The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's intended award of a lease for office space to Intervenor, Anthony Abraham Enterprise, is arbitrary and capricious and whether the proposal of the Petitioner, Adlee Developers, the current lessor, is responsive.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that on April 7, 1991, the Department issued an Invitation to Bid entitled, "Invitation To Bid For Existing Facilities State Of Florida Lease Number 590:2286, Dade County" This procurement was for the provision of 30,086 net rentable square feet to be used for office space in Dade County. A 3% variance was permitted. The facility was to house the District's Aging and Adult Services office which has been a tenant in Petitioner's building for several years and remained there during the pendancy of this protest process. According to the published advertisement, a pre-proposal conference was to be held on April 22, 1991, with all bids due by the bid opening to be held at 10:00 AM on May 30, 1991. The pre-bid conference was conducted by Philip A. Davis, then the District's facilities service manager and included not only a written agenda but also a review of the evaluation process by which each responsive bid would be examined. Petitioner asserts that the potential bidders were told, at that conference, that annual rental increases for the ten year lease period could not exceed five per cent (5%) and claims that Abraham's bid exceeded those guidelines. Thorough examination of the documentary evidence presented and the transcript of the proceedings, including a search for the reference thereto in Petitioner's counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact, fails to reveal any support for that assertion as to an increase limitation. The ITB for this procurement, in the section related to the evaluation of bids, indicated that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5-3 and 5-11 of HRSM 70-1, dealing with the procurement of leased space, the responsive bids would be reviewed by an evaluation committee which would visit each proposed facility and apply the evaluation criteria to it in order to determine the lowest and best bidder. The evaluation criteria award factors listed in the ITB defined a successful bid as that one determined to be the lowest and best. That listing of evaluation criteria outlined among its categories associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. As to the first, the committee was to look at rental rates for both the basic term of the lease and the optional renewal period. The rates were to be evaluated using present value methodology applying the present value discount rate of 8.08% and rates proposed were to be within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. The total weight for the rental rate category was to be no more than 40 points with 35 points being the maximum for the basic term and 5 points for the option. Evaluation of the location was to be based on the effect of environmental factors including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it on the efficient and economical conduct of the operations planned therefor. This included the proximity of the facility to a preferred area such as a co-location, a courthouse, or main traffic areas. This item carried a maximum weight of 10 points. Also included in location were the frequency and availability of public transportation, (5 points); the proximity of the facility to the clients to be served, (5 points); the aesthetics of not only the building but the surrounding neighborhood, (10 points); and security issues, (10 points). The third major factor for evaluation was the facility itself and here the committee was to examine the susceptibility of the offered space to efficient layout and good utilization, (15 points), and the susceptibility of the building, parking area and property as a whole to possible future expansion, (5 points). In that regard, the Bid Submittal Form attached to the ITB called for the successful bidder whose property did not have appropriate zoning at the time of award to promptly seek zoning appropriate to the use classification of the property so that it might be used for the purposes contemplated by the department within 30 days. In the event that could not be done, the award could be rescinded by the department without liability. The committee could award up to 100 points. The basic philosophy of this procurement was found in paragraph 1 of the Bid Award section of the ITB which provided: The department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the department and the state. After the bid opening, three of the four bids received, excluding Petitioner's which was initially determined to be non-responsive, were evaluated by the Department's bid evaluation committee according to the above point system which allowed no discretion or deviation from the formula in comparing rental rates between bidders. Once Petitioner's bid was thereafter determined to be responsive, it, too was evaluated by the committee. At this second evaluation session, relating to Adlee's bid only, the committee scored the bid and added its scores to the original score sheets upon which the other three bidders' scores had been placed. Abraham had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease and received the maximum award of 35 points for that category while Adlee received points. Abraham received an additional 2.29 points for the optional period rates while Adlee got 0. In the other categories, "location" and "facility", which comprised 60% of the points, Adlee's facility was routinely rated superior to Abraham's except for the area related to susceptibility for future expansion in which Abraham was rated higher by a small amount. Overall, however, Adlee was awarded 620.41 points and Abraham 571.03 points and as a result, Adlee was rated by the committee to be the lowest and best bidder. RCL, another bidder, was rated second, with Abraham third and DCIC fourth. Thereafter, the committee chairman, Mr. VanWerne, forwarded the new (and complete) evaluation results to the District Administrator on June 14, 1991 by an addendum dated June 27, 1991 which recommended award of the bid to Petitioner, Adlee Developers. No award was made at the time. Several factors not pertinent to the issues here caused that delay. Among the major of these was pending legislation which would have transferred the operation needing this space to another agency. This transfer was never consummated, however. On or before March 20, 1992, the new District Administrator, Mr. Towey, who had been appointed to his office in December, 1991, and who was made aware that this procurement had not been finalized, requested all available material on it so that he could study it and make his decision based on his own review of the submission. As a part of his determination process, he visited and inspected both the Adlee and the Abraham sites. One of the factors he considered was what appeared to be the significant monetary discrepancy between the two pertinent bids. Initial calculations indicated that Abraham's bid was approximately $835,000.00 lower than Adlee's over the ten year basic term of the lease. This amount was subsequently determined to be somewhat lower but the discrepancy is still significant. Nonetheless, because of that difference, Mr. Towey called a meeting with the members of the evaluation committee which had evaluated the bidders and had recommended Adlee. His stated reason for calling that meeting was to allow him to hear their reasons for rating the submissions as they had done and to take that information into consideration when he made his final decision. None of the committee members who testified at the hearing at Petitioner's behest indicated any feelings of pressure or intimidation by Mr. Towey. During his meeting with the committee members, Mr. Towey went over several of the evaluation criteria award factors to determine the committee's rationale. Of major importance was the issue of cost, of the availability of the facility to transportation to and from the building, employee security and the ability to control access to the facility, and the availability of on-site parking without cost to both employees and clients. It appears the Adlee facility is a multistory building with some parking available on site and would be easier to control. In addition, it is closer to public transportation access points. There is, however, some indication that on-site parking for clients would not be free and the closest free parking is some distance away. According to Adlee's representative, this matter would not be a problem, however, as adequate, free on site parking, which apparently was not initially identified as a problem, could be provided in any new lease. The Abraham facility is a one story building surrounded by on-site parking. In that regard, however, at hearing, Petitioner raised the claim that the Abraham site did not, in actuality, provide adequate parking because the zoning requirements of the City of South Miami, the municipality in which the facility is located, did not permit the required number of parking spaces to accommodate the prospective need. Petitioner sought and received permission to depose the Building and Zoning Director for the city, Sonia Lama, who ultimately indicated that the Abraham site was grandfathered in under the old zoning rule and, thereby, had adequate parking available. In any case, had this not been true, under the terms of the ITB, any zoning deficiencies could have been corrected after award, or the award rescinded without penalty to the Department. After the meeting with the committee, Mr. Towey indicated he would probably go against the committee's recommendation. One of his reasons for doing so, as he indicated to them, was the appearance certain amenities in the facility would give. In the period between the time the committee met and Mr. Towey was ready to decide, there were several newspaper articles published in the Miami area which were negative in their approach to Department leasing policies and this publicity had an effect on him. In his response to a reporter's question, in fact, Mr. Towey indicated he would not permit the lease of any property which contained such amenities while he was District Director. There is some evidence that the wet bar referred to here was a sink and counter used by agency employees to make coffee. However, before making his decision, Mr. Towey also met with Herbert Adler of Adlee. Mr. Towey advised him he was concerned about the fact that the Adlee property provided a wet bar, a private bathroom and some other amenities in that suite of offices occupied by the Department. Mr. Towey was adamant in his public and private pronouncements on the subject that there would be no such amenities in HRS offices in his District while he was in charge. At the meeting in issue, Mr. Adler made it very clear he was willing to remove all the offending amenities to bring the space into conformity with Mr. Towey's standards. Mr. Towey obviously took Adler at his word as he did not consider this matter to be an issue when he evaluated the bids. Based on his independent evaluation of the proposals, and considering all the pertinent factors, Mr. Towey decided not to concur with the committee's recommendation and instead recommended to the Department's Office of General Services that the bid be awarded to Abraham. Because his recommendation differed from that of the evaluation committee, under the provisions of Section 5-13, HRS Manual 70-1, he was required to forward additional justification for his position. In his forwarding memorandum dated March 20, 1992 to Mr. King Davis of the Department's Office of General Services, Mr. Towey listed as his reasons for disagreement with the committee's recommendation, (1) the lower term cost of Abraham's bid, (2) his opinion that the one story floor plan of Abraham was more convenient and accessible to clients, and (3) the provision for ample free parking at the Abraham site as opposed to the limited parking at the Adlee building. Petitioner claims that Mr. Towey's justification for disagreement was improper because, (a) the rental difference he cited was not based on the ITB formula and did not consider the difference in square footage offered; (b) the rental rate comparison compared a proposed lease with an existing lease, not with a proposal; and (c) the reference to on-site parking referred to the situation under the existing lease with Adlee and not to what could occur under a new lease. The major factor in Mr. Towey's decision was the price differential between the two offerings. While the difference may not have been as great as presented initially by the department staff, even taken in its most conservative light of about half that amount, and considering the appropriate figures, the difference was still considerable and significant. In the continuing period of budgetary austerity under which state operations have been and must continue to be conducted, the financial consideration loomed large in his thinking. As for the parking situation, no change for the better was provided for in Adlee's proposal and even if it were, it was but one of several factors. When Mr. Towey's March 20, 1992 memorandum in justification of his disagreement was evaluated at the Office of General services, it was determined that his decision was rational and objectively justified. Thereafter, by letter dated April 2, 1992, the Office of General Services authorized District 11 to award the lease to Abraham and this decision was transmitted to all responsive bidders by letter dated April 7, 1992. It was this action which prompted Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the protest by Adlee Developers, Inc., of the award of procurement No. 590:2286 to Anthony Abraham Enterprises. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 10th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2798 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted that the pre-bid conference was held but reject the finding that a 5% limit was mentioned. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted except for the next to last sentence which is rejected. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 30. Rejected. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell 200 East Broward Blvd. P.O. Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Paul J. Martin, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Suite 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Peter W. Homer, Esquire Greer, Homer & Bonner, P.A. 3400 International Place 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the award of a bid for the sale of scrap metal to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition or the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 2011, the Department issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-Apalachee-8252. The ITB was a revenue- generating contract for the sale of scrap metal at Apalachee Correctional Institution in Sneads, Florida. Since the contract would generate revenue to the State, the Department’s purpose was to award the contract to the highest responsive bid and developed bid specifications and criteria to accomplish that goal. The specifications for the ITB stated in relevant part: Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material.[emphasis added]. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 1.10 Responsive Bid: A bid submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. * * * 4.3.1 Submission of Bids Each bid shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise delineation of the bidder’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this ITB, fancy bindings, colored displays, and promotional material are not desired. Emphasis in each bid must be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the review of bids, it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5), with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements. Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Material Deviations The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. As indicated, Section 5 of the specifications outlined the contents of the bid. Section 5 stated in relevant part: SECTION 5 - CONTENTS OF BID This section contains instructions that describe the required format for the submitted bid. Bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked “Bid - ITB#- Apalachee-8252”. . . . . [T]he following paragraphs contain instructions that describe the required format for bid responses. Responsiveness Requirements The following terms, conditions, or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to this ITB. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements may cause rejection of a bid. [emphasis added]. Bidder shall complete, sign and return the ITB Bidder Acknowledgement Form (page 1 & 2). The bidder must return either the original or a copy of both pages with an original signature on page one (1). The bidder shall complete, sign, date, and return (all) pricing pages, entitled Cost Information Sheet, which consists of page 28. By submitting a bid or bids under this ITB, each bidder warrants its agreement to the prices submitted. The Department objects to and shall not consider any additional terms or conditions submitted by a bidder, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a bidder’s response. In submitting its bid, a bidder agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect. Any qualifications, counter-offers, deviations, or challenges may render the bid un-responsive . . . . * * * 5.3 Certificate of Insurance Bidders shall return a fully executed Certificate of Insurance . . . . In this case, Section 5.1 contains two bid specifications essential to a bid's responsiveness. Those two requirements were submission of a signed and completed, original or copy, of the bidder acknowledgement form and submission of a completed Cost Information Sheet. The Cost Information Sheet is not at issue here. The bidder acknowledgement form is a double-sided Department of Management Services form containing general boilerplate contractual language. The back of the form is a continuation of standard contractual terms from the front. Oddly, signatures acknowledging these terms and the terms of the ITB are on the front page (page 1) of the form. By signing the front page of the bidder acknowledgement form the bidder agrees to abide by all conditions of the bid. The remainder of Section 5 of the ITB contains bid specifications that are not considered essential to determine the initial responsiveness of the bid at the bid opening, but are to be returned at some later point in time after the bid's are opened. However, the language of Section 5 effecting that intent is unclear. In particular, the bid specification contained in Section 5.3 requires the bidder to "return" an "executed" Certificate of Insurance. The Certificate of Insurance provides the Department with proof of a variety of required insurance coverage of the vendor. However, later in the ITB Section 7.14 clarifies that the Certificate of Insurance need only be supplied with the later-signed contract documents. Section 7.14 states, in relevant part: 7.14 Contractor's Insurance The contractor shall not commence any work in connection with this ITB . . . until he has obtained all of the . . . types of insurance and such insurance has been approved by the Department. The Department shall be furnished proof of coverage of insurance by Certificates of Insurance . . . accompanying the contract documents and shall name the Department as an additional named insured [emphasis added]. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that the Department has long interpreted these provisions to require a winning bidder to provide Certificates of Insurance at the time a contract is entered into and not as part of the essential requirements of the bid due at bid opening. While the Department could (and probably should) clarify this provision, its interpretation of its bid specifications is not unreasonable under these facts. In this case, five bids were timely submitted in response to the ITB, including those of K & M and Cumbaa. On March 8, 2011, the Department opened bids for the ITB. Cumbaa submitted the highest bid for the contract, at $22,197.48. K & M submitted the next highest bid at $20,001.00. At the bid opening, Cumbaa's bid included a Cost Information Sheet, a copy of the signed front page of the bidder acknowledgement form, and the Contact for Contract Administration form known as Attachment 1. However, the bid did not contain the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form or a Certificate of Insurance form at the time the bid was opened. K & M's bid contained the same documents as Cumbaa's bid, as well as the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form and a number of certificates of insurance for K & M. The evidence showed that Cumbaa did not include the Certificate of Insurance form in its sealed bid upon the advice of the Department that the form was not required at bid opening. However, Cumbaa had insurance coverage in place at the time of the bid opening and faxed its certificates of insurance to the Department on March 10, 2011. Given these facts and the Department's reasonable interpretation of its ITB, the omission of Cumbaa's certificate of insurance was neither required at the time of the bid opening, nor material to the award of the bid. The omission of the second page of the bidder's acknowledgement form was not noticed by anyone reviewing the bids until its omission was pointed out by K and M in this bid protest. Cumbaa faxed a copy of the back side of the document to the Department on April 11, 2011. Clearly, this lack of notice demonstrates the immateriality of the back side of the bidder's acknowledgement form. Additionally, since the signatures of both bidders were on the front page of the form submitted by them and those signatures bound the bidders to the terms of the ITB, there was no evidence that demonstrated why submission of a copy of the back side of the form was material to the award of this bid. Ultimately, the Department reviewed the bids for responsiveness and determined that Cumbaa was the highest responsive bid. On March 11, 2011, the Department posted its intent to award the bid to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. As indicated, there was no evidence that the omission of these two documents from the Cumbaa bid were material deviations from the bid specifications since neither omission impacted the ultimate contract requirements and did not materially impact the integrity of the bid process. Indeed, the insurance certification was not required for responsiveness under Section 5.1 of the bid under a long-standing and reasonable interpretation of that requirement by the Department. For these reasons, this bid protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order dismissing the Protest of K & M Pine Straw. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eldridge K and M Pine Straw 20583 John G Bryant Road Blountstown, Florida 32424 Edith McKay, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Edwin G. Buss, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether the Department’s action to reject all bids submitted in response to DOT-RFP-20-5003-DAA, relating to asbestos abatement, demolition, and removal services, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the services for Districtwide Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for Right of Way property under the Department’s supervision by law. The Department published a bid solicitation for DOT-RFP-20-5003- DAA, seeking bids to provide District Five Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for FDOT. The RFP included specifications, qualification requirements, instructions on what would be required of responders, a bid price proposal sheet, and the award criteria. Cross Construction and Cross Environmental submitted bids in response to the RFP. Cross Construction’s and Cross Environmental’s bids were evaluated by the Department. There is no debate, challenge, or disagreement raised in the Petitions with regard to the Technical Scores submitted by the responding firms to the RFP, only disagreement on three pay items. On June 15, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee reviewed and discussed the information presented as to the Technical and Pricing scores of the Responding firms, asked for an additional bid item analysis, and indicated that it would reconvene at a future date for a decision. On June 22, 2020, the Selection Committee reviewed, discussed, and confirmed the recommendation presented by the results of the Technical Review Committee scorings and the Project Manager’s Bid Price analysis and selected Cross Construction and Cross Environmental as Intended Awardees. The Selection committee also found that Johnson’s Excavation and Services Inc., [Johnson] and Simpson Environmental LLC [Simpson] were deemed non-responsive due to irregular, and unbalanced pay items prices. On August 24, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee decided to cancel the Procurement with the intent to readvertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing Structure and decided to reject all proposals. Additional Findings of Fact The “three pay items” referenced in paragraph six of the stipulated facts are the items that ultimately caused the Department to reject all bids in the instant dispute. The three pay items are collectively referred to as mobilization pay items. The RFP directs that bids are to contain two parts. Part I is the technical proposal, and Part II is the price proposal. Section 30.3 of the RFP provides that proposers “shall complete the Bid Price Proposal Form No. 2 and submit [the form] as part of the Price Proposal Package … [and that] [t]he Procurement Office and/or the Project Manager/TRC will review and evaluate the price proposals and prepare a summary of its price evaluation.” Five bidders submitted proposals in response to the RFP. One bidder did not advance beyond the initial review phase because its technical proposal did not meet minimum bid standards. The remaining bidders were CCS, CES, Simpson, and Johnson. Price proposals submitted by each of the remaining bidders were evaluated by the Department. Section 3 of the RFP provides a general outline of the process associated with awarding the contract. The steps are: “Pre-Proposal Conference; Public Opening (Technical Proposals); Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting; and, Selection Committee Meeting Summarizing Evaluations and Determining Anticipated Award.” The agenda for the “Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting,” as established by the RFP, provides as follows: Opening remarks of approx. 2 minutes by Department Procurement Office personnel. Public input period – To allow a reasonable amount of time for public input related to the RFP solicitation. At conclusion of public period, the Technical evaluation scores will be summarized. Announce the firms that did not achieve the minimum technical score. Announce the firms that achieved the minimum technical score and their price(s) as price proposals are opened. Calculate price scores and add to technical scores to arrive at total scores. Announce Proposer with highest Total Score as Intended Award. Announce time and date the decision will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS). Adjourn. Section 30.4 b. of the RFP provides that a proposer can be awarded a maximum of 30 points for its price proposal. This section also provides that “[p]rice evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider.” On June 15, 2020, the selection review committee met publicly for the purpose of opening price proposals and announcing an intended award. Price proposals were opened, and the eligible bidders received the following price scores: CCS - 11.09; CES - 13.22; Johnson - 19.76; and Simpson - 30. In terms of total score, which combined both the technical and price scores, Simpson received a score of 113.00, which was the highest score, followed by CES (107.55), CCS (103.76), and Johnson (101.76). After opening and considering the price proposals of the respective bidders, the selection committee did not announce an intended award at the meeting on June 15, 2020, but instead requested that the project manager “do further analysis on the pay items for any potential imbalance.” The project manager, through a staff member, performed the additional analysis and determined that Johnson and Simpson submitted “irregular, unbalanced pay items” which resulted in their respective bids being deemed non- responsive and thus not eligible for award. The “irregular, unbalanced pay items” are the three mobilization pay items at issue in the instant matter, and are identified on the bid price proposal sheet as items AB200, AB201, and AB202. Simpson bid $400 for item AB200, $100 for item AB201, and $50 for item AB202. Johnson bid $250 for item AB200, $250 for item AB201, and $100 for item AB202. CCS bid $1 for item AB200, $1 for item AB201, and $1 for item AB202. CES bid $1 for item AB200, 75 cents for item AB201, and 50 cents for item AB202. The Department, in evaluating the bidders’ mobilization pay items, considered costs associated with abatement two structures, a 1,500 and 2,250 square feet structure respectively. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $2,250. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CES’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CES’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $1,687.50. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $375,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $562,500. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $600,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $225,000. On June 22, 2020, the selection committee reconvened and announced CCS and CES as intended awardees of the contract. The Department also announced at this meeting that Johnson and Simpson were “deemed non- responsive due to irregular, unbalanced pay item prices.” On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed a Notice of Protest wherein the company informed the Department of its intent to formally protest the intended award of contracts to CCS and CES. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed with the Department its “formal written petition of protest.” Although Simpson’s formal protest is dated July 6, 2020, CCS and CES contend that Simpson’s protest was actually filed on July 7, 2020, thereby making the protest untimely by a day. The Department did not refer Simpson’s formal protest to DOAH for final hearing, but instead considered the issues presented by Simpson in its protest and then attempted to negotiate a resolution with Simpson, CCS, and CES. Those efforts were unsuccessful. The question of the timeliness of the formal bid protest filed by Simpson is not before the undersigned. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts as to Simpson’s protest, as demonstrated by the record herein, are as follows. On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed notice of its intent to protest the RFP. On June 29, 2020, CCS received notice that a bid protest was filed with respect to the RFP. On July 1, 2020, CES filed a public records request “for public records related to the bid protest made to the” RFP. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed its formal written protest with respect to the RFP, and although the evidence is not clear as to the date, it is undisputed that the Department received affidavits from Simpson explaining the factual circumstances surrounding the filing of the company’s formal written protest. On July 15, 2020, the Department notified CCS and CES that “in response to the Formal Written Protest filed by Simpson Environmental Services, the Department will hold a settlement conference” on Friday, July 17, 2020. On July 21, 2020, Simpson, CES, and CCS notified the Department that they “reached an agreed upon settlement proposal.” On August 11, 2020, the Department, after considering the settlement proposal for several weeks, notified Simpson, CES, and CCS that the Department would discuss the RFP at a public meeting to be held on August 24, 2020. As previously noted, it was during the meeting on August 24, 2020, when the Department announced that all proposals received in response to RFP were rejected. CES, on or about July 1, 2020, submitted to the Department a public records request wherein the company sought a copy of documents related to Simpson’s protest. In response to the request, the Department provided CES a copy of the formal written protest filed by Simpson. It is undisputed that the initial copy provided to CES by the Department did not show either the date or time of receipt of the document filed by Simpson. At some point after the settlement conference, the Department provided to CES a date and time stamped copy of Simpson’s formal written protest. There was no evidence presented explaining the circumstances or the process which resulted in the Department providing different copies of Simpson’s formal written protest to CES, and the remaining evidence does not provide a sufficient foundation to reasonably infer that the Department acted with nefarious motives when providing different versions of the documents to CES. Simpson’s formal protest contains the following statement with respect to the price proposal that the company submitted in response to the RFP: Petitioner’s individual bid price items were based in fact, were reasonable and were in conformity with standard industry rates for similar asbestos abatement and demolition and removal projects. Petitioner’s bid price items were also patently similar to bid price items that Petitioner has previously submitted in response to past FDOT proposal requests that ultimately resulted in the corresponding contracts having been awarded to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner has a longstanding relationship with the FDOT as Petitioner has previously contracted with FDOT as a vendor performing asbestos abatement services on numerous projects over the course of the past eight years. Petitioner’s price items for bid proposals have remained consistent for each of its past projects with FDOT. Petitioner’s price items for the instant bid proposal did not differ or vary in any material aspect from those proposed by Petitioner for previous projects that FDOT has deemed reasonable. Michelle Sloan works for the Department as a district procurement manager, and was assigned to manage the instant RFP. Ms. Sloan testified that because Simpson protested the Department’s intended decision to award the contracts to CCS and CES, and specifically referenced in its protest “that their bid for mobilization was in conformance with industry standards, as well as previous bids submitted to the agency that were deemed responsive,” she conducted additional review of the Simpson and Johnson bids. Ms. Sloan testified that after reviewing the RFP, the price sheets related thereto, Simpson’s protest, and the additional analysis of the pay items conducted following the June 15, 2020, selection committee meeting, she concluded that material ambiguities existed in the RFP’s mobilization pay items and recommended to the district secretary that the Department “reject all [bids] and re-advertise with a revised pricing sheet and instructions.” On August 24, 2020, the selection committee, following public notice, accepted Ms. Sloan’s recommendation, rejected all proposals, and canceled the procurement with the “intent to re-advertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing structure.” A review of the credible evidence demonstrates a rational basis for the conclusions reached by Ms. Sloan and members of the selection committee. Exhibit C of the RFP is titled “Price Proposal/Detailed and Contractual Price Sheet.” The first page of this document provides a general description of the asbestos removal and abatement pay items. The general pay items are as follows: AB100 Fees [as] determined from the Department of Environmental Protection based upon regulated material. AB200 One-time fee necessary to mobilize for full isolation, per parcel, when abatement with isolation is required. AB300 Fees to be charged by square feet for preparation [of] structure before abatement can commence. AB400 Fees to be charged by square feet, to abate asbestos from various surfacing material such as ceiling, walls, beams, plaster, sheetrock and fireproofing using conventional containment methods. AB500 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks ducts, fittings, pipes, flutes and flanges. AB600 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks, ducts, pipe, fittings and jackets which involve the use of a Glove bag. AB700 Fees to be charged by square foot, to abate asbestos from various roofing materials such as cement roof shingles, flashing, rolled roof, felts, wood shingles and mobile home coating. AB800 Fees to be charged by square foot or piece to abate asbestos from various materials such as floor tile, mastic adhesive, sheet vinyl, carpet, wood sub- floor, concrete sub-floor, vibrator dampers, wallboard, metal ductwork and sinks with insulation and heat shields (light fixture). AB900 Fees to be charge[d] by landfill for asbestos disposal. The bid price proposal sheet, which is form number 2 of the RFP, provides a listing of specific pay items related to the general “AB ---” items listed in Exhibit C to the RFP. Below is an example of some of the specific pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet: [See table on next page] Item Number Description (A) Estimat ed Quantit y Unit (B) Unit Pric e Total Bid Amount (A x B) ASBESTOS REMOVAL ABATEMENT AB200 Mobilization for structures less than 2,000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB201 Mobilization for structures [from] 2001 – 5000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB202 Mobilization for structures over 5001 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB300 Mask and Seal 1 SQ. FT. AB401 Remove ACM plaster/lathe including all surface materials 1 SQ. FT. AB501 Remove insulation from fittings 1 LF. AB603 Remove insulation from boilers, stacks or ducts piping 1 LF. AB703 Remove roofing cement 1 SQ. FT. AB810 Remove carpet and mastic adhesive 1 SQ. FT. AB820 Remove sinks with insulation 1 SQ. FT. AB901 Non-Friable 1 SQ. FT. General pay item category AB200, as described on Exhibit C, does not reference a “unit of measurement,” but instead notes that items within this category are to be determined on a “one-time – per parcel” basis. When the AB200 general pay item category is compared to the specific pay items for this category enumerated on the bid price proposal sheet (i.e., AB200, AB201, and AB202), it is evident that the unit of measurement “square feet” is listed as the basis for calculating the bid amount for this item when no such unit of measurement is stated for this item on Exhibit C. Comparatively, general pay item categories AB300 through AB800 each expressly references a specific unit of measurement (i.e., square foot, linear foot, or by the “piece”), and these units of measurement carry over to and are consistently reflected on the bid price proposal sheet for the specific pay items enumerated therein. By inserting a unit of measurement (i.e., square feet) in the mobilization pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet, when the general description on Exhibit C instructs that they are “one-time, per parcel” pay items, the Department created a material ambiguity in the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in Case Nos. 20-4214 and 20-4216 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-20-5003-DAA was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing the two petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 14th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brian A. Leung, Esquire Holcomb & Leung, P.A. 3203 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Diane E. H. Watson, Esquire Cross Environmental Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1299 Crystal Springs, Florida 33524-1299 (eServed) Kevin J. Tibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether costs and attorney's fees are due Petitioner, hereinafter PROCTOR, from Respondent, hereinafter HRS, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as a result of Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 91-5963-BID, and, if so, the amount of costs and fees.
Findings Of Fact The petition for fees and costs herein is brought exclusively under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and relates back to a bid protest wherein PROCTOR and TCC #3 LTD., INC., hereafter TCC, were the only bidders on HRS lease 590.236. PROCTOR was the protestant/Petitioner and TCC was the apparent successful bidder/Intervenor in Derick Proctor v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 91-5963BID. HRS' Invitation to Bid (ITB) for lease 590:236 required bidders to submit evidence of control of the property being offered, including the parking areas. Evidence of control could take the form of a deed for the property, an option to purchase the property, or a lease or option to lease showing a right to sublease. TCC did not submit a document labelled "deed," "option to purchase," "lease," or "option to lease" with its bid. TCC submitted as its evidence of control a contract for sale and purchase of the property with Hernando Plaza, Ltd., executed by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves to be general partners of the limited partnership. At all times material, the actual record title of the property submitted by TCC for the bid was in the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation. At the times of the bid opening, evaluation, and August 27, 1991 notice of intended award, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with an entity other than the record owner. Up to then, at least, Hernando Plaza, Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as being the owner of the property. The ITB did not require an abstract of title to be submitted with the bid. HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contained provisions for future disclosures from successful bidders. Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS' ITB attempted at the time to protect HRS by requiring successful bidders to post an irrevocable letter of credit to be forfeited in the event a successful bidder could not perform and for future disclosures concerning the chain of title. (See the recommended order in the underlying case). HRS accepted the contract to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza, Ltd. as TCC's required evidence of control, believing it to constitute an option to purchase. (See Findings of Fact 15-17 infra, this final order). On August 27, 1991, PROCTOR received from HRS a notice of intent to award the bid to TCC. This notice constituted the "window" for protests, if any, to be filed. PROCTOR then timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest of the award to TCC. The filing of this protest resulted in an automatic suspension of the bid solicitation and contract award process and referral of the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. This protest formed the basis of the underlying bid case, DOAH Case No. 91-5963BID. No later than the time of the Prehearing Order of September 23, 1991 in Case No. 91-5963BID, the law firm of Gibbs and Rudzik had made known to the hearing officer and counsel for both PROCTOR and HRS its retention as counsel for TCC. TCC moved for leave to intervene in a motion filed September 30, 1991, which was granted in an order of October 4, 1991. In a letter of October 10, 1991, counsel for PROCTOR made counsel for HRS aware of a question of whether TCC could obtain good title to the property. Counsel for PROCTOR proposed in a letter of October 14, 1991 to counsel for HRS that HRS reject both PROCTOR's and TCC's bids and rebid the lease, but this letter was primarily devoted to determining if HRS wished to interpose a new defense that PROCTOR's bid was unresponsive. In the instant fees and costs case, PROCTOR relies on its October 14, 1991 letter as the point from which HRS should have acted to avoid incurring attorney's fees and costs. After the receipt of the two letters, HRS did not reject both bids and rebid the contract but proceeded to formal hearing on October 30, 1991. PROCTOR and HRS share the mutual impression that had HRS accepted PROCTOR's proposal to reject both bids, HRS would have to have allowed TCC an opportunity to protest that decision. At the final hearing in Case No. 91-5963BID, evidence was offered that Hernando Plaza, Ltd. had a conditional option to purchase the property from the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. However, it was not established at the hearing that the conditions of the option had been fulfilled or that TCC or Hernando Plaza, Ltd. could otherwise gain good title to the property through a valid option. It was concluded as a matter of law in Case No. 91-5963BID, that on its face, the ITB stated that control could be evidenced merely by attachment of an "option to purchase," that the ITB stated no further requirements concerning the internal provisions of the option to purchase, and that TCC's conditional contract for purchase constituted a conditional option to purchase. The conditions of the option to purchase and the chain of title, among myriad other matters were subjects of proof at the formal hearing. The conditions of the option to purchase and various complicated real property concepts arising from recorded and unrecorded parts of the chain of title constituted the thrust of the recommended order's assessment that TCC's "control" was speculative only. It is here noted that the totality of the "chain" of title might have been unavailable even by "abstract" due to the lack of recordation of some documents. The lengthy formal hearing adduced evidence concerning the factual issue of whether or not the conditional option to purchase was between TCC and an entity which had such a sufficiently unequivocal interest in the proposed property that it could convey title to TCC in time for TCC to fulfill its obligations under its proposed lease to HRS. There is no evidence that HRS knew of these problems on August 27, 1991, when it gave notice of its intent to award the bid to TCC. Hernando Plaza, Ltd. was the entity with which TCC had contracted. At formal hearing, TCC relied on the legal concept that all interests in the property had merged in the non-title holder, Hernando Plaza, Ltd. This concept, together with recorded and unrecorded elements in the chain of title which were presented at formal hearing, were determined in the recommended order to be too "speculative" on the issue of TCC's control. However, it was also found, upon evidence submitted at formal hearing, that TCC's bid contained no other material deviations from the requirements of the ITB, that the signator of TCC's bid had sufficient status to submit the bid for the TCC corporation, and that TCC's signator could not submit the bid as an agent of the owners of the real property. TCC and its bid signator had never purported to have submitted the bid on behalf of the owners of the real property. (See the recommended order of the underlying bid case.) These issues were raised by PROCTOR and they addressed more than just the facial compliance of TCC's original bid documents which was all HRS had to consider when it made its initial decision in favor of TCC and against PROCTOR. However, the recommended order found HRS to have materially deviated in a number of ways from the bid process in its initial evaluation of PROCTOR's bid, not the least of which was determining that PROCTOR had complied with the ITB requirements for demonstrating control. All such evaluation flaws had been committed by HRS in favor of PROCTOR. Both TCC's and PROCTOR's bids were ultimately found to be unresponsive in the recommended order entered on December 20, 1991. The recommended order also found both had standing to be involved in the bid protest and formal hearing. The recommended order recommended rejecting both bids and readvertising the ITB. The Final Order of HRS entered on January 20, 1992 dismissed PROCTOR's protest on the basis that he lacked standing to protest, as his bid was unresponsive, and awarded the bid to TCC. HRS did not give PROCTOR notice that his bid was not responsive until it issued its Final Order. The Final Order of HRS was appealed to the First District Court of Appeals by PROCTOR. The First District Court of Appeals entered an order on June 22, 1992 finding PROCTOR had standing and remanding the case back to HRS for the purpose of a decision of the issue of whether TCC's bid was also unresponsive. On July 27, 1992, HRS entered its Amended Final Order determining both bids to be unresponsive and that the lease should be relet for bids. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the Amended Final Order of HRS in a per curiam opinion without discussion on October 13, 1992. HRS did not reject both bids and rebid the contract until after this per curiam opinion. No motion for rehearing was filed with respect to either of the First District Court of Appeals' orders entered June 22 or October 13, 1992, nor was any notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court filed. PROCTOR did file a motion for rehearing solely on the court's denial of PROCTOR's motion for appellate fees. Mandate was issued by the Clerk of the First District Court of Appeals on December 3, 1992. HRS entered an Order Directing Release of Bid Protest Cost Bond on December 18, 1992, in which HRS stated: Petitioner, Derick Proctor, has prevailed in the above styled bid protest. Petitioner's domicile and principal place of business is Vero Beach, Florida. Petitioner has one employee. Petitioner is a sole proprietorship. Petitioner's net worth does not exceed $2,000,000.00. HRS was not a nominal party in the underlying bid case. HRS did not initially challenge PROCTOR's "small business party" status in this instant fees and costs proceeding. Therefore, that allegation of the fees and costs petition is not at issue. Also, Petitioner's "small business party" status is now stipulated to exist. The parties have stipulated that the maximum statutory fee is $15,000.00 and that $15,000.00 is a reasonable fee if an award of attorney's fees is due. HRS has not protested or objected to the amount of costs claimed, $411.25, if costs are due.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the proposed award of a contract to Ben Withers, Inc., is contrary to the Agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or contrary to the bid solicitation specification concerning bid bond requirements, within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). It must also be determined whether those bidders who submitted a less than "A+" bid bond rating are compliant with the specification, or should be disqualified for non-responsiveness.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation. It holds a State of Florida license as a General Contractor. Its licensure authorizes it to perform work of the nature and scope involved in this project. Mr. Milton Fulmer is the principal owner and president of the Petitioner. He testified in this proceeding on behalf of the Petitioner. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing and administering state-owned lands in the state park system, including the planning and arranging for the construction of facilities, installations and improvements on those lands. The Respondent engages in procurement through competitive bidding on a regular basis, in order to build and maintain its improvements on those lands. The Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for certain road and additional work to be performed at the Bald Point State Park, in Franklin County. The ITB is designated as “Bid No. 49-08/09” on the Department of Management Services’ Vendor Bid System (VBS). It is undisputed that the ITB was properly advertised and noticed. The ITB project involves the construction of a new entrance roadway, the removal of an existing timber bridge and the installation of a new “free-span" bridge. The project also includes related drainage and utility work. Three addenda to the ITB were issued, which significantly increased the scope of the work, and the estimated budget for the project, from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000. The bids were timely opened on January 12, 2009. Withers was the low bidder. The Petitioner was the sixth low bidder. The bid tabulation, announcing the Respondent’s intent to award to Withers was posted on January 23, 2009. The Petitioner filed a timely protest, pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (2008). The protest notice was filed on January 28, 2009, and the Petition was timely filed on February 6, 2009. Eight vendors submitted timely bid responses. None of the bids were disqualified by the Respondent. The specifications in the ITB required bidders to submit a good faith deposit or bid guaranty, amounting to five percent of the bid. This could be provided in the form of a bid bond. All the bidders submitted bid bonds with their bids. The instructions to bidders in the specifications of the ITB require that, for bids exceeding $2,000,000, “the surety that will provide the Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Payment Bond shall have at least an 'A+' rating in A.M. Best Company’s online rating guide.” The ITB also provides that the rating of a reinsurance company is not applicable and does not meet this requirement. The Petitioner’s expert witness, Paul Ciambriello, acknowledged in his testimony that a Bid Bond, a Labor and Materials Payment Bond (payment bond) and a Performance Bond (payment bond) guarantee different aspects of a procurement or project. A bid bond guarantees that a vendor or contractor will execute the contract and undertake it for the bid price. A payment bond guarantees payment for all equipment, labor, materials and services, in the event the contractor fails to pay for them, as contractually required. The performance bond guarantees full performance of the contract by the surety company, if the contractor defaults on performance of the contract. The surety company would, in that event, be completing the job, or obtaining bids from other contractors for completion, while remaining liable for the difference between the contract price and the actual price of project completion. The Petitioner has taken the position that the specification requiring an "A+" rating for the payment and performance bonds should be applied by the Respondent to the bid bond requirement, as well, because there is no significant or practical difference between the issuance and underwriting efforts involved in the obtaining of the two types of bond for a given project. The Petitioner’s point is that, if an "A+" rated surety is required for the payment bond and the performance bond, then, as a practical matter, that is the same thing as requiring a bid bond of that same rating, because in the vast majority of cases, the surety which underwrites the bid bond and the one issuing the payment and performance bonds is the same surety, and that inclusive would allow for only one underwriting effort. Because of this purported custom or course of dealing in the industry, as also purportedly reflected in past Department practice regarding bond requirements, the Petitioner maintains that its bid was the only responsive bid, and all the other bidders should have been disqualified. The Petitioner provided its insurance and bond broker, Paul Ciambriello, of the Guignard Company with information about the project and its surety requirements. The broker then obtained a bid bond with International Fidelity Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company, as co-sureties. International Fidelity Insurance Company has an “A-“ rating, according to the Best’s rating guide. Everest Reinsurance Company has a rating of “A+”, according to that rating guide. The other seven bidders submitted bids accompanied by bid bonds issued by surety companies with “A” ratings. The bid specification provided no rating requirement for the bid bond. The Petitioner has argued that it is the custom or practice in the surety industry for the surety company which underwrites a bid bond to also underwrite the payment and performance bonds. In addition to the reasons referenced above, this is generally done because the surety will offer a very low premium price for a bid bond and "make its money" on the premium price for the payment and performance bonds, which it would also issue in the normal course of dealing. There is also a very short time period between issuance of the bid bond and the requirement to underwrite the payment and performance bonds, which is another reason why it is the customary practice in the surety industry for the same company to write both types of bond. The Petitioner contends that the bid bond and the payment and performance bonds really have no practical distinction because it is so common that a surety company issuing a bid bond will be the same as the surety company (with its bond rating) which issues the payment and performance bonds. Although the Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Ciambriello, testified that a bid bond, in essence, guarantees the payment and performance bond, that guarantee is not actually true as a matter of law. Rather, the bid bond does not guarantee that the surety company issuing the bid bond will issue the payment and performance bonds, but rather that the principal, i.e. the contractor, shall provide the payment and performance bonds from a good and sufficient surety, according to the obligee's, the Respondent Agency's, requirements (bid specifications). Mr. Ciambriello acknowledged in his testimony, however, that, while it is rare, in his experience representing surety companies, for a contractor to change the surety company it uses between the issuance of the bid bond and the issuance of the payment and performance bonds, a contractor certainly can do so. It can also simply initially select a different surety company, from the bid bond surety, to issue the payment and performance bonds. There are several reasons a contractor might elect to change surety companies between the issuance of the bid bond and the issuance of the payment and performance bonds. The surety company might become insolvent, lose its ratings, or another surety company might offer a better rate on its premium, which might induce a contractor to change surety companies between the issuance of the two types of bonds. In order for a vendor or contractor to establish a surety, a pre-qualification process is necessary. In pre- qualification, contractors must supply information including project history, credit references, reviewed financial statements, personal financial information and details regarding assets. The surety companies assess risk based upon the characteristics of the project, including its size, nature, location, and complexity. A surety may elect not to underwrite the payment and performance bonds for a project for which it has issued the bid bond, which would also require a contractor to seek a different surety for issuance of the later payment and performance bonds. Moreover, contractors must qualify for surety bonds and not all contractors succeed in qualifying; further, not all contractors can succeed in qualifying and procuring surety bonds from an "A+" rated company. The Petitioner, as found above, submitted its bid response with co-sureties proposed to underwrite the bonds. The Respondent accepts the premise that use of the rating of a co- surety is compliant with the ITB solicitation specification. The use of two surety companies listed as co-sureties on a bond is very unusual, in the Respondent's experience. The Respondent had a good faith belief, at the time it posted the notice of intent to award the bid, that it could not disqualify any bidder for submitting a bid bond from a surety rated less than A+, based upon its ITB specification. Indeed it should not, because the bid bond specification contained no rating requirement for the bid bond. Moreover, the Respondent had a good faith belief that the contractors could change surety companies between the issuance of the bid bond and the payment and performance bonds. The Respondent's belief or interpretation as to this last point is correct. In another procurement involving the Respondent, on a project located at Jonathan Dickenson State Park, a bidder, H and J Contracting, Inc. (H and J), changed surety companies between the issuance of the bid bond and the issuance of the payment and performance bonds. That bidder was determined to have successfully provided compliant bonds, which met the specifications in that solicitation. The Respondent had advertised the ITB for the campground renovation project at Jonathan Dickenson State Park, using the same solicitation specification for surety bonds as was used for the Bald Point project at issue in this case. The low bidder in that case, H and J Contracting, Inc., submitted a bid for $2,033,636.32. It was therefore required to comply with the specification for bonds regarding bids which exceeded two million dollars. H and J, therefore submitted a bid bond from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a company which carried an "A" rating according to Best's On-line Ratings Guide. H and J subsequently submitted payment and performance bonds from U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, a company rated "A+" according to that same ratings guide. H and J was deemed to have complied with the specifications concerning bonding, because, by changing surety companies for the payment and performance bonds, it provided such bonds with the required "A+" rating, even though the bid bond submitted in that case only carried an "A" rating. The solicitation specification in that case did not require any particular rating for the bid bond. In the instant situation, the Respondent did not violate its specification by accepting bid bonds of all bidders because the solicitation specification stated that the rating should apply to the surety company issuing the payment and performance bonds, not the bid bond. The Petitioner contends that its interpretation of the solicitation specification, that the rating requirement should be applied to the bid bond also, is the only practical interpretation because of the pre-qualification process and the lack of adequate time between submittal of the bid bond and the requirement for submittal of the payment and performance bonds. Moreover, the Petitioner contends that any other interpretation would be contrary to competition because other bidders may have bid on the project had they known that the Respondent was not applying the rating requirement to the bid bond, as the Respondent had done in past procurements. This argument is somewhat specious, however, because, in fact, the Petitioner's interpretation would negate the fact that the bid bond specification does not require a rating. The Petitioner is the only one of the six top bidders who submitted an "A+" bond rating response concerning, according to its argument, the bid bond requirement. Thus, if its interpretation were followed as to the bid bond rating requirement, then such would be anti-competitive, in relation to the other bidders, because none of them supplied an ”A+" rating surety in response to the bid bond specification. In the face of the fact that the bid bond specification required no rating, to interpret the rating requirement of the payment and performance bonds as being applicable to the bid bond stage of the procurement, would effectively eliminate the other bidders, which were lower in price than the Petitioner, from the competition. The Petitioner also argues that other unknown vendors might have bid on the project had they known that the Respondent was not applying a rating requirement to the bid bond, as the Respondent had done in the past. In fact, however, all bidders or vendors with access to the ITB solicitation knew, or should have known, of the specification of this particular ITB, which differed in its terms from some past solicitations of the Respondent by not requiring a rating for the bid bond. Moreover, there is no evidence that, in the pre- submittal stage of the process, potential bidders could not have asked for clarification of the specification from the Agency had they chosen to do so. There is no showing by persuasive evidence that there is an anti-competitive effect on potential bidders caused by the Respondent's specification concerning the bid bond. In fact, logic would dictate that by removing any rating requirement for the bid bond, the potential universe of bidders might be enlarged and therefore this might have a positive competitive effect. Additionally, the Petitioner's argument that the specification should be interpreted to apply a rating requirement to the bid bond, when the actual specification, in its language, does not contain such a requirement, is rejected also for the additional reason that such an interpretation is contrary to the plain meaning of the bid specification language. This amounts to, at least, an implicit collateral challenge to the specification, which is untimely and impermissible.1/ There are 19 vendors listed on the "plan holders list" for the Bald Point project. That relatively large number of potential bidders is because the project began as a paving contract, and was later amended to include vertical construction. This changed the licensure requirement as to potential vendors from a situation of no license being required, to a situation where a general contractor or building contractor license would be required. Some of the bidders appearing on the plan holders list are just paving contractors, and therefore, under the amended project, they would no longer qualify to bid on the entire job, although they might be sub-contractors. Not all bidders who bid on the Bald Point Project are listed on the plan holders list. The Petitioner's argument that the Respondent may have had more of the 19 potential bidders actually submit bids, if the other vendors had known that the Respondent would accept bid bonds from a surety rated less than "A+" is not persuasive. It is impossible to determine how many contactors actually reviewed the Bald Point Project plans and for what reasons they decided not to submit a bid. Seven of the eight bidders submitted bid bonds from surety's rated "A" rather than "A+." It certainly seems obvious that those bidders did not interpret the bid bond specification as requiring a bid bond from an "A+" rated surety company or better. Moreover, all potential vendors, whether they bid or not, who reviewed the specifications should have known when they read the specification that there was no rating requirement attendant to the bid bond (as evidenced by the fact that seven of the eight bidders competing in this situation obviously seemed to be so aware and did not submit an "A+" surety for the bid bond). Thus, in this context, the Respondent's interpretation of this specification is not anti- competitive. The Petitioner also contends that the Respondent acted contrary to its policy by accepting bid bonds from all eight bidders and not disqualifying all but the Petitioner's bid, since it alone submitted one carrying an "A+" rating. The Petitioner refers to past practices of the Respondent as being its "policy." In this particular, the Petitioner and Respondent were involved in a prior bid procurement and protest involving the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve Headquarters project (ANERR). The Petitioner in that situation was the lowest bidder, but had its bid disqualified. The Petitioner uses the prior project specification as evidence of what the Respondent's policy is with regard to situations such as that in the instant case. The solicitation specification regarding bonds for the ANERR project, however, was different from the solicitation specification for the Bald Point Project. The solicitation specification for the ANERR project required that all bonds have at least a minimum rating of "A" in the latest issue of the Best Rating Guide. The Petitioner submitted a bid bond from a surety company rated "A-" with its bid for the ANERR Project. The bid was therefore deemed non-responsive by the Respondent Agency and the bid was disqualified for failing to meet the solicitation specification. The Petitioner's president testified that he read the specification for the Bald Point Project and he conceded that it was different from the specification for the ANERR Project. The Petitioner's argument that, apparently, the Respondent's policy or practice in the ANERR Project situation should be applied to interpretation of the bonding requirement for the Bald Point Project is not persuasive. Clearly the specification concerning the bid bond and bond rating was different between the two projects. The attempted application of the purported past policy or practice of the Department to interpret the Bald Point specification concerning the bid bond, to require an "A+" rating for the bid bond, when the specification term clearly does not provide it (merely because that was the policy or practice in the ANERR project case, involving a different specification) amounts to an untimely collateral attempt to alter the specification of the Bald Point Project. Such would amount to a material deviation from the specifications because it would disqualify seven of the eight bidders (and would likely have resulted in fewer bids had potential bidders been on notice of that policy or interpretation). In like manner, the Petitioner relies on the case of Gum Creek Farms, Inc., v. Department of Environmental Protection, Case No. OGC 07-2623 (FO: June 20, 2008) as evidence of the Respondent's policy with regard to bond rating requirements. In that case, as in the ANERR situation, the solicitation specification was different from the Bald Point specification at issue. Because the two situations referenced above are different from the Bald Point Project as to the specification requirements, they cannot be said to be evidence of a policy or regular practice by the Agency which would be applicable to this case, since the specific requirements of the bid specifications in this solicitation are what drive the necessary bid responses. Over a period of approximately 10 years the Department has engaged in bid procurement with regard to approximately 600 projects. The Respondent has, during that time, consistently required compliance with its surety ratings specifications in its bid solicitations. This is because an adequate surety bonding for payment and performance is an important means for the Respondent to manage its risk as the owner of a project. Thus, whatever the specifications concerning bond ratings are for a particular project, the Respondent has consistently required compliance with them. In the instant situation, the Respondent re-wrote its rating specification for the Bald Point Project so that it was different from the other two projects referenced and discussed above. It has re-written its specifications on other occasions as well, which is within its prerogatives. Timeliness of Payment and Performance Bond Notification The general conditions of the contract require that the contractor submit evidence of its ability to provide acceptable payment and performance bonds within two working days of being notified of a successful bid. The contractor has 10 days to actually furnish the bonds. The testimony of Michael Renard, of the Department, shows, however, that as a practical matter, it is not a material deviation if a contractor does not supply evidence of ability to provide compliant bonds precisely within that time period. The actual payment and performance bonds are usually submitted to the Respondent at the time the contract is actually signed or shortly thereafter. Sometimes it may be a longer period of time before the contractor submits payment and performance bonds. This might occur because authorization to sign a contract is suspended due to budgetary concerns or due to lack of funding availability. The Respondent does not require and contractors do not generally wish to expend their capital for payment of a surety premium until a contract is actually signed and in effect, and the Agency's funding is approved and released, as persuasively shown by the testimony of Michael Renard and Ben Withers. The winning bidder herein, Withers, did not provide evidence of ability to provide compliant payment and performance bonds within two days of being notified of being the lowest bidder. This was because the protest was filed during the intervening time and Withers and the Respondent were of the good faith belief that all responsive efforts to the solicitation were tolled upon notice being provided that a protest had been filed. In fact, because a protest was filed, triggering a formal proceeding to determine which entity might ultimately be the contractor, it could not be determined that there was, as yet, a winning bidder or contract, as a necessary pre-requisite to issuance of payment and performance bonds. In fact, the Respondent has received evidence of Withers' ability to provide compliant payment and performance bonds. This evidence was provided after Withers was informed that a co-surety rating would be acceptable to the Respondent and in compliance with the bid specification. This treatment, of allowing a co-surety rating as being acceptable was also accorded the Petitioner, who submitted a co-surety proposal. There is no persuasive evidence that the fact that Withers may have supplied evidence of a compliant payment and performance bond beyond the above-referenced time limits had anything to do with selection of Withers over the Petitioner or other bidders and thus provided a competitive advantage for Withers. The Petitioner filed its written evidence of ability to provide the payment and performance bonds on February 20, 2009, almost a month after the posting of the Intent to Award. It did not even become incumbent upon Withers to submit such evidence regarding payment and performance bond compliance until after it was notified that it was a successful bidder. As pertinent to the issues in this proceeding, Withers was selected, in essence, because its bid submittal was compliant with the bid bonding requirement, other specifications, and was the lowest bid. The fact that Withers went beyond the time limits for furnishing evidence of compliant payment and performance bonds, occurred after the initial choice by the Agency as to the awarded bidder, here under review. Thus, Withers' excession of the time limit regarding the payment and performance bond evidence submittal, etc., is not a material deviation from specifications, as to the manner in which the award decision was made. It is of no consequence because, with the initiation of a formal proceeding, there was not even a final award and contract as yet. Finally, although argument was made concerning whether the Respondent had waived the requirement of payment and performance bonds from an "A+" down to an "A" rating, the persuasive evidence shows that the Respondent never did waive the rating requirement in order to post the award to Withers. The Respondent has established that there was no need for it to waive the "A+" rating requirement, and it had no intent to do so.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection dismissing the protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Department of Management Services acted arbitrarily, fraudulently, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the bid proposed by Petitioner Stimsonite Corporation; and Whether the Department of Management Services' proposed award of a contract to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Inc. was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent or dishonest.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1995, DMS mailed to interested vendors ITB No. 20-550-590-A for Sign Material, Reflective Sheeting & Related Materials. Stimsonite and 3M were among the vendors who received copies of the ITB. After receiving the ITB, no interested vendor, including Stimsonite and 3M, requested that DMS clarify any of the ITB's general or special terms and conditions. Similarly, no one timely filed any protest to challenge any ITB terms or conditions. On or about December 28, 1995, DMS opened the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Thereafter, DMS evaluated the bids and determined which were responsive to the ITB requirements. Stimsonite and 3M were the only vendors to submit bid prices for ITB Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22, which pertain to reflective sheeting. DMS's bid tabulations reflect that 3M and Stimsonite offered the following bid prices, per square foot, for reflective sheeting under ITB Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22: Item No. 13 15 22 Stimsonite $3.5489 $3.2199 $3.2199 3M $3.588 $3.25 $3.25 On or about January 23, 1996, DMS posted the bid tabulations. DMS's bid tabulations specify an NAS (not as specified) code indicating reasons why it rejected certain bids. Stimsonite's bids on ITB Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22 were rejected as non-responsive with an indication of NAS Code 1. NAS Code 1 provides: "Vendor did not submit diskette as required by the bid." Stimsonite admittedly did not include a computer diskette with its 1995 bid. Because of the absence of the diskette, the Stimsonite bid had neither a price list nor a material list. No responding vendor, except 3M, included a computer diskette in response to the 1995 ITB. l3. DMS consistently rejected all bids submitted in response to its 1995 ITB which failed to include the required computer diskette(s). In evaluating the 1995 bids, DMS reviewed the material list information that 3M submitted with its bid in hard copy and on computer diskette. DMS posted its intent to award the bid to the only fully responsive bidder, 3M. Shortly after DMS posted the 1995 bid tabulations with its intent to award to 3M as the only responsive bidder, Stimsonite urged DMS to accept a materials list that Stimsonite had prepared on computer diskette. DMS refused to accept this diskette, which Stimsonite was offering nearly a month after the 1995 bid opening date. DMS rejected Stimsonite's late offering of the diskette because it was offered after bid opening, because it was offered after evaluation of bids, and because DMS's intent to award already had been posted. However, the greater weight of the evidence is that Stimsonite's after-offered diskette would not have met the 1995 ITB specifications even if it had been submitted simultaneously with Stimsonite's bid response. The after-offered diskette failed to offer the required size widths of reflective sheeting or the accessory items used with the sheeting such as process colors, inks, clears, and thinners. Stimsonite timely challenged the rejection of its 1995 bid as non- responsive and timely challenged DMS's intent to award the contract to 3M. Stimsonite contended, with regard to its failure to timely submit a conforming diskette, that the clear language of the 1995 ITB did not require the submission of a diskette for the items Stimsonite had chosen to bid on, and that submission of such a diskette could legitimately be made only by the successful bidder after bid opening. The 1995 ITB, which is at issue in this proceeding, contains the following Special Conditions directly related to a material list on Page 4: FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID On all bids which require any of the following documents: Manufacturer's or Dealer's Published Price Lists, Authorized Dealer's List Authorized Service Center Locations. Bidder shall provide these documents, with his bid, in a letter quality text response and with computer diskette media. The format for the computer diskette media shall be: WordPerfect 5.1 file format using an IBM Compatible Personal Computer, On 8-1/2" x 11" paper with portrait orientation, Margins: Left: minimum .3 inch; Right: minimum .8 inch, Top & Bottom: minimum .5 inch, Font: Courier 10 cpi, 3.5 or 5.25 inch diskette media, No landscape, No Tables or Columns, No Line Draw, No pictures, No strike- throughs and No Graphics allowed. These documents shall be submitted in hard copy as well as on 3.5 or 5.25 inch diskette media. [Failure to comply with this requirement will result in disqualification of your bid.] [Emphasis supplied] MATERIAL LIST A material list shall be provided on diskette formatted as specified in the Special Cond- ition "FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID" along with a print out of same for each item bid. The information must include product number for color, and size specified sheeting under the DMS thirteen (13) digit commodity number. If prices are included on the materials list they must be contract prices. [This list may be included on the same diskette as "Format for Submission of Bid" listed above.] (Emphasis supplied) Some other provisions of the 1995 ITB which affect the issues in this case are as follows: General Condition 4(b) on page 1 of the ITB specifies: ELIGIBLE USERS: Under Florida Law use of State contracts shall be available to political sub- divisions (county, local county board of public instruction, municipal or other local public agency or authority) and State Univer- sities, which may desire to purchase under the terms and conditions of the contract. General Condition 5 provides: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No addition- al terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and condi- tions shall have no force and effect and are inapplicable to this bid. If submitted either purposely through intent or design or inadver- tently appearing separately in transmittal letters, specifications, literature, price lists or warranties, it is understood and agreed the general and special conditions in this bid solicitation are the only conditions applicable to this bid and the bidder's autho- rized signature affixed to the bidder acknow- ledgment form attests to this. General Condition 7 states: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of the bid opening and the bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full comp- liance with this provision. . . General Condition 15 states: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: Applicable provisions of all Federal, State, county and local laws, and of all ordinances, rules and regulations shall govern development, submittal and evalua- tion of all bids received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and dis- putes which may arise between person(s) hereto and the State of Florida, by and through its officers, employees and authorized represent- atives, or any other person natural or other- wise; and lack of knowledge thereof shall not constitute a legal defense against the effect thereof. General Condition 26 provides that: [THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER(S) MUST PROVIDE: a copy of any product literature and price list, in excellent quality black image on white paper.] [Emphasis supplied] On the bottom of page 2, after the list of General Conditions, there is a note which states: [ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FROM THESE GENERAL CONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE.] THIS SHEET AND THE ACCOMPANYING BID CONSTITUTE AN OFFER FROM THE BIDDER. IF ANY OR ALL PARTS OF THE BID ARE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVISION OF PURCHASING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, SHALL AFFIX HIS SIGNATURE HERETO, AND THIS SHALL THEN CONSTITUTE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS FORM BECOME A PART OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. [Emphasis supplied] Page 2A of the ITB contains a Vendor Bid Preparation Checklist. No. 16 thereof reminds all bidders to review the FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID for compliance with bid requirements. After the list of General Conditions, the Special Conditions begin on page 3 of the ITB. Among the Special Conditions of note in addition to the FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID and MATERIAL LIST, stated above, are: PURPOSE: ...to establish a 12 month contract by all State of Florida agencies and other eligible users ... TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION: ... When technical documentation is required by this ITB, its pur- pose is to demonstrate compliance of the pro- duct bid with applicable technical require- ments of the ITB and to allow a technical evaluation of the product. [Failure to provide the required technical documentation with the bid submittal shall make the bidder nonre- sponsive], unless the Division of Purchasing, in its sole discretion and in the best inte- rest of the State, determines the accept- ability of the products offered through technical documentation available within the Division [as of the date and time of bid opening]. ... [Emphasis supplied] ACCESSORIES: [Inks, colors, clears, and thinners, required for use with non-perfor- ated commodities shall be included in the price per square foot bid price.] [Emphasis supplied] BALANCE OF LINE: [The bidder shall bid a balance of line which will include options and accessories at a fixed discount. Only vendors awarded specified sheeting items will be eligible for a balance of line award. Items in the balance of line which are dupli- cative of those specified will be deleted. The balance of line price list must be in effect on the date and time of the bid opening]. [Emphasis supplied] The Specification Summary and Bid Price Sheets for bidding items 13, 15, and 22 of the ITB are found on pages 25, 26, and 27 of the ITB and were as follows: SPECIFICATION SUMMARY AND PRICE SHEET COMMODITY NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION NET DELIVERED PRICE 550-590-350-0100 Sheeting, not perforated, reflective, Type IIIA, or Type IIIC sizes 1" through 48" by 50 yds, with a precoated pressure sensitive adhesive backing (Class I). Primer Not Required. Sheeting (Both Types) shall be available in no less than the following colors: blue, brown, green, yellow, and silver-white. Sheeting Manufacturer: Product No./Series: FDOT Qualified Products List Approval No. $ PER SQ. FT. (13 [Inks, colors, clears and thinners for use with non-preforated commodities shall be in- cluded in the per square foot price bid]. [Emphasis supplied] VENDOR: SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY AND PRICE SHEET COMMOD- ITY NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION NET DELIVERED PRICE 550-590-350-0120 Sheeting, not perforated, reflective, Type IIIA, or Type IIIC sizes 1" through 48" by 50 yds, with a precoated pressure sensitive adhesive backing (Class I). Primer Not Required. Sheeting (Both Types) shall be available in no less than the following color: orange Sheeting Manufacturer: Product No./Series: FDOT Qualified Products List Approval No. $ PER SQ. FT. (15 [Inks, colors, clears and thinners for use with non-preforated commodities shall be included in the per square foot price bid.] [Emphasis supplied] VENDOR: SPECIFICATION SUMMARY AND PRICE SHEET COMMODITY NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION NET DELIVERED PRICE 550-590-760-2600 Reflective sheeting, construction barricade sheeting, Type IIA, or IIIA, or IIIB, or IIIC pressure sensitive adhesive backing (Class I). 4" or 6" orange and white or orange and silver strips running diagonally across the sheeting at a 45 degree angle, size 12", 24" and 36" by 50 yds. Sheeting Manufacturer: Product No./Series: FDOT Qualified Products List Approval No. $ PER SQ. FT. (22 [Inks, colors, clears and thinners for use with non-preforated commodities shall be in- cluded in the per square foot price bid.] [Emphasis supplied] VENDOR: After the item-by-item specifications, the ITB provides a page (page 39) of specification summary and price sheet for bidding the "balance of line discount offered for directly related sign material, not specified on the Bid Price Sheet." That format requires that the bidder state a fixed percentage discount from the price list for balance of line items. "Balance of Line" as used by DMS in the ITB refers to any and all accessories that might be used with the individual Items that are bid. Stimsonite's bid supervisor claimed that Stimsonite's failure to submit a diskette containing a material list was a reasonable, and indeed a clear and unambiguous, reading of the 1995 ITB. He had read the ITB to provide that the three categories of list (a manufacturer's or dealer's published price list, authorized dealer list, or authorized service center location list) which were named under the Special Condition, FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID, on page 4 were required to be submitted on a diskette with the bid, but he also considered that the diskette was not required for the three items that Stimsonite bid upon (Items 13, 15, and 22 on pages 25, 26, and 27 at Finding of Fact 20 supra) because none of the categories of list under FORMAT were required specifically within those Item No. specifications on the subsequent specification pages. Apparently due to the admonition at the bottom of ITB page 2 of the General Conditions [see Finding of Fact 19(f)], he assumed that the Item No. instructions on the specifications and price summary sheets on pages 25, 26, and 27 took precedence over, i.e. supplanted, the Special Condition MATERIAL LIST paragraph requiring a material list for every item in both hard copy and on diskette which also included the requirement of including product numbers for color, size, and DMS commodity numbers. Stimsonite's bid supervisor also asserted that because the Special Condition MATERIAL LIST paragraph and the Item No. specifications of pages 25, 26, and 27 did not specifically reiterate that the material list diskette must be submitted with the bid, the material list diskette legitimately could be submitted after the bid award, as was attempted by Stimsonite. He ostensibly interpreted General Condition 26, applicable to successful bidders, to mean that only successful bidders must provide a price list and a material list. Accordingly, Stimsonite further argued in the alternative that even if the ITB could be construed to require submission of a material list on diskette, Stimsonite's failure to submit the diskette to DMS with the rest of its bid response was only a minor irregularity unworthy of being ruled unresponsive because DMS had no substantive need for the information on the material list diskette until it decided which bidder was going to be the successful bidder. The bid supervisor's perception that the information on the diskette was not needed for bid evaluation purposes was another reason he ostensibly did not timely submit a diskette. Stimsonite has not asserted that late submission was a waiveable irregularity. 1/ In fact and to the contrary, the diskette is used by DMS to evaluate bids for responsiveness. This evaluation technique was introduced in 1994. It allows the reviewer, in this case, Ms. Boynton, to use the material list on the diskette to determine if each bidder has actually bid everything DMS asked for in the item by item specifications. Without a diskette, the reviewer cannot confirm that a bid matches the ITB. DMS uses the bidder's material list on diskette to confirm that the bidder currently manufactures the full range of sheeting widths and sizes (1 inch through 48 inches by 50 yards), as the ITB requires, which is a nonstandard range in the reflective sheeting industry. Additionally, DMS uses the material list diskette to confirm that the bidder proposes to make the full range of required sheeting widths and sizes available to state and local government purchasers. (See General Condition (4)(b) ELIGIBLE USERS and Special Condition PURPOSE in the ITB) DMS also uses the material list diskette to ensure that the bidder will make the required range of inks, clears, colors, and thinners available at the bid price. After the bid has been awarded, Ms. Boynton also uses the diskette for dissemination to contract users for ordering purposes on the electronic contract system. The diskette system saves DMS the time and cost of wordprocessing data from hard copy and avoids transcription erors. This was one of the purposes behind DMS' decision to start requiring a diskette in 1994. It comports with General Condition 4(b) ELIGIBLE USERS and Special Conditions PURPOSE. The Stimsonite bid supervisor did not have a manufacturer's price list and was not offering any accessories other than those inks, etc. covered under the Special Condition ACCESSORIES paragraph and those stated on pages 25, 26, and 27. Therefore, he did not read the Special Condition BALANCE OF LINE paragraph saying duplicates listed on page 39 for balance of line would be disregarded by DMS as an indicator that DMS expected any balance of line bids to include more than just the inks, etc. listed under ACCESSORIES and on pages 25, 26, and 27. Because he could not conceive of any balance of line more extensive than the inks, etc. which seemed to him to be excluded by the language on the specifications summary and price sheets for each Item No. (ITB pages 25, 26, and 27) and the balance of line summary and price sheet (page 39), and because Stimsonite was offering these inks, etc. within the price per square foot of sheeting at no extra charge on pages 25, 26, and 27, Stimsonite's bid supervisor felt that the diskette was not needed to evaluate these prices. Therefore, when he showed a balance of line on the balance of line summary sheet (ITB page 39) he showed no discount and he submitted no material list or price list on diskette. The ITB required a discount if a balance of line was offered under Special Condition BALANCE OF LINE. According to DMS employees, a price list was only necessary if a balance of line was bid. If a balance of line was bid, then a price list was necessary. The result of Stimsonite's interpretation of the 1995 ITB was that Stimsonite submitted a bid without a diskette which therefore contained neither a price list nor a material list. The hard copy offered a balance of line with no discount from a price list. Responsiveness in bidding Item Nos 13, 15, and 22 in 1995 did not require that vendors submit an authorized dealer's list or service center location list. The ITB used the language "shall submit" with regard to bidding a balance of line, but according to Ms. Boynton, the evaluator, and Mr. Barker, Chief of DMS's Bureau of Procurement, submission of a balance of line was not mandatory. Ms. Boynton speculated that if DMS did not get a balance of line bid from a responding bidder, DMS "might possibly find it was a minor irregularity." Clearly, the ITB provided that if there were any duplications on the balance of line offering, the agency could unilaterally delete them. However, if a vendor did bid a balance of line, DMS would need a price list, since with a balance of line and no price list, there was no way to evaluate the bid because DMS then could not calculate what the percentage reduction would be based upon. Therefore, under this situation in 1995, Stimsonite's balance of line bid with no price list on diskette was rejected as nonresponsive. 2/ The greater weight of the credible evidence, particularly but not exclusively that of Ms. Boynton, Mr. Barker, and Mr. Johnson, is that allowing any bidder to turn in the diskette after bid opening and award would give that bidder the advantage of changing the balance of line prices. If permitted to submit the material list after award, the bidder could elect to offer only one size which would impose an additional cost on the contract users to provide labor and expertise to cut to size, thus lowering the bidder's cost. Under a scenario which required only successful bidders to submit a diskette, DMS would not have the opportunity to reject the bid if the information on the diskette was nonconforming to the bid specifications. The bidder who delayed or never submitted a diskette also could exclude cities and counties from the cost-saving electronic contract system and could take telephone orders from the Department of Transportation, one of the agencies eligible to tie-in to DMS's electronic contract. Requiring a diskette only after award might permit the successful bidder to limit the sizes and colors offered. By not submitting a diskette at all, even late, a bidder could even disqualify its bid and back out of the contract if that bidder unilaterally decided its bid was too low or if the price of raw materials increased. Experience with successful bidders who ultimately failed to submit a material list at all was another reason for DMS's decision to start requiring a diskette in 1994. Any of the foregoing situations creates an advantage to the bidder who files a diskette late or the bidder who never files a diskette. Any of the foregoing situations increases costs to the state agency and contract users. Factually, this is a material irregularity. Stimsonite alleged that 3M was unresponsive because its bid transmittal letter contained a paragraph on terms and conditions of sale and warranties. However, it appears that the warranty language in 3M's transmittal letter actually enhances its bid. Also, it is standard practice for DMS to ignore these letters pursuant to ITB General Condition 5, which states that transmittal letter variances are of no force and effect. Factually, since 3M's letter cannot be relied upon by 3M either to enhance or diminish its bid, and since all such letters are disregarded in the bid evaluation/tabulation, the transmittal letter is a minor, nondisqualifying irregularity as to the 3M bid. Stimsonite asserted that the 3M diskette was not responsive to the ITB specifications. There is no dispute that the diskette 3M submitted was in the wrong font. However, since font size can be customized by a "click" on a computer mouse, and since Ms. Boynton was able to use 3M's diskette for the purposes intended by the ITB specifications, the irregular font size of 3M's diskette is found factually to constitute an immaterial flaw not worthy of declaring 3M's bid nonresponsive. Finally, Stimsonite contended that because the 3M bid failed to answer an ITB question that requested information about why a vendor's price list was item by item higher or lower than previous years, the entire 3M bid was unresponsive. This contention was not acknowledged as viable by the agency witnesses. DMS, like 3M, viewed this question as only information gathering for some cost trend analysis by the agency apart from bid evaluation. The information requested could not alter the bid price offered by 3M and is not necessary to DMS's evaluation of its bid or comparison of its bid with other bids. It is a flaw systematically ignored by the agency in bid evaluation. There was no evidence that any bid has ever been rejected for such a flaw. The absence of such information does not affect the cost to the agency nor does its absence provide an advantage to 3M. Factually, it is a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order ratifying its award of ITB 20-550-590-A Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22 to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Inc. and dismissing the bid protest Petition of Stimsonite. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of June, 1996, at 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 14th day of June, 1996.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation ("Department") erred by considering Willeby Construction, Inc. ("Willeby") a qualified bidder; whether the requirement to submit a bid bond or certified funds check or draft (hereafter "security on the bid") with the bid was a material requirement; whether the Department erred in treating Willeby’s failure to include security on the bid with its bid proposal as a minor, and, thereby, an irregularity which could be waived; and whether said decision of the Department was contrary to the terms of the bid, contrary to law, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact On November 14, 2000, the Department issued a bid solicitation notice for Financial Project No. 40509417201/Contract No. E3A78, a contract for routine mowing of grassed and vegetated roadside areas and litter removal from within the Department’s highway right-of-way in Gadsden and Leon Counties. The invitation to bid stated: In a letter dated November 17, 2000 from Richard Norris of the Department District Contracts Office to all prospective bidders, the Department reiterated the bid bond requirement stating "[i]f your bid is over $150,000, a Bid Bond of 5 percent of the bid amount is required and must be attached to your bid proposal. Failure to submit this with your bid will result in your bid being rejected." (Emphasis is in original.) The invitation to bid further stated: BID OR PROPOSAL BOND (If bid is over $150,000): Must be completely executed if bid is over $150,000. This 5 percent bid bond is required and must be included in your bid package. If bid is less than $150,000 no bid bond shall be necessary, however, the successful bidder shall be required to obtain a performance bond upon execution of the contract. The purpose of the requirement for security on the bid is to compensate the Department for damages in the event the low bidder fails to enter into the contract. The Department received bid proposals from six firms in response to its bid solicitation by the due date of December 7, 2000. The lowest bidder for Contract No. E3A78 was Willeby. Willeby submitted a business check drawn on Willeby’s business account no. 02-140168-01 with Farmers & Merchants Bank. This was an unsecured, personal check. At the time the bids were opened, Willeby’s Account No. 02-140168-01 contained insufficient funds to cover the check Willeby submitted as its bid bond in the amount of $11,996.52 for Contract No. E3A78. Willeby failed to submit the required security on the bid in the form of a cashier’s check, bank money order, bank draft of any national or state bank, or surety bond, payable to the State of Florida, Department of Transportation as required by the solicitation. The Petitioner, Phoenix, was the second lowest bidder. Phoenix submitted a bid bond equal to 5 percent of its total bid with its bid package. Phoenix fully complied with all the requirements of the invitation to bid. Bids for Contract No. E3A78 were opened on Thursday December 7, 2000. At that time, the Department's personnel discovered that Willeby had failed to submit security on bid as required by the terms of the bid solicitation. On December 15, 2000, eight days after the Department discovered that Willeby’s bid submittal was deficient, Starsky Harrell, the contract specialist with the District III office of the Department, telephoned W.J. Willeby, the president of Willeby Construction. Harrell informed Mr. Willeby that Willeby’s bid was non-conforming, and gave Willeby the opportunity to cure its non-responsive bid by submitting a check for certified funds or a bid bond as required by the bid solicitation. Willeby, at this point, had the opportunity to cure the defect or refuse to cure the defect, thereby, negating his bid. This gave Willeby an advantage not enjoyed by the other bidders. Willeby chose to cure its non-responsive bid, and submitted a certified check as its security on the bid. Willeby, thereafter, entered into the contract with the Department on Monday, December 18, 2000, eleven days after the bids were opened. The Department posted its intent to award Contract No. E3A78 on December 21, 2000, indicating its intent to award the contract to Willeby Construction. Phoenix timely filed this formal protest in opposition to the award of Contract No. E3A78 as contrary to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2000). Regarding the requirements for security on the bid required in the solicitation for the bid and accompanying materials, Richard Norris, the contracts administrator, made the decision to emphasize the language by having it in bold-face type and underlined. His purpose for underlining and placing in bold-face type this language was to "put some accent on it, to make it stand out." A basic tenet of competitive procurement is to protect the integrity of the bidding process and ensure open and fair competition. A responsive bid is one which meets all the requirements of the proposal documents. Mr. Willeby has entered bids on Department contracts seventeen times in the past. Willeby is an experienced participant in the bid process. A bidder who has the option of taking a contract or not taking a contract after the bidder knows what the other bids are on a project has a competitive advantage over other bidders. If the bidder has bid too close to the profit margin, the bidder can refuse to cure the bid defect and avoid performance on the unprofitable contract. It is not only less expensive for a person to submit a personal check for security on a bid, but a stop payment order can be issued on a personal check. The bid bond posted by the Petitioner cost $800.00. This amount is not refundable. However, the proposal provides alternatives to a bid bond to establish security on the bid; therefore, paying the cost of the bond is not a competitive disadvantage. It is noted that a personal check is not among the alternatives, and the bid proposal's provisions for bid security specifically provide that checks or drafts for less than 5 percent of the bid amount will invalidate the bid. The only checks or drafts permitted under the terms of the bid proposal are those checks secured by the banking institution's funds and not subject to stop payment orders of the person in whose behalf the check is issued. It is consistent with the stated terms of invalidation, that, in addition to an insufficient amount, that an instrument not meeting the stated terms of the provision would also invalidate the bid. If being a dollar short on the secured amount is disqualifying, being short the entire amount in secured funds would be similarly disqualifying. Evidence was received regarding whether Willeby was a qualified bidder. This information related to the nature and amount of the equipment which Willeby had, and its financial ability to obtain additional equipment. Although Willeby did not have some of the equipment necessary to handle this job and its other contract obligations, he had ordered this equipment and his bank indicated that it would loan him the money. It was not developed whether the bank's willingness was dependent upon the pendency of the challenged contract award, and it is concluded that Willeby is a qualified bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the bid of Willeby Construction on Contract No. E3A78 be rejected, and the contract be awarded to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Julius F. Parker, III, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian A. Crumbaker, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
