The Issue Whether Petitioner's protest challenging the Department of Transportation's Notice of Intent to Award Contract No. E-6A14, FIN Project No. 251999-1-32-01/251999-1-52-01, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., should be sustained in whole or in part.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: 3/ The District VI Warehouse. The District VI (District) warehouse is used to store archived records, paper supplies, and surplus equipment. In addition, it houses the District's divers and their gear. The District Warehouse Roof Since at least the time of the first solicitation, the District warehouse roof has had a ponding problem and been in disrepair. The condition of the roof has deteriorated to such an extent that there is now an urgent need to replace it. The current roof has five overflow drains or scuppers. The Department has determined that additional scuppers are necessary to provide adequate drainage. The List of Interested and Prequalified Contractors When the District warehouse roof replacement project was originally advertised in 1997, 25 contractors, including Petitioner, A-1, Zurqui, Grace, ART, and Southern Coast Enterprises, requested that the Department send them information about the project. The Department compiled a list containing these 25 contractors' names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. The Department subsequently prequalified each of these 25 contractors. Petitioner Pedro Glaria is Petitioner's president. He is now, and has been since 1981, licensed in the State of Florida as both a general contractor and a professional engineer. Petitioner currently has two contracts with the Department, the dollar values of which are $140,000.00 and $110.00.00. Both contracts were awarded during the summer of 2000. They each require Petitioner to provide "roadside mowing" and "roadside litter pickup" services. Since its incorporation in 1989, Petitioner has had a total of 10 to 12 contracts with the Department, at least one of which involved roofing work. At no time has the Department indicated to Mr. Glaria that it has been dissatisfied with Petitioner's work. The Third Solicitation In the third solicitation, as in the first two solicitations, the District warehouse roof replacement project was advertised as a design-build project (involving both design and construction services). The Notice of Informal Bid (No. 6012DS) that the Department used to solicit bids contained the following "work description," "evaluation criteria," and "project information": Work Description Sealed written bids are requested from licensed roofing contractors, general building contractors, professional architectural engineers or professional consultant services for the purpose of a design-build project consisting of roof replacement for the District warehouse building located at the District office complex, 1000 Northwest 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The bidder shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, travel, consultant inspection services, shop drawing reviews to design, and furnish plans and specifications necessary to perform all work required for this project. Evaluation Criteria The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will evaluate the technical bid along with the price bid at the same time. The Department may award this contract to the firm whose proposal meets the needs of the Department as outlined in the technical bid criteria, and to the responsible, responsive bidder submitting the lowest total bid. Technical Bid Will Consist of the Following Experience and qualifications of personnel Plans and specifications. 3). Design Warranty Contract time Price Bid 3). Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE) Participation . . . Project Information ESTIMATED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A With respect to a protest of the specifications contained in an Invitation to Bid or in a Request for Proposals, the Notice of Protest shall be filed in writing within seventy two (72) hours after the receipt of notice of the project plans and specifications or intended project plans and specifications in an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals." A formal written protest stating with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based and in substantially the same form as a petition in accordance with Rule 60-4.012, F.A.C., shall be filed within ten (10) days after filing of the notice of protest. The ten (10) day period includes Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays; provided, however, if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday. Any person who files an action protesting an award shall post with the Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond payable to the Department in the amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Department's estimate of the contract amount for the purchase requested or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), whichever is less, which bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against him in the Administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent Appellate Court Proceedings. In lieu of a bond, the Department may accept a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. The protest must be filed with The Department of Transportation, Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 THE DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Exhibit "A" (Attachment V) to the Notice of Informal Bid was the "Scope of Services for Design Build of Replacement Roof at the District Warehouse Building," Section 2.5(a) of which provided as follows: Bidder shall furnish plans and specifications that comply with the South Florida Building Code, Permits Office of the Department of Management Services, and the State Fire Marshall's Office, including but not limited to the following: The design of the roof shall provide for the installation of overflow drains or scuppers in addition to the existing scuppers to prevent an accumulation of water. Petitioner's technical bid, which was prepared by Mr. Glaria, contained a roof design that did not provide for the installation of the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." In Mr. Glaria's professional opinion, these additional scuppers were unnecessary for the design of the roof to comply with the South Florida Building Code. (Petitioner, however, did not file a protest challenging the bid specifications.) By not incorporating the additional scuppers in its design of the roof, Petitioner was able to submit a price bid lower than it could have offered had its design been in compliance with the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." All three members of the Department's Technical Review and Awards Committee found Petitioner's technical bid to be non- responsive because it deviated from the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A.". Had the Department not rejected the Department's technical bid on the grounds that it was non-responsive, Petitioner would have had an unfair competitive advantage over those bidders whose design of the roof included the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." Petitioner's Formal Protest of the Department's announced intention to contract with A-1 contained the following argument concerning the Department's determination that Petitioner's technical bid did not "comply with design criteria for overflow scuppers": FDOT's Technical Panel determined that SPEC failed to comply with the design criteria for overflow scuppers because SPEC did not provide for additional scuppers. . . . The roof already contains five scuppers. As engineer of this design- build project, SPEC determined that additional scuppers were not necessary for proper drainage of the roof. Rather, the roof only necessitated the installation of crickets between the existing scuppers to facilitate drainage of water between the scuppers. The drawing submitted with SPEC's bid reflects the location of the existing scuppers and the use of the crickets to drain any water on the roof. A-1's drawing reflects the use of additional scuppers, but the location of these additional scuppers cannot assist water drainage as the scuppers are located above the crickets, and therefore above roof level, thereby losing any effectiveness. . . . The additional scuppers provided by A-1 will not prevent the accumulation of water as required by section 2.5 and will only create unnecessary expenditure for FDOT. SPEC's design for the drainage of water from the roof is superior to that of A-1, complies with the requirements of the bidding documents and does not require unnecessary expenditure of funds. Accordingly, SPEC should be awarded the project. The Department's December 17, 1998, Notice of Intent Not to Award (Re: Informal Bid No. 6012DS) stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of the Department of Transportation to not award the above Contract. This contract will be re- advertised at a later date. . . . ALL BIDS HAVE BEEN REJECTED On January 4, 1999, Petitioner's attorney, Alejandro Espino, Esquire, sent a letter to Department Assistant General Counsel Brian McGrail, which read as follows: This letter confirms our telephone conversation today wherein you stated that the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") rejected all bids on the above referenced project because FDOT intends to rewrite the specification for the mansard roof wood replacement and because FDOT has no available funding for the project. However, you stated that FDOT will not provide a written explanation to SPEC Incorporated or any other bidder for the rejection of the bids for the project. If you believe that the above is not an accurate summary of our conversation, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best regards. Mr. McGrail responded to Mr. Espino by letter dated January 4, 1999, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter this morning regarding our telephone conversation concerning the captioned matter. In response to your rendition of our conversation, I must clarify that I expressed my understanding that the specifications for the project will be reviewed, which may include the issues raised in the protest about the bid specifications, before any further action will be taken by the Department. However, the Department's decision to reject all bids is due to the unavailability of funding for this contract at the present time. I cannot speak to the future of the project with any degree of certainty, nor represent any to you or your client. This is a matter strictly for District VI to decide, and I am not involved in that decision making process. The Department will defend the decision to reject all bids based on the lack of available funding. I refer your attention to Attachment II of Informal Bid #6012DS, Contractual Obligation, Section 1.10 through 1.13. In particular, Cancellation Privileges, regarding the Department's obligations under the Notice of Informal Bid and subsequent agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon the availability of monies appropriated for this contract. Additionally, I am sure that you are aware that the bid documents clearly and repeatedly state the Department's reservation of rights to reject any and all bids for this bid letting. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Department's action in rejecting all bids is appropriate under Florida law, if not required, due to the lack of available funds at the present time. If Spec Inc. intends to p[rotest] the Department's decision to reject all bids, I feel it is my responsibility to advise you that the Department will seek any and all costs and attorney fees to which it may be entitled against the protest bond filed in this case. If however, Spec Inc. decides to withdraw the current protests against the intent to award filed on September 28, 1998, and the rejection of all bids filed on December 22, 1998, the Department will agree to return the protest bond in full. After you have had an opportunity to review this matter with your client, please advise at your earliest convenience how Spec Inc., wishes to proceed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to a prompt response, as the hearing date is approaching rapidly. Mr. Glaria "realized that [Petitioner was] going to have a hard time [in its bid protest] to overcome the issue of lack of funding." In addition, he had the "hope that [Petitioner] would [have the opportunity to] bid the project again for the fourth time." Accordingly, he authorized Mr. Espino to file, on behalf of Petitioner, the following Notice of Voluntary of Dismissal of Formal Protest, dated January 11, 1999: Petitioner, SPEC Incorporated, hereby withdraws its formal protest, dated October 18, 1998, of the Florida Department of Transportation's notice of intent to award Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. Upon agreement of counsel for the parties, SPEC Incorporated's bid protest bond will be returned to it. Mr. Espino, in addition, sent the following letter, dated January 11, 1999, to Mr. McGrail: Based on the Florida Department of Transportation's ("FDOT") representation that it rejected all bids for Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, because of the unavailability of funds and because of necessary amendments to the project specifications, SPEC Incorporated hereby withdraws its formal protest of FDOT's notice of intent to reject all bids. As we discussed earlier, FDOT will return SPEC Incorporated's protest bond thirty days after FDOT files . . . the final order in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Fourth Solicitation The Project is funded through appropriations made by the Legislature in the fixed capital outlay category. 4/ Fixed capital outlay funds are subject to reversion if not obligated (through the execution of a contact or the issuance of a notice of intent to award a contract) within 19 months of their appropriation by the Legislature. In mid-January of 2001, Brenda Garner, the manager of the Department's Fixed Capital Outlay Program, advised Ms. Lyons that, if not obligated by February 1, 2001, a portion of the funds ($45,000.00) appropriated for the Project would revert. Ms. Lyons (who had not been involved, as the District's contract administrator, in the first three solicitations) quickly proceeded (in a day's time) to assemble the documents needed to solicit bids for the Project. These documents included detailed plans and specifications that the District's senior structural engineer and senior project manager had prepared, at Ms. Lyons' request, following the third solicitation, as well as "boilerplate" that the Department uses for non-design-build fixed capital outlay projects like the Project. Ms. Lyons determined that it was unnecessary to advertise for bids and that the Department only needed to solicit bids from three contractors. She selected these three contractors from the list of interested and prequalified contractors that the Department had compiled in the first solicitation. As Ms. Lyons was aware, each of the three contractors she selected (A-1, Zurqui, and Grace) was a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). She intentionally selected MBE contractors because the District was "trying to meet an MBE goal." Ms. Lyons had some professional familiarity with the three MBE contractors she selected. A-1 had just completed another roofing project for the District, and Zurqui and Grace were performing construction work at the District office complex. Ms. Lyons' decision to not include Petitioner among the three contractors asked to submit bids was not made in bad faith. Inasmuch as the Department was "in a big hurry to get that project done" she did not ask more than three contractors to submit bids. Ms. Lyons required each of the three contractors to first provide proof that it was a licensed general contractor qualified to work on the Project. After receiving such proof, Ms. Lyons then asked the three contractors to bid on the Project. A-1, Zurqui, and Grace submitted their bids on January 25, 2001. The Technical Review and Awards Committee met on January 26, 2001, to review the bids. All three bids were deemed to be responsive. A-1's bid of $58,300.00 was the lowest of the three bids. Neither Zurqui nor Grace protested the Department's proposed decision, announced in its January 26, 2001, Notice of Intent to Award, to award the contract for the Project to A-1. Only Petitioner, which had not been invited to submit a bid and had first learned of the fourth solicitation when Mr. Glaria saw the Notice of Intent to Award while at the District office complex on January 26, 2001, filed a protest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order rejecting in its entirety Petitioner's protest of the Department's announced intention to award Contract E-6A14 to A-1. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2001.
Findings Of Fact On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids on State Project Job No. 26000-3624. The job called for removing and replacing the roof on the DOT warehouse at Gainesville, Florida. Such bids were to be filed with the agency no later than January 23, 1985. As is pertinent here, the specifications called for the following type of flexible sheet roofing system: minimum Elastomeric sheet material, manufacturer's standard thickness but not less than 42 mils, 400 psi minimum tensil strength, 250 percent elongation (ASTM D 412), ultraviolet and ozone resistent, low temperature brittleness of -40 F (-40 C)(ASTM D 746), integral color white or aluminum. W. R. Grace and Company (Grace) is one of several companies who manufacture single-ply roof membranes that are generally compatible with DOT specifications. One of its factory representatives, John Cunningham, reviews all bid notices issued by DOT to determine what materials are required for a given project. The representative then calls DOT approved contractors in his service area who use Grace products and advises them of the requirements for the job. In this particular case, Cunningham read the specification for elastomeric sheet material and was initially confused as to whether DOT wanted a factory finish on the membrane or to have it coated in the field. This confusion arose since the specification called for an "integral color" on the material and a "manufacturer's standard thickness, but not less than 42 mils." Grace manufacturers two single-ply roof membranes, one having a 40 mil thickness with a factory applied coating (GRM-500), and one having a 50 mil thickness with a field applied coating (GRM-120). When DOT prepared the bid proposal, it was under the impression that the GRM-500 system would meet the specifications. However, if a factory applied coating on the membrane was desired, the GRM-500 system would not meet the specification as to thickness. Because of this, Cunningham contacted a DOT representative who advised that DOT wanted a factory applied coating, and that all bidders should base their bid using the GRM-500 product even though this appeared to be inconsistent with the specifications. The representative also told Cunningham it was too late to issue an addendum to clarify the matter. Based upon the above representation Cunningham telephoned each qualified contractor in his sales area who used Grace products, including petitioner Cheesbro Roofing, Inc. (Cheesbro), a roofing company located in Ormond Beach, Florida. He told them that DOT apparently wanted a factory applied coating, even though this was inconsistent with the specification as to thickness and that the GRM-500 system should be used. He also advised them that at least one bidder interpreted the specification differently, and was preparing its bid using the GRM-120 product so that the thickness specification as written could be met. Cheesbro had never bid a DOT project and was confused as to the type of product to use in preparing its bid. In an abundance of caution, Cheesbro submitted alternate bids, one with prices based on the GRM-500 system and the other using the GRM-120 system. This resulted in bids of $84,560 and $102,661, respectively. The alternate bid (using the GRM-120 product) was typed on the firm's letterhead and inserted in the bid proposal since the bid form did not contain a place to write an alternate bid. The $84,500 figure was the lowest dollar bid on the project out of twelve bids submitted. At about the same time, a second Grace sales representative, Richard Bray, contacted users of Grace products in his service area including Kent Construction Company, Inc. (Kent) of Chipley, Florida. Bray advised his customers to write their bids using the GRM-500 system. Kent had originally interpreted the specification as requiring the GRM-120 system, but, based upon Bray's representation, it submitted a bid of $86,800 using the GRM-500 system. This was the second lowest dollar bid on the project. By law DOT cannot design specifications with the object of soliciting products made by a specific manufacturer. Even so, there are only a few other manufactured roofing systems which have a factory applied coating and a thickness of at least 42 mils. However, most of the twelve bidders, including the two lowest, submitted bids using Grace products. After the bids were filed and reviewed, DOT noted that Cheesbro had submitted alternative bids. Because this is a ground for rejection, the bid was reviewed initially by a DOT technical awards committee which recommended the bid be rejected as being "irregular". That committee's decision was affirmed by the contract awards committee which reached the same conclusion. Accordingly, Cheesbro's bid, although the lowest, was rejected on February 11, 1985 and Kent's bid accepted on March 6, 1985 as being the lowest and most responsible bidder on the project. That prompted the instant proceeding. DOT bids are governed by the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1982 Edition. Section 2 - 6 of that document provides as follows: A proposal will be subject to being consid- ered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, addi- tions not called for, conditional or unau- thorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obvi- ously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. DOT has relied upon this section as authority for rejecting Cheesbro's bid. Cheesbro did not read this document before submitting its bid. According to DOT, the purpose of the section is to obtain standard bids from all contractors, and to prevent one bidder from having an unfair advantage over others through the use of alternate bids.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all bids on State Job Project No. 26000-3624 be rejected, and the project be relet for bids. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 1st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Burns, Esquire p. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent should award a contract in accordance with an invitation to bid to the Petitioner, to some other bidder, or reject all bids and reissue an invitation. Petitioner contends that it was the low bidder in response to the invitation; that its bid was responsive; and to the extent that it was not responsive, any defects were of a minor sort which should be waived. Petitioner contends that the Respondent has previously waived irregularities such as existed in the Petitioner's bid and should therefore waive them in this case. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner's bid was not responsive, that the irregularities in Petitioner's bid are not minor, that any mistakes the Respondent has made in past acquisitions should not be repeated, and that the contract should be awarded to another company.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent issued an invitation to bid for a project known as the "Animal Science/Dairy Science Building" at the University of Florida. The project was given No. BR-108 by the Respondent. Petitioner was the lowest bidder in response to the invitation. The next lowest bidder, Charles R. Perry Construction Company, submitted a bid approximately $37,000 higher than Petitioner's bid. Perry has not filed any formal protest nor intervened in this proceeding. Petitioner is a responsible contractor and has in the past entered into construction contracts with the Respondent. Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Respondent. The Petitioner protested the rejection of its bid in a timely manner. Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications provides in pertinent part, as follows: In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent sub- contractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit with his Proposal a list of the subcontractors who would perform the work for each Divi- sion of the Specifications as indicated by the "List of Subcontractors" form contained in these Specifications... only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. * * * No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section "B" of the invitation for bid provided space for the bidder to list the name and address of subcontractors for the roofing, masonry, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, meat processing equipment, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. In Section "B" of its bid, Petitioner listed two subcontractors for the plumbing, mechanical, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. Listing two subcontractors does not comport with the bid specification requiring that only one subcontractor be listed for each phase. Petitioner listed two subcontractors because one of the subcontractors submitted a proposal to Petitioner only fifteen minutes prior to the time when the bid had to be submitted, and Petitioner was unsure of whether the last-minute proposal included all of the work that the Petitioner anticipated would be required. In addition, Petitioner felt that one of the subcontractors may not have been acceptable to the Respondent. The requirement that bidders list only one subcontractor for each phase of a project helps to discourage "bid shopping." Bid shopping is a practice whereby a contractor who receives a bid from a subcontractor approaches another subcontractor with that bid and encourages the other subcontractor to reduce its price. If the other subcontractor responds, this reduced price can be taken back to the original subcontractor. The original subcontractor is then confronted with the choices of either lowering its bid or losing the project. Bid shopping that occurs after a bid has been accepted by the owner does not benefit the owner. It benefits only the bidder, who is able to reduce its costs and therefore increase its profit. Requiring that one subcontractor be listed for each phase cannot serve to completely eliminate bid shopping. A contractor could still bid shop by listing itself as the subcontractor, then after winning the contract shop between several subcontractors. A contractor could also bid shop by changing subcontractors after the bid award. In either case, however, the contractor would need to secure the approval of the owner. The practice is thus discouraged. If a bidder lists two subcontractors for a phase of the project, that bidder would have an advantage over those who listed only one subcontractor. Listing two subcontractors enables the bidder to make a choice as to the best subcontract bid at a time later than the choice is made by bidders who list only one subcontractor. In addition, listing two subcontractors makes it easier for the bidder to engage in bid shopping, which would be more difficult for bidders who listed only one subcontractor. Paragraph "B-24" of the bid specifications for this project provides in pertinent part: The Contract will be awarded . . . to the lowest qualified bidder pro- vided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. * * * The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The listing of two subcontractors for phases of the project is not a mere informality in the bid. It is directly contrary to Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications. It would not be in the interest of the owner to accept a bid in which two subcontractors are listed for phases of the project. The integrity of the acquisition process would be damaged by allowing such a deviation because a bidder who listed two subcontractors would have gained an advantage over bidders who complied with the bid specifications. It is not in the best interest of the Respondent to waive the defect in the Petitioner's bid. On at least two prior occasions, the Respondent awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor per phase of the work. One of these projects was for a gymnasium at Florida Atlantic University (Project No. BR-603). Another was for a window replacement project at Florida State University (Project No. BR-342). In at least three other projects, the Respondent awarded contracts where the bidder failed to list the name of any subcontractor for one or more phases of the work. These were for the cancer center at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-569), the student housing facility at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-576), and an expansion project at Florida A & M University (Project No. BR-343). The bid specifications for all of these projects were not offered into evidence; however, the Respondent had utilized the same specifications as required in this project at all pertinent times. Failing to list any subcontractor for a phase of a project constitutes approximately the same defect in a bid response as listing two subcontractors. It provides even greater opportunities for bid shopping and an advantage to the bidder over those who list subcontractors as required by the specifications. In several other projects, it appears that the Respondent has awarded contracts to bidders whose bids contained defects of the same magnitude, but a different sort than the listing of two subcontractors. It does not appear that the Respondent has awarded contracts where bidders have listed more than one subcontractor, no subcontractor, or otherwise violated bid specifications because of any policy or because of any expressed waiver of the defect. Rather, it appears that the Respondent has not adequately policed bids to determine responsiveness to the bid specifications. This is especially true with respect to the listing of subcontractors. It appears that no one on the Respondent's staff took the responsibility to consider whether one subcontractor was listed for each phase of a project as required in the specifications. The only policy that the Respondent established was a policy of being too lax in examining bids. The Petitioner did not list two subcontractors for various phases of this project because of any reliance on past conduct of the Respondent. Petitioner's agent overlooked the bid requirements in Preparing its bid response. In prior bids submitted by the Petitioner in response to bid invitations issued by Respondent, Petitioner listed only one subcontractor, as required. Generally, unless it is otherwise required, Petitioner prefers to list two subcontractors because of the flexibility it provides to the owner and to Petitioner. Petitioner was not aware that Respondent had previously awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor for a phase of the work when it submitted its bid in this instance.
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, 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 2nd day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department should award the contract for State Project numbered DOH 95209100 to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact State Project numbered DOH 95209100 commenced with an invitation to bid on a construction project which involved the restoration and adaptive use of the Gato Cigar Factory in Key West, Florida. The construction would rehabilitate that existing historic structure and construct internal office and clinic spaces for both Monroe County and the Department of Health. Since both agencies would use the building, the project was divided between them. Monroe County and the Department issued separate invitations to bid for their portions of the structure, and each will enter into its own contract with the winning bidder or bidders. It was not required that a bidder submit a bid for both the Monroe County and the Department portions of the work. Any bidder could bid on one or the other or both. Although the invitations to bid and the contracts to result therefrom were not interrelated, some of the construction work was interrelated as some of the systems being installed under one contract would directly affect the other contract. For example, both the air conditioning system and the roofing system, although being performed under one entity's contract, would be applicable to both projects. The Department's invitation to bid required bidders to submit a base price, plus specific prices on particular items. Alternate numbered 1 added to the base price the cost of a second air conditioning chiller. The base price plus alternate numbered 1, taken together, included all work to be performed under the Department's scope of work. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were deductions from the work included in the base price. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were included in the Department's invitation to bid to cover the possibility that all bids might come in over budget. In that event the Department could select Alternates numbered 2 through 5, sequentially, until sufficient items had been deducted from the Department's scope of work to result in bids under the amount budgeted by the Department for the project. Section 01030 of the bid specifications is entitled "Alternates." Section 1.2E of Part 1 provides, in part, as follows: Include as part of each Alternate, miscellaneous devices, accessory objects and similar items incidental to or required for a complete installation whether or not mentioned as part of the Alternate. Each Alternate Bid must interface with the work being constructed under a separate contract with Monroe County. Each Alternate Bid item is also applicable to the Monroe County work. An alternate which is deducted from one project will be added to the other. If bidding both projects, the Deductive Alternate price for one project must match the Add Alternate price for the other project. The prospective bidders were also given this information in the pre-bid meetings. The Department received a number of bids for less than the amount budgeted for its portion of the work. Accordingly, the Department was able to select Alternate numbered l, which taken together with the base bid, covered the entire scope of work allocated to the Department. The lowest bids through Petitioner's bid were as follows: Bidder Total Bid D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $1,418,744. McTeague Construction Co., Inc. $1,454,500. Lodge Construction, Inc. $1,501,500. Rovel Construction, Inc. $1,559,000. Neither McTeague Construction Co., Inc., nor Lodge Construction, Inc., participated in this proceeding to challenge the Department's intended bid award. For the lowest bidder, Intervenor Porter, discrepancies occurred in its first, third, and fifth alternative prices of $3,500, $375, and $l,497, respectively. For the second lowest bidder, McTeague, a discrepancy of $9,000 occurred in its first alternate price. For the third lowest bidder, Lodge, a discrepancy of $3,165 occurred in its fifth alternate price. For the fourth lowest bidder, Petitioner Rovel, there were no discrepancies in any of its alternate prices. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for the Department was $38,500. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for Monroe County was $35,000. Porter's estimating staff overlooked the instruction that the two numbers should match. The reason for the difference between the two Alternate numbered 1 amounts is that the bidders were instructed to prepare the two bids as two separate contracts. Alternate numbered 1 required moving one of two chillers from the Monroe County project to the Department's project. Porter could not assume that it could use the crane from the contractor on Monroe County's portion of the project to install this chiller in the Department's portion of the project. Therefore, the cost of a crane had to be added to the Department's project, but the cost of the crane could not be deducted on the Monroe County bid. Porter was the fourth highest bidder on the Monroe County project. Monroe County has not yet awarded its contract. If the Monroe County project is awarded based upon the bids submitted, Porter will not be awarded the Monroe County project. The Department's bid tabulation and notice of intended award were prepared without any reference to the bid opening for the Monroe County project and before the contents of the Monroe County bids were known by the Department. The deviation in price between Porter's Alternate numbered 1 bids did not give Porter an advantage over the other bidders, several of whom made the same error. It was a minor deviation, not a material one. The price submitted on the Department's bid reflected the actual cost of performing that portion of the work. Petitioner's bid listed Florida Keys Electric, Inc., as its electrical subcontractor, its fire alarm subcontractor, and its lightening protection subcontractor. That company is not certified by the State of Florida, but it is registered. The bid specifications provide in section B-14, in part, as follows: Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section 16010, Part 1, section 1.9, subsection A., of the technical specifications which form a part of the bid specifications involves supervision of the construction and provides, in part, that "At least one member of the Electrical Contracting Firm shall hold a State Master Certificate of Competency." Florida Keys Electric, Inc., would use Delor J. Ellis as its qualifying agent. Although Ellis is certified by the State, at the time of the bid submittal and through the date of the final hearing in this cause, Ellis' license was in an inactive status, and no application to activate his license was pending with the State of Florida. Fire alarm work and lightening protection work require a specialty license in the State of Florida. Florida Keys Electric, Inc., is not licensed to perform either type of work. When Florida Keys Electric, Inc., contracts to perform such work, it does so through its own subcontractor. Although the requirement for certification and/or registration contained in the bid specifications is not consistent with the requirement for State certification contained in the technical specifications portion of the bid specifications, Petitioner did not comply with either provision. Accordingly, Petitioner's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications. Porter, which submitted the lowest bid, is responsive to the bid specifications and is, therefore, the lowest responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive, dismissing Petitioner's bid protest, and awarding to D. L. Porter Construction, Inc., the contract for the restoration of the Gato Cigar Factory. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Robert A. Hingston, Esquire Welbaum, Guernsey, Hingston, Greenleaf & Gregory, L.L.P. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michael E. Cover, Esquire Morton R. Laitner, Esquire Department of Health Miami-Dade County Health Department 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 William G. Christopher, Esquire Brown Clark, A Professional Association 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1993.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Bid No. 88-8-1, and therefore entitled to the contract award. Whether the special conditions set forth in the bid documents were timely objected to by the Petitioner, and so ambiguous as to warrant a rejection of all bids in Bid No. 88-8-1.
Findings Of Fact The Department sent invitations to bid in Bid No. 88-4-2 to various providers of telephone answering services within the Brevard County area. The purpose of the invitations was to obtain the lowest responsive bid for an after- hours telephone answering service for a one year period at the Department's Monroe Center in Cocoa Beach, Florida. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, Answerphone's bid was recommended for the award as the low bidder. On June 16, 1988, the bidders were notified by mail that the bid would not be awarded as recommended at the public bid opening. The bidders were told that the bids were being reevaluated, and they would be notified later as to when the award would occur. On June 24,1988, the bidders in Bid No. 88-4-2 were notified that the Department rejected all bids because of the belated discovery of inherent ambiguities in the solicitation which made it impossible for the Department to determine the lowest and best bid. The Department did not receive any notices of protest based upon its decision to reject all bids, and the decision became final seventy-two hours after the bidders were notified of the rejection. New bid specifications were created, and the Department sent invitations to bid to Bid No. 88-8-1 to the same list of providers who had received invitations in Bid No. 88-4-2. In paragraph 2 of the new invitation to bid, prospective bidders were notified that questions concerning specifications should be directed in writing to 705 Avocado Avenue, Cocoa, Florida. The invitation cautioned that no interpretation of the specifications should be binding on the Department unless provided in writing. Paragraph 4 of the special bid conditions attached to the invitation allowed the bidders to orally present questions about the bid requirements at the pre-bid conference held on August 30, 1988. Paragraph 6 of the special bid conditions required prospective bidders to file a notice of protest within seventy-two hours after receipt of the bid solicitations if there were concerns about the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid. The Petitioner was represented at the conference and the Department was asked to explain what was meant by the specification which required that the system have the capability of receiving and patching or paging multiple calls at one time if necessary. The Petitioner's representative was told that the system must be able to handle multiple calls at one time without losing a call. The provider should have an adequate system of holding, handling, and routing these calls as specified in items one through four of the list of services required in the bid documents. The Answerphone representative indicated to the Department that all of his questions had been satisfactorily answered before the pre-bid conference was brought to a close. No requests were made to the Department to place its explanation in writing and no written interpretation was provided. A notice of protest by Answerphone about the specifications in the bid solicitation was not filed with the Department prior to the Department's acceptance of bids in Bid No. 88-8-1. When the bids were opened on September 6, 1988, Elite Answer Service, Ltd., was the apparent responsive low bidder in Bid No. 88-8-1. Answerphone filed a protest to contest the award because Elite does not have the technological capacity to complete the contract under the specifications, as interpreted by Answerphone. During the administrative hearing, it was learned that the Department meant the following interpretation to be given to its specification which requires the service to handle multiple calls: During after hours, the Department has one telephone line and one telephone number linked to an answering service. When an incoming call to that number is received by the service, no other callers can dial that number and gain access to the service. The second caller will receive a busy signal. The service must have the capacity to take the call which has been received and call the necessary people at other telephone numbers who might need to speak with each other or the caller, together or separately. Therefore, the service must be able to place various people on hold at different times in the sequence, and patch the appropriate people together at the proper times when the service has been directed to do so. Answerphone interpreted the specifications to mean that the service should be able to handle more than one incoming call to the one local HRS telephone number and telephone line which is available to the public at night. For example, if three different calls were dialed to the local number, all three would be received by the service instead of two receiving a busy signal. The service would then proceed to dispatch the different callers to all of the different people as described above in paragraph 14 of the Findings of Fact. Answerphone has the technological capacity to accomplish this feat. Elite does not.. Answerphone's interpretation of the bid specifications was an untenable one in that it restricted competition instead of promoting it. This is contrary to the clear intent of the Department as set forth in the invitation to bid. The bid specifications were clear and unambiguous in that the Department's requirements from the after-hours answering service were to begin after the dialer's telephone call rang into the answering service. The Department's opportunity to handle more than one incoming call dialed during the time the one line at Monroe Center was already in use was never addressed in the specifications. The mistake in the interpretation of the bid specifications belonged to the petitioner. Paragraph 4(c) of the general conditions place the risk of mistake on the Petitioner. Opportunities to correct possible mistakes in interpretation by the prospective bidders were provided during the bid process. The Petitioner did not avail itself of these opportunities.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Intervenor was properly qualified to complete the construction project contemplated by Invitation to Bid No. DCF-03211120 (ITB)
Findings Of Fact The Department issued the ITB for a construction project, involving the re-roofing of Buildings 1 and 2 at 12195 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida. The ITB was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 24, 2008. The ITB outlined the terms and conditions for responsive bids. The ITB indicated, among other things, that all sealed bids were required to be submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, by January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. Leo Development submitted its sealed bid at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. FBM submitted its sealed bid by the date and time, but at a different location—the offices of Russell Partnership— contrary to the ITB. All other bidders submitted their sealed bids at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. The Department’s architect of record on the project, Russell Partnership, and one of its principals, Terry Holt, performed the examination and bid tabulation. Mr. Holt, a registered architect for approximately 36 years, was very familiar with the procurement process and had extensive experience in determining whether a bidder was licensed by DBPR in order to complete the work contemplated for a project. The sealed bids submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, on or before January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. were as follows: All Time Roofing, with a bid of $73,400.00; Taylor Roofing, with a bid of $59,708.00; Leo Development, with a bid of $54,109.00; John W. Hunter Enterprises, with a bid of $75,000.00; and Trintec Construction, with a bid of $75,500.00. 9. FBM’s bid was $71,600.00. Mr. Holt determined that Leo Development was the lowest bidder. FBM’s bid was not considered as being non-responsive. Additionally, Mr. Holt reviewed Leo Development’s website to ascertain as to whether any factors existed to disqualify Leo Development. The website failed to reveal any basis for Mr. Holt to disqualify Leo Development. Having discovered no basis to disqualify Leo Development as the lowest bidder, Mr. Holt submitted the list of bidders, with their bids, to Bill Bridges, the Department’s senior architect and a registered architect for approximately 25 years. Mr. Bridges was the person responsible for oversight of the ITB process. As Leo Development was the lowest bidder, Mr. Bridges reviewed the website of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (Division of Corporations) in order to ensure that Leo Development was registered with the Division of Corporations. His review revealed that Leo Development was a fictitious name properly registered to Leo Premier Homes, LLC. Further, Mr. Bridges performed a license background check on Leo Development in order to ensure that Leo Development was licensed by DBPR. Mr. Bridges reviewed DBPR’s website, which revealed that Frank Anthony Leo was the owner of Leo Development and that the following licenses were issued by DBPR: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Development; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development. Mr. Bridges confirmed and was satisfied that Leo Development was properly licensed to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Mr. Bridges recommended that Leo Development be awarded the ITB as the lowest responsive bidder. FBM filed a written protest (Initial Protest) of “its exclusion from the bid tabulation.” The Department issued a Final Order Rejecting Bid Protest (Final Order) on February 19, 2009. The Final Order provided in pertinent part: FBM was determined non-responsive because the bid was not presented at the time and place specified in the ITB. . . FBM’s formal written protest alleges that FBM, on the date of the bid submission/bid opening, was misdirected as to the location of the bid opening. . . . FBM’s protest must be rejected because it does not state a claim that could entitle it to relief. . . In the context of a bid protest proceeding . . . the protest must adequately allege that the protestor could obtain the contract award or otherwise benefit should the protest be successful. . . Assuming all of FBM’s factual allegations are true and that those facts entitle FBM to have its bid considered, FBM would still be entitled to no relief. Had FBM’s bid been accepted, FBM would have been the third lowest of six bidders. FBM’s formal protest does not allege that the lowest and second lowest bids were deficient in any manner. FBM was not injured in fact, because it still would not have received the contract award. Accordingly, FBM’s formal written protest is REJECTED. No appeal was taken by FBM of the Department’s Final Order rejecting FBM’s Initial Protest. Among other findings, the Department’s Final Order on FBM’s Initial Protest found that, taking FBM’s allegations as true, FBM would have been the third lowest bidder. FBM would not have been the second lowest bidder. The parties agree that the holder of a certified building contractor’s license and a certified roofing contractor license would be permitted to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Subsequent to the opening of the sealed bids, Leo Premier Homes, LLC, registered the fictitious name of Leo Roofing & Construction with the Division of Corporations. After the registration with the Division of Corporations and after the Department’s Final Order, licenses were issued by DBPR. As to the licenses issued, the record of the instant case provides2: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Roofing & Construction; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction. The licenses reflect the same license numbers, as before, and only the fictitious name is different on each license to indicate Leo Roofing & Construction.3 The contract for the ITB was entered into between the Department and Leo Development. In these proceedings, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $1,311.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing FBM General Contracting Corporation’s Protest and awarding costs in the amount of $1,311.05 to the Department of Children and Family Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to August 2, 1984, DOT issued bid blanks for a mini- contract for State Project No: 76020-3515, for work consisting of cleaning and guniting a concrete box culvert located on State Road 19, in Putnam County, Florida, approximately one mile south of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The bid package, signed by C. A. Benedict, District Engineer, for the DOT, specifically reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The bid package broke the work down into three item numbers. The first was mobilization and called for one pricing unit. The second item called for maintenance of traffic at the work site and called for one pricing unit as well. The third area called for restoration of spalled areas (gunite) and called for approximately 437 cubic feet to be priced. In this regard, the plans furnished with the bid package and the bid package itself, in at least three separate locations, called for the bid as to the last item to be priced and paid for on a unit price basis. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid of seven bidders. It was determined to be faulty, however, in that though it properly priced the first two items, it failed to submit a unit price for the third item per unit, submitting instead a total price for the third item based on the entire cubic footage. Petitioner's bid indicated 437 cubic feet priced at a total of $17,832.00. Simple arithmetic permits a division which results in a unit price for each of the 437 cubic feet of $40,805. This last unit price, however, is not reflected on the bid submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's bid is the only bid of the seven submitted which did not contain a unit price for each of the units in the third item. EDS has been in business since 1980. It performed one previous contract for DOT and is familiar with DOT's rules regarding bidding. It had ample opportunity to examine the plans and the bid blank before submitting its bid and admits that the unit price, though required, was omitted. Petitioner contends, however, that the omission is not a material variance and can be waived by Respondent. Respondent contends, on the other hand, that the failure to list the unit price in the third item is material. This determination is based on the fact that since the bid package calls for payment on a unit basis, the odd one- half cent per unit does not permit even money payment and requires rounding off. Even with this being true, the maximum difference would be one- half cent to be rounded off either upwards or downwards. At some point after opening, at least one of the unsuccessful bidders found out that Petitioner's bid failed to technically conform to the terms of the bid blank and at this point the second lowest bidder, Vann's Sandblasting, whose bid was $4,000.00 higher than that of Petitioner, and who had done several contracts for Respondent in the past, indicated that if petitioner's bid were not rejected, he would file a protest. The one-half cent variance, itself, is not material. Considering all factors, however, the failure to state the unit price may, under certain circumstances, be.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Petitioner, EXPLOSIVE AND DIVING SERVICES, INC., be awarded the contract for State project No 76020-3515. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gail S. Wood, President Explosive and Diving Services, Inc. Post Office Box 200 Clarksville, Florida 32430 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the decision by the State of Florida, Department of Corrections (DOC) to reject all bids received in response to Request For Proposal 93-RIVHSD- 075 (RFP) was arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, illegal or dishonest. Additionally, Intervenor challenges Petitioner's standing to bring this proceeding since Bio-Medical Applications, Petitioner's wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, submitted the bid at issue and because Petitioner would not be a party to any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP.
Findings Of Fact Standing In its response to the Request For Proposal at issue in this proceeding, Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. (BMA) provides the following regarding vendor name and address: Vendor Name: Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. Vendor Mailing Address: c/o National Medical Care, Inc. 1601 Trapelo Road Walthem, Massachusetts 02154 In the bidder acknowledgment and ownership interest portion of its response to the RFP, BMA disclosed the following: ... This bid is presented in good faith without collusion or fraud and Ernestine M. Lowrie, as signer of the bid from Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. has full authority to bind as the principal bidder. All stock of Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. is held by Bio-Medical Applications Management Company, Inc. and all the stock of the latter corporation is held by National Medical Care, Inc., 1601 Trapelo Road, Walthem, Massachusetts 02154. All of the stock of National Medical Care, Inc. is held by W. R. Grace and Company. The Dialysis Services Division of National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC) is the largest division of NMC. In each state in which NMC has an interest in dialysis services operations, Bio-Medical Applications is organized as a corporate entity and is part of the Dialysis Services Division of the parent corporation, NMC. Petitioner in this proceeding, NMC, is not currently organized and registered as a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. At the final hearing in this case, NMC's representative testified that he was not aware that NMC was registered to do business in the State of Florida but thought NMC had been operating in Florida for about 20 years. BMA is wholly owned by NMC. The Respondent agency originally expressed its intent to award the contract at issue to BMA. NMC has a substantial interest in the RFP and the contract at issue, therefore, its substantial interests will be affected by the agency's proposed action to reject all bids. NMC has alleged that the agency's decision to reject all bids was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, and fraudulent. Further, Petitioner also contends that the agency decision to reject all bids, after BMA's bid proposal has been disclosed to competitors, undermines the competitive purpose of the bid process. The Request for Proposal On August 27, 1993, the DOC issued RFP No. 93-RIVHSD-075. The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for a contract to perform peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at the Department's Broward Correctional Institution and its South Florida Reception Center. The RFP required that bid proposals be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. The RFP provided that a bidder would receive up to 50 points for its price proposal and up to 50 points for its qualitative proposal for a total of 100 possible points. The RFP also provided that the DOC reserved the right to reject all bids when the DOC determined it was in its best interest to do so. The Bid Evaluation Upon initial review of the proposals submitted in response to the RFP, the DOC originally calculated that Petitioner's subsidiary, BMA, had received 49 out of 50 possible points from its price, as well as qualitative proposal for a total of 98 points. On October 22, 1993, the DOC sent written notice to all proposers of its intent to award the contract to National Medical Care, Inc. (Petitioner). At the time it mailed its notice of intent, the DOC believed that the difference between the Bio-Medical and the lowest price proposal (received by HealthInfusion) was $156,780 over the five year term of the proposed contract. HealthInfusion and an additional disappointed bidder filed protests contesting the DOC's notice of intent. Based upon input from the protestors, the DOC learned that it had miscalculated the cost of Bio-Medical's proposal. When the DOC corrected its initial error in calculation, BMA's proposal was $340,000 higher over the first three years of the proposed contract and $972,000 higher than the lowest bidder for the entire five year contract term. The Decision to Reject All Bids On November 24, 1993, the DOC notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. In addition to the initial miscalculation of price in the bid, the DOC discovered what it considers to be other irregularities in the evaluation in this case. BMA was the existing provider at the time the RFP issued. The bid evaluators worked closely on a day to day basis with Petitioner's employees. The DOC believes the evaluators preferred that Petitioner be awarded the contract and that the evaluators were not objective. During the process of evaluation, the evaluators were provided a letter from a party representing one of the bidders which contained allegations regarding negative background information on other bidders. The DOC believes that the letter should not have been given to the evaluators and that access to the letter further affected the evaluator's ability to be objective. Admitted Facts NMC and the Respondent DOC filed a Prehearing Stipulation in which the following facts are admitted by those parties: The DOC issued Request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075 ("RFP"). The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at Broward Correctional Institution and South Florida Reception Center. Bid proposals had to be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. On November 24, 1993, the Department notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. The Department rejected all bids due to significant irregularities in the bid evaluation process and the price difference between the winning bid and the low bid was too great. (Emphasis supplied.) On December 3, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its notice of intent to protest the DOC's decision to reject all bids. On December 13, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its formal written bid protest. Burden of Proof Petitioner has failed to prove, by the preponderance of evidence, that the DOC acted arbitrarily, illegally, fraudulently or dishonestly in making its decision to reject all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order dismissing NMC's protest of its decision to reject all bids in response to request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 16th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7111BID The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner's PFOF 1 is adopted in paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order (RO). Petitioner's PFOF 2 is adopted in paragraph 9 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 3 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 4 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 5, to the extent not conclusory, is adopted in paragraph 1 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 6 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 7 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. 8-9. Petitioner's PFOFs 8 and 9 are hereby adopted. Sentence 1 of Petitioner's PFOF 10 is hereby adopted. Sentence 2 of this proposed finding is rejected as conclusory. Petitioner's PFOF 11 is adopted in paragraph 14 of the RO. 12-14. Petitioner's PFOFs 12, 13 and 14 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 15 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 16 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 17 is adopted in paragraph 26 of the RO and is a fact, in effect, stipulated to by Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner's PFOF 18 is adopted in substance in paragraph 21. To the extent not adopted in the RO, the remainder of Petitioner's PFOF 18 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 19 is adopted in paragraph 13 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 20 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 16 of the RO. 21-24. Petitioner's PFOFs 21-24 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 25 is rejected as a conclusion. Petitioner's PFOF 26 is rejected as conclusory and argumentative. This proposed finding is also irrelevant based upon facts admitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's PFOF 27 is rejected as irrelevant based upon facts admitted to by Petitioner. 28-34. Petitioner's PFOFs 28-34 are hereby adopted to the extent relevant. Based upon Petitioner's admission that the Respondent rejected all bids based on "significant irregularities," these proposals are for the most part irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 35. Petitioner's PFOF 35 is hereby adopted. 36-39. Petitioner's PFOFs 36-39 are adopted. 40-44. Petitioner's PFOFs 40-44 are cumulative and not necessary to the conclusions reached. Respondent's PFOF: 1-19. Respondent's PFOFs 1-19 are adopted in the RO. 20. Respondent's PFOF 20 is rejected as conclusory. 21-22. Respondent's PFOFs 21 and 22 are adopted in the RO. 23. Respondent's PFOF 23 is rejected as argument. 24-26. Respondent's PFOFs 24-26 are adopted in the RO. 27. Respondent's PFOF 27 is rejected as conclusory. 28-29. Respondent's PFOFs 28 and 29 are adopted in the RO. 30-32. Respondent's PFOFs 30-32 are rejected as conclusions and argument. Respondent's PFOF 33 is hereby adopted. Respondent's PFOF 34 is rejected as argument. Intervenor's PFOF: 1-21. Intervenor's PFOFs 1-21 are adopted in substance in the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 22 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 4 of the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 23 is hereby adopted. Intervenor's PFOF 24 is adopted in substance. Intervenor's PFOF 25 is hereby adopted. However, Intervenor has failed to prove that the activity of NMC is not within one of the several exceptions to the requirements of Section 607.1501, Florida Statutes. COPIES FURNISHED: Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Jennifer Kujawa-Graner, Esquire PANZA, MAURER, MAYNARD & NEEL, P.A. 3081 East Commercial Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
