditions section but that he really did not review them. Petitioner submitted its list of subcontractors on an outdated form, dated January 20, 1988, contained in the Project Manual at Section D, page 21. In Supplement #1 of Section L, Special Conditions, at page 1, of the Project Manual, the bidder is instructed to delete the January 29, 1988, version of the subcontractors form and substitute in lieu thereof the List of Subcontractors form included in the Supplement dated June 15, 1988. The form was revised to allow contractors who could not meet the MBE requirements to show good faith effort in obtaining participation, to restrict MBEs, to those certified by the Florida Department of General Service, and to eliminate any bid shopping attempts by requiring that contractors reveal their MBE participation at the timed of the bid opening. Petitioner admitted that the wrong list of subcontractors form was used when its bid was submitted. The Respondents Project Manual contains a licensed version of a standard American Institute of Architects (AIA) document which could not be revised without AIA permission. The revised list of subcontractors form and revised MBE requirements were placed within the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual, which did not require AIAs permission. It is not unusual, in the construction industry, have supplemental or special conditions within a project manual. The construction budget for this project was $1,096,800. Petitioner did not submit its MBE subcontractors at the time of bid opening. Petitioner submitted its MBE plan on October 26, 1989, seven days after bid opening. Petitioners MBE subcontractor participation was less than 15 percent of the contract sum required for BR-116. The contract sum is comprised of the base bid and the alternates for the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Regents enter a Final Order rejecting Wallace Construction Corporations bid for project BR-116, denying the protest, and awarding the contract for project BR-116 to Anglin Construction Company. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6844BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, D.E. Wallace Construction Corp. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(7). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9 are unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Florida Board of Regents 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-16(1-16). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Anglin Construction Company Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding Of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(6); 5,(8); and 6(16). Proposed findings of fact 1, 3, and 4 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary Moody Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 2759 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Jane Mostoller Assistant General Counsel Gregg A. Gleason General Counsel Florida Board of Regents 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1522 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 Raymond M. Ivey Attorney at Law 703 North Main Street, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32601 Chancellor Charles B. Reed State University System of Florida 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent lawfully awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and, if not, whether Respondent is required by law to award the contract to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Background This case arises out of Respondent's award of contracts for main-line food and snack foods and beverages. Through these contracts, Respondent obtains the delivery of 334 different items--297 items of main-line food and 37 items of snack foods and beverages--to over 160 sites for preparation and service to Respondent's students, teachers, and noninstructional staff. During the school year, Respondent serves over 150,000 meals daily, and the Director of Respondent's Food Service Operations manages an annual budget of $55 million. The two relevant bidders in this case are Petitioner and Mutual Distributors, Inc. (Mutual). These are the only bidders that submitted nondisqualified bids for the main-line food contract. Petitioner and Mutual also submitted bids for the snack foods and beverages contract. A third bidder, Magic Vending, also submitted a bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. Mutual has held Respondent's main-line food contract in the past. However, for at least the past seven years, Petitioner has held the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Petitioner was the only bidder for the main-line food contract for the 1996-97 school year, and, pursuant to a provision of that contract, Respondent renewed this contract for the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner presently supplies school food for the school districts in Dade, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Indian River, Martin, St. Lucie, Hardee, Hendry, DeSoto, and Glades counties. The size of the Hillsborough school district limits the number of vendors capable of handling the main-line food contract, although nothing in the record suggests that either Petitioner or Mutual lacks the resources to provide the specified food in a timely fashion. Invitation to Bid By Invitation to Bid dated April 30, 1998, concerning Bid Number 3743-HM (ITB), Respondent solicited bids for two product groups: main-line food, which consists of frozen entrees, frozen foods, canned goods, and staples, and snack foods and beverages. The cover sheets to the ITB advise all interested parties that Respondent would accept sealed bids until 3:00 P.M. on May 26, 1998. The cover sheets state that, on or about June 16, 1998, Respondent would award the contract, which would be in effect August 6, 1998, to August 5, 1999. The cover sheets state that Respondent would make its decision "in the best interest of the District " The cover sheets require that all bids incorporate the following language: POSTING OF RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS Recommendations and Tabulations will be posted at the Hillsborough County School District, Purchasing Department, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602 at 10:30 A.M. on 06/11/98 for seventy-two (72) hours. Actions against the specifications or recommendations for award shall follow F.S. 120.53. Procedures are available and on file in the Purchasing Office at the address listed above. The cover sheets identify the schedule of bidding events. The month of April would be for testing new products and evaluating the nutritional information of approved brands. April 30 would be the date of mailing draft copies of the ITB to all interested persons. May 8 would be the date of the pre-bid conference, at which interested persons could bring product information forms for possible approval of other products than those tentatively specified in the ITB. The cover sheets reserved a couple of days immediately after the pre-bid conference for testing any additional new products. The schedule listed May 13 as the date on which Respondent would mail the final copy of the ITB to interested persons. The schedule states that Respondent would review bids and conduct a "pre-award audit," if necessary, from May 26 through June 3. Part I of the ITB contains "general terms and conditions." Part I states: When an item appearing in this bid document is listed by a registered trade name and the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" is indicated, only that trade-named item will be considered. The District reserves the right to reject products that are listed as approved and wa[i]ve formalities. Should a vendor wish to have products evaluated for future bid consideration, please contact, in writing, the buyer listed on the 2nd page of this bid. If the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" does not appear with the trade name, bidders may submit prices on their trade-named item, providing they attach a descriptive label of their product to this proposal. Sample merchandise bid hereunder as "offered equal" may be required to be submitted to purchase in advance of bid award. Substitutions of other brands for items bid, awarded and ordered is prohibited except as may be approved by the supervisor of purchasing. Part I of the ITB includes a number of "stipulations" that are deemed a part of all bids. The stipulations provide: Tabulations of this bid will be based only on items that meet or exceed the specifications given in Part III. All other lesser items will not be considered. Failure to submit, at time of bid opening, complete information as stated in Part III can and may be used as justification for rejection of a bid item. The bidders will not be allowed to offer more than one product/price/service on each item even though the vendor feels that they have two or more types or styles that will meet specifications. If said bidder should submit more than one product/price on any item, all prices for that item will be rejected. . . . The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and to request a re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid, which in all other respects complies with the invitation to bid and the bid document, provided that, in the sole judgement and discretion of the District, the item offered at the higher bid price has additional value or function, including, but not limited to: life cycle costing, product performance, quality of workmanship, or suitability for a particular purpose. . . . All bids shall be evaluated on all factors involved, including the foregoing, price, quality, delivery schedules and the like. Purchase orders or contracts shall be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be advantageous to the District, taking into consideration the factors set forth above and all other factors set forth in the request for bid as "lowest or lowest and best bid." The information called for on the item must be on the line with the item. When omitting a quotation on an item, please insert the words: no quotation, no bid or n/b. to eliminate any confusion about the item(s) being bid. . . . Any requirement by the bidder that certain quantities, weights, or other criteria must be met, in order to qualify for bid prices, will result in disqualification of the bid. Likewise, expiration dates or other constraints, which are in conflict with bid requirements, will result in disqualification. Bids may not be changed after the bid closing time. The exception would be if there was a misinterpretation of the unit for which the bid was requested. In which case, no dollar amount change would be allowed, and only a clarification as to the unit your bid represents will be considered. This must be done in writing 24 hours after notification to the bidder from the supervisor of purchasing. The submittal of a bid proposal shall constitute an irrevocable offer to contract with the District in accordance with the terms of said bid. The offer may not be withdrawn until or unless rejected or not accepted by the District. . . . 13. The District shall be the sole judge as to the acceptability of any and all bids and the terms and conditions thereof, without qualifications o[r] explanation to bidders. 27. This bid and the purchase orders issued hereunder constitute the entire agreement between the School District and the vendor awarded the bid. No modification of this bid shall be binding on the District or the bidders. 30. Variance in condition--Any and all special conditions and specifications attached hereto which vary from general conditions shall have precedence. Part II of the ITB contains "special terms and conditions." Section A of Part II explains that the purpose of the ITB is to establish a "'cost plus fixed fee per carton' annual contract for the delivery of main-line food and snack and beverages . . .." Section A projects that the annual value of Group A and Group B will be $8.5 million. Section A explains that the "product cost" is the vendor's actual cost, including delivery to its warehouse. The "fixed fee" is the difference between the vendor's cost and its selling price to Respondent. Section A notes that, while Respondent’s cost price may vary during the term of the contract, the fixed fee shall remain unchanged. However, Section K fixes the cost prices until December 31, 1998. As used in this order, "total cost" refers either to the total costs per item (i.e., the unit costs times the projected number of units to be purchased) or the total costs of all items, and the "bottom-line cost" is the total of the total costs of all items plus the fixed fee. The fixed fee includes the bidder's profit and is calculated by multiplying the fixed fee per carton, as stated in the bid, times the number of cartons actually delivered. Section B states: Bids will be awarded on the total bottom line cost and fixed fee for each group. To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for the bid award. A distributor may choose to bid on both groups, or on only one group. In the event of default or non- availability of product, the School District reserves the right to utilize the next rated low bidder and their stated bid prices as needed. Sections C and D explain that the term of the contract is one year, ending August 5, 1999, but the parties may extend the term, in one-year increments, through August 5, 2001. Section G provides that potential bidders "may attend a pre-bid conference," but attendance is not mandatory. Section G identifies the time, date, and place of the pre-bid conference. Section G adds: If you wish to submit additional brands within a current product description for approval, you must bring from the appropriate broker/rep, a District product information form with all requested attachments to the conference. Do not bring samples. We will evaluate the product information forms and determine if testing an additional brand is necessary at this time. Submitting a product information form does not guarantee that the product will be tested. Samples must be made immediately for any product information forms submitted. Section H states: To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for that group bid award. Section I provides: After the opening of the bids, school officials will review the line-by-line prices. Accuracy of additions and extensions, brands, and compliance with all instructions will be reviewed in order to ascertain that the offer is made in accordance with the terms of the request for bid proposal. School officials who find any error(s) in calculations will adjust the bottom line figure accordingly. However, if errors are found which either disqualify the bidder, or will raise the bottom line offer to the point where the vendor may no longer be the apparent low bidder, school officials will review the line-item prices of the next lowest bidder. This procedure will continue until a suitable offer is selected. During the review of the low bid, school officials may audit invoices or quotations on selected items for the accuracy of cost prices quoted. The extent of this audit will be at the discretion of school officials. In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system. Section O states that vendors must deliver "the brand that is quoted on the bid sheet." If vendors are "temporarily out-of-stock of a particular item, they must deliver an equal or superior product at an equal or lower price with prior approval of the District Food Service Department." Section O warns that "[e]xcessive occurrences of out-of-stock items is cause for contract cancellation." Part III of the ITB contains "instructions for completing bid sheets," followed by 65 pages of bid specifications for main-line food and nine pages of bid specifications for snack foods and beverages. Each page of specifications contains several rows, with each row devoted to a separate item, and seven columns, with the columns labeled as item number, product descriptions, approved brands, bid unit, unit cost, estimated annual usage, and total cost. Part III provides detailed instructions for describing the items bid and listing the costs for each item. Detailed specifications describe each of the items to be bid. Under "product descriptions," the two paragraphs of Section B address the issue of domestic versus imported products. The first paragraph describes products that the winning bidder may purchase, but the second paragraph limits items than can be bid. The two paragraphs state: Except for items normally not produced in the United States commercially, the contractor should make every effort to purchase domestic products. Products may be allowed from outside the United States provided specifications are met and there is a significant price differential between imported products and those produced within the States. Written documentation of these price differentials must be provided in writing to the School District by the distributor prior to the approval of such purchases. Please note: for purposes of awarding the bid, all distributors shall bid domestic products (pineapple exempt). Under "product descriptions," Section C provides: The contractor must bid on the approved brands (Column 3), packer label or house label for all items. If Column 3 is blank, the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. For example, if bidding on a distributor's choice of pasta, the contractor would enter the following: Brand: Prince Product Code: 5115 If bidding on a distributor group label for green beans, the distributor must stipulate the code designation which may be a color or label, that denotes a product as being a particular grade. For example, Brand: North American/Larson Product Code: Blue If bidding a packer label the bidder must stipulate the name of the packer and the grade label designation, for example: Brand: Larsen Product Code: Lake Region For all packer label products Hillsborough County School Food Service Form "Private Label Chart for Fruits and Vegetables" (see Attachment D) must be completed and returned with the bid. Under "product descriptions," Section D states: "Bidder shall enter the grade of the brand offered only for those line items where grade is specified. " Under "approved brands," Part III provides: The bidder must bid on the approved brand and product code that is listed. If the column states "house brand," the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. Some of the code numbers listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the contractor may enter the correct code and submit written documentation provided by the manufacturer, verifying the correct code number. If any inconsistency exists between the approved brands and/or code numbers and the product description, the approved brand/code number will prevail. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the description provided in column 2 is at the discretion of the School District. A bidder may be requested to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Whenever approved brands are listed with house brands, the distributor's choice brand should be of equal or better quality than the approved brands listed. Buying group brands and codes are acceptable on frozen and canned fruits, vegetables, and juices, however, on further processed and manufactured foods the contractor shall quote a packer's brand. For example, a contractor may quote "Ore-Ida #1234, packed under the 'Code Red Label.'" Pre-Bid Conference Hank Morbach, Principal Buyer of Respondent's Purchasing Department, conducted the pre-bid conference on May 8. Also representing Respondent at the conference were Mr. Morbach's immediate supervisor, William Borrer, who is the Supervisor of Purchasing; Sherry Ebner, who is a Supervisor of Food Service Operations and a registered dietitian; and Mary Kate Harrison, who is Director of Food Service Operations, a registered dietitian, and Ms. Ebner's immediate supervisor. Minutes of the pre-bid conference reveal that Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner told the persons in attendance that they did not have to bid both groups, but must bid all items within the group for which they were submitting a bid. In response to a question from Mutual's representative, Mr. Morbach said that the bottom-line cost, not the fixed fee, would be the "deciding factor." In response to a question from Petitioner's representative, Mr. Morbach stated that, where code numbers were omitted for any item, specifications would prevail. The minutes disclose a discussion regarding imported versus domestic products. Although Respondent's representatives were initially ambivalent, Mr. Morbach "clarified by stating all products must be domestic." Likely, everyone understood that pineapples could still be imported. Following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued a revised ITB on May 13. Presumably, the ITB identified as Joint Exhibit 1 is the revised ITB, so all references in this order to the ITB are to the ITB as it was finally revised. Adverse Publicity Toward the end of the pre-bid conference, a representative of the Weekly Planet appeared. The Weekly Planet is a free weekly Tampa newspaper, and the representative was a reporter, who, since October 1997, had written several articles asserting, at least by implication, that Respondent's food program suffered from excessive costs, favoritism, and possibly even wrongdoing. Part of the adverse publicity concerned Ms. Harrison's husband, who represented several manufacturers from which Petitioner had purchased food for resale to Respondent while Petitioner had the main-line food contract. The Weekly Planet published an article asserting that the husband of Ms. Harrison had lost a civil action brought by his employer for diverted commissions. By the time of the subject procurement, an internal audit had disclosed no conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Harrison, but had suggested that Respondent add personnel in Food Service Operations to monitor vendor compliance and seek more competition in awarding the food contracts. To Ms. Harrison's credit, since her employment with Respondent in 1990, she has converted a food service program that was losing $2.5 million annually into a profitable operation. The record suggests, though, Respondent's staff was extremely sensitive during this bidding process to the adverse publicity surrounding Respondent's business relationship with Petitioner. The Bids Four bidders timely submitted sealed bids for the main-line food contract. However, Respondent promptly disqualified two of the bidders because they did not submit complete bids. One disqualified bidder submitted a bid that was incomplete, unsigned, and omitted five items in the main- line food group. The other disqualified bidder submitted an incomplete bid with only six items in the main-line food group. After submitting their bids, Petitioner and Mutual each sent Respondent letters stating that each bidder did not want the snacks and beverages contract unless it also received the main-line food contract. Respondent did not object to these late-attached conditions to the two bids and did not consider either bidder for only the snack foods and beverages contract. As provided in the ITB, Respondent's staff contacted bidders, after bid opening, to confirm that certain bid items complied with the specifications. By letter dated June 3, Respondent asked Mutual for documentation that 41 listed items met the specifications, that the Fineline/Paris brand that Mutual had bid is Grade A quality, and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 5. By letter dated June 10, Respondent asked Petitioner for documentation that thirty-seven listed items met the specifications and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 12. Respondent wrote each bidder follow-up letters. In a letter dated June 12, Respondent asked Petitioner to document that five items met the specifications, and, in a letter dated June 15, Respondent asked Mutual to document that the same five items met the specifications. The deadlines in both letters were June 16. Mutual and Petitioner responded to these requests for additional information. By letter dated June 5, Mutual disclosed that Items 202 (broccoli), 300 (apple slices), and 366 (raisins) were imported. After receipt of the responses from the bidders, Respondent's employees further reviewed the bids. Early in this review, Respondent's employees realized that neither bid had complied entirely with the specifications. Among the deficiencies of Mutual's bid was the failure to quote a cost for Item 114, which is chicken wings. Mutual's bid identifies only a product, but no cost. Mutual's bid includes a cost for each of the other 296 items and a total cost, presumably for all 297 items. The ITB projects annual purchases for each of the 297 items. The ITB projects the purchase of 283,044 chicken wings. Petitioner bid 12.5 cents per chicken wing for a total cost of $35,309.50. Mr. Morbach justifiably tried to deduce Mutual's quote for chicken wings from the information contained in its bid. He logically assumed that the cost for Item 114 would be the difference between the total cost shown on Mutual's bid, which is shown on the bid, and the total cost for the other 296 items, which must be calculated separately. The details of Mr. Morbach's calculations did not emerge at the hearing, but it is possible to perform these calculations. Mutual's bid shows a total cost for all 297 items of $8,131,470.29. The total costs of each of the quoted 296 items comes to $6,785,080.14. The difference is $1,346,390.15. This figure clearly does not represent Mutual's bid for chicken wings, which would be thirty-eight times greater than Petitioner's bid and would representative the extraordinary cost of $4.75 per chicken wing. The calculations in the preceding paragraph are taken from Mutual's bid, including all changes shown on the bid, as it was submitted, that were made by Mutual. Mutual's representative initialed these changes. The calculations exclude all adjustments made by Respondent's staff because these calculations, which were made after bid opening, logically have no relevance in determining what, if anything, Mutual quoted for chicken wings. These adjustments can play no role in trying to determine, on the face of Mutual's bid, what it intended to bid for chicken wings. In addition to omitting the cost of one item, Mutual failed to bid numerous other items according to the specifications. Petitioner also failed to bid certain items according to the specifications, although Petitioner's bidding errors are fewer in number and less serious than Mutual's bidding errors. Incorporating the information charted by Food Service Operations staff, the following 25 paragraphs identify the errors in both bids. Item 121 is frozen Grade A turkey roasts with a 60/40 ratio of light to dark meat. Mutual's bid does not reveal the extent of white meat or whether the turkey roast is Grade A meat. Petitioner's bid does not reveal whether its turkey roast is Grade A meat. Item 128 is frozen corn dogs. Mutual bid an unapproved code number for an approved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $160,000 in each of the bids. Item 146 is natural swiss cheese. Mutual bid processed cheese. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 202 is Grade A cut broccoli in bulk. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 220 is shoestring French-fried potatoes. Mutual bid a shorter French-fried potato than specified. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 223 is shredded triangle potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same products, but Mutual's bid did not contain required information regarding grade, oil, and region grown. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $140,000 in each of the bids. Item 232 is soft eight-inch tortillas weighing 1.39 ounces per serving. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same product, which weighs only 1.29 ounces per serving. Item 300 is canned sliced apples. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 328 is light, 26-percent concentration tomato paste. Mutual bid a product that does not meet the minimum- concentration specification. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 335 is boneless chicken meat that is predominantly white meat. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same brand, but different product code numbers. Mutual's bid is not predominantly white meat. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 366 is seedless raisins. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 399 is 100 percent semolina, spiral macaroni. Mutual's bid complied with the specifications. Petitioner bid a twisted egg noodle, instead of eggless spiral pasta. Item 431 is sugar sprinkles from one of five approved brands. Mutual bid an unapproved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 448 is instant yeast. Mutual's bid includes information on a product that it did not bid. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 474 is Grade A Fancy apple jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids, and Item 475 is Grade A Fancy grape jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids. Neither bid provides sufficient information to determine if it met the specifications on either of these items. Item 480 is Dijon mustard. Mutual bid Dijon-style mustard. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 484 is whole pitted medium, ripe olives. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's complied with the specifications. Item 492 is whole, kosher pickles of approximately 95 in number per five gallon pail. Mutual and Petitioner bid larger pickles than specified. Item 505 is 50-grain white vinegar. Neither Mutual nor Petitioner provided the information necessary to determine if its bid complied with the specifications. Items 301, 308, 309, 323, and 331 are, respectively, unsweetened canned applesauce, crushed canned pineapple, sliced canned pineapple, canned pumpkin, and whole canned tomatoes. For each of these items, Mutual's bid did not provide the label to prove quality. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 325 is Grade A canned sweet potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner both bid Grade B. Item 212 is yellow frozen squash. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Respondent's staff also noted on the chart that the yellow frozen squash was the second item manufactured by Fineline that was imported (the other was Item 202), and staff noted that it was "unable to determine if other frozen vegetables bid by this manufacturer are domestic as grading certificates were not provided." Mutual bid Fineline products for Items 201 (lima beans), 205 (corn), 208 (okra), 209 (peas), 211 (spinach), 214 (Italian-style vegetable blend), and 215 (Oriental-style vegetable blend). Cumulatively, the Fineline frozen vegetables represent a moderately large part of the overall cost, in excess of $53,000 of Mutual's bid. Coupled with the fact that two Fineline products were imported, Mutual's failure to demonstrate affirmatively that these produce are domestic constitutes additional failures to comply with the specifications and supports the inference that the products are imported. In an earlier version of their chart showing bidding errors, Respondent's staff identified problems with Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224. These are potatoes that the ITB specifies must be from the Pacific Northwest and processed in 100 percent canola oil. Respondent's staff determined that it was impossible to identify the source of these potatoes. However, Petitioner was able to document that some, but not all, of the potatoes that it bid for these six items were from the Pacific Northwest. In addition to failing to bid a cost for Item 114 and misbidding the numerous items charted by Respondent's staff, Mutual's bid failed to comply with the specifications for four other items. Item 229 is a frozen Gyro Wrap. Mutual bid a pita- fold bread product, even though a more expensive Gyro Wrap is available from the same manufacturer. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications Item 378 is pure almond extract flavoring. Mutual bid an imitation flavoring. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 402 is thin spaghetti of .062-.066 thickness in diameter. Mutual bid a thin-spaghetti product of 1.6 thickness in diameter. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 456 is pancake syrup. Mutual bid an invalid code number. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. The parties devoted some attention during the hearing to Item 483, which is green olives. Mutual and Petitioner bid imported green olives, but domestic green olives are not available, at least in institutional quantities, so compliance with the specification of domestic green olives was impossible. Bid Evaluation and Award When Ms. Ebner informed Mr. Morbach of the errors that she had found in both bids, he suggested that they should eliminate the same item from both bidder's bids, if one bidder improperly bid the item. For example, if Mutual misbid fruit cocktail and Petitioner properly bid fruit cocktail, Respondent would delete the cost of fruit cocktail from both bids. The purpose of this adjustment, which reportedly is not atypical in school food procurements, is to avoid the unfair result of lowering the noncompliant bidder's bid, by reducing it for the cost of the misbid fruit cocktail, and leaving the compliant bidder's bid higher by the amount of the properly bid fruit cocktail. Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison agreed with this suggestion, and Respondent tabulated the bid costs accordingly. Mr. Morbach also suggested that they consider the bid of one of the disqualified bidders. Ms. Ebner disagreed with this suggestion. She rightly believed that they should not reconsider a bid that did not contain all of the specified items, and Mr. Morbach did not press the matter further. Although Ms. Ebner spoke daily with Ms. Harrison and Mr. Morbach, there were three larger meetings in late June and early July concerning the bids. The first meeting was during the week of June 22, the second meeting was early in the week of June 29, and the third meeting was on the Friday of that week, July 3. The only participants at the first of the three meetings were Ms. Ebner, Ms. Harrison, Mr. Morbach, and Mr. Borrer. For the second meeting, these four persons were joined by Dr. Michael Bookman, the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Research, which includes overall responsibility for the Purchasing Department; Michelle Crouse, of the Auditing Department; and Lee Chistiansen, another of Respondent's staff. The persons present at the third and final meeting were the same as at the second meeting, except that Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few, replaced Ms. Crouse. At the first meeting, Ms. Ebner expressed her belief that Petitioner's bid was better than Mutual's bid because Petitioner's bid complied with more of the specifications. She also expressed concern about the ability of Magic Vending to service the snack foods and beverages. Ms. Ebner's preference for Petitioner's bid was partly the result of her misplaced emphasis on awarding both contracts to the same bidder. It is likely that, at the first meeting, Mr. Morbach or Mr. Borrer informed Ms. Ebner that nothing in the ITB required that Respondent award both contracts to the same bidder. At the first meeting, everyone confirmed their agreement to adopt Mr. Morbach's suggestion to discard the cost of any misbid item in both bids, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Everyone agreed that this approach would facilitate a better comparison of bottom-line prices. Respondent's decision to eliminate the cost of any misbid item from both bids, even if one bid correctly bid the item, encourages bidding abuses. A bidder knowing that a competitor can quote lower prices for a wide range, for instance, of chicken items can neutralize this advantage by misbidding each of the chicken items, forcing Respondent to award the bid without regard to the lesser costs quoted by the competitor for the chicken items. The potential destructive impact on competitive bidding is incalculable where, as here, this kind of bid-tabulation method is unaccompanied by a provision in the ITB rejecting a bid in its entirety if it misbids more than a specified number or value of items. The ITB does not authorize Respondent's method of tabulating misbid items. As already noted, Stipulation 2 allows Respondent to tabulate bids based only on items that meet the specifications, but nothing in Stipulation 2 or anywhere else in the ITB authorizes the deletion of quotes for items bid in compliance with the specifications. Part I of the ITB allows Respondent to reject approved products, but this provision is part of a discussion of items approved for bidding and does not authorized the rejection of a cost quoted for an approved product. Nor do Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner rely on Stipulation 2 to justify tabulating bid costs by eliminating the costs of any misbid items, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner believe that the 1998 ITB permitted this approach, but the 1996 invitation to bid for school food did not. However, both invitations to bid contain Stipulation 2. Respondent has not cited the difference between the 1996 and 1998 invitations to bid to justify the tabulation method adopted by Respondent in this procurement. Respondent's staff have relied on ITB provisions allowing Respondent to waive formalities or reject all bids for support of their tabulation method. However, even if these provisions were not in the 1996 invitation to bid, they do not authorize Respondent's tabulation method. Mr. Borrer may have implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy of the claimed authority in the ITB for Respondent's tabulation method when he sensibly deleted the following language from a draft memorandum dated June 25 and bearing his name, but drafted for his revision by another employee: Products that were inconclusive or failed to meet specification were eliminated from all bids for the purpose of data analysis. Purchasing is given this authority to eliminate products by bid specifications, statutory guidelines and Board policy. Item 4, Page 3 of the bid specifications states, "The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and request re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid. . ." In addition, Item I, Page 11 of the bid specifications states, "In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system." Also Board Policy H-5.6 states, ". . ., in accepting bids the School Board shall accept the lowest and best bid". (Legal Reference Florida Statutes 230.23, 237.02) The most succinct description of Respondent's tabulation method lacks much of a justification for its use. This description occurs in a typewritten question and answer that appears at the end of Petitioner Exhibit 36, but probably does not belong with that exhibit, which is a fax from Mr. Borrer to Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few. The question is, "Why did you choose to award the contract rather than re-bid after you determined that each vendor had made errors?" The answer states: Bids may not be rejected arbitrarily, but may be rejected and re-bid when it is in the best interest of the public (School District) to do so. . . . To re-bid without changing the bid would be unfair because the vendors had exposed their competitive price structure in public. Through the efforts of our skilled Food Service staff "errors" were discovered in products bid by Mutual and [Petitioner]. Since all vendors bid products that did not meet specifications, we determined that it would be proper to build a mathematical model in which we removed all identified items that did not meet specifications from both vendors. Our analysis based the award criteria on the same set of specifications and conditions for each vendor. Achieving comparability of food products was a complex time- consuming task. The award was recommended to go to the low vendor who would agree and be held to meeting our bid specifications at the price bid. Probably not more than one or two days after the date of the first meeting, Ms. Ebner prepared a draft memorandum, dated June 25, to Mr. Borrer, through Ms. Harrison. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 14 items not meeting specifications, and Petitioner bid three such items. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 11 items for which compliance was inconclusive, and Petitioner bid five such items. The draft memorandum also states that Mutual bid five imported items, despite the "discussion at the pre-bid conference that only domestic products were allowed." In the draft memorandum, Ms. Ebner recalculated the bottom-line costs of the bids of Petitioner and Mutual after discarding all costs for items that either bidder had misbid. She determined that Petitioner had the lowest snack foods and beverages bid. She also determined that Petitioner had the lower total bid for the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Still preferring an award of both contracts to a single bidder, Ms. Ebner concluded in the draft memorandum that Respondent should award both contracts to Petitioner, and Ms. Harrison concurred with Ms. Ebner's recommendation. At the same time, Mr. Morbach and Mr. Borrer were headed in the opposite direction from Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison. At the direction of Mr. Borrer, Mr. Morbach elicited a letter dated June 24 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, in which Magic Vending stated: "As a follow up to our conversation and subsequent to our bid submission, we are prepared to offer you a reduction in our overall bid of $15,000." The letter concludes: "The purpose of this reduction is to make the overall award process run more smoothly and to remove any potential complications." Although Petitioner had already written Respondent expressing no interest in only the snack foods and beverages contract, Respondent obtained this cost concession, which made Magic Vending's bid lower than Petitioner's bid, in case Petitioner changed its mind. By letter dated June 26 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, Magic Vending assured that it would "abide by all the rules and specifications in addition to giving a $15,000.00 discount . . .." The letter concludes with a well- earned expression of gratitude by Magic Vending for Mr. Morbach's "consideration in this matter." As for the main-line food contract, Mr. Borrer obtained from Mutual a one-line letter dated June 26 from Mutual stating: "This letter is to assure you that all products quoted by [Mutual] on bid #3743-HM will meet the specifications as required." At the second meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, which evidently took place after the Purchasing Department had received the correspondence from Mutual and Magic Vending, Food Service Operations staff continued to recommend that the contracts be awarded to Petitioner. Everyone discussed the errors in Mutual's bid and the fact that the Magic Vending bid was $5000 more than Petitioner's bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. It is unclear if Ms. Ebner or Ms. Harrison yet knew of the price concession of Magic Vending, but everyone discussed that it would be controversial to award the contracts to a bidder that was not the lowest bidder. Apparently in anticipation of the award ultimately made, Petitioner served Respondent, on July 1, with a Notice of Intent to Protest the award of both contracts. By letter dated the same date, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would not stop the procurement process due to the "critical importance of this bid and the serious danger to the health of our children." In fact, Mutual and Magic Vending have been supplying main-line food and snack foods and beverages, respectively, since early August 1998. At the third meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, everyone agreed to recommend that the School Board award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending. The discussion at this last major staff meeting largely involved the matters that they had previously discussed. Unfortunately, no one ever discussed at these or other meetings involving Ms. Ebner how many errors a bid could contain before it should be disqualified. Likewise, no one ever discussed with her the distinction between awarding a contract on the basis of the lowest bid and on the basis of the lowest and best bid. However, Ms. Harrison discussed with Ms. Ebner the safety issues presented by imported, rather than domestic, foods. On the day prior to the July 7 School Board meeting now designated for the School Board to vote on the awards, Ms. Harrison advised Mutual by letter that Respondent's staff would recommend Mutual, "provided that any and all products found not to meet specifications will be replaced with products meeting specifications at the original bid cost." Petitioner Exhibit 13, which is a copy of this letter, lacks the attachment listing the noncompliant items. At the bottom of the July 6 letter is a signature space for Mutual's representative, indicating assent to the following sentence: "Indicate, by signing below, that you are in agreement to provide all products meeting specifications, including USDA Grade A products, at the original bid price." Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains the signature of Mutual's representative. On July 7, the School Board met and gave Petitioner's counsel and corporate representative brief opportunities to explain why Respondent should not award the main-line food contract to Mutual. However, the Board did not give Petitioner's representatives sufficient time to convey much meaningful or detailed information. Mr. Few, Dr. Bookman, and Ms. Harrison supplied the Board with more information, but unfortunately never disclosed that Mutual's bid contained more errors than did Petitioner's bid and that Mutual's bid contained more errors involving more substantive matters than did Petitioner's bid, as discussed below. Contradicting the advice given by Mr. Morbach at the pre-bid conference and ignoring the contrary provision in the ITB and ignoring the distinction in the ITB between items that the winning bidder may purchase additional items that may be bid, Mr. Few advised the Board that the ITB expressed only a preference toward domestic products and cited the unique example of olives as support for this interpretation. Dr. Bookman advised the Board that Mutual had assured them that all items bid were Grade A. He was evidently unaware that, as explained below, Mutual had still not obtained Grade A turkey roast, even though Grade A turkey roast is available. As late as the final hearing, Ms. Ebner admitted that Mutual had still not corrected one or two noncompliant items, although it is unclear if one of them is the turkey roast. Notwithstanding staff's assurances, several Board members expressed misgivings at having to absorb a lot of detailed information in a short period of time. Ms. Harrison informed the Board that they did not have time to defer action, implicitly and correctly informing them that they did not have time to rebid the main-line food contract. One Board member replied that she wanted all of the food to be USDA approved and that parents had enough to be concerned about without being concerned about what Respondent was feeding their children. A motion to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending failed by a 3-4 vote. A second motion to delay awarding these contracts passed 5-2, so that, individually, Board members could talk to staff to learn more about the bids and Petitioner's claim of bidding improprieties. The record does not reveal what staff told individual Board members. After a recess during which Board members, individually, met with staff, one of the Board members who had previously voted not to award the contracts moved to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending, saying that Mutual had agreed to replace noncomplying products with products meeting the specifications. Relying on Mutual's promise to deliver conforming food items, as opposed to the noncomplying items that it had bid, this Board member reasoned that it was one thing to make a mistake with a bid, but another thing to make a mistake with the schoolchildren. The School Board unanimously approved the motion, and the meeting ended. By letter dated July 9 from Mutual to Mr. Borrer, Mutual addressed each of the 25 items charted by Respondent's staff, acknowledging that Mutual's bid had not complied with the specifications for nearly every charted item, but promising that Mutual would supply a product meeting the specifications for all of these items. However, concerning the moderately large component of the bid represented by Item 121 (turkey roasts, which represented over $62,000 in Mutual's bid), the letter states only: "Currently trying to locate an item to meet specifications." Bid Protest On July 10, Petitioner served Respondent with a Protest. The Protest asserts that Mutual's bid did not contain prices on all items, did not propose all domestic products, contained unapproved brands, bid unapproved product codes, and bid products different from those specified in the ITB. The Protest asserts that Respondent allowed Mutual to provide a letter after the deadline for receiving bids assuring that it would provide all Grade A product, as specified in the ITB. The Protest did not mention the snack foods and beverages contract awarded to Magic Vending. The Protest does not allege that Petitioner's bid is responsive. Respondent has not filed any responsive pleading raising the question of the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid. Respondent's Bid Policies Following receipt of Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Protest, Mr. Borrer sent a letter dated July 1 to Petitioner that contained Respondent's rules governing bids. This document, which is part of Petitioner Exhibit 37, is the source of Respondent's bidding rules set forth in the following two paragraphs. Respondent's rules provide for the protest of specifications as follows: Specifications—Any bidder that feels that their firm is adversely affected by an specification contained in a Sealed Bid or Request for Proposal issued by the Purchasing Department may file a written notice of protest with the Supervisor of Purchasing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the bid documents. . . . A formal written protest shall be filed by the bidder within ten (10) days of the written notice of protest. . . . These rules also provide for the awarding of costs, but not attorneys' fees, as follows: If, after the completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings[,] the School District prevails, then the School District shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings, but excluding attorney's fees. . . . If the protestor prevails then the protestor shall recover from the School District, all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, excluding attorney's fees. Another source of Respondent's rules in the record is Chapter 7 of a compilation of Board policy that was applicable to the present procurement. This document requires that Respondent award bids "on the basis of the lowest and best bid which meets specifications with consideration being given to the specific quality of the product, conformity to the specifications, suitability to school needs, delivery terms and service and past performance of the vendor." Lastly, Mr. Borrer, by memorandum to the file dated July 9, noted that the two disqualified vendors were disqualified under Board Policy H-5.10, which states: "Bids received which do not meet specifications shall not be considered valid and shall not be tabulated." Ultimate Findings of Fact Bid Tabulation Method Is Clearly Erroneous, Contrary to Competition, and Arbitrary It is irrelevant whether the standard of proof governing a protest of specifications is a preponderance of the evidence or the more deferential standard, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner has proved that Respondent's tabulation method is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Respondent's tabulation method potentially penalizes compliant bidders by eliminating their compliant items from the tabulation when a noncompliant bidder misbids the same item. The anti-competitive, arbitrary effect of this tabulation method may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that the ITB is for a cost-plus contract. However, the ITB fails to impose any minimum requirement or threshold for compliant items, in terms of number or dollar volume--e.g., if a bid contains noncompliant items totaling more than one percent of the total cost bid, then the entire bid is rejected. This means that Respondent's tabulation method can destroy the competitiveness of the procurement by allowing a bidder purposefully or unintentionally to misbid a large number of items, resulting in the effective elimination of these items from the tabulation of bids submitted by bidders with superior access to these items. Under these circumstances, Respondent's selection of this tabulation method was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Is Nonresponsive The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid was responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As already noted, it is impossible to deduce Mutual's quote for Item 114 from the face of Mutual's bid. A failure to quote a cost for an item is little different from a failure to bid the item. In the case of a complete omission, Respondent knows nothing of the item bid; in the case of the omission of only a quote, Respondent knows what item the bidder has bid, but not the cost of the item. The omission of the cost of a single item adequately described in the bid may be a minor irregularity, if the cost can be deduced by subtracting from the total cost of all items the total cost of all but the omitted item. Here, though, the difference between these amounts is clearly wrong, so that, if Respondent overlooks the omission, it leaves open the possibility of a later dispute over the cost of Item 114. Under the present circumstances, including the disqualification of two other bidders for omitting items, Respondent's failure to disqualify Mutual's bid was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Contains Material Variances The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid did not contain material variances from the ITB is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Food Service Operations staff identified numerous deficiencies in Mutual's bid. For Mutual's bid, Ms. Ebner's June 25 memorandum counts 14 items not meeting specifications and 11 items for which compliance is inconclusive due to Mutual's failure to submit the required documentation. Treating the misbidding of green olives and the potatoes specified in Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224 as minor irregularities due to the impossibility of compliance with the specifications concerning the origin of these items, Mutual's bid still reveals consequential deviations from the specifications. Using only the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Mutual's consequential deviations from the specifications include five imported foods, two meat products that fail to contain the required ratio of light to dark meat (one of the meat products and another product also failing to demonstrate the proper Grade), a lower Grade of canned sweet potatoes, shorter French Fries, excessively diluted tomato concentrate and inadequate documentation of the dilution of two jelly products, processed instead of natural cheese, and a missing ingredient from Dijon mustard. Of all the witnesses, Ms. Ebner was most capable, by training, experience, and job assignment, of understanding the significance of the deviations in Mutual's bid. For instance, addressing the seemingly inconsequential matter of excessively diluted jelly, Ms. Ebner noted that Respondent had had problems with runny jelly not remaining on peanut-butter- and-jelly sandwiches. The nutritional consequences of this seemingly harmless deviation are students discarding peanut- butter-and-jelly sandwiches that have lost their jelly. In each of these consequential deviations from the specifications, Mutual bid a cheaper product than specified, which conferred upon it an unearned competitive advantage, and a product of lower quality than specified, which jeopardized the primary purpose of the specifications to ensure that Respondent obtained food of high nutrition, safety, and taste for students and staff. Any implicit or explicit determination by Respondent dismissing the charted findings of deviations by Food Service Operations staff or treating them as minor irregularities rather than material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Besides the findings contained in the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff, Mutual misbid several other items. The consequential deviations from the specifications included seven imported items, a cheaper pita- fold than the specified Gyro wrap, and a cheaper imitation almond flavoring for pure almond flavoring. Any express or implied finding by Respondent discrediting these deviations would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Although an express or implied determination by Respondent that these deviations, standing alone, are minor irregularities would not be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, such a finding concerning these deviations, together with the previously discussed deviations charted by Food Service Operations staff, would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. The standard of proof governing the determination that Mutual submitted written assurances, after bid opening, that it would supply product in compliance with the specifications, is the preponderance of the evidence. However, the standard of proof governing findings of the significance of the submittal of these assurances is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Any implied or express determination by Respondent that Mutual's written assurances were not an attempt to change its bid after bid opening would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Petitioner has already proved, by this deferential standard, that Mutual's bid contained material variances from the specifications. The purpose of Mutual's written assurances was to eliminate these material variances, which, in fact, were still not entirely eliminated by the time of the final hearing. Petitioner's Bid Contains Material Variances Consistent with its determination that Mutual's bid is responsive and suffers no material variances, Respondent claims in its proposed recommended order that Petitioner's bid is responsive and contains no material variances. Respondent awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual because it submitted the lower bid. However, Petitioner demands the award of the main- line food contract, so it is necessary to consider whether its bid, which is clearly responsive, contains any material variances. Because of the resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to consider whether Petitioner's bid contains any minor irregularities, for which Respondent's implied or express refusal to waive would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Using the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Petitioner misbid only seven items. In fact, the record reveals no other misbid items by Petitioner. Several of Petitioner's misbid items are relatively inconsequential. These are a tortilla slightly lighter than specified, larger pickles than specified, and omitted documentation showing the grain of vinegar. Mutual misbid these items also. However, three of Petitioner's misbid items are consequential. Although Petitioner's bid reflects the specified ratio of light and dark meat, unlike Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid of turkey roast fails, as does Mutual's bid, to provide sufficient documentation to show that it is Grade A. Like Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid is for Grade B canned sweet potato and fails to provide documentation that the two jelly products are not excessively diluted. The only consequential deviation in Petitioner's bid not found in Mutual's bid is Petitioner's failure to bid an eggless pasta. However, the standard of reference for determining whether Petitioner's bid contains material variances is not Mutual's bid, but the ITB. Although considerably more compliant than Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid, when measured against the ITB and the importance of obtaining nutritious, safe, and tasty food for Respondent's schoolchildren, also falls impermissibly short of the mark. Petitioner's consequential deviations from the specifications also mean cheaper items than specified, through which Petitioner would have obtained an unearned competitive advantage, and products of lower quality than specified, which would have jeopardized the primary purpose of the ITB to ensure that Respondent obtained high-quality food. Impossible specifications, like domestic green olives or six potato items from the Northwest, or the failure to comply in some minor respect, such as sugar sprinkles from an unapproved manufacturer or excessively large pickles, may constitute minor irregularities. But the failure to ensure that each of the 297 items bid complies substantially in quality is not. Thus, an implied or expressed determination by Respondent that Petitioner's bid contains no material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees. There is no direct proof of any factual basis to award fees. Perhaps Petitioner infers an improper purpose from the fact that, despite the benefit of highly deferential standards of proof, Respondent has not prevailed. Obviously, Respondent's failure to prevail is due to several express or implied determinations that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. If this fact alone warranted a fee award, all agencies would be liable for fees in every bid case that they lost. The absence of such a statutory provision reveals the Legislative intent not to make agencies strictly liable for attorneys' fees in bid cases. The better approach is to permit an inference of improper purpose, but only if the agency were aware or reasonably should have been aware that its handling of the award was not merely clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, but was so egregiously so as to support an inference of improper purpose. Such is not the case here. There is no evidence of Petitioner's costs, and Petitioner did not request the administrative law judge to reserve jurisdiction or leave the record open for a later determination of costs.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hillsborough County enter a final order setting aside the award of the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and rebidding the contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Earl Lennard Superintendent School Board of Hillsborough County Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, Florida 33601-3408 Robert W. Rasch 129 Live Oak Lane Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 W. Crosby Few Few & Ayala, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact In order to meet its need for new equipment in the new district administration building, the School Board advertised for competitive bid proposals for clerical, professional task, guest and conference chairs (task seating). Five bids were timely received by the School Board, two of which were determined to be responsive. The bid opening occurred on April 17 1990, and the Knoll Source was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder. In spite of this determination, the bid was rejected by the Director of Purchasing or the appointed designee because sales tax was not included in the bid. The Notice of Award was issued to Haworth, who submitted its bid showing the price it was willing to accept for the sale of the task seating, with and without sales tax. The initial decision to reject the Knoll Source bid, which was $10,393.72 less than Haworth in Sequence I; $12,231.94 less in Sequence II; and $994.17 less in Sequence III, was based upon Section 9.2.2.a in the "Instructions to Interior Bidders". This section of the bid documents provided that the contract for purchase of the task seating would not be exempt from sales tax. This bid specification is incorrect because the School Board does not pay sales tax on acquisitions of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System. Knoll Source was aware of the School Board's sales tax exemption prior to its bid submission. As Section 9.2.2.a of the instructions was inappropriate, the vendor relied on Section 9.2.2.c, and excluded sales tax from the bid because the cost of such tax was not applicable. Section 9.2.2.c instructed bidders to exclude inapplicable taxes from their bids. Pursuant to Section 5.3.1 of the bid instructions, the School Board has the right to waive any irregularity in any bid received and to accept the bid which, in the Board's judgment, is in its own best interest. The Knoll Source and Haworth bids can be comparatively reviewed, and Knoll Source is the lowest responsive bidder if the failure to include sales tax in the bid amount is waived by the School Board. It is in the Board's best interest to waive Knoll Source's failure to include a sales tax in the bid because sales tax does not apply to this purchase.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Corrections (Corrections) initially published an Invitation to Bid (ITB) 90-Region-001 for the provision of a recyclable baling machine which had an opening date and time of 1:00 p.m., August 22, 1989. Upon opening and evaluation of the bids filed in response to ITB 90- Region-001, Corrections' purchasing and technical staff determined that the specifications for this initial ITB had been drafted too narrowly for them to validly and reasonably compare the bids submitted. This was Corrections' first attempt to meet certain recycling mandates and the agency personnel were initially unfamiliar with all of the machinery available in the marketplace. Lack of technical literature from some bidders was also a problem. In comparing the five bid responses received, it became apparent to Barbara Stephens, Corrections' Purchasing Director, that the specifications she had initially drafted worked against agency interests in that they were so narrow that different models could not be compared. In Ms. Stephens' words, one could not even compare "apples and apples," let alone "apples and oranges." The line item on Page 6 defied comparison and other line items presented significant comparison problems. After a review by Corrections' General Services Specialist Bob Sandall, it was determined that it was to the agency's advantage, as well as advantageous to the competitive bidding process, to rebid on more general specifications instead of specifications solely geared to one single model of one type of baler already owned by the agency, a McDonald single phase baler. For the foregoing reasons, Corrections elected to reject all bids received in response to ITB 90-Region-001 and rebid the item so as to broaden the eligibility base through new specifications, thereby ensuring that more than a single manufacturer could compete while making line item comparisons by the agency possible. Line item comparisons were considered advantageous to all potential bidders and to the agency and essential to a fair competitive bidding process. Considering purely bottom-line cost, Petitioner Solid Waste was the low bidder on initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 if its mathematical error were ignored and its bid were recorded as $23,960.00 instead of as $35,970.00. There were apparently some other problems with Solid Waste's bid response. These were not clearly addressed by any witness' testimony, but it is apparent that the requested manufacturer's specification sheet was included with Solid Waste's response to ITB 90-Region-001. Corrections did not reach any of the potential bid defects of Solid Waste because the agency elected to discard all the bids almost immediately. Rule 13A-1.002(9) F.A.C. provides that an agency shall reserve the right to reject any and all bids and shall so indicate in its invitation to bid. Corrections followed this requirement in General Condition 10 of ITB No. 90- Region-001, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids . . Bob Sandall and Barbara Stephens redrafted the bid specifications for the recyclable baling machine more broadly, primarily to encourage greater competition of bidders. Corrections properly published these new specifications in ITB No. 90-Region-001 on or about September 18, 1989. Bids were to be opened on October 3, 1989. On October 3, 1989, the bids submitted in response to ITB No. 90- Region-001 were opened and checked for completeness. Upon opening the bid packet submitted by Petitioner Solid Waste, Corrections personnel discovered that the manufacturer's specification sheet which had been required in both initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 and in rebid ITB No. 90- Region-001R was missing. Based on the missing specification sheet, Petitioner's bid on ITB No. 90-Region- 001R was rejected as unresponsive. General Condition 7 in ITB 90-Region-001R provided in pertinent part: Bidder shall submit with his bid, cuts, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications. Reference to literature submitted with a pervious bid will not satisfy this provision. The State of Florida reserves the right to determine acceptance of item(s) as an approved equivalent. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subiect to reiection. (Emphasis supplied) Special Condition VI of ITB 90-Region-001R, "Submission of Mandatory Forms/Literature," further provided that: 5. Complete Technical Data on items other than as specified shall be provided with bid by the vendor, for evaluation purposes, otherwise bid will not be considered. Nowhere in ITB 90-Region-001R is there any suggestion that responses thereto are supplemental to those filed for ITB 90-Region-001 or that "carryovers" or "reactivations" of earlier ITB 90-Region-001 responses would be considered. Corrections rejected other bidders' responses for other acts of non- responsiveness, and it was not necessary to waive any condition in order to award the bid to any of the bidders who were in full compliance with ITB 90- Region-001R. Petitioner timely filed a formal written protest to Corrections' bid tabulation of ITB 90-Region-001R on October 23, 1989. In this protest, Petitioner also included its only and untimely challenge to the agency's rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region-001.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest and ratifying its rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region- O01R and its tabulation of bids for ITB 90-Region-001R. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5854BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1. is accepted except for the ultimate conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. 2-3, 5-7 are rejected as mere legal argument or proposed conclusions of law. See Conclusions of Law. 4 is rejected as characterization of testimony. Respondent' s PFOF: 1-7 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. K. Lally, P.A. 6160 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Perri M. King Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Courtesy copy to: Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Thomas W. Riggs, President Department of Corrections Municipal Sales and Leasing 1311 Winewood Boulevard Inc. Post Office Box 90306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lakeland, Florida, 33804 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether the BOARD can reject all bids, with or without cause. The second issue is to determine if the BOARD is required to have cause, was there a sufficient basis for the rejection of all bids in Bid NO. 3996?
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1987, the BOARD sent invitations to bid to a list of approved vendors in Bid NO. 3996. The purpose of the invitation was to obtain the lowest responsible bid on a purchase of one hundred and fifty typewriters. The bids were to be submitted prior to January 11, 1988 at 2:00 P.M.. They were opened by the BOARD on the same day. OFFICE did not receive an invitation to bid despite its request to be placed on the approved vendor's list in November of 1987. When OFFICE learned of the outstanding invitation to bid, its representative, Mr. Richard Foss, went to the BOARD's Purchasing Department and requested a bid package. The bid documents given to OFFICE mistakenly gave January 14, 1988 at 2:00 P.M. as the deadline for the bid submission. Because of the later date given by the BOARD to OFFICE, the company's bid was received after the opening of the bids. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, NAPLES bid was the lowest received. On January 14, 1988, after 10:42 A.M., it was discovered by the BOARD that OFFICE's bid price was lower than the price submitted by NAPLES. At this time, NAPLES bid had not yet been accepted by the BOARD, and no formal announcement had been made awarding the contract to NAPLES. During the BOARD's Purchasing Department's bid analysis, a request was made to reject all bids in Bid NO. 3996. The reason given by Purchasing for the request for rejection was that the specifications were being revised. The bids were rejected on the same date. The written reason sent to the vendors on January 14, 1988 for the bid rejection was that one vendor had been given an incorrect opening date. Attached to the written notice to the vendors was a new bid invitation for Bid NO. 4013. The BOARD explained its mistake was unfair to the one vendor. A new bid opening date was given of February 1, 1988. On January 14, 1988, in addition to the required bid documents, OFFICE submitted a letter which listed additional offerings or incentives that OFFICE would give the BOARD if OFFICE was awarded the contract. These additional purchasing incentives were: wall charts and teacher/student manuals for each typing classroom in the county. OFFICE also informed the BOARD that one of the BOARD's own service personnel was already trained in the servicing of Swintec typewriters. The bid submitted by OFFICE did not meet either the weight or the print wheel specifications as set forth in Bid NO. 3996. The specifications as written in Bid NO. 3996 were not written to eliminate all other typewriters but the Brothers 511-11. Weight specifications required were below the Brother's minimum weight, and at least two other manufacturers provide protected drop-in cassette print wheels in electronic typewriters. The Invitation to Bid contained specific provisions which encouraged the bidding of typewriters other than the Brother 511-11, and set up procedures under which other typewriters, which substantially meet the specifications, could be reviewed on their merits. NAPLES was the lowest responsible bidder for the electronic typewriter contract in the prior school year. The BOARD had rejected all bids at that time because of the decision to consider a different brand of typewriter once bids were opened. A notice of protest was filed by NAPLES, and the BOARD agreed to honor NAPLES bid and award the company the contract. The BOARD revised its bid specifications from last year prior to its solicitations for bids in Bid NO. 3996. The protected drop-in cassette print wheel and the weight requirements were two new technical specifications. During the hearing, the BOARD was unable to determine whether the weight factor or the protected drop-in cassette print wheel requirement will continue to be included in future revisions of the specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the BOARD reject the bid submitted by OFFICE as it was nonconforming and sought an advantage not enjoyed by the other bidders. Reinstate the bids which were rejected in Bid NO. 3996, consider the bids, and make an award of the contract to NAPLES. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA D. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Emens, President Naples Business Equipment and Systems, Inc. 859 4th Avenue South Naples, Florida 33940 Harry A. Blair, Esquire 2138-40 Hoople Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Foss, Typewriter Sales Manager 8A-Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Karl Engel, Superintendent Lee County Public Schools The School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1984, Respondent gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids for State Project No. 72000-3541, referred to as Federal-Aid Project No. M 9041(10). This project involves the installation of a computerized traffic control system for the City of Jacksonville. In response to the opportunity to bid, the Department of Transportation received four bids. Petitioner, Winko-Matic Signal Company, was among the bidders. The other bidders were Georgia Electric Company, Traffic Control Devices, Inc., and Sperry Systems Management. The bids of Traffic Control Devices and Sperry Systems were rejected based upon an error in bid tabulations on the part of Traffic Control, a mistake on the quantities page, with the Sperry rejection being based upon a bid bond problem. Traffic Control had been the apparent low bidder with a bid of $1,964,115. Winko-Matic was the second apparent low bidder with a bid of $2,279,604.70. The Department of Transportation had estimated that the total cost of the Jacksonville project would be $ 2,024,680.61. Having discarded the bid of Traffic Control Devices, the Department of Transportation telegrammed Winko-Matic on April 4, 1984, advising Winko-Matic that it was the apparent low bidder for the Jacksonville project. Subsequently, the awards committee of the Department of Transportation met on April 18, 1984, and determined to reject all bids and re-advertise the job. In the course of this meeting the awards committee was told that there were erratic bids received on contract items, pointing to some perceived confusion among the contractors as to requirements of the contract. Discussion was also held on the possibility of establishing a pre-bid conference if the project was re advertised. The awards committee then voted to reject the bids on the basis that the apparent low bidder, Winko-Matic, had submitted a bid which-was 12.6 percent over the Department's estimate, instead of being within 7 percent of the Department of Transportation's pre-bid estimate, a point above which the Department of Transportation in its non-rule policy would call to question to the acceptability of the apparent low bid. In addition to deciding to reject all bids and re-advertise, it was determined that a pre-bid conference should be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the bid-letting date. Winko-Matic was advised that the Department of Transportation's decision to reject all bids by correspondence of May 4, 1984, in which it was indicated that all bids had been rejected based upon the fact that they were too high. In response to this notice of rejection, Winko-Matic, effective May 17, 1984, filed a written notice of protest. The case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 20, 1984, and a final hearing date was established by Notice of Hearing of July 5, 1984. The hearing date in this cause was September 12, 1984. The Jacksonville project in question requires the utilization of what has been referred to "UTCS Enhanced" software. This software package is unique and has only been used in a limited number of locations within the country. Those locations are Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Broward County, Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama. Another unique feature within the project design is the use of an associated coaxial computer sys gem. Given the unique nature of this project and the fact that the Department of Transportation had never advertised for bids related to UTCS software, Department of Transportation obtained assistance from a consulting firm, Harland, Bartholomew & Associates. In fulfilling its function Harland gave estimates to include an estimate related to the projected cost of the software, Item 681-102. The Harland estimate for the overall project was $2,143,130 including a $100,000 estimate for the software system. That estimate relating to the software was subsequently adjusted by the Department of Transportation to depict a cost of $13,780. The Department of Transportation estimate was based upon information within its computer related to a system unlike the enhanced software contemplated by the plans and specifications. In other words, the stored information in the Department of Transportation computer was not the same as contemplated by the plans and specifications in the Jacksonville project. Moreover, the initial estimate of Harland was based upon the idea of an extended software system, as opposed to an enhanced software system. Winko-Matic had bid $389,500 for the software in Item 681-102. That estimate was premised upon figures obtained from JHK and Associates, the group which Winko-Matic intended to use as its subcontractor for the enhanced software portion of the project. JHK developed the software and was responsible for systems integration of the Los Angeles, California, project, one of the locations in which UTCS enhanced software has been utilized. JHK premised its estimate for the software hare upon experience in Los Angeles and an evaluation of the tasks to be performed related to the enhanced software. This included general software development activities, hardware innovation, installation costs during the period of acceptance and testing, and the preparation of data base. The JHK bid price was $339,500. Another $50,000 was added to that price related to what the Petitioner describes as its management costs for that item. By June 20, 1984, when a further meeting was held by the awards committee on the subject of the Jacksonville project, it was concluded that the estimate made by the Department of Transportation of $13,780 was not correct, on the topic of the enhanced software. A more reasonable estimate, according to the information imparted in this session, would be $200,000 for enhanced software as called for in this project, with a $100,000 amount being a reasonable estimate had they chosen to use extended software. Adjusting the initial price related to the UTCS enhanced software to reflect a corrected estimate of the Department of Transportation in its original advertised bid, that estimate becomes $2,210,900.61 and its consultant Harland's estimate becomes $2,243,130. With this adjustment, the differential in the estimate made by the Department of Transportation and the Petitioner approaches 3 percent and not the 12.6 percent originally found. The 3 percent is below the threshold of 7 percent used as the policy for determining whether a bid might be rejected as being far beyond the acceptable limits set forth in the Department of Transportation's estimate. In the aforementioned June 20, 1984, awards committee meeting, the Department of Transportation continued to hold the opinion that all bids in the Jacksonville project should be rejected and the matter re-advertised. Although the problem pertaining to the estimate of the cost of the enhanced software package had been addressed, the committee continued to feel that the prices received in the bid letting were erratic Reference was also made to revisions or modifications to the project plan which would be offered if the matter were re- advertised. It was also pointed out that the Federal Highway Administration would concur in the Department's decision to reject all bids and would accept modifications. The awards committee again voted to reject the bids. The matter was again considered by the awards committee on August 31, 1984. On that occasion, it was pointed out that the revisions contemplated by the Department of Transportation, should the matter be re-advertised, would not affect in a substantial way the cost estimate for the project with the exception of Item 680-101, the system control equipment (CPU), which would promote a lower price for the project. The committee determined in the August, 1984, meeting to reject all bids and re-advertise. While the initial notice of rejection of May 4, 1984, had suggested the basis for rejection as being the fact that Petitioner's bid far exceeded the 7 percent allowance for price above the Department of Transportation's estimate of costs, the meetings of the awards committee and the suggestion of the Respondent in the course of the final hearing in this case indicated that there were other reasons for the decision to reject. Those Were: (a) an apparent lack of clarity among bidders regarding specifications for the Jacksonville job, (b) the desire of the Respondent to revise specifications on the Jacksonville project; and (c) a lack of sufficient competition in the bids. In connection with the first of the additional reasons Respondent suggests that variations within the bid responses related to particular line items within the specifications point out a lack of clarity in the project's specifications or confusion by bidders related to those specifications. Respondent did not bring forth any of the bidders who might speak to the matter of possible confusion or misunderstanding concerning some of the bid items. By contrast, the Petitioner's president; the president of JHK & Associates and James Robinson, Harland's project manager for the Jacksonville job, did not find the specifications in the original documents to be confusing. In addition, the testimony of those individuals established the fact that bid variations related to particular line items are not extraordinary and do not establish any apparent confusion by the bidders as to the requirements of those line items. In effect, what the differentials demonstrate are variations related to the manufacture or in-house capabilities of the bidders and an effort to allocate discretionary costs in various places as to line items. Moreover, they might indicate last- minute adjustments in the bid quote prior to the opening and a possible effort by a contractor to enter into a new job market. Finally, they demonstrate offsetting which is the allocation of item prices by a contractor to maximize profits. To do this, a contractor submits high bids on items representing quantities which the contractor feels will increase after the contract is awarded and submits low bids on items representing quantities which are not likely to change. In summary, while the Department of Transportation in its presentation expressed some concern about the variations in the pricing in the bid quotations offered by the respective bidders in this project, its suspicions on the question of the possible clarity of its specifications were not confirmed and are not convincing. On the topic of revisions which the Department of Transportation would offer if the matter were re-advertised, with one exception those matters appear to be items that could be attended through change orders or supplemental agreements. They are not matters which necessarily must be addressed through a rejection of all bids and a re-advertising of the project. The lone exception to this is the possibility that the Department of Transportation may not be able to protect its proprietary rights in the enhanced software which is being developed for the project, under the terms of the present bid documents. Given that uncertainty, the Respondent would wish to re-advertise the project and make certain that its proprietary interests are protected. Finally, Respondent has alluded to the fact that the Jacksonville project should be re-advertised in view of the lack of competition in the initial letting. Only four bidders expressed an interest in this project at the time of the first letting. Of those, two bidders were found to be responsive. While this is a low number of bidders, there does not appear to be any agency practice on the part of' the Department of Transportation to the effect that this number of bidders would not be accepted. Moreover, no indication has been given that should the matter be re-advertised a greater number of bidders would express an interest than was the case in the first letting. Consequently, this reason for bid rejection is not acceptable. If Respondent did not reject the bids and re-advertise the project, Winko-Matic would be the successful bidder in the Jacksonville project.
