The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received on a contract to deliver food and supplies to the public school cafeterias in Broward County.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Invitation to Bid On September 28, 2000, the Board issued ITB 21-076B for procurement of “Mainline Foods and Supplies for Cafeterias.” Through this solicitation the Board sought to let a four-year contract, renewable for two additional one- year periods, pursuant to which the successful bidder would deliver food and supplies to the approximately 192 public school cafeterias in Broward County, Florida. Sysco is the incumbent supplier of foods and supplies for the Board’s cafeterias. The ITB listed and described the desired foods and supplies in two separate sections, Section 5.09 and Section 6.02. Bidders were required to bid on each of the 186 individual items listed in the Product Bid Sheets that comprise Section 5.09. In contrast, bidders were instructed not to quote prices for the 130 items listed in Section 6.02; rather, the ITB provided that “[t]he awardee, once selected, shall submit to the [Board] product costs and selling prices for items in Section 6.02.” This protest focuses on particular specifications of the Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 and is not concerned with Section 6.02. The Product Bid Sheets in Section 5.09 were composed of tables consisting of eight columns and, in total, 189 rows — one row for each item and three empty or "open" rows requiring no response. The first three columns, from left to right, set forth information that identified each item sought. At each row, Column 1 contained the “Sequence Number” that the Board had assigned to each product “for tracking purposes.” Column 2 in each row contained a description of the product to be purchased. So-called “approved brands” for each item were listed in Column 3. The ITB identified “approved brands” in several ways. The most specific identification was by brand name and product code or number, for example “Tony’s 78642.” This form of identification designated a particular manufacturer’s particular product. The term “approved branded product” will be used herein to refer to this type of specific product identification in Column 3. For many items, an approved brand was identified by manufacturer’s name only, without an accompanying product code, e.g. “Lykes ________.” The ITB instructed bidders that “[i]f a code number, name, or color is not listed by [the Board] along with an approved brand[,] the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided.” (ITB, Section 5.03.) In this Recommended Order, the term “brand-only approval” will denote a brand approval that lacked a specific product code. Finally, the ITB identified a large number of approved brands in Column 3 of Section 5.09 by the term “Distributor’s Choice,” meaning the distributor’s brand of choice. Bidders were instructed to “enter, in the space provided, the brand and code” when quoting a Distributor’s Choice. (ITB, Section 5.03.) For 84 of the 186 items listed in the Product Bid Sheets, the approved brands in Column 3 were identified exclusively as Distributor’s Choice.1 Thus, for nearly half of the Section 5.09 items, the bidder needed to select a brand and product that fit the specifications set forth in Column 2. For another 15 items, Column 3 contained brand-only approvals, meaning that the bidder was required to select an appropriate product from the approved manufacturer’s line. Brand-only approvals were combined with a Distributor’s Choice option in Column 3 for ten additional items. Consequently, there were 109 items — 59% of the total — on which the bidders were not given the option of bidding an approved branded product. Conversely, for 23 items Column 3 listed just one approved branded product, leaving the bidders no alternative but to bid on a particular manufacturer's particular product. Similarly, for 26 additional items, at least two approved branded products were listed, giving bidders a choice but not requiring them to compare the specifically designated brand- name products with the product descriptions in Column 2. In sum, bidders were obligated (and entitled) to bid an approved branded product on at least 49 items. There were 28 items for which Column 3 combined an approved branded product (or products) with either a brand- only approval (or approvals) or a Distributor’s Choice option.2 Accordingly, a bidder could, in theory, have quoted prices on as many as 77 approved branded products. At the other extreme, a bidder could have bid 137 items for which it had selected brand, product code, or both. Of the 186 items listed in Section 5.09, four are at the heart of the instant dispute. Ignoring for present purposes the sequences above and below the at-issue items, these four were described as follows in the first three columns of the Product Bid Sheets:3 1 SEQ NO. 2 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 3 APPROVED BRANDS 1009 Breakfast Pizza (F). Crust topped with cheese, gravy, scrambled eggs and bacon. Minimum size 3 oz. to meet 1 meat/meat alternate plus 1 bread serving. CN Label. Tony’s 63564 Nardone’s 80MSA-100 Size of portion oz. 1036 Pizza, French Bread, Southland Bagel Pepperoni (F): 50-50 8953S Mozzarella blend. Minimum Prestige 30215 5.45 oz. to meet 2 oz. Nordone’s _________ meat/meat alternative and 2 KT Kitchen ________ bread servings. CN label. Size portion oz. 1037 Pizza, Mexican Style (F). Tony’s 63669 Minimum 5 ounces to meet 2 Nordone’s 100MA oz. meat/meat alternate and 1 KT Kitchens 01476 ½ bread serving. With or w/o VPP. CN label. Size portion oz. 2010 Pancake and Sausage (F) Pancake batter around a link sausage on a stick. 2.5 oz. State Fair 70601 Leon’s 28002 Foster Farms 96113 Minimum weight to meet 1 oz. meat/meat alternative and 1 bread serving. CN Label. Size of portion: oz. Other provisions of the ITB are relevant to this protest as well. Section 7 of the General Conditions of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any items or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets shall be noted “BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY.” All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Section 1.03 of the ITB’s Special Conditions stated in pertinent part as follows: AWARD: A contract shall be awarded IN ITS ENTIRETY to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder (See Section 4.01) with the lowest initial product cost plus fixed fee and meeting all specifications terms and conditions of the bid. It is necessary to bid on every item on the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09) in order to have your bid considered for award. Product costs shall be stated in the spaces provided in the Product Bid Sheets (Section 5.09). All items shall have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item shall result in disqualification of bid submitted. Bidder shall carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. Any item that does not meet the specifications shall be disqualified. Section 1.10 of the ITB stated as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning any condition or requirement of this bid shall be received in the Purchasing Department in writing on or before October 11, 2000. Submit all questions to the attention of the individual stated in Section 1.37 [sic] of this Bid. If necessary, an Addendum shall be issued. Any verbal or written information which is obtained other than by information in this bid document or by Addenda shall not be binding on the School Board. Section 1.12 of the ITB stated as follows: BRAND STANDARDIZATION: The specified brands and product numbers listed on the Product Bid Sheets have been approved by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department and bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where “Distributor’s Choice” is indicated. If a bidder wishes to have an item placed on this approved list for future bidding, the bidder shall furnish Food and Nutrition Services Department samples of the item for testing purposes. If approved, the Food and Nutrition Services Department shall include the new item on the future list of approved items. In the event that any approved item supplied under this bid does not prove satisfactory, that item shall be removed from the approved list until such time as correction is made to the satisfaction of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. Section 1.13 of the ITB stated as follows: PRODUCT NUMBER CORRECTIONS: If the product number for the brand specified on the Product Bid Sheets is: a) no longer available and has been replaced with a new updated number with new specifications, the bidder should submit complete descriptive literature on the new product number; or b) incorrect, the corrected product number should be noted on the Product Bid Sheets, in the space provided. Section 1.35 of the ITB stated as follows: INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mr. Charles High, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (954) 765-6107 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mr. High nor any employee of [the Board] is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with Special Condition 1.10. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. Section 2.03 of the ITB stated as follows: ADDING AND DELETING ITEMS: Food and non- food items utilized by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department may be subsequently added, deleted or transferred from or to the lists in Sections 5.09 and 6.0, individually or in groups, at the discretion of SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department Section 5.02 of the ITB provided in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 2: (Product Description) This column provides bidder with descriptions of the products to be purchased, including portion or serving sizes or grades and standards, as may be applicable. Bidders should fill in the information wherever indicated on portion, serving size, etc., and provide manufacturers’ certificates of grades or compliance whenever “CR” is shown. If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. [W]hen evaluating bids, [staff] may request that a bidder furnish, within three days of request, further confirmations of grades and standards, copies of specification sheets, and other product data, as may be required. (Underlining supplied). For ease of reference, the underlined sentence above — which will prove pivotal — will be called the "Reconciliation Clause" in this Recommended Order. Section 5.03 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: COLUMN 3: (Approved Brands*) Prior to acceptance of a bid, all bid brands are subject to review by SBBC Food and Nutrition Services Department for compliance with the bid product requirements. If a code number, name, or color is not listed by SBBC along with an approved brand; the bidder shall enter the code by the brand in the space provided. Whenever quoting a “Distributor’s Choice”, a bidder shall enter, in the space provided, the brand and code. Whenever an approved brand, other than “Distributor’s Choice”, is listed, the bidder should indicate in Column 3 the brand bidding, (circle the brand). IMPORTANT: Some of the codes listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the bidder is to enter the correct code. After award, SBBC may request the awardee to obtain prices and samples for brands and codes not listed. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the requirements of Column 2 is at the discretion of SBBC. A bidder may be requested, prior to bid award, to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Section 5.11 of the ITB stated in pertinent part as follows: CN Label: When a product is CN (Child Nutrition) labeled, it is “certified” by the packer to conform to the nutritional requirements of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The label shows the contribution made by a given amount of product toward meal requirements. When CN label is noted in Column 2 of the Product Bid Sheets, it is understood that the CN label must be in place for the product to be bid. Particular Responses to the Invitation to Bid A. Sequence No. 1009 – Breakfast Pizza At Sequence No. 1009, Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheet contained two approved branded products: Tony’s 63904 and Nardone’s 80MSA-100. School Food quoted a price of $28,500 on the specifically approved Nardone’s product. In preparing its bid, Sysco obtained a product description from Nardone Bros. Baking Co. Inc. ("Nardone") for its 80MSA-100 product. Sysco believed that Nardone’s 80MSA- 100 failed to meet the product description set forth in Column 2 and therefore offered the other approved branded product, Tony’s 63564, at a price of $33,000. A third bidder, Mutual Wholesale Co. ("Mutual Wholesale"), offered to provide the approved Tony’s product at a price of $33,012.00. Sequence No. 1036 – French Bread Pepperoni Pizza The product description in Column 2 of the item listed at Sequence No. 1036 required that a CN label be in place for a product to be bid. A CN label signifies compliance with certain U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. The Board must obey these guidelines to obtain reimbursement for its food services program from federal funding sources. School Food offered the Prestige 30215 approved branded product in its response to Sequence No. 1036 at a price of $30,750. In preparing its response to the ITB, Sysco learned that the Prestige 30215 approved branded product had been submitted for CN label approval but lacked that approval at the time of bidding. Perceiving a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved branded product in Column 3, Sysco concluded that it could not quote a price for Prestige 30215. Instead, Sysco offered to provide another approved brand, KT Kitchen’s 01093, at a cost to the Board of $36,397.50. Like School Food, Mutual Wholesale bid on the Prestige 30215 brand name product, quoting a price of $30,000. As of November 29, 2000, the approved branded product, Prestige 30215, had obtained CN approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sequence No. 1037 – Mexican-Style Pizza In its response to Sequence No. 1037, School Food offered an approved branded product, Nardone's 100MA, quoting a price of $206,620. During its bid preparation, Sysco learned that Nardone used another code for this product — namely, "96MCSA." Sysco believed that it could not bid on "Nardone’s 100MA," even though it was an approved branded product. Thus, in its bid Sysco offered to provide another approved branded product, Tony's 63669, at a price to the Board of $229,800. In its response to Sequence No. 1037, Mutual Wholesale quoted a price of $214,020 for yet another approved branded product, KT Kitchen’s 01476. "Nardone's 100MA" is an actual product code used internally by Nardone to denote an actual, available product that is referred to externally (or "on the street") as "Nardone's 96MCSA." In other words, "Nardone's 100MA" and "Nardone's 96MCSA" refer to the same product. Sequence No. 2010 – Pancake and Sausage In response to Sequence No. 2010, School Food offered to provide an approved branded product, Leon’s 28002, at a cost to the Board of $14,858. Sysco discovered through its bid preparation research that there might be a conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product, which was unambiguously designated in Column 3, because Leon’s 28002 consisted of a "frankfurter" wrapped in a pancake, and Sysco did not consider a "frankfurter" to be a "link sausage."4 As the Board has conceded, unless a bidder knew the products well or made a comparison of the approved branded products to the product description in Column 2, it would not have perceived the possible conflict between that description and the approved Leon’s 28002 brand name product listed in Column 3. Around October 20, 2000, Sysco notified the Board of its concern regarding Sequence No. 2010. In so doing, however, Sysco failed to comply with Section 1.10 of the ITB, which required that questions about the bid specifications be submitted in writing on or before October 11, 2000. In violation of Section 1.10, a Sysco employee named Elaine Blaine, who was responsible for preparing Sysco's bid, left a telephone message with the Board's Purchasing Agent, Charles High, inquiring about Leon's 28002 and letting him know that, in Sysco's opinion, this approved branded product did not match the description in Column 2 of Sequence No. 2010. Mr. High returned Ms. Blaine's phone call on or around October 24, 2000, leaving a message on her voice mail to the effect that Leon's 28002 was not the correct item and advising that another brand name product, Leon's 28012, should be bid in its place. As Section 1.35 of the ITB made plain, however, Mr. High had no authority whatsoever to render an opinion such as this. Although Mr. High's communication with Ms. Blaine was improper, it had no effect on the competitive process. Clearly, Sysco could not reasonably have relied on Mr. High's unauthorized opinion, and anyway it did not do so. Thus, in short, while Mr. High's irregular contact with Ms. Blaine cannot be condoned, his ex parte advice to Sysco fortunately conferred no competitive advantage on any bidder and hence was immaterial. In the end, Sysco offered another approved branded product, State Fair 70601, in lieu of Leon's 28002, quoting a price of $20,111. Mutual Wholesale also bid on State Fair 70601, quoting a price of $20,119.50. Issuance of Addenda and Submission of Bids The Board issued two addenda to the ITB. Addendum No. 1, among other things, inserted the code number for the approved KT Kitchen’s brand name product listed in Column 3 for Sequence No. 1036, and it also changed the approved Foster Farms branded product listed in Sequence No. 2010. The addenda made no other changes to either Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, or 2010. On October 31, 2000, the Board opened the four bids that it had received in response to the ITB. Bids were submitted by Big Bamboo, Inc., Mutual Wholesale, Sysco, and School Food. Big Bamboo, Inc. failed to submit a complete proposal and thus its bid was disqualified as non-responsive. The remaining bids, which were determined to be responsive, offered, respectively, the following total annual contract prices: Mutual Wholesale $9,757,284.86 Sysco $9,656,770.21 School Food $9,263,170.42 Accordingly, School Food was the lowest bidder, its bottom line beating the closest competitor by nearly $400,000 per year. On November 9, 2000, the Board's Purchasing Department posted its recommendation that the contract be awarded to School Food. The Sysco Protest of the Recommended Award On November 13, 2000, Sysco timely filed a notice of intent to protest the recommended award to School Food. Sysco timely filed its formal written protest with the Board on November 22, 2000. Pursuant to rule, a Bid Protest Committee comprised of three administrators is required to meet with a bid protester in accordance with Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, to attempt a resolution of the protest by mutual agreement. By rule, the Bid Protest Committee has been delegated the agency’s authority to perform this function. Consequently, pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, a Bid Protest Committee convened on December 1, 2000, in an attempt to mutually resolve any disputed issues arising out of Sysco's protest. Despite the fact that the thrust of Sysco's protest was an attack on the responsiveness of School Food's bid, School Food was not invited to attend the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, which apparently was not conducted as a public meeting. A court reporter was present, however, and the transcript of the committee's December 1, 2000, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee restricted its review of the procurement to consideration of whether the ITB suffered from defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, even though Sysco’s protest had raised broader issues concerning the responsiveness of School Food's bid. At the December 1, 2000, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, a Board employee named Raymond Papa, whose title is Supervisor of Field Services for Food and Nutrition Service, made the following representations concerning the sequence numbers in question: 1009 (Breakfast Pizza). Mr. Papa claimed to have erred by listing Nardone's 80MSA-100 in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1009. This approved branded product, Mr. Papa told the committee, should have been identified in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1008, which is also a breakfast pizza but has a different product description. 1036 (French Bread Pepperoni Pizza). Mr. Papa informed the committee that Prestige 30215 was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but did not have a CN label "at this time." 1037 (Mexican Style Pizza). Mr. Papa advised the committee that there seemed to be some confusion arising from the ITB's use, in Column 3 of Sequence No. 1037, of the Nardone's product code 100MA, which was the manufacturer's internal code for the approved branded product, instead of the more common "street number" (96MCSA) used in the company's literature. Mr. Papa further explained: "Apparently that code [referring to 100MA] would have given me the right product" — in fact, it would have, see Paragraph 33 above — "but it needs more clarification on my part." 2010 (Pancake and Sausage). Mr. Papa pointed out the purported conflict between the product description in Column 2 of Sequence 2010 and the approved Leon's 28002 brand name product identified in Column 3. He claimed to have been seeking a pancake with a sausage inside, not a frankfurter, asserting that the two meat products were substantially different. The Board’s counsel informed the committee that the specifications for Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 had created sufficient confusion to adversely affect the competition. He urged the committee to remedy this purported confusion by voting to reject all bids so that the contract could be re-advertised with revised specifications. The committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. The three members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee paid no attention to the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation to reject all bids. With little discussion, the three-member Bid Protest Committee voted unanimously to rescind the recommendation to award School Food the contract and to reject all bids on the ground that the specifications were defective and hence that revisions were needed to "level the playing field." A revised recommendation to reject all bids was posted on December 12, 2000. School Food's Protest of the Rejection of All Bids On December 15, 2000, School Food timely filed its notice of intent to protest the Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids. This was timely followed by a formal written protest, which was filed with the Board on December 22, 2000. The revised recommendation posted on December 12, 2000, accurately announced the Board's intention to reject all bids. As noted in School Food's formal bid protest, however, the revised recommendation erroneously stated that the action was taken because “no acceptable bids were received.” To remedy this problem, a corrected revised recommendation was posted by the Board on January 12, 2001. It stated that the rejection of all bids was “due to inaccuracies within the bid specifications.” On January 16, 2001, School Food timely notified the Board of its intent to protest the corrected revised recommendation. Thereafter, on January 24, 2001, School Food timely filed its formal protest of the corrected revised recommendation to reject all bids. School Food posted a bid protest bond in the amount of $5,000 in accordance with School Board Policy 3320. This bond is conditioned upon School Food's payment of the Board's litigation costs should the Board prevail. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3320 and Section 120.57(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the Board's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with School Food on February 9, 2001, in an attempt to mutually resolve any matters in dispute. The Bid Protest Committee was composed of two persons who had participated in the December 1, 2000, meeting and a third member who had not attended that earlier meeting. Sysco received advance notice of the February 9, 2001, meeting of the Bid Protest Committee, and its lawyer was permitted to attend as a witness. These courtesies, tellingly, had not been extended to School Food in connection with the committee meeting that had been held on December 1, 2000, to discuss the original Sysco bid protest. As before, a court reporter was present, and the transcript of the February 9, 2001, meeting is in evidence. The Bid Protest Committee was again informed of staff's opinion that the ITB contained defective specifications in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037 and 2010. At the February 9, 2001 meeting, the Board's counsel argued vigorously in support of the decision to reject all bids. For the most part, his argument was an expanded version of that which had been advanced in favor of rejection at the December 1, 2000, meeting. More emphasis was placed, the second time around, on the concern that the supposedly defective specifications would or might, in some cases, result in the Board not receiving the food items that it had desired. Once again, the committee was not asked to consider the Reconciliation Clause of Section 5.02 of the ITB. And once more, the committee members did not discuss this provision. It is reasonable to infer, and the trier of fact so finds, that the committee failed to take account of the Reconciliation Clause in weighing the merits of staff's recommendation that the previous decision to reject all bids be adhered to. By a vote of two to one, the Bid Protest Committee upheld the recommendation to reject all bids. The contemporaneous comments from the members in the majority, together with other evidence introduced at hearing, reveal that the committee was persuaded that the field of play had been tilted by the purportedly defective bid specifications; its decision clearly was based on a desire to “level the playing field.” Ultimate Factual Determinations All of the purported deficiencies in the bid specifications fall squarely within the operation of the ITB’s plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause which, to repeat for emphasis, provided as follows: If there is a conflict between the product description in Column 2 and the approved brands in Column 3, compliance with approved brands shall prevail. (ITB, Section 5.02.)5 There is no evidence that the Reconciliation Clause misrepresented the Board's true intent or was the product of a mistake. The administrative law judge has determined as a matter of law that the Reconciliation Clause is clear and unambiguous; therefore, as a matter of fact, it manifests the Board's intent that a Column 2 description must yield to the identification of an approved branded product in Column 3 in the event of conflict between them. By providing in clear terms a straightforward, easily applied, bright-line rule for resolving the very type of conflict that the Board now urges justifies a rejection of all bids, the ITB reasonably ensured that no such ambiguity or uncertainty would imperil the competitive process. No reasonable bidder could possibly have been confused by the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause. All bidders, of course, were entitled to protest the Reconciliation Clause, and any other bid specifications, within 72 hours after receiving the ITB. See Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; see also ITB, Section 1.21. None did. If Sysco believed, as Ms. Blaine testified, that it could not bid on certain approved branded products listed in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, then its belief was unreasonable. Confusion that is objectively unreasonable in fact, as Sysco's was, is not evidence of deficiencies in the bid specifications or of a breach in the integrity of the competitive process. In sum, the purported "deficiencies" upon which the Board based its intended decision to reject all bids are not deficiencies in fact. Thus, the Board's professed reason for starting over — that flaws in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 put bidders to the Hobson's choice of either risking disqualification by bidding on an approved branded product that did not strictly conform to the description in Column 2 or offering a higher-priced product meeting the Column 2 description — is factually unfounded and illogical.6 It should be observed, also, that, in view of the unambiguous Reconciliation Clause, the approved branded products upon which School Food bid in response to Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010 are conforming goods in every respect. That is, School Food did not "mis-bid" these items. Indeed, the Board having identified specific approved branded products; having instructed bidders that "bids shall be accepted only on these approved items, except where ‘Distributor's Choice’ is indicated," see ITB, Section 1.12; and having made clear, in the Reconciliation Clause, that any conflict between an approved branded product and a product description shall be resolved in favor of the approved branded product, it would be arbitrary and capricious to disqualify School Food's bid for non-responsiveness in connection with these items. See Footnote 6, supra. The evidence regarding which particular products the Board truly wanted to purchase in connection with the sequences at issue is in conflict. On the one hand, there is the ITB itself, which is strong evidence of the Board's desires. As a written expression of the Board's intent, the ITB gives voice not merely to the opinions of one person, but rather speaks for the whole Board as an organization. (The latter point is underscored by Section 1.35, which plainly stated that no single employee of the Board was authorized unilaterally to interpret the ITB.) The ITB's reliability is further enhanced by the fact that it was prepared before the bids were opened, before it was known that the incumbent vendor was not the apparent low bidder, before the first protest was filed, and before this administrative litigation commenced. On the other hand, there is Mr. Papa's testimony that he made mistakes in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010, listing approved branded products that, in hindsight, he claimed should not have been listed. Casting doubt on Mr. Papa's credibility, however, is the fact that he did not discover these so-called mistakes until after the Sysco protest helpfully brought the matters to his attention. Also, in deciding how much weight to give Mr. Papa’s testimony, the trier paid particular attention to the picayune nature of the purported conflicts in the specifications. Indeed, it is seriously debatable whether there really were any conflicts in Sequence Nos. 1009, 1036, 1037, and 2010.7 Additionally, having observed Mr. Papa’s demeanor and having given thoughtful consideration to the substance of his testimony, the trier of fact formed the distinct impression that this witness was a bit too anxious to grasp at a plausible excuse — even these hyper-technical “conflicts” — to scuttle the process and do it over. In weighing Mr. Papa's testimony, the trier has factored in a discount for reasonably inferred bias. Further, Mr. Papa's testimony was premised on the view that Column 2 expressed the Board's true intent, taking priority over Column 3 in cases of conflict. To fully credit Mr. Papa's testimony would require that the Reconciliation Clause be turned on its head — which, incidentally, would constitute an impermissible material change in the bid specifications.8 There is absolutely no basis in this record for doing that. In resolving the conflict in the evidence regarding which goods the Board really wanted, the trier of fact has considered the totality of circumstances and has chosen to give the greatest weight to the plain and unambiguous Reconciliation Clause in the ITB which, when read in conjunction with the clear designations of approved branded products in Column 3 at the sequences in question, makes manifest the Board's intent. This clear provision speaks for itself and proves that the Board, as an entity, made a reasoned and conscious decision to deem approved branded products in Column 3 of the Product Bid Sheets to be the goods intended for purchase in those instances where a Column 2 product description might suggest a different desire. Neither Mr. Papa's testimony nor any other evidence persuasively calls into question the reliability and credibility of the Reconciliation Clause as an accurate expression of the Board's intent. Thus, under the evidence presented, the following items are approved branded products that, as a matter of fact, the Board wanted to purchase: Nardone's 80MSA-100, Prestige 30215, Nardone's 100MA, and Leon's 28002. Moreover, if the Board decides that one or more of these approved branded products are not what it wants after all, it has the right, pursuant to Section 2.03 of the ITB (see Paragraph 17, supra), to arrange for the purchase and delivery of different products. The argument of the Board and Sysco that the Board's exercise of its right to add and delete items would constitute an impermissible material alteration of the bid specifications is, in the context of the present circumstances, plainly wrong in fact and illogical. To explain why this is so, let us stipulate that it would be arbitrary for the Board, say, to delete several items from each bidder's proposal because, for example, one or more bidders had mis-bid those items, and then to re-tabulate the bids to determine which bidder would now be the low bidder.9 Similarly, it would be arbitrary for the Board, under the guise of adding items, to designate as approved branded products certain non-conforming goods offered by a bidder as Distributor's Choices, thereby allowing a bid that otherwise would be disqualified to be considered responsive. As a final example, it would be arbitrary for the Board to delete an approved branded product from the product list and use such deletion as the basis for disqualifying a bidder that had quoted the now-deleted item. Each of these hypothetical situations involves a material change to the specifications on which the bidders based their proposals, which is not allowed, for good reason. It is a different kettle of fish, however, for the Board to add or delete items after making an award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. When the bids are judged pursuant to the rules clearly spelled out in advance in the ITB — which would not be the case in the examples set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph — there is simply no change in the specifications, material or otherwise. In the instant case, therefore, if the Board awards the contract to School Food and decides that it does not want a hot dog pancake for Sequence No. 2010, then all it need do is delete Leon's 28002 from the product list and add the desired Leon's product or require the distributor to deliver one of the remaining approved branded products.10 Nothing about that course of action requires or effects a change in the bid specifications. To the contrary, all of the bidders were notified, upon entering this competition, that such post- award additions and deletions of product were possible. All of the bidders, moreover, could have quoted a price for the hot dog pancake, which was unambiguously designated as a conforming product. If the hot dog pancake were a less expensive item, then Sysco could have and should have bid on it. Put another way, if School Food secured a competitive advantage by bidding on the lower-priced approved branded product, it was a legitimate advantage under the plain rules of the contest — rules that applied equally to all. In a nutshell, the Board is in no reasonable danger of receiving a food product that it does not desire to purchase. The Board's preliminary decision to reject all bids is not supported by facts or logic. Indeed, the Board's analysis of the situation failed to account for the Reconciliation Clause — a clearly relevant factor. When the Reconciliation Clause is considered, together with the rest of the evidence in the record, the following become clear: The ITB's specifications were clear and unambiguous. The competitive playing field was level. The Board will obtain the goods that it intended to purchase. At bottom, the Board's decision here cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is arbitrary.11
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board award the contract advertised in the subject ITB to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ITB. It is further recommended that the Board, pursuant to its own rules, return School Food’s protest bond and, in the Final Order, award School Food the costs Petitioner has incurred in prosecuting this matter. If a dispute arises concerning the amount of such costs, the matter may be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 31st day of May, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state 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 Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
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 entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
The Issue These consolidated bid protests, pertaining to Invitation to Bid #595-581 issued by Respondent, present the following issues: as to Case No. 91-5344B1D whether the bid protest filed by National Cleaning Services of Florida, Inc. should be upheld and as to Case No. 91-5345B1D whether the bid protests filed by Royal Services, Inc. should be upheld. The following sub-issues are presented: Whether Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in rejecting the bid of Royal Services, Inc., the apparent low bidder. Whether Respondent should award the bid to either National or Royal. Whether Respondent should convene an evaluation committee to evaluate the bids. Whether Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in rejecting all bids.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) issued Invitation to Bid Number 595-581 (ITB) in the Spring of 1991. 1/ The ITB solicited bids for the provision of specifically identified housekeeping services at South Florida State Hospital (SFSH), a DHRS facility in District X of DHRS. Robert L. Slater is a contract manager employed by DHRS at SFSH. Mr. Slater had, since 1986, the responsibility of preparing the bid solicitation for SFSH housekeeping services. Mr. Slater prepared the ITB that is the subject of this proceeding. The procedure established by District X for the review of ITB solicitations is as follows: v'... all RFP/ITB documents must be reviewed and approved by Grants Management, Budget, District Legal Counsel and the District Administrator prior to their release and advertisement. District X procedure requires that a form accompany the ITB as it is circulated for review. The form provides identifying information about the ITB and a place for the reviewer to indicated his or her approval or disapproval, his or her signature, the date, and any comments. Mr. Slater did not submit the ITB for the appropriate review. Prior to publishing the ITB, Mr. Slater left the ITB in the in-house mail box of David A. Sofferin, the Administrator of SFSH, without the accompanying form. After the ITB was returned to him without any indication as to whether Mr. Sofferin had reviewed it, Mr. Slater published the ITB without it being reviewed as required by District X procedure. There was no evidence as to whether Mr. Sofferin reviewed the ITB before its release. Mr. Slater initially refused to deliver to Royal a copy of the ITB package. He took this action because he did not believe that SFSH wanted Royal as a provider. This was the first and only time Mr. Slater had refused to deliver a bid package to an interested bidder. It was only after Royal complained to DHRS District X legal counsel that Mr. Slater provided a copy of the ITB package to Royal. Royal did not attend the pre-bid meeting because the notification was contained in the bid package, which was received by Royal after the meeting. There was no showing that Royal's inability to attend this meeting prejudiced it in submitting its bid. The ITB contained the following in paragraph 7 of the "General Conditions" portion: AWARDS: As the best interest of the state may require, the right is reserved to ... reject any and all bids ... The "Bidder Qualifications" section of the ITB provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Bidder qualifications must be satisfactory to South Florida State Hospital. The hospital reserves the right to waive informalities in any Bid and to reject any and all Bids or to accept any Bid, any combinations of alternatives that in our judgment will be in the best interest of the State of Florida. Each bidder shall furnish as a part of his/her Bid a written statement in evidence of their ability to accomplish the specified work. This statement must include information as to the immediate availability or ownership of the necessary; (sic) equipment to perform this work, and the financial worth or reputability (sic) of the bidder and experience which the bidder has had in successfully completing projects of a similar size, scope and responsibility. Experience must be evidenced by three (3) references. The following appears in the ITB in a section entitled "Bidder Qualifications Evaluation Criteria": All bidders' qualifications will be evaluated by a selection team using the following criteria: (yes or no response) "Fatal" criteria/any (sic) Bid receiving a "no" response on any items in this category will not be considered any further. /2 Bidders Organizational Capability Does the synopsis of the bidder's corporate qualifications indicate the ability to manage and completely deliver the services required? Do the evaluations and/or recommendations of the bidder indicate an acceptable level of past performance? Budget or Rate Analysis Does the proposed rate meet the "reasonable and necessary" test? Does either a cost or price analysis indicate that the cost or rate is appropriate and reasonable? Under the "Bidders' Qualification Checklist" portion of the ITB, a checklist type form is provided. This checklist provides a line for the name of the bidder, the name of the reviewer, and the date. Part I of the checklist provides "Fatal" Criterion questions with six questions to be answered in a yes or no fashion. There is no contention that either Royal or National failed to meet a "fatal" item. Part II of the checklist is as follows: Is the ability to manage and completely deliver the services apparent? Is satisfactory past performance apparent? (0-10) x WV of 5 Part III of the checklist is as follows: Does the proposed rate meet the reasonable and necessary test? Is the rate appropriate? (0-10) x WV of 5 There is no indication in the ITB as to how the selection team is to be appointed 3/ or as to how the selection team is to apply the criteria contained in the ITB. The items under Parts II and III of the checklist are to be considered using a weighted values for the scores received in response to the questions. There is no indication as to how these weighted responses are to be factored in to the selection process or whether these items are to be considered additional "fatal" items if the bidder receives poor scores in these categories. If it is assumed that these questions should be considered additional "fatal" items, there is no indication as to what score, if any, is necessary for a bidder to "pass" these categories. DHRS never convened a selection team to review the bids. On May 24, 1991, the bids were opened and tabulated by a bid clerk. This bid clerk did not review the bids to determine whether the criteria in the ITB had been met. The Royal bid was tabulated as being $434,704.32 for residential buildings and $101,088.48 for administrative buildings (for a total of $535,792.80.) The National bid was tabulated as being a total of $626,397.36. The decision to reject the Royal bid was made by J. E. Harmon, the Assistant Hospital Administrator, based on a conversation he had with Mr. Slater following the bid opening. Mr. Slater told Mr. Harmon that he believed that Royal had "low balled" its bid and that Royal's performance had been unsatisfactory when it had had the contract. Royal filed a lawsuit against DHRS for breach of contract that involved Mr. Slater and the manner in which Royal was paid. Royal contends that Mr. Slater's bias against it stems not from poor service, but because of this lawsuit. This contention is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and is rejected. On May 31, 1991, a letter signed by Mr. Harmon, but drafted by Mr. Slater, refunded Royal's check that had been posted in lieu of a bid bond and notified Royal as follows: Please be advised that the Bid submitted by your company has been rejected in the best interest of the State of Florida. This action was determined to be necessary because of your company's poor performance at this facility from August 30, 1989 through June 30, 1990. Also on May 31, 1991, Mr. Slater prepared and sent a letter (which he signed) to each bidder, which provides as follows: The selection process has been completed for the above referenced Invitation to Bid. The selection committee's recommendation to the District Administrator is to award the contract to National Cleaning of Florida, Inc. The Department appreciates your time and interest in the Invitation to Bid. We encourage your continued interest in HRS contractual services. You have the right to protest this decision as described here: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120 and shall not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of intent to protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the Invitation To Bid within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within 10 days after the notice of intent is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the Invitation to Bid. The formal written protest must be accompanied by a bond payable to the department in the amount of $5,000 or 1% of the department's estimate of the total volume of the proposed contract, whichever is less. Royal thereafter timely protested DHRS' action in rejecting its bid and in announcing that the recommendation would be made to the District Administrator to award the bid to National. No action was taken by DHRS on these protests until DHRS referred Royal's protests stemming from Mr. Harmon's letter of May 31, 1991, and Royal's protest stemming from Ms. Borland's letter of July 12, 1991, 4/ to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing by its "Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders" dated August 22, 1991, and filed with DOAH on August 23, 1991. 5/ After Royal filed its protests following the two letters dated May 31, 1991, DHRS reviewed the bids and the process that had been followed in issuing those bids. DHRS determined that it preferred to issue a RFP (request for proposals) for these contractual services rather than soliciting these services by an ITB. This decision was based, in large part, on the desire to give greater weight to the ability of the bidders to satisfactorily perform the required services and on the fact that Royal had filed a protest. On July 12, 1991, DHRS notified bidders by letter signed by Maureen D. Borland, Acting District Administrator, that all bids were rejected, that the services will be the subject of an RFP, and that the contact person was Mr. Slater. The letter notified the bidders that they had the right to protest the decision and advised as to the procedure to be followed and the time constraints to be observed in filing a protest. Following the letter of July 12, 1991, both National and Royal perfected protests of the decision to reject all bids. National contends that the Royal bid was properly rejected. National further contends that any defect in the evaluation process can be cured by convening the evaluation committee to review the remaining bids. Royal contends that the ITB completely describes the services desired by SFSH, that an RFP is not appropriate, and that an RFP would only serve as a means for DHRS to discriminate against Royal. Royal further contends that price is the primary factor to be considered, that it was the low bidder, and that it should be awarded the bid. Royal contends in the alternative that DHRS erred in rejecting all bids and that the evaluation committee should be convened to evaluate its bid along with the other bids. Royal had a contract to provide housekeeping services at SFSH from August 30, 1989 through June 30, 1990. This contact was let pursuant to a RFP. Mr. Slater was the contract manager for the housekeeping services when this contract was procured. The contract could not be renewed beyond June 30, 1990, because the RFP failed to include prices for the second and third years of the contract. The following year, the contract was solicited on an ITB basis, and was awarded to Allstate Specialty Services as the lowest and best bidder. Mr. Slater was the contract manager for the procurement of these services. DHRS was not satisfied with the services provided during the time Royal had the contract for housekeeping services. Various deficiencies were discussed with the project manager during weekly meetings. There were no written statements of deficiencies given to Royal by DHRS while Royal had the housekeeping contract, and no deductions were made from any payment to Royal. On May 7, 8, and 9, 1990, an inspection of SFSH was made by DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification. This report which followed the inspection noted several deficiencies in the housekeeping services. The record was not clear, however, whether the deficiencies were the result of Royal's poor performance or whether the deficiencies were the result of DHRS purchasing an insufficient level of services. The record is clear that Mr. Slater had not been pleased with the services performed by Royal when it had the contract. Mr. Slater was pleased with Mr. Martin, Royal's project manager, but he did not feel that Royal had sufficient supervision of its employees and that Royal should have devoted more workers to the project. As compared to the contract entered into for the period August 30, 1990, through June 30, 1990, the subject ITB was described by Mr. Slater as being more stringent, tighter, and improved. The subject ITB was intended to cure the problem of lack of supervision by inserting specific requirements as to the level of supervision the provider would have for its employees. There was insufficient evidence to sustain DHRS contention that Royal was an unqualified bidder. There was insufficient evidence to sustain DHRS contention that Royal's bid was a "low ball" bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which rejects all bids submitted in response to the subject Invitation to Bid. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of October, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Gans is a chiropractor licensed in Florida on the basis of examination. Dr. Gans prepared and filed an application for examination and licensure with the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Do you have a chiropractic license in any state?" by stating: "Ohio - Mechanotherapy." The Ohio authorities recognized several professions whose functions would be included under the practice of chiropractic in Florida. Mechanotherapy generally would be limited to the practice of manipulation only. Dr. Gans was licensed in Ohio as a mechanotherapist. Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Have you ever been refused licensure in any state?" by stating, "No." Dr. Gans had applied for, taken, and failed the Ohio chiropractic examination whereupon he was not issued a license as a chiropractor by the State of Ohio. Dr. Gans was eligible to reapply to take the Ohio examination. At the time of his application to Florida, Dr. Gans had appealed the determination by the Ohio authorities that he had failed the Ohio examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoke the license of Ray E. Gans. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Sutton, Esquire 250 Bird Road, Suite 310 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Paul Lambert, Esquire 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. A. Hartley, Director Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Suite 202, Building B 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211
