Findings Of Fact In April 1995, DMS issued ITB #94/95-053 soliciting bids for providing an indefinite quantity of interior painting of buildings statewide. Bidders were to submit unit prices for ten categories of work in each of five districts. The unit prices were added together to arrive at a total for each of the five districts. The invitation to bid (ITB) contemplated the award of five contracts--one for each district. The contract was to be issued for one year with the anticipated renewals of one year each. The ITB provided that bids would be "evaluated and awarded to the responsible low bidder(s) per region." On May 1, 1995, DMS issued an addendum to the ITB. DMS issued the addendum to add the requirement for a bid bond or cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. The purchasing specialist in charge of the solicitation had inadvertently omitted the bid bond requirement from the ITB. The purpose of the bid bond is to compensate the agency for damages in the event the low bidder fails to enter the contract at issue. To underscore the importance of the bid bond requirement, DMS required that all bidders return a signed acknowledgment form with their bid. Ten bidders submitted bids on May 15, 1995. The lowest bidder for regions two through four was Brighton Painting Company (Brighton). Although the ITB provided that bids could only be withdrawn prior to bid opening, David Batts, who will be responsible for managing the contracts, contacted Brighton's president after the bid opening and questioned him because the contractor was based in Illinois. Based on that conversation, Mr. Batts determined that Brighton would not be able to adequately manage the contract while based out of state. Although the ITB provided that bids could only be withdrawn prior to bid opening, DMS allowed Brighton to withdraw its bid. Taul submitted the lowest bid for region one and the second low bid for regions two through five. J. F. Ward Painting and Decorating (Ward) submitted the third lowest bid for regions one, two, four and five. CEM Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sunshine Painting (CEM) submitted the third lowest bid for region three. The total of the unit prices submitted by Ward and CEM were higher than the total of the unit prices submitted by Taul. 1/ After the bid opening, all bids were reviewed by the agency purchasing office in order to determine responsiveness. Ms. Joyce Plummer is the purchasing officer for DMS, who was responsible for evaluating and awarding the contract. Ms. Plummer found no irregularities in her review of Taul's bid. After her review, Ms. Plummer provided Mr. Batts the three lowest bids for review by him. Mr. Batts reviewed the bids because he was the individual primarily responsible for preparing the ITB and because he would be the contract administrator once the contracts were awarded. On May 30, 1995, at 10:20 a.m., DMS posted a notice of intent to award the contract to Ward. The posting indicated that Taul's bid was disqualified for failure to submit a bid bond. Ms. Plummer posted the notice of intent to award the contracts to Ward based on the opinion of Mr. Batts that Taul had not submitted a valid bid bond. At the request of Mr. Taul, DMS Bureau Chief Wayne Smith reviewed Taul's bid bond and determined that it was responsive. At that time DMS had in its possession a letter from the surety agent affirming the surety's obligation in a minimum amount of $5,000 under the bid bond. 2/ Ms. Plummer therefore reconsidered the posting and spoke with another purchasing officer, Kathleen McKenzie. Ms. McKenzie had been employed by DMS longer than Ms. Plummer and she recalled a prior bid process in which a bid bond similar to Taul's had been accepted. McKenzie did not know at the time she gave her opinion that the contract in question was an indefinite quantity contract. As a result of the further inquiry into the sufficiency of Taul's bid bond, DMS posted an amended bid tabulation announcing its notice of intent to award the contracts to Taul. Sometime after the second posting, Mr. Ward called Mr. Batts to discuss the award to Taul. Mr. Batts advised Mr. Ward that, in his opinion, Taul's bid bond was no good. After this conversation with Mr. Batts, Ward filed a notice of intent to protest the award to Taul. When she received the notice of intent to protest filed by Ward, Ms. Plummer discussed the matter with DMS assistant general counsel. 3/ As a result of that discussion, Ms. Plummer posted a second amended tabulation indicating an award of all five regions to Ward. That tabulation subsequently also was amended to represent the award of the contract for region three to CEM. The first posting showing an intent to award to Ward was verified by Mr. Batts and Ms. Plummer. The second posting showing an intent to award to Taul was verified by Ms. Plummer. The third and fourth postings were verified by DMS general counsel. The bid security requirement in the ITB called for submission of a bid bond or a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. The ITB also required bidders to commit to furnishing a $100,000 performance and payment bond if they were successful. In order to obtain a bid bond, a bidder must secure a commitment from the bonding company to issue a performance and payment bond. If the surety agrees to provide the payment bond, it will issue a bid bond without charge. Taul has been in the commercial painting business since 1978. For the past 8 years 95 percent of its work has been awarded by governmental entities pursuant to competitive bids. Taul has consistently expressed the intent to execute and perform the contracts in accordance with its bid in this case. In obtaining the bid bond in this case, Taul followed his standard practice--contacting the bonding agent and providing information regarding the nature of the contract and extent of commitment that would be required for the performance and payment bond. The bid specification for the bonds was given to and reviewed by the surety agent. The surety agent, David Pichard, was of the opinion that, since the ITB called for a performance bond in the amount of $100,000 and because the amount of the contract was indefinite, the amount of the bid upon which to issue the bid bond was $100,000. The standard bid bond requirement on public contracts is five percent. The plain wording of the bid bond submitted is that the sum of the surety obligation is "FIVE PER CENT (5 percent) OF AMOUNT BID." Since the contract to be awarded in this case is for an indefinite quantity of work, the "amount bid" is indeterminate. Petitioner was unable to establish, either prior to or at the final hearing, what the "amount of the bid" is. Mr. Batts was of the opinion that the amount of the bid bond was not clear. Based on that opinion, Mr. Batts believed that the bond did not meet the specification in the ITB. The purpose of the bid bond requirement was to ensure that DMS received considered bids. Due to the vagaries of the contract DMS wanted a contractor it could depend on to enter into the contract in case there was an emergency painting need such as storm damage. With a valid bid bond or a cashier's check the contractor could not unilaterally decide to walk away from the bid without leaving money on the table. The ITB addendum is clear and definite with respect to the required bid bond. Taul's bid bond is indefinite and not specific with regard to the amount of the bid bond furnished. Taul's bid bond was therefore not responsive with regard to the bid bond requirement. Petitioner has failed to prove that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, fraudulently, or illegally, in determining that Petitioner's bid was materially not responsive to the requirements of the ITB at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's formal bid protest. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of September, 1995, in 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 11th day of September, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Nine bids were received for Contract E4571, Project/Job No. 99004-3516 ("E4571"). Petitioner's bid was timely received. Respondent opened bids on December 13, 1991. Respondent posted its intent to award E4571 to J & D Tropical Landscape Design on December 20, 1991. Section 1.2 of the Bid Specifications for E4571, as modified by the Special Provisions, states: A contractor's bid shall be in the form of a unit price for each unit expected to be accomplished. The Special Provisions to E4571 require each bidder to submit a single unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. Item 4 in the Special "Provisions provides: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to submit to the Department A SINGLE unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. The Contractor shall be responsible for his/her method of averaging. Failure to comply shall result in the Contractor's Bid Proposal being declared "Irregular" and such Bid Proposals will be rejected. (emphasis added) Petitioner's Bid Proposal was properly declared irregular and rejected by Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Item 4 in the Special Provisions by failing to submit a single unit price for each pay item, by failing to correctly average a unit price, and by failing to state the unit price in words. The Unit Price Sheet on page 23 of the Bid Proposals contains the following table listing item numbers A582- 2 through A584-4. Petitioner listed item number A583 as follows: ITEM PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE $ AMOUNTS NUMBER QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE (IN FIGURES) (Exten- (IN WORDS) sion Price) 3/ A583 4 200.000 TREES (8' TO 20, 85 20400 PLANT ' HEIGHT OR CLEAR TRUNK) @ DOLLARS CENTS The actual extension price 4/ for 200 trees at $85 per unit is $17,000 rather than the $20,400 stated by Petitioner in the table on page 23. The "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the table is $37,013.20. The "Contract Total" that should have been stated if Petitioner intended the extension price of item number A583-4 to be $17,000 would have been $33,613. The "Contract Total" listed by a bidder on the Unit Price Sheet is the unverified contract price. The actual contract price is determined by Respondent pursuant to the formula given in Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications. Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications foil E4571 states: The contract price is defined as the sum of the unit bid price times the planned work for each item as shown on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner would have been the lowest successful bidder irrespective of whether Respondent had replaced the extension price for item number A583-4 and the "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner with the actual extension price for item number A583-4 and the actual "Contract Total" . However, Respondent is precluded from doing so by Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications For Road ,and Bridge Construction ("Standard Specifications"), published by the Florida Department of Transportation (1991) and by the Special Provisions for E4571. Respondent follows "Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications for the purpose of evaluating bid proposals. Section 3-1 is used, in part, to determine the extension price for item numbers listed on the Unit Price Sheet. Section 3- 1 provides in relevant part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price of any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, In which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Petitioner did not show the unit price in words for any item number on the Unit Price Sheet, including item number A583-4. There is a discrepancy in the three entries for item number A583-4 on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner failed to show the unit price for item number A583-4 in words, and the unit price and extension price are not in agreement. Under such circumstances, Respondent interprets Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications as requiring that Petitioner's bid be declared irregular and rejected. Respondent's interpretation of Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications is reasonable and is consistent with the mandate in Item 4 of the Special Provisions for E4571. See Finding 4, supra. Furthermore, in practice, the correct unit price of a pay item is necessary to process payment under the contract and the contractor must submit invoices based upon the pay items and unit prices listed in its bid. The bid specifications for E4571 provide that a bidder is responsible for his or her own averaging of a stated unit price, and that if a bidder fails to provide a single unit price for each pay item on the Unit Price Sheet the bid shall be declared "Irregular" and will be rejected. The requirement to provide a single unit price for each pay item was emphasized by Respondent at the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Petitioner's representative attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. No challenges were made to the bid specifications by any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (964) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact By Notice To Contractors dated October 4, 1984, Respondent Department of Transportation (DOT) advertised for sealed bids on a number of state road projects for submission by 10:30 A.M. on October 31, 1984. Among the projects were Job No. 97930-9384 in Palm Beach County, and Jobs No. 97890-3323 and 89090- 3513 in Martin County. The Notice to Contractors provided that a proposal guaranty of not less than five percent (5 %) of the total actual bid must accompany each bid in excess of $150,000, and provided that bid bonds shall conform to DOT Form 114-G (Rev. July 1969). It further stated that all work was to be done in accordance with the plans, specifications, and special provisions of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. (Stipulation, Ranger Exhibit 9, Dickerson Exhibit 3). Petitioner Dickerson Florida, Inc., (Dickerson) of Stuart, Florida is a contractor that frequently submits bids on DOT road projects. Ted H. Tyson is President of the firm and has participated in some 1,000 to 1,200 bids with DOT since 1960. He and his Vice-President, James R. Widmann reviewed the DOT advertisement of October 4, 1984, and determined to bid on several projects, including the Martin County Job No. 97890-3323 and 89090-3513. Accordingly, Widmann directed his Executive Secretary, Sandy MacCallum, to order the bid packages from DOT and to obtain necessary bid bonds. She proceeded to follow her instructions. The bid bonds were ordered from Surety Associates, Inc., in Jacksonville, Florida, a firm that had done business with Dickerson for some 15 years. Surety Associates mailed two (2) bid bonds, including one (1) for the project in question, to Dickerson on October 16, 1984 and they were received by Dickerson on October 18, 1984. The project documents were received from DOT about October 10 and the Dickerson bid was prepared in Stuart, including the signature of Tyson on the bid bond. Tyson and Widmann took the Dickerson bid proposals to Tallahassee on October 30, 1984. They did further work on the bid materials for three (3) projects at their hotel that evening. The next morning, after ascertaining low bids of sub-contractors, they completed work on the bid packages and checked to insure that they were complete, including the fact that the bid bonds were in the envelopes with the three (3) bids. They were then sealed by Widmann and delivered by him at approximately 9:30 A.M. on October 31, to the DOT central administration office. The bid bends had been placed in the bid materials, but not stapled to the other documents. (Stipulation, Testimony of Lynch, MacCallum, Widmann, Tyson, Dickerson Exhibits 1-2). Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., (Ranger) of West Palm Beach, Florida is a contractor that has submitted bids to DOT in the past, and the firm decided to bid on four (4) projects for the October 31, 1984 bid opening. Bid bends for the proposed projects were ordered by Ranger from the George H. Friedlander Company of Charleston, West Virginia on October 18, 1984. They were issued and mailed to Ranger by that firm on the same date, including one (1) for the project in question, Job No. 97930-9384 in Palm Beach County. On October 30, 1984, the Ranger "Bid Team" consisting of representatives of the firm arrived in Tallahassee where they occupied adjoining rooms at a local hotel. They were joined that evening by George Friedlander whose firm had issued the bid bonds for the four (4) projects on which Ranger intended to bid. They worked during the evening on the bid packages and continued the following morning at which time several independent checks for completeness were made by Friedlander, Leo Vecellio, Jr., President of Ranger, and James M. Slade, Executive Vice-President. They made sure that the bid bonds were placed in the already stapled bid documents in each envelope which were thereafter sealed. It was noted during this process that one (1) bid bond was missing, but it was immediately found in the room and also inserted into the appropriate envelope and sealed. Thereafter, Friedlander and Gene Pearson, a Ranger representative, took the bid envelopes to the basement of the hotel and placed them in a bid box maintained by the Florida Transportation Builders Association as a service to association members. The bid box was in a foyer and a representative of the association was present at all times. Immediately prior to placing the envelopes in the bid box, the envelopes were sealed by scotch tape by Pearson. At about 9:45 A.M., they were taken by an employee of the association to the appropriate location for submission of bids at the DOT building. (Stipulation, Testimony of Slade, Vecellio, Stanchina, Friedlander, Brewton, Ranger Composite Exhibit 1, 5-9). On October 31, 1984, DOT personnel followed their customary procedures in processing bids submitted on 53 projects. Lee Schroeder was in charge of the bid opening in place of his supervisor, John Ted Barefield, Chief Bureau Contracts Administration, who was absent that day. Schroeder was assisted by Ray Haverty and about eight (8) other DOT employees. At 10:30 A.M., the various bids were opened by the DOT employees, removed from their envelopes, and stacked on tables by project number. There is no evidence that any of the bids were unsealed prior to opening at the appointed time. Haverty and Schroeder checked the bids for addenda. No check was made at this time for the presence or absence of bid bonds. The bids were then stacked by job number and moved to a higher level in the DOT auditorium where Haverty read the pertinent information from the bids regarding the job, name of bidder, and amount of the bid. Dickerson was the apparent low bidder on Job No. 97890-3323 and 89090-3513 with a bid of $1,010,459.35, and Ranger was the apparent low bidder on Job No. 97930- 9384 with a bid of $1,210,323.66. Dickerson's bid was $75,246.49 lower than the next low bidder, and Ranger's bid was $83,365.93 lower than the next low bidder. After reading the pertinent bid information, a rubber band was placed around the bids for each project and placed in a plastic container. After completing the bid opening procedure, the four (4) or five (5) plastic containers holding all the bids were covered and placed on a cart where they were taken to the contract administration office. The bid envelopes had also been placed in a cardboard box when the bids were opened and they were taken to the same office on the cart. The envelopes were checked for any contents, but nothing was found. (Testimony of Barefield, Schroeder, Haverty, Stipulation, DOT Exhibit 2). During the afternoon of the bid letting, several employees of DOT's minority programs office reviewed all of the bids to determine the presence or absence of required documents concerning the disadvantaged business enterprises and good faith effort submittals in this regard. During the course of this review, pertinent documents were photocopied and, in some instances, it was necessary to unstaple the bid packages to perform this function. A trash can was available in the immediate area for the disposal of any peer copies. The trash cans are emptied each evening by custodial personnel. The minority programs employees finished their review the next morning, November 1, 1984. At this point, Ray Haverty customarily stapled any loose bid bends to the back of the front cover of the bid package so that there would be no loose documents when the bids were given to other employees who served as "checkers" of the bid documents. (Testimony of Haverty). The DOT "checkers" are provided with the bids for one (1) or more projects and they proceed to check the bid documents for appropriate signatures, bends, seals, and the like. The standard procedure is for a checker to write the initials "BB" on the top left side of the front sheet of the bid documents if the bid bend has been included. If not included, the checkers are suppose to clip a note reflecting that fact to the front of the bid package. During the course of checking the bids in question, it was discovered that there were no bid bonds in the Dickerson and Ranger bid packages for the jobs in question. Although different checkers had placed a "BB" on the top front page of each bid package, the specific checkers in question were under the misapprehension that that symbol should be placed there simply because the documents had been checked for bid bonds. The correct procedure is set forth in a checklist that bid checkers are supposed to follow, although the date of inception of its use is unclear. As soon as it was reported to Ray Haverty that the Dickerson and Ranger bonds were missing, he instituted a thorough search of the office, including the minority business programs office, but was unsuccessful in finding the two (2) missing bid bonds. Although it was not precisely established when Haverty was informed of the missing bonds, it was probably on either November 2, or Monday, November 5, 1984. (Testimony of Haverty, Maloy, Daniels, Pilcher, Stipulation, Dickerson Exhibit 2). On November 5, 1984, Dickerson was advised by telephone call to its Stuart, Florida office from DOT's employee, Lee Schroeder, of the Contracts Administration Division, that the bid bond on the Martin County project could not be located. DOT was told by Dickerson that the bid bond had been included in the sealed envelope with its bid and that a copy of the original bid bond and a replacement bid bond would be promptly secured and submitted to DOT. On November 8, 1984, or shortly thereafter, Dickerson submitted a copy of the original bid bond, a replacement bid bond, and affidavits of Tyson, Widmann, and MacCallum concerning submission of the original bid bond. On November 15, 1984, the DOT Contract Award Technical Review Committee met and determined that Dickerson's low bid be rejected as non-responsive for failure to include a bid bond with its bid, and that the contract be awarded to the next low bidder, Hardrives Company of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The notice of DOT's intent to award State Job No. 97890-3323 to Hardrives Company was confirmed in a Mailgram dated November 16, 1984, and the formal notice of intent to award to that firm was issued eon December 10, 1984. Dickerson thereafter protested the rejection of its bid. (Testimony of Widmann, Tyson, Parefield, Lynch, Stipulation, DOT Exhibits 3, 6). Similarly, Ranger was advised by telephone call from Schroeder on November 5, 1984 that its bid bend for Palm Beach County-State Project Job No. 97930-9384 could not be located by DOT. By letter of November 6, 1984, Ranger informed DOT that the requisite bid bend had been present in the sealed bid envelope when submitted to the agency on October 31, 1984, and enclosed a duplicate original of the bend. At the November 15, 1984 meeting of the Contract Award Technical Review Committee, Ranger's low bid on the project was rejected as non-responsive due to the failure to submit a bid bend, and the committee voted to award the contract to Hardrives of Delray. By Mailgram, dated November 16, 1984, DOT advised Ranger that its low bid had been declared "irregular" due to its failure to submit a bid bend and stating that Hardrives of Delray, Inc., was new the apparent low bidder on the project. Ranger thereafter protested the decision by letter of December 10, 1984, and on December 18, filed its formal protest of the proposed award. (Testimony of Slade, Friedlander, Stipulation, DOT Exhibits 3, 6; Ranger Exhibits 2-4). The DOT 1982 standard specifications for road and bridge construction which are incorporated as a part of the bid proposal, provide pertinently as fellows: SECTION 1: Definition and Terms. 1-29 Proposal Guaranty. The security designated to be furnished by the bidder as guaranty that he will enter into the contract for the work if his proposal is accepted. SECTION 2: Proposal Requirements and Conditions. Rejection of Irregular Proposals. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, . . . or irregularities of any kind. . . . Guaranty to Accompany proposals. No proposal will be given consideration unless it is accompanied by a proposal guaranty of the character and amount indicated in the Notice to Contractors, and made payable to the Governor of the State of Florida. Proposals shall be submitted with the under- standing that the successful bidder shall furnish a contract bond pursuant to the re- quirements of 3-5. SECTION 3: Award and Execution of Contract. 3-2 Award of Contract. 3-2.1 General: The award of the contract, it if be awarded, will be to the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements necessary to render it formal. (Testimony of Barefield, DOT Exhibit 5). It was stipulated by the parties that Ranger and Dickerson meet all requirements for the award of the contracts in question if it is determined that they submitted the required bid bonds to DOT in their bid packages on October 31, 1984. Based on the foregoing facts, it is further specifically found that both Ranger and Dickerson submitted the requisite bid bonds on the projects in question in their bid packages on October 31, 1984, and that the cause of the apparent loss of the bonds thereafter cannot be determined by the evidence presented at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact In June 1987 The School Board of Lee County, Florida invited the submission of sealed bids for grading and drainage improvements at the new Multipurpose Building at Fort Myers High School. In addition to requiring grading, the project involves the erection or placement of structures in the nature of a drainage system consisting of culverts, pipes, and concrete inlets with grates, to be tied into the existing drainage system off School Board property across a county right-of-way into a culvert for discharge across the street, and which on School Board property attaches to and becomes a part of an existing building. Sealed bids were submitted by Systems Technologies Co. of Ft. Myers, Inc. (hereinafter "Systems Technologies") and by Ledo Lines, Inc. Respondent determined Systems Technologies to be the lowest responsible bidder and advised Ledo Lines, Inc., that it would be awarding the contract to Systems Technologies. Warren W. Hunt is the president and the qualifying agent of Systems Technologies. Hunt has an underground utilities contractor's license which has been inactive since it was obtained by him in March, 1986, being inactive therefore both at the time that Hunt submitted the bid on behalf of Systems Technologies and at the time of the final hearing in this cause. The inactive status results from Hunt's failure to complete the license process with the State of Florida. Since Hunt's license was inactive due to being incomplete at the times material to this cause, neither Hunt nor Systems Technologies was a licensed contractor and Systems Technologies was not a responsible bidder at the time that the bid was submitted. The contract specifications set forth the method by which the bids would be evaluated. Paragraph numbered 2.9 on page PD-4 provides as follows: Comparison of Proposals - Proposals will be compared on the basis of total computed price for each division of work. Total computed price equals the sum of the prices for the lump sum Contract Item, plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price Contract Items for each Division of work. The total price for each unit price Contract Item will be obtained by multiplying the estimated quantity of each item by the correspond- ing unit price set forth in the Proposal form[.] That provision, accordingly, requires that the bids be evaluated based upon the sum of all line items rather than based only upon their total or "bottom line" figure. Respondent's Director of Facilities Planning admitted that he failed to comply with this provision of the contract specifications in evaluating the two bids submitted to him and in determining that the bid should be awarded to Systems Technologies. In Systems Technologies' bid, the sum of the prices for the lump sum contract items plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price contract items amounts to $30,109.60. However, in submitting its bid Systems Technologies incorrectly added its column of figures and incorrectly computed its Total Contract Price (Estimated) to be $29,768. Since the contract specifications envision a unit price bid rather than a lump sum bid, the amount of the bid of Systems Technologies is in fact the amount of $30,109.60. The bid of Ledo Lines, Inc., is for $29,913.84. Ledo Lines, Inc., is, therefore, the low bidder on this project. The contract specifications when read in their entirety clearly require that the low bid be determined by adding the unit price and lump sum components rather than relying on the lump sum "bottom line" figure shown for Total Contract Price (Estimated). Employees of the consultant who Prepared the specifications testified that they expect to be able to hold the bidders to the unit prices but not to the Total Contract Price (Estimated) because the estimated quantities may change. Thus, the evidence is uncontroverted that the determination of low bidder pursuant to the contract specifications is based upon the total of the unit price provisions and not by the single figure at the bottom of the page which adds those individual prices and which was added erroneously in this case by Systems Technologies. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated that the School Board is subject to mandatory competitive bidding for this project. They further stipulated that where there is mandatory competitive bidding, the contract must be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder. Since Systems Technologies is neither a qualified, responsive bidder nor the lowest bidder, it is clear that Ledo Lines, Inc., is the lowest responsive bidder for the project in question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining Ledo Lines, Inc., to be the lowest responsive bidder and awarding the contract for grading and drainage improvements to the Multi- purpose Building at Fort Myers High School to Ledo Lines, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Melvin, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 E. G. Couse, Esquire Post office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Harry A. Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether costs and attorney's fees are due Petitioner, hereinafter PROCTOR, from Respondent, hereinafter HRS, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, as a result of Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 91-5963-BID, and, if so, the amount of costs and fees.
Findings Of Fact The petition for fees and costs herein is brought exclusively under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and relates back to a bid protest wherein PROCTOR and TCC #3 LTD., INC., hereafter TCC, were the only bidders on HRS lease 590.236. PROCTOR was the protestant/Petitioner and TCC was the apparent successful bidder/Intervenor in Derick Proctor v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 91-5963BID. HRS' Invitation to Bid (ITB) for lease 590:236 required bidders to submit evidence of control of the property being offered, including the parking areas. Evidence of control could take the form of a deed for the property, an option to purchase the property, or a lease or option to lease showing a right to sublease. TCC did not submit a document labelled "deed," "option to purchase," "lease," or "option to lease" with its bid. TCC submitted as its evidence of control a contract for sale and purchase of the property with Hernando Plaza, Ltd., executed by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves to be general partners of the limited partnership. At all times material, the actual record title of the property submitted by TCC for the bid was in the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation. At the times of the bid opening, evaluation, and August 27, 1991 notice of intended award, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with an entity other than the record owner. Up to then, at least, Hernando Plaza, Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as being the owner of the property. The ITB did not require an abstract of title to be submitted with the bid. HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contained provisions for future disclosures from successful bidders. Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS' ITB attempted at the time to protect HRS by requiring successful bidders to post an irrevocable letter of credit to be forfeited in the event a successful bidder could not perform and for future disclosures concerning the chain of title. (See the recommended order in the underlying case). HRS accepted the contract to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza, Ltd. as TCC's required evidence of control, believing it to constitute an option to purchase. (See Findings of Fact 15-17 infra, this final order). On August 27, 1991, PROCTOR received from HRS a notice of intent to award the bid to TCC. This notice constituted the "window" for protests, if any, to be filed. PROCTOR then timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest of the award to TCC. The filing of this protest resulted in an automatic suspension of the bid solicitation and contract award process and referral of the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. This protest formed the basis of the underlying bid case, DOAH Case No. 91-5963BID. No later than the time of the Prehearing Order of September 23, 1991 in Case No. 91-5963BID, the law firm of Gibbs and Rudzik had made known to the hearing officer and counsel for both PROCTOR and HRS its retention as counsel for TCC. TCC moved for leave to intervene in a motion filed September 30, 1991, which was granted in an order of October 4, 1991. In a letter of October 10, 1991, counsel for PROCTOR made counsel for HRS aware of a question of whether TCC could obtain good title to the property. Counsel for PROCTOR proposed in a letter of October 14, 1991 to counsel for HRS that HRS reject both PROCTOR's and TCC's bids and rebid the lease, but this letter was primarily devoted to determining if HRS wished to interpose a new defense that PROCTOR's bid was unresponsive. In the instant fees and costs case, PROCTOR relies on its October 14, 1991 letter as the point from which HRS should have acted to avoid incurring attorney's fees and costs. After the receipt of the two letters, HRS did not reject both bids and rebid the contract but proceeded to formal hearing on October 30, 1991. PROCTOR and HRS share the mutual impression that had HRS accepted PROCTOR's proposal to reject both bids, HRS would have to have allowed TCC an opportunity to protest that decision. At the final hearing in Case No. 91-5963BID, evidence was offered that Hernando Plaza, Ltd. had a conditional option to purchase the property from the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. However, it was not established at the hearing that the conditions of the option had been fulfilled or that TCC or Hernando Plaza, Ltd. could otherwise gain good title to the property through a valid option. It was concluded as a matter of law in Case No. 91-5963BID, that on its face, the ITB stated that control could be evidenced merely by attachment of an "option to purchase," that the ITB stated no further requirements concerning the internal provisions of the option to purchase, and that TCC's conditional contract for purchase constituted a conditional option to purchase. The conditions of the option to purchase and the chain of title, among myriad other matters were subjects of proof at the formal hearing. The conditions of the option to purchase and various complicated real property concepts arising from recorded and unrecorded parts of the chain of title constituted the thrust of the recommended order's assessment that TCC's "control" was speculative only. It is here noted that the totality of the "chain" of title might have been unavailable even by "abstract" due to the lack of recordation of some documents. The lengthy formal hearing adduced evidence concerning the factual issue of whether or not the conditional option to purchase was between TCC and an entity which had such a sufficiently unequivocal interest in the proposed property that it could convey title to TCC in time for TCC to fulfill its obligations under its proposed lease to HRS. There is no evidence that HRS knew of these problems on August 27, 1991, when it gave notice of its intent to award the bid to TCC. Hernando Plaza, Ltd. was the entity with which TCC had contracted. At formal hearing, TCC relied on the legal concept that all interests in the property had merged in the non-title holder, Hernando Plaza, Ltd. This concept, together with recorded and unrecorded elements in the chain of title which were presented at formal hearing, were determined in the recommended order to be too "speculative" on the issue of TCC's control. However, it was also found, upon evidence submitted at formal hearing, that TCC's bid contained no other material deviations from the requirements of the ITB, that the signator of TCC's bid had sufficient status to submit the bid for the TCC corporation, and that TCC's signator could not submit the bid as an agent of the owners of the real property. TCC and its bid signator had never purported to have submitted the bid on behalf of the owners of the real property. (See the recommended order of the underlying bid case.) These issues were raised by PROCTOR and they addressed more than just the facial compliance of TCC's original bid documents which was all HRS had to consider when it made its initial decision in favor of TCC and against PROCTOR. However, the recommended order found HRS to have materially deviated in a number of ways from the bid process in its initial evaluation of PROCTOR's bid, not the least of which was determining that PROCTOR had complied with the ITB requirements for demonstrating control. All such evaluation flaws had been committed by HRS in favor of PROCTOR. Both TCC's and PROCTOR's bids were ultimately found to be unresponsive in the recommended order entered on December 20, 1991. The recommended order also found both had standing to be involved in the bid protest and formal hearing. The recommended order recommended rejecting both bids and readvertising the ITB. The Final Order of HRS entered on January 20, 1992 dismissed PROCTOR's protest on the basis that he lacked standing to protest, as his bid was unresponsive, and awarded the bid to TCC. HRS did not give PROCTOR notice that his bid was not responsive until it issued its Final Order. The Final Order of HRS was appealed to the First District Court of Appeals by PROCTOR. The First District Court of Appeals entered an order on June 22, 1992 finding PROCTOR had standing and remanding the case back to HRS for the purpose of a decision of the issue of whether TCC's bid was also unresponsive. On July 27, 1992, HRS entered its Amended Final Order determining both bids to be unresponsive and that the lease should be relet for bids. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the Amended Final Order of HRS in a per curiam opinion without discussion on October 13, 1992. HRS did not reject both bids and rebid the contract until after this per curiam opinion. No motion for rehearing was filed with respect to either of the First District Court of Appeals' orders entered June 22 or October 13, 1992, nor was any notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court filed. PROCTOR did file a motion for rehearing solely on the court's denial of PROCTOR's motion for appellate fees. Mandate was issued by the Clerk of the First District Court of Appeals on December 3, 1992. HRS entered an Order Directing Release of Bid Protest Cost Bond on December 18, 1992, in which HRS stated: Petitioner, Derick Proctor, has prevailed in the above styled bid protest. Petitioner's domicile and principal place of business is Vero Beach, Florida. Petitioner has one employee. Petitioner is a sole proprietorship. Petitioner's net worth does not exceed $2,000,000.00. HRS was not a nominal party in the underlying bid case. HRS did not initially challenge PROCTOR's "small business party" status in this instant fees and costs proceeding. Therefore, that allegation of the fees and costs petition is not at issue. Also, Petitioner's "small business party" status is now stipulated to exist. The parties have stipulated that the maximum statutory fee is $15,000.00 and that $15,000.00 is a reasonable fee if an award of attorney's fees is due. HRS has not protested or objected to the amount of costs claimed, $411.25, if costs are due.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1994, the Respondent received and opened bids for its Project No. HSMV 92044000, Repairs, Art Sutton Drivers' License Office, Miami, Florida (the Project). The bid specification documents (the Specifications) for the Project included requirements for a Base Bid and for specific alternate proposals with respect to three defined items of alternate work. Section 01100 of the Specifications stated that "[a]ll Alternates described in this Section are required to be reflected on the Bid Form as submitted by the bidder." Part 2 of that section provided: ALTERNATE NO. 1 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the removal of existing window units and the installation of new units as indicated in plans and specification Section 08520. ALTERNATE NO. 2 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the provision of communications conductors see specification Section 16400. ALTERNATE No. 3 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the installation of all landscape materials as indicated on plans and as per specification Section 02960. Also included in the Specifications as Exhibit 4 was a Proposal Form. The Specifications required each bidder to submit this form in triplicate on the bidder's letterhead. With respect to alternates, the Proposal Form required: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ The Respondent's architect received four bids on August 31, 1994. As recorded on the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation, three bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates, as well as a Base Bid. The Bid Tabulation shows that two bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates and included the alternate prices in their Base Bids. The Petitioner provided specific prices for the three alternates, but excluded the alternate prices from its Base Bid. The fourth bidder provided a specific price for only one alternate and excluded that alternate price from its Base Bid. (The fourth bidder was disqualified as non-responsive for failing to submit prices on all three alternates.) In pertinent part, the Petitioner's proposal read: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications: Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct . . . $4,400.00 Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct . . . $1,158.00 Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct . . . $2,084.00 These Alternates were in addition to the Petitioner's Base bid of $204,322.00. The proposal form submitted by the Petitioner comports with Exhibit 4 to the Specifications, which was the mandatory Proposal Form. On August 31, 1994, William Phillip Austin, Peitioner's President, wrote the architect: Per our telephone conversation this date regard- ing the confusion relating to the Add/Deduct for Alternates 1, 2 and 3 for the above project, please be advised that our base bid did not include the work described in the Alternates. As stated if you want work described in Alternates 1, 2 and 3, you must add the cost to our base bid. The base bid including Alternates 1, 2 and 3 would, therefore, be $211,964.00. If we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Respondent's architect completed and submitted the bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation to the Respondent in early September. The document clearly discloses the amounts of each bidder's Base Bid and Alternate proposals. Using plus (+) and minus (-) signs, the Bid Tabulation further shows each bidder's method of calculation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent had any problem in evaluating the bids and identifying the lowest bidder. The Petitioner was the lowest bidder on any combination of base bid plus or minus any or all alternates. Subsequently the Petitioner received a NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION dated October 4, 1994. The Notice informed the Petitioner that the Respondent "has recommended that the contract be awarded to your firm in the total amount of $211,964.00, accepting the Base Bid and Alternates #1, #2 & #3. The Administrator of Contracts Design and Permitting, Division of Building Construction, Department of Management Services, State of Florida will consider this recommendation." Larry R. Coleman, Construction Projects Administrator, signed the letter. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt. A representative of the second lowest bidder, Kalex Construction, then contacted the Respondent, complaining of the Award Recommendation. The grounds for the Kalex complaint are not in the record. However, on October 14, 1994, H. R. Hough, the Respondent's Contracts Administrator, sent the Petitioner a letter "to notify you of the State's decision to reject all bids on the above referenced project due to ambiguities in the specifications." Mr. Hough's reasons for the rejection are "other than those stated by the protestor," Kalex. The Respondent's Rule 60D-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, states: Determination of Successful Bidder. All projects except where competitive bidding is waived under the provisions of Rule 60D-5.008 will be publicly bid in accordance with the provisions in the project specifications bidding documents. Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder, determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents, that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract, taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Under the above-quoted rule, the Respondent compares bids beginning with the lowest "base bid." The Respondent is of the view that for this comparison to be fair and equal, all bidders must include the same scope of work in the "base bid." The Respondent does not interpret the above-quoted rule to allow deductive alternates from some bidders and additive alternates from others. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, the Respondent's interpretation and application of the above-quoted rule is erroneous.) The Specifications contain some ambiguous and inconsistent language regarding whether alternates should be treated as additive or deductive. The ambiguous and inconsistent language did not provide any bidder with an advantage or a disadvantage, nor did it otherwise affect the fairness of the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order in this case awarding a contract for the subject project to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 December 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: This is primarily a statement of position and is addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 2 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. Third sentence is accepted as an accurate statement of how Respondent has been interpreting the subject rule, but is not accepted as constituting a correct interpretation of the rule. Paragraph 8: Rejected as misleading and confusing because the "scope of work" to be performed under the contract can only be determined after the Respondent decides which alternates to include and which to exclude. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esquire Armstrong & Mejer Suite 1111 Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue At issue is whether petitioner's request for a bond waiver under the provisions of Section 559.927(10)(b)5, Florida Statutes, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc., is a "seller of travel," as that term is defined by Section 559.927(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and was formed in April 1993 by Steven Wolf, its president, to carry on the travel business he had previously operated through Consolidated Cruises, Inc., since October 1987. Effective October 1, 1988, Chapter 88-363, Laws of Florida, codified at Section 559.927, Florida Statutes (1989), required sellers of travel to register with the Department, and to post an annual performance bond. Failure to register with the Department or to conduct business as a seller of travel without the required bond was a violation of law, and subjected the person or business to civil and criminal penalties. Consolidated Cruises, Inc., the business through which Mr. Wolf was operating at the time, did not register with the Department as a seller of travel until November 1, 1991. Effective October 1, 1993, Chapter 93-107, Section 1, Laws of Florida, amended Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, to provide that: The department may waive the bond requirement in this subsection if the seller of travel has had 5 or more consecutive years of experience as a seller of travel in Florida. . . . On or about May 25, 1994, petitioner filed an application for registration as a seller of travel with respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (Department), and requested a waiver of the annual performance bond requirement. Pertinent to this case, the request for waiver described the history of Consolidated Cruises, Inc., and Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc., as follows: Consolidated Cruises Inc. was established on 10/1/87 as a company that promoted cruises. The sales for the company was minimal for the first 2 years. The principal stock holder was Steven Wolf (100 percent). In March of 1990 Consolidated Cruises added 3 new major stock holders to the company and split the company stock as follows: Steven Wolf - 25 percent Miriam Wolf - 25 percent Yoav Tavory - 25 percent Judy Tavory - 25 percent In April of 1993 Consolidated Cruises ceased to function since the major stock holders had a disagreement as to the dissolution of the company. In the interim, to keep the company going a new corporation was formed by Steven Wolf & Miriam Wolf called, "CONSOLIDATED CRUISES & TOURS INC. For all practical purposes, the company continued to work the same as before but under the auspices of a new company name. In all the years that we have been providing our services, we have never had ONE complaint. On the basis of our past performance, we request that you waive the requested security bond of $10,000. Our previous registration number for CONSOLIDATED CRUISES INC. are as follows: certificate of registration No: 11347 certificate No. 00283 By letter of June 16, 1994, the Department denied petitioner's request for bond waiver. Such denial was premised on the Department's interpretation of Section 559.927, Florida Statutes, as allowing a waiver of the bond requirement only when the "seller of travel has had 5 or more consecutive years of experience as a seller of travel in Florida" that was lawfully obtained, i.e., that such experience occurred while the person or business was duly registered with the Department as required by law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioner's request for a performance bond waiver. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of January 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January 1995. APPENDIX Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 4, otherwise not relevant. See, paragraph 9. 3-5. Addressed in paragraph 6, otherwise unnecessary detail. 6. Addressed in paragraph 3, otherwise unnecessary detail. 7 & 8. Addressed in paragraph 5. 9. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. 10 & 11. Addressed in paragraph 6. 12. Rejected as not relevant since the Department did not specify such reason as a basis for denial in its letter of June 16, 1994, did not seek to amend its reasons for denial prior to hearing, and did not raise such issue until after petitioner had presented its case-in-chief. See paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Wolf, President Consolidated Cruises and Tours, Inc. 8181 Northwest 8th Manor Plantation, Florida 33324 Jay S. Levenstein, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Transportation (DOT), arbitrarily refused to accept the low bid submitted by the Petitioner, Quinn Construction, Inc. (Quinn), and Bay Machine, Inc., for State Project No. 15200-3902.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 7, 1994, the Petitioner, Quinn Construction, Inc. (Quinn), submitted a $1,695,534.84 bid on behalf of Quinn and Bay Machine, Inc., in response to a November, 1994, Department of Transportation (DOT) solicitation for bids on State Project No. 15200-3902. State Project No. 15200-3902 was essentially the same project for which the DOT previously solicited bids on or about July 1, 1994. The earlier solicitation for bids was cancelled when all bids were rejected, and the bid solicitation process was reinitiated. All bidders were required to furnish a bid guaranty, and the parties stipulate that any bid not accompanied by a bid guaranty would be declared nonresponsive. Attached to the Quinn/Bay Machine bid was a Bid or Proposal Bond on DOT Form 375-020-09. There was only one bridge rehabilitation project for Pinellas County among the projects for which the DOT was opening bids on December 7, 1994, and the bid bond was attached to the bid proposal of Quinn and Bay Machine for State Project No. 15200-3902. Utilizing the DOT form, the Quinn bid bond described the proposal being bonded as being "for constructing or otherwise improving a road(s) and/or bridge(s) or building(s) in Pinellas County; particularly known as Bayway 7918 Bridge Rehab." The part of the form calling for identification of the "Project No." was left blank. The bid bond was executed by James M. Moore as attorney- in-fact for North American Specialty Insurance Company. In addition to calling for the "Project No." in DOT Bid or Proposal Bond Form 375-020-09, the DOT routinely furnishes all bidders a Bidder's Checklist which reminds bidders to use the form and to identify the project on the form by county, by the federal aid number(s), if applicable, and by the State Project Job Number. Although the Bidder's Checklist was not in the bid package received by Quinn in connection with the November, 1994, solicitation for bids, Quinn received a Bidder's Checklist for the July, 1994, solicitation for bids on the same project and for many other previous bid solicitations. In prior bid proposal submissions, including the bid proposal submitted for the same project in August, 1994, Quinn had its surety use the "Project No." to identify the project on the bid bond. The attorney-in-fact for the bond company testified that the number 7918 on the bond was a typographical error. He testified that he thought 798 was the number that was supposed to be on the bond to identify the project. The WPI No. for the project was 7116982. The applicable State Road number was 679. The applicable bridge number was 150049. Although DOT Bid or Proposal Bond on DOT Form 375-020-09 called for identification of the "Project No.," DOT would have accepted a bid bond that identified the project by any of these numbers or by the official name of the bridge, if any. The bridge in question has no official name. It was not even proven that the bridge is commonly known as the Bayway 7918 Bridge, or even as the Bayway Bridge. The bridge in question is part of the Pinellas Bayway, which is a system of roads, causeways and bridges connecting St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg Beach and several small keys in Boca Ciega Bay. There are two state roads on the Pinellas Bayway: State Road 682, which connects State Road 699 to the west on St. Petersburg Beach to Interstate 275 to the east in St. Petersburg; and State Road 679, which intersects State Road 682 and runs south through Tierra Verde into Fort DeSoto Park on Mullet Key. Both 682 and 679 have combination fixed-span and bascule (draw) bridges. The bridge in question is on 679. When the DOT opened the bid of Quinn and Bay Machine, the incorrect identification of the project on the bid bond was noticed, and the question was referred to the Technical Review Committee. During its meeting on December 21, 1994, the Technical Review Committee sought the advice of its legal counsel and was advised that the bond probably would not be enforceable due to the inaccurate identification of the project to which it pertained. Based in part on the advice of counsel, the Technical Review Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the DOT Contract Awards Committee that the bid proposal be rejected as being non-responsive because of the bid bond. On December 23, 1994, the Contract Awards Committee met and voted unanimously to reject the bid proposal as being non-responsive because of the bid bond. Instead, the Committee accepted the bid proposal of M & J Construction Company of Pinellas County, Inc. (M & J). It was not arbitrary for the DOT to conclude that the Quinn bid bond was, or might well have been, unenforceable due to the inaccurate identification of the project to which it pertained. The DOT did not even consider whether the Quinn bid bond also may have been invalid and unenforceable because it named just Quinn as the principal, instead of both Quinn and Bay Machine, the actual entity that was prequalified to bid on the project and the actual entity bidding on the project. It also was not arbitrary for the DOT to conclude that submitting an unenforceable bid bond is not a minor irregularity. If a successful bidder does not enter into a contract, the project would be delayed while it is being rebid. The delay itself would result in a monetary loss. In addition, rebidding the project would result in additional costs to the DOT. Submitting an unenforceable bid bond could give a bidder the competitive advantage of feeling able to escape from having to contract and perform in accordance with a low bid, if advantageous to the bidder, without being liable under the bid bond.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's bid protest and awarding State Project No. 15200-3902 to M & J Construction Company of Pinellas County, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0564BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. (It appears that the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are found at pages 2-5 of its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs on those pages are assigned consecutive numbers.) Rejected in part. (Joint Exhibit 2 refers to State Road 679, not the project, as having the "Local Name: Pinellas Bayway." Joint Exhibit 5 also only refers to State Road 679, not the project, by the name "Pinellas Bayway." Only the front covers of the technical specs refer to the "Pinellas Bayway Bridge." The other pages refer to the "Pinellas Bayway," and all of the pages also include the State Project Number.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second and last sentences, rejected as not proven. Rejected in part as argument and in part as not proven. Last sentence accepted, but ambiguous and not legally significant, subordinate and unnecessary, whether DOT could "tie" the bid bond to the bid. Penultimate sentence, rejected in part as not proven (that Exhibit 4 "identified the project as the Pinellas Bayway"); otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. The rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (The evidence was clear that the DOT form requires a state project number and that the Bidder's Checklist provided to bidders by the DOT reminds bidders to use the form and identify the project by county, federal aid number(s), if applicable, and State Project Job Number.) Second sentence, subordinate and cumulative. Rejected as conclusion of law. Last sentence rejected as not proven that North American identified the project or that it used the local name of the bridge. The rest is rejected as not proven because the evidence was clear that the DOT form requires a state project number and that the Bidder's Checklist provided to bidders by the DOT reminds bidders to use the form and identify the project by county, federal aid number(s), if applicable, and State Project Job Number.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that DOT was arbitrary. The rest is subordinate, in part cumulative and in part argument. Subordinate, cumulative and argument. Rejected in part as conclusion of law, in part as argument and in part as not proven. Respondent's and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact. All of the DOT's and the Intervenor's proposed findings of fact are accepted and are incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne Quinn, Esquire 1321 77th Street East Palmetto, Florida 34221 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Joseph G. Thresher, Esquire One Mack Center 501 E. Kennedy Bouelvard, Suite 725 Tampa, Florida 33602 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1984, Respondent gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids for State Project No. 72000-3541, referred to as Federal-Aid Project No. M 9041(10). This project involves the installation of a computerized traffic control system for the City of Jacksonville. In response to the opportunity to bid, the Department of Transportation received four bids. Petitioner, Winko-Matic Signal Company, was among the bidders. The other bidders were Georgia Electric Company, Traffic Control Devices, Inc., and Sperry Systems Management. The bids of Traffic Control Devices and Sperry Systems were rejected based upon an error in bid tabulations on the part of Traffic Control, a mistake on the quantities page, with the Sperry rejection being based upon a bid bond problem. Traffic Control had been the apparent low bidder with a bid of $1,964,115. Winko-Matic was the second apparent low bidder with a bid of $2,279,604.70. The Department of Transportation had estimated that the total cost of the Jacksonville project would be $ 2,024,680.61. Having discarded the bid of Traffic Control Devices, the Department of Transportation telegrammed Winko-Matic on April 4, 1984, advising Winko-Matic that it was the apparent low bidder for the Jacksonville project. Subsequently, the awards committee of the Department of Transportation met on April 18, 1984, and determined to reject all bids and re-advertise the job. In the course of this meeting the awards committee was told that there were erratic bids received on contract items, pointing to some perceived confusion among the contractors as to requirements of the contract. Discussion was also held on the possibility of establishing a pre-bid conference if the project was re advertised. The awards committee then voted to reject the bids on the basis that the apparent low bidder, Winko-Matic, had submitted a bid which-was 12.6 percent over the Department's estimate, instead of being within 7 percent of the Department of Transportation's pre-bid estimate, a point above which the Department of Transportation in its non-rule policy would call to question to the acceptability of the apparent low bid. In addition to deciding to reject all bids and re-advertise, it was determined that a pre-bid conference should be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the bid-letting date. Winko-Matic was advised that the Department of Transportation's decision to reject all bids by correspondence of May 4, 1984, in which it was indicated that all bids had been rejected based upon the fact that they were too high. In response to this notice of rejection, Winko-Matic, effective May 17, 1984, filed a written notice of protest. The case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 20, 1984, and a final hearing date was established by Notice of Hearing of July 5, 1984. The hearing date in this cause was September 12, 1984. The Jacksonville project in question requires the utilization of what has been referred to "UTCS Enhanced" software. This software package is unique and has only been used in a limited number of locations within the country. Those locations are Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Broward County, Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama. Another unique feature within the project design is the use of an associated coaxial computer sys gem. Given the unique nature of this project and the fact that the Department of Transportation had never advertised for bids related to UTCS software, Department of Transportation obtained assistance from a consulting firm, Harland, Bartholomew & Associates. In fulfilling its function Harland gave estimates to include an estimate related to the projected cost of the software, Item 681-102. The Harland estimate for the overall project was $2,143,130 including a $100,000 estimate for the software system. That estimate relating to the software was subsequently adjusted by the Department of Transportation to depict a cost of $13,780. The Department of Transportation estimate was based upon information within its computer related to a system unlike the enhanced software contemplated by the plans and specifications. In other words, the stored information in the Department of Transportation computer was not the same as contemplated by the plans and specifications in the Jacksonville project. Moreover, the initial estimate of Harland was based upon the idea of an extended software system, as opposed to an enhanced software system. Winko-Matic had bid $389,500 for the software in Item 681-102. That estimate was premised upon figures obtained from JHK and Associates, the group which Winko-Matic intended to use as its subcontractor for the enhanced software portion of the project. JHK developed the software and was responsible for systems integration of the Los Angeles, California, project, one of the locations in which UTCS enhanced software has been utilized. JHK premised its estimate for the software hare upon experience in Los Angeles and an evaluation of the tasks to be performed related to the enhanced software. This included general software development activities, hardware innovation, installation costs during the period of acceptance and testing, and the preparation of data base. The JHK bid price was $339,500. Another $50,000 was added to that price related to what the Petitioner describes as its management costs for that item. By June 20, 1984, when a further meeting was held by the awards committee on the subject of the Jacksonville project, it was concluded that the estimate made by the Department of Transportation of $13,780 was not correct, on the topic of the enhanced software. A more reasonable estimate, according to the information imparted in this session, would be $200,000 for enhanced software as called for in this project, with a $100,000 amount being a reasonable estimate had they chosen to use extended software. Adjusting the initial price related to the UTCS enhanced software to reflect a corrected estimate of the Department of Transportation in its original advertised bid, that estimate becomes $2,210,900.61 and its consultant Harland's estimate becomes $2,243,130. With this adjustment, the differential in the estimate made by the Department of Transportation and the Petitioner approaches 3 percent and not the 12.6 percent originally found. The 3 percent is below the threshold of 7 percent used as the policy for determining whether a bid might be rejected as being far beyond the acceptable limits set forth in the Department of Transportation's estimate. In the aforementioned June 20, 1984, awards committee meeting, the Department of Transportation continued to hold the opinion that all bids in the Jacksonville project should be rejected and the matter re-advertised. Although the problem pertaining to the estimate of the cost of the enhanced software package had been addressed, the committee continued to feel that the prices received in the bid letting were erratic Reference was also made to revisions or modifications to the project plan which would be offered if the matter were re- advertised. It was also pointed out that the Federal Highway Administration would concur in the Department's decision to reject all bids and would accept modifications. The awards committee again voted to reject the bids. The matter was again considered by the awards committee on August 31, 1984. On that occasion, it was pointed out that the revisions contemplated by the Department of Transportation, should the matter be re-advertised, would not affect in a substantial way the cost estimate for the project with the exception of Item 680-101, the system control equipment (CPU), which would promote a lower price for the project. The committee determined in the August, 1984, meeting to reject all bids and re-advertise. While the initial notice of rejection of May 4, 1984, had suggested the basis for rejection as being the fact that Petitioner's bid far exceeded the 7 percent allowance for price above the Department of Transportation's estimate of costs, the meetings of the awards committee and the suggestion of the Respondent in the course of the final hearing in this case indicated that there were other reasons for the decision to reject. Those Were: (a) an apparent lack of clarity among bidders regarding specifications for the Jacksonville job, (b) the desire of the Respondent to revise specifications on the Jacksonville project; and (c) a lack of sufficient competition in the bids. In connection with the first of the additional reasons Respondent suggests that variations within the bid responses related to particular line items within the specifications point out a lack of clarity in the project's specifications or confusion by bidders related to those specifications. Respondent did not bring forth any of the bidders who might speak to the matter of possible confusion or misunderstanding concerning some of the bid items. By contrast, the Petitioner's president; the president of JHK & Associates and James Robinson, Harland's project manager for the Jacksonville job, did not find the specifications in the original documents to be confusing. In addition, the testimony of those individuals established the fact that bid variations related to particular line items are not extraordinary and do not establish any apparent confusion by the bidders as to the requirements of those line items. In effect, what the differentials demonstrate are variations related to the manufacture or in-house capabilities of the bidders and an effort to allocate discretionary costs in various places as to line items. Moreover, they might indicate last- minute adjustments in the bid quote prior to the opening and a possible effort by a contractor to enter into a new job market. Finally, they demonstrate offsetting which is the allocation of item prices by a contractor to maximize profits. To do this, a contractor submits high bids on items representing quantities which the contractor feels will increase after the contract is awarded and submits low bids on items representing quantities which are not likely to change. In summary, while the Department of Transportation in its presentation expressed some concern about the variations in the pricing in the bid quotations offered by the respective bidders in this project, its suspicions on the question of the possible clarity of its specifications were not confirmed and are not convincing. On the topic of revisions which the Department of Transportation would offer if the matter were re-advertised, with one exception those matters appear to be items that could be attended through change orders or supplemental agreements. They are not matters which necessarily must be addressed through a rejection of all bids and a re-advertising of the project. The lone exception to this is the possibility that the Department of Transportation may not be able to protect its proprietary rights in the enhanced software which is being developed for the project, under the terms of the present bid documents. Given that uncertainty, the Respondent would wish to re-advertise the project and make certain that its proprietary interests are protected. Finally, Respondent has alluded to the fact that the Jacksonville project should be re-advertised in view of the lack of competition in the initial letting. Only four bidders expressed an interest in this project at the time of the first letting. Of those, two bidders were found to be responsive. While this is a low number of bidders, there does not appear to be any agency practice on the part of' the Department of Transportation to the effect that this number of bidders would not be accepted. Moreover, no indication has been given that should the matter be re-advertised a greater number of bidders would express an interest than was the case in the first letting. Consequently, this reason for bid rejection is not acceptable. If Respondent did not reject the bids and re-advertise the project, Winko-Matic would be the successful bidder in the Jacksonville project.
