The Issue The issue in this case is whether the proposed award of contracts by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to Caremark, Inc. (Caremark), and Lynnfield Drugs, Inc., d/b/a Hemophilia of the Sunshine State (Lynnfield), pursuant to AHCA's Request For Proposal (RFP) 0507, was contrary to AHCA's governing statutes, AHCA's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). There are approximately 250 Medicaid-eligible individuals ("beneficiaries") in Florida who have hemophilia. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous clotting proteins or "factors" that contribute to the ability of a person's blood to clot. The disease is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to a person. The costs for hemophilia medicines ("factor products") and treatment for this relatively small group of beneficiaries are extremely high, estimated to be $46 million in 2005. Half of these costs are paid by Florida, half by the federal government. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2004),2/ requires an agency to make a written determination that an Invitation to Bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or services prior to issuance of an RFP. On August 24, 2004, AHCA made the written determination that an Invitation to Bid was not practicable for procurement of the services called for in the MCHM program. Pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, a challenge to the terms and specifications of an RFP must be filed within 72 hours of notice of the posting of the RFP. There were no challenges filed to the terms and specifications of RFP 0507. RFP 0507 contemplates a statewide hemophilia management program that combines pharmaceutical management and disease management. Section 5.0 of the RFP identifies the two fundamental requirements for vendors responding to the RFP: The vendor must demonstrate that it has the capability to design, implement, monitor and evaluate a comprehensive hemophilia management program. The vendor must demonstrate that it has the experience in designing and implementing projects similar to the one prescribed in this RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA was to contract with up to three experienced vendors for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. Beneficiaries of the hemophilia services will be notified and instructed to choose one of the winning vendors or, for beneficiaries who do not make a choice, AHCA will assign a winning vendor on an equal, rotational basis. The RFP provides that the successful vendors will be paid on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement of factor product costs. Originally, RFP 0507 called for the submission of a technical proposal and a separate cost proposal. The cost to the State for the services provided was not to exceed the total cost of the factor products dispensed, discounted to the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) of the factor product, minus 39 percent. Cost proposals would have been scored separately from technical proposals, and then the two scores were to be combined to determine the ranking of the competing vendors. On January 21, 2005, prior to the deadline for responses to RFP 0507, AHCA issued Addendum 5 to the RFP, which eliminated the requirement for a separate cost proposal. All vendors were required to provide the technical services for the revenue they would receive under a reimbursement methodology set forth in Addendum 5. The reimbursement methodology makes AWP, minus 39 percent one of several measures of cost, the lowest of which determines the maximum reimbursement that Florida will pay the vendor. The change to RFP 0507 brought about by Addendum 5 did not change the fundamental nature of the RFP. Both the original RFP and the revised RFP created a competition among vendors to provide the best hemophilia management services to the State for a maximum cost. Addendum 5 changed the maximum cost from AWP, minus 39 percent, for factor products to a cost determined by the reimbursement formula. Under both the original RFP 0507 and the RFP as modified by Addendum 5, vendors could propose to provide factor products at a cost to the State lower than AWP, minus 39 percent. However, greater weight or importance would have been given to a proposal to provide factor products at a lower cost under the original RFP, because it called for cost proposals to be separately presented, evaluated, and scored. Based on the maximum scores attainable for the technical and cost proposals (1000 and 500, respectively), the cost proposal would have accounted for a third of a vendor's total score under the original RFP. Under the revised RFP, cost-saving measures offered by a vendor were relevant to only a few of the technical items in the RFP, such as those related to the management and dispensing of factor products. Even in the aggregate, these evaluation criteria allowed for the award of relatively few points for cost-saving measures contained in a proposal. AHCA received eight proposals in response to RFP 0507. One proposal was rejected by AHCA because it was determined to be non-responsive. The seven remaining proposals were made a part of the case record. Although RFP 0507 stated that up to three contracts would be awarded, AHCA decided to award contracts only to Caremark and Lynnfield. In a memorandum dated May 16, 2005, AHCA explained that "the points awarded indicate the top proposals scored significantly higher than the others. A difference of 124 points between the number two and the number three ranked proposal indicates a measurable difference in quality." The Organization of HHS's Proposal Section 6.0 of the RFP sets forth "Proposal Instructions." These instructions include a requirement to submit the proposal in a three-ring binder and to number the pages of the proposal. Another requirement imposed on the form of the proposal, as opposed to its content, was that the proposal had to use four tabs with specified titles. Tab 4 was to contain each vendor's technical response to the RFP. The RFP stated, "This is the most important section of the response with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." Section 6.1E of the RFP describes the various categories of information that are required to be part of the vendor's technical response. There are eight general categories: Summary; Organizational Background and Experience; Project Staffing; Technical Approach; Innovations; Implementation Plan; Systems, Security and Confidentiality; and Certification Relating to Contracts. Some of these general categories were broken down further into separately numbered items of required information. For example, under the heading "Organizational Background and Experience," there are 11 numbered paragraphs describing the information required to be included in the proposal. Some of the numbered paragraphs are further divided into information requests identified by letter, such as item 9, which is divided into 23 information requests, lettered a through w. A logical manner in which to organize a proposal would be to present the information in the same order as the information is requested in the RFP, using the same headings, numbers, and letters that are used in the RFP. All the vendors, except HHS, organized their proposals so that the technical information required by Section 6.1E of the RFP was located under a divider or page labeled "Tab 4" or "Technical Proposal," and presented in the same order as the information was requested in the RFP. HHS's proposal has a "Tab 4" with a first page that includes the title "Technical Proposal" and begins with the required "Summary." Following the summary, however, HHS skips items 1 through 8 that were set forth in the RFP under the general category "Organizational Background and Experience" and presents a response to item 9. Then, HHS skips other items set forth in the RFP and presents information about "Innovations." At the end of HHS's Tab 4 is the heading "Additional Requested Information," followed by a list of seven appendices. Some of the information required to be in HHS's technical proposal is contained in these seven appendices. HHS's proposal included a table of contents that listed 31 other appendices, with subject titles, that contained more of the information that the RFP required to be included in each vendor's technical proposal. HHS chose to organize its proposal as it did because it believed the information it placed in the appendices was responsive to several parts of the RFP, and it would "irritate" the evaluators to see the same information repeated in several places. However, HHS's proposal did not always include notations that directed the evaluators to the appendices where relevant information was located. HHS acknowledged that it could have done "a much better job" in organizing its proposal. In the case of some items of requested information, very little effort was required for the evaluators to find the information in HHS's technical proposal. For example, it was relatively easy for an evaluator looking for information related to project staffing to find it in HHS's Appendix AG, entitled "Project Staffing." In other cases, however, greater effort was needed to find the information HHS says was relevant to a particular information request in the RFP. For example, HHS did not include behind Tab 4 a direct response to item 5 under "Organizational Background and Experience," which requests a detailed description of the vendor's organizational structure and ownership, and HHS did not refer the evaluator to a particular appendix. HHS contends the requested information is provided in Appendix AL, entitled "2004 Accredo Annual Report," which contains the Form 10-K for Accredo Health, Inc., HHS's parent company. Another example is HHS's response to item 8 under "Organizational Background and Experience," which requests a plan for the use of woman- or minority-owned businesses. HHS did not respond directly to this request under Tab 4 of its proposal, and its proposal merely contains a letter in Appendix AJ, entitled "Ethnically Diverse Utilization," from a woman-owned business to Accredo Health, Inc., acknowledging an existing relationship with HHS's parent company.3/ One of AHCA's evaluators said she gave HHS a score of zero for 27 evaluation criteria because she could not find the relevant information in HHS's proposal. The record evidence does not show that any other evaluator was unable to find information presented in HHS's proposal or failed to review the proposal in its entirety and score the proposal on its substantive merits. Whether HHS's Proposal Was Non-Responsive AHCA and the Intervenors claim that HHS's proposal was non-responsive to RFP 0507 because it does not include information required by Sections 7.2I and 7.2L of the RFP. Section 7.2 is entitled "Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Technical Proposal" and states in relevant part: During this phase, the Agency will determine if the technical proposal is sufficiently responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination upon opening the technical proposal, the overseer(s) will check each technical proposal against the following list: * * * Does the proposal include a table of contents listing sections included in the proposal and the corresponding sections of the RFP to which they refer? * * * L. Does the technical proposal include a description of the vendor's corporate background and experience at the level outlined in Section 6.1E of the RFP? Section 7.3 states that only those technical proposals determined to meet the mandatory technical requirements set out in Section 7.2 will be further evaluated. Presumably, AHCA determined that HHS's technical proposal included all mandatory requirements, because the proposal was not rejected. The table of contents in HHS's proposal accurately describes the information that is presented in its proposal. However, it does not list all the headings and information items as they appear in the RFP. There are over 30 itemized information requests in Section 6.1E related to the vendor's background and experience. HHS's proposal included information about its corporate organization and experience. However, the organization of the proposal made some of the information difficult to find. Sandra Berger, the AHCA employee who has coordinated contracts and procurements for the Medicaid program, stated that AHCA's policy regarding the review of RFPs is that the evaluator is to review the entire proposal; and if information is not found where it should have been presented, the evaluator will look elsewhere in the proposal for the information. AHCA's expectation is that the evaluator will read every sentence in every paragraph of each proposal. AHCA's Consideration of HHS's Guarantees HHS contends that three cost-saving measures that it offered in its proposal were not considered at all or not fairly considered by the evaluators. HHS offered an "assay management guarantee," an emergency room visit guarantee, and an outdated product guarantee. Because clotting factors are proteins or "biologics," the manufacturers of factor products cannot create a precise potency; they can only target potency. In the same sense that ore is assayed to determine its content of gold or other mineral, factor products are assayed to determine their content of clotting factor (potency). A manufacturer of factor products will generally produce products with low range, mid-range, and high-range potencies. Even within a targeted range, there will be variances of potency between particular vials of product that are dispensed. The recommended potency for some hemophilia treatments, such as a prophylactic regimen, is less than for others, such as for break-through bleeding. Therefore, "assay management" for factor products is a fundamental component of the current treatment of hemophilia. AHCA has established 105 percent as a threshold for evaluation of assay management. That means AHCA has an expectation that the factor dispensed to a patient will generally deviate less than five percent above the factor assay or potency prescribed for the patient by the physician. The 105 percent figure is a monitoring and evaluation threshold, not an absolute maximum. The State is required to pay for factor products exceeding the 105 percent threshold if they were medically necessary. HHS offered an "assay management guarantee" to repay AHCA on a quarterly basis for the cost of factor product that exceeded 102 percent of the target dose. Based on an HHS study done with 56 patients, the guarantee would have created a cost savings of $154,000. If a similar savings rate were realized for the approximately 250 Medicaid-eligible hemophilia patients in Florida, the savings would be approximately three times greater. Caremark also offered an assay management guarantee, but structured differently. However, AHCA does not view this particular type of guarantee as necessarily beneficial. AHCA believes it could create an incentive for the provider to withhold care, not based on medical considerations, but on financial considerations. A provider might reduce factor products dispensed to the patient in order to avoid exceeding a guarantee and having to repay the State. HHS also offered an emergency room visit guarantee so that AHCA would not have to pay for unnecessary emergency room visits. HHS defined unnecessary emergency room visits as those caused by the patient not having the correct amount or type of factor or a sufficient amount or type of infusion "ancillaries." HHS offered to credit AHCA $500 for each unnecessary visit. Another cost-saving measure offered in HHS's proposal was to replace outdated product without cost to AHCA. AHCA did not dispute that these two cost-saving measures would be of benefit to the State. No evidence was presented regarding the estimated value of the benefit. Few of the evaluation criteria for RFP 0507 related directly to the cost-saving measures offered by HHS. HHS presented information about its assay management guarantee in items 9.j and l, under "Organizational Background and Experience." Information about HHS's outdated product guarantee was presented under item 9.k. Information about HHS's emergency room visit guarantee was presented under item 9.v. The maximum score that HHS could have received for these four items was 20 points, out of a total score of 1000 for all criteria.4/ The Scoring Criteria For purposes of evaluation and scoring of proposals, AHCA formed the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria, each worth from zero to 10 points, for a maximum possible score of 1000 points. The scoring scale for the 50 criteria was as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each of the 50 criteria was set forth on a separate evaluation sheet used by the evaluators. Each evaluation sheet identified from where in the RFP the criterion came. The 50 criteria in the evaluation sheets, however, did not correspond to 50 evaluation criteria, identified as such, in the RFP. RFP 0507 rarely uses the term "criteria." Instead, the itemized information requests in the RFP are alternately referred to as "instructions" (Section 6.0), as "specifications" (Section 6.1E), and as "requirements" (Section 7.3). In seven instances, two or more itemized information requests in the RFP were combined to form one criterion on an evaluation sheet. An example is page 13 of the evaluation sheets that grouped together items 9.e, f, g, and h, under "Organization Background and Experience." Judith Saltpeter, the AHCA employee who was principally responsible for the creation of the evaluation sheets, grouped these items together because they all related to vendor assistance to "physicians, specialists and other providers." Another example is the combination of items 9.j, k, and l into one criterion for scoring on page 15 of the evaluation sheets. These three items were combined by Ms. Saltpeter because they were all related to the vendor's proposed handling of factor products. There were two instances in which a single information request in the RFP was divided into more than one criterion for scoring on the evaluation sheets. For example, the evaluation criteria on pages 25, 26, and 27 of the evaluation sheets are derived from a single paragraph of the RFP under "Project Staffing": 2. Identification of staff along with details of training and experience of those individuals who will serve as the Project/Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist Coordinator, and Care Management Coordinator. Resumes and relevant licensure of all identified/named staff shall be included in an appendix to the proposal. AHCA made each of the three positions named in this paragraph a separate criterion for evaluation and scoring because of the perceived importance of these positions to the quality of the vendor's performance. The 50 evaluation criteria used for RFP 0507 were almost identical to the 50 evaluation criteria used for RFP 0403, in which HHS participated. Section 7.3 of the RFP, entitled "Evaluation of Technical Proposals," states in relevant part: Only those technical proposals determined to meet the technical requirements of this RFP will be further evaluated. Evaluation of technical proposals will involve the point scoring of each proposal by component specified in the RFP. The Agency will evaluate the extent to which the services offered in the proposal and the procedures and methods for performing such services meet the requirements of the RFP. For this purpose, evaluators will judge a vendor's description and explanation of the services it will perform to meet the service requirements of each component. Included in Addendum 5 to RFP 0507 and made a part of the RFP are "Agency Responses to Bidders' Questions," which include questions asked by the vendors at the vendors conference held prior to submittal of proposals and AHCA's answers. Two questions and answers are relevant here: Question: How will scoring for the technical proposal be evaluated? Do some [technical] questions have higher weight: If so provide weighting. Answer: All technical items have equal weight. Question: What specific factors will be used for the technical proposal evaluation pursuant to Section 7.3 of the RFP? What will be the relative weight of each factor? Answer: Equal consideration will be given to all items found under Section 6, excluding 6.3 Cost Proposal Requirements and 6.4, Cost Proposal Instructions. The organization of the technical requirements of the RFP into itemized lists and AHCA's statements to the vendors that "All technical items have equal weight" and "Equal consideration will be given to all items found under Section 6," communicated to the vendors a scoring process that was not followed by AHCA. There is nothing in the RFP that informs prospective vendors of the scoring process that was actually used. The combining and dividing of the information requirements in the RFP for scoring purposes affected their relative importance, but no prospective vendor would know from reading RFP 0507 that some of the requirements of the technical proposal would be combined for scoring and other requirements would be divided for scoring. No prospective vendor would know which items in the RFP would be worth up to 10 points, which items were worth only 1/3 or 1/4 as much and which items were worth twice as much. There is no evidence that AHCA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in combining and dividing the technical requirements of the RFP to create the 50 evaluation criteria. There was a rationale behind the combinations and divisions. However, RFP 0507 did not indicate the relative importance of the criteria. Their relative importance was only determinable by reviewing the evaluation sheets, which were not made a part of the RFP. Nevertheless, HHS failed to demonstrate that this error by AHCA made any difference to the contract awards under RFP 0507. The combining and dividing of technical requirements affected all vendors equally. Adjusting the scores so that every itemized technical requirement from the RFP is given equal value would not change the rankings. For example, if an evaluator gave a score of "5" for a criterion that was created from four requirements set forth in the RFP, the score was adjusted to 20 (four times five), and this kind of adjustment was made to all scores for all affected criteria, HHS would still finish in sixth place. Even if the actual scores might have varied from the adjustment just described, there is no evidence to explain how the variance could be more than de minimus or could change HHS's ranking. A related issue concerns item 3 under "Project Staffing" and item 20 under "Technical Approach," also related to staffing, that did not become evaluation criteria for scoring purposes. HHS claims that AHCA's decision to not make these items evaluation criteria was prejudicial to HHS because its proposal regarding project staffing was superior to what was offered by the other vendors. However, if these two items had become two evaluation criteria, they would have been worth a maximum of only 20 points. Even assuming that HHS had been given the highest points by all four technical evaluators for these two items, HHS's ranking would not have changed. Scoring by the Evaluators The four AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposals were Linda Barnes, a registered pharmacist (Scorer "A"); Maresa Thomas, a registered nurse (Scorer "B"); Bruce McCall, who holds a doctorate in pharmacy (Scorer "C"); and Nancy Knox, a registered nurse (Scorer "D"). Kay Newman, a certified public accountant, reviewed only the financial information provided by the vendors. The evaluators were each provided a copy of the seven proposals, the original RFP, Addendums 5 and 11 to the RFP, an evaluation packet, and a conflict of interest form. The technical evaluators were given an instruction sheet and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. Some of the evaluators made comments, others did not. Each evaluator worked independently. The evaluators did not confer with each other or with anyone else during their evaluation of the proposals. The evaluators conducted their evaluations over a period of three weeks. Because each evaluator worked independently, the scores on each proposal differed. It can be expected, and was true in this case, that some evaluators will generally assign lower scores than other evaluators; some evaluators will tend to assign higher scores. There was no evidence that any evaluator for RFP 0507 was inconsistent in the application of his or her scoring approach to all proposals. In addition to the points awarded by the technical evaluators for the 50 criteria, each proposal also received "Financial Audit" points (between one and ten) from Kay Newman. Ms. Newman scored the seven proposals as follows: Caremark 9 Lynnfield 9 AmeriHealth 0 OptionCare 8 Maxim 8 HHS 9 PDI Pharmacy 4 Points were also assigned to the vendors based on telephone "reference reviews" conducted by AHCA employees Hope Chukes and Patricia Morena. Two references were selected for each vendor from the references listed in the proposals. The reviewers used a form with questions related to whether the vendor had fulfilled its obligations under previous contracts. In most cases, three points were given to the vendor when the reference reported that the vendor had performed the particular obligation; otherwise, a score of zero was given. The maximum score that could be obtained for the reference review was 19 points. Some questions on the reference review form were not relevant to the previous contract between the vendor and the reference organization. In those instances, Ms. Chukes was directed to give vendors a score of "3" for the question, rather than penalize the vendors with a score of zero. Because the reference reviews indicated that all vendors had performed their obligations under previous contracts, AHCA gave all vendors the maximum total score of 19. Following the conclusion of the technical evaluations, Ms. Chukes tallied the scores from the four technical evaluators, the financial audit scores from Ms. Newman, and the reference review scores. The resulting total scores and ranking of proposals were as follows: 1 Caremark 1437.2 2 Lynnfield 1384.9 3 AmeriHealth 1207.83 4 OptionCare 1107 5 Maxim 964.3 6 HHS 889.3 7 PDI Pharmacy 774.55 There are some fractional scores, because Ms. Thomas (and only Ms. Thomas) scored multi-part criteria by initially assigning a score to each subpart, using the zero-to-ten scale, and then averaging the result. Although this scoring approach would have caused a variance, in some cases, from the score that Ms. Thomas would have assigned if she had simply scored the criterion as a whole, the variance would have been de minimus. It would not have changed HHS's ranking. For reasons not explained in the record, AHCA manipulated the raw scores by averaging them, assigning the highest ranked vendor a score of 1000, and dividing the average scores of the other vendors by 1000. These manipulations did not change the ranking that resulted from the total raw scores as indicated above. None of the evaluators ranked HHS higher than fourth. One evaluator ranked HHS fourth, one ranked HHS fifth, and two ranked HHS seventh (last). Scoring by Ms. Thomas Ms. Thomas assigned HHS's proposal a zero for 27 of the 50 evaluation criteria. In her notes on the evaluation sheets and in her testimony at the hearing, Ms. Thomas explained that she gave HHS zeroes because she could not find HHS' responses for these criteria, and she assumed they had been omitted. For example, because she did not see information under Tab 4 of HHS's proposal numbered 1 through 7 to correspond to paragraphs 1 through 7 of the RFP, she assumed that the information had been omitted from HHS's proposal. Ms. Thomas did not always look through HHS's entire proposal to determine whether the information she expected to see in Tab 4 was located in an appendix or elsewhere. When she did not find information where she expected it, she often made a notation "nothing presented" on the evaluation sheet and assigned a zero for the criterion. There was no evidence that any other evaluator did the same. The other three evaluators apparently looked through HHS's entire proposal, found the relevant information, and assigned points for each criterion based on their review of the information. As stated above, AHCA's policy regarding the review of a proposal is that the evaluator is to review the entire proposal and, if information is not found where it should have been presented, the evaluator will look elsewhere in the proposal for the information. AHCA's expectation is that the evaluator will read every sentence in every paragraph of each proposal. There is no evidence that Ms. Thomas was biased either for or against any particular vendor. However, it was the duty of the evaluators to read each proposal in its entirety. Nothing in the RFP instructions authorized the evaluators to ignore information in a proposal if it were in the "wrong" place. In most cases, the information Ms. Thomas claims she could not find required little effort to find and was found by the other three evaluators. Ms. Thomas' failure to consider all the information presented in HHS's proposal when assigning scores under the 50 evaluation criteria was contrary to agency policy. Her assignment of a zero to HHS in 27 categories was arbitrary. However, HHS failed to demonstrate that, but for the arbitrary scoring by Ms. Thomas, HHS would have been awarded a contract under RFP 0507. If all of Ms. Thomas's scores are deleted, HHS still ranks sixth. If all of the zeroes that Ms. Thomas gave HHS were converted to tens, HHS would only move up to fourth place and would still not win a contract under RFP 0507. HHS complained of other aspects of the evaluation process used for RFP 0507, such as the separate financial audit performed by Ms. Newman and the reference review. However, HHS failed to prove that if all these alleged errors by AHCA were eliminated, HHS would have been a winner under RFP 0507.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Heath Care Administration enter a final order awarding contracts under RFP 0507 to Caremark, Inc., and Lynnfield Drugs, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2005.
Findings Of Fact James A. Bryington is duly licensed by the FCILB as a general contractor aid as a registered pool contractor holding licenses c 00 1353 and RP 0021851 respectively. In late 1974 or early 1975 he was approached by officers of Trend to qualify their corporation as a duly licensed contractor. At the time Trend was bidding on school projects arid offered Bryington control of one of the schools if their bid was successful plus a small percentage ownership of Trend. On March 4, 1975, Bryington submitted Request for Change of Status (Exhibit 9) to FCILB with the necessary attachments to qualify Trend as a licensed corporate contractor in Florida and Trend was duly certified. Part ownership of Trend was never given to Bryington and no evidence was presented what, if any, other consideration was received by Bryington for his role in qualifying Trend as a licensed general contractor. The school bid was not obtained by Trend and at no time thereafter was Bryington involved in any operations or supervision of the construction projects undertaken by Trend. By contract dated March 31, 1976, Hal H. and Carolyn S. Gill entered into a contract with Trend to construct a residence for them. The contract was executed by Edwin Porter, the president of Trend, on behalf of the contractor. Bryington was unaware of this contract, or of several other construction contracts entered into by Trend, until after the complaint filed herein had been received. Following routine delays in completion of the residence, it was finally completed; and, prior to making the final draw, Porter executed an affidavit of no lien (Exhibit 4) which, when presented to Gill and the bank loaning the money, resulted in the final payment being made. A few days thereafter the Gills learned that at least one contractor and one material man had not been paid in full. Claim of liens (Exhibits 5 and 6) were subsequently filed against Gill's property. Porter was initially contacted by Bryington after the latter became aware of the problem and told Porter to take care of the liens. A few days later Porter advised Bryington that the liens had been taken care of. The subcontractor and the material man made several efforts to collect from Porter the sums owed them for work and materials but without success. Porter has been unavailable and his whereabouts unknown for several months to all persons who testified at these proceedings. No evidence was presented that the draws collected to complete the Gill contract were used on another project or diverted to any other purpose. The only evidence offered was that upon completion of the dwelling and collection of the final draw subcontractors and material men were unpaid. Evidence was presented that Trend failed to satisfy a subcontractor on another residence constructed for Norman Scoggins and Scoggins had to pay the subcontractor to keep from having a lien filed against his property. Since no reference was made to this transaction in the Administrative Complaint this evidence is irrelevant to these proceedings and is disregarded.
The Issue Whether Florida Power & Light Company (hereinafter referred to as "FPL") properly refused the request of Globe International Realty & Mortgage, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Globe") to supply electric service to the premises located at 808 Northeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Kenneth V. Hemmerle, Sr., is a real estate developer. Matthew Renda is a real estate and mortgage broker. Hemmerle and Renda have known each other since about 1986. At the suggestion of Hemmerle, in February of 1993, Renda, along with Hemmerle, formed Globe. At the time, Hemmerle was involved in a development project on the west coast of Florida and he wanted Renda, through Globe, to handle "the selling and so forth for the project." Globe was incorporated under the laws of Florida. The articles of incorporation filed with the Department of State, Division of Corporations (hereinafter referred to as the "Division of Corporations") reflected that: Renda was the president of the corporation; Hemmerle was its secretary; Renda and Hemmerle were the incorporators of the corporation, owning 250 shares of stock each; they also comprised the corporation's board of directors; and the corporation's place of business, as well as its principal office, were located at 808 Northeast Third Avenue in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "808 Building"). Globe is now, and has been since its incorporation, an active Florida corporation. Annual reports were filed on behalf of Globe with the Division of Corporations in both 1994 (on April 19th of that year) and 1995 (on March 23rd of that year). The 1994 annual report reflected that Renda and Hemmerle remained the officers and directors of the corporation. The 1995 annual report reflected that Renda was still an officer and director of the corporation, but that Hemmerle had "resigned 9-2-93." Both the 1994 and 1995 annual reports reflected that the 808 Building remained the corporation's place of business and its corporate address. The 808 Building is a concrete block building with a stucco finish housing eight separate offices. The entire building is served by one electric meter. At all times material to the instant case, Southern Atlantic Construction Corporation of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "Southern") owned the 808 Building. Southern was incorporated under the laws of Florida in June of 1973, and administratively dissolved on October 9, 1992. Hemmerle owns a majority of the shares of the corporation's stock. The last annual report that Southern filed with the Division of Corporations (which was filed on June 10, 1991) reflected that: Hemmerle was the corporation's president and registered agent; he also served on the corporation's board of directors; Lynn Nadeau was the corporation's other officer and director; and the corporation's principal office was located in the 808 Building. From 1975 until September 6, 1994, FPL provided electric service to the 808 Building. Charges for such service were billed to an account (hereinafter referred to as the "808 account") that had been established by, and was in the name of, Hemmerle Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "HDC"). HDC was incorporated under the laws of Florida in 1975, and administratively dissolved on October 9, 1992. At the time of HDC's incorporation, Hemmerle owned 250 of the 500 shares of stock issued by the corporation. The last annual report that HDC filed with the Division of Corporations (which was filed on June 10, 1991) reflected that: Hemmerle was the corporation's president and registered agent; he also served on the corporation's board of directors; Lynn Nadeau was the corporation's other officer and director; and the corporation's principal office was located in the 808 Building. Following the administrative dissolution of the corporation, Hemmerle continued to transact business with FPL in the corporation's name, notwithstanding that he was aware that the corporation had been administratively dissolved. At no time has Renda owned any shares of HDC's stock or served on its board of directors. He and Hemmerle have served together as officers and directors of only two corporations: Globe and Hemmerle's Helpers, Inc. The latter was incorporated under the laws of Florida as a nonprofit corporation in March of 1992, and was administratively dissolved on August 13, 1993. Its articles of incorporation reflected that its place of operation, as well as its principal office, were located in the 808 Building. Pursuant to arrangements Renda and Hemmerle had made (which were not reduced to writing), Globe occupied office space in the 808 Building from March of 1993, through September 6, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "rental period"). Renda and Hemmerle had initially agreed that the rent Globe would pay for leasing the space would come from any profits Globe made as a result of its participation in Hemmerle's Florida west coast development project. Renda and Hemmerle subsequently decided, however, that Globe would instead pay a monthly rental fee of $300 for each office it occupied in the building. 1/ Globe (which occupied only one office in the building during the rental period) did not pay in full the monies it owed under this rental agreement. The office Globe occupied in the 808 Building was the first office to the right upon entering the building. It was across the lobby from the office from which Hemmerle conducted business on behalf of his various enterprises. Globe voluntarily and knowingly accepted, used and benefited from the electric service FPL provided to its office and the common areas in the building during the rental period. Under the agreement Renda and Hemmerle had reached, Globe was not responsible for making any payments (in addition to the $300 monthly rental fee) for such service. On July 26, 1994, the 808 account was in a collectible status and an FPL field collector was dispatched to the service address. There, he encountered Hemmerle, who gave him a check made out to FPL in the amount of $2,216.37. Hemmerle had noted the following on the back of the check: "Payment made under protest due to now [sic] owning [sic] of such billing amount to prevent discontinuance of power." The check was drawn on a Sunniland Bank checking account that was in the name of Florida Kenmar, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Kenmar"), a Florida corporation that had been incorporated in May of 1984, 2/ and administratively dissolved on November 9, 1990. (The last annual report that Kenmar filed with the Division of Corporations, which was filed on June 10, 1991, reflected that: Hemmerle was the corporation's president and registered agent; he also served on the corporation's board of directors; and the corporation's principal office was located in the 808 Building.) Hemmerle told the field collector, upon handing him the check, that there were no funds in the Kenmar checking account. Nonetheless, the field collector accepted the check. FPL deposited the check in its account at Barnett Bank of South Florida. The check was subsequently returned due to "insufficient funds." On the same day that he was visited by the FPL field collector, Hemmerle telephoned Sandra Lowery, an FPL customer service lead representative for recovery, complaining about, among other things, a debit that he claimed had been improperly charged to the 808 account. As a result of her conversation with Hemmerle, Lowery authorized the removal of the debit and all late payment charges associated with the debit from the 808 account. Following the July 26, 1994, removal of the debit and associated late payment charges, the balance due on the account was $1,953.91, an amount that Hemmerle still disputed. In an effort to demonstrate that a lesser amount was owed, Hemmerle sent Lowery copies of cancelled checks that, he claimed, had been remitted to FPL as payment for electric service billed to the 808 account. Some of these checks, however, had been used to pay for charges billed to other accounts that Hemmerle (or corporations with which he was associated) had with FPL. As of August 29, 1994, the 808 account had a balance due of $2,387.47. These unpaid charges were for service provided between March of 1993 and August 10, 1994. On August 29, 1994, Hemmerle showed Renda a notice that he had received from FPL advising that electric service to the 808 Building would be terminated if the balance owing on the 808 account was not paid within the time frame specified in the notice. Hemmerle suggested to Renda that, in light of FPL's announced intention to close the 808 account and terminate service, Renda should either apply for electric service to the 808 Building in Globe's name or relocate to another office building. Renda decided to initially pursue the former option. Later that same day, Renda telephoned FPL to request that an account for electric service to the 808 Building be opened in Globe's name. Gigi Marshall was the FPL representative to whom he spoke. She obtained from Renda the information FPL requires from an applicant for electric service. During his telephone conversation with Marshall, Renda mentioned, among other things, that Globe had been a tenant at the 808 Building since the previous year and that it was his understanding that FPL was going to discontinue electric service to the building because of the current customer's failure to timely pay its bills. Renda claimed that Globe was not in any way responsible for payment of these past-due bills. From an examination of FPL's computerized records (to which she had access from her work station), Marshall confirmed, while still on the telephone with Renda, that the 808 account was in arrears and that FPL had sent a disconnect notice to the current customer at the service address. Marshall believed that, under such circumstances, it would be imprudent to approve Globe's application for electric service without further investigation. She therefore ended her conversation with Renda by telling him that she would conduct such an investigation and then get back with him. After speaking with Renda, Marshall went to her supervisor, Carol Sue Ryan, for guidance and direction. Like Marshall, Ryan questioned whether Globe's application for service should be approved. She suggested that Marshall telephone Renda and advise him that FPL needed additional time to complete the investigation related to Globe's application. Some time after 12:30 p.m. on that same day (August 29, 1994), Marshall followed Ryan's suggestion and telephoned Renda. Ryan was on the line when Marshall spoke with Renda and she participated in the conversation. Among the things Ryan told Renda was that a meter reader would be dispatched to the 808 Building the following day to read the meter so that the information gleaned from such a reading would be available in the event that Globe's application for service was approved. At no time did either Marshall or Ryan indicate to Renda that Globe's application was, or would be, approved. Ryan referred Globe's application to Larry Johnson of FPL's Collection Department, who, in turn, brought the matter to the attention of Thomas Eichas, an FPL fraud investigator. After completing his investigation of the matter, which included an examination of the Broward County property tax rolls (which revealed that Southern owned the 808 Building), as well a search of the records relating to Globe, HDC and Southern maintained by the Division of Corporations, Eichas determined that Globe's application for service should be denied on the basis of the "prior indebtedness rule." Eichas informed Johnson of his decision and instructed him to act accordingly. Electric service to the 808 Building was terminated on September 6, 1994. As of that date, the 808 account had a past-due balance that was still in excess of $2,000.00. Although he conducted his business activities primarily from his home following the termination of electric service to the 808 Building, Hemmerle continued to have access to the building until March of 1995 (as did Renda). 3/ During this period, Hemmerle still had office equipment in the building and he went there on almost a daily basis to see if any mail had been delivered for him. It was his intention to again actively conduct business from his office in the building if electric service to the building was restored. Hemmerle (and the corporations on whose behalf he acted) therefore would have benefited had there been such a restoration of service. After discovering that electric service to the 808 Building had been terminated, Renda telephoned FPL to inquire about the application for service he had made on behalf of Globe. He was advised that, unless FPL was paid the more than $2,000.00 it was owed for electric service previously supplied to the building, service to the building would not be restored in Globe's name. Thereafter, Renda, on behalf of Globe, telephoned the PSC and complained about FPL's refusal to approve Globe's application for service. FPL responded to the complaint in writing. In its response, it explained why it had refused to approve the application. On or about November 15, 1994, the Chief of PSC's Bureau of Complaint Resolution sent Renda a letter which read as follows: The staff has completed its review of your complaint concerning Florida Power & Light's (FPL) refusal to establish service in the name of Globe Realty, Inc. at the above- referenced location. Our review indicates that FPL appears to have complied with all applicable Commission Rules in refusing to establish service. Our review of the customer billing history indicates that the past-due balance is for service at this location and not attributable to the judgment against Mr. Hemmerle for service at another location. The interlocking directorships of Globe International Realty & Mortgage, Inc. and Hemmerle Development, Inc. suggest that the request to establish service in the name of Globe Realty is an artifice to avoid payment of the outstanding balance and not a result of any change in the use or occupancy of the building. Thus, FPL's refusal to establish service is in compliance with Rule 25-6.105(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Please note that this determination is subject to further review by the Florida Public Service Commission. You have the right to request an informal conference pursuant to Rule 25-22.032(4), Florida Administrative Code. Should that conference fail to resolve the matter, the staff will make a recommenda- tion to the Commissioners for decision. If you are dissatisfied with the Commission decision, you may request a formal Administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. After receiving this letter, Renda, on behalf of Globe, requested an informal conference. The informal conference was held on November 30, 1994. At the informal conference, the parties explained their respective positions on the matter in dispute. No resolution, however, was reached. Adopting the recommendation of its staff, the PSC, in an order issued January 31, 1995, preliminarily held that there was no merit to Globe's complaint that FPL acted improperly in refusing to provide electric service to the 808 Building pursuant to Globe's request. Thereafter, Renda, on behalf of Globe, requested a formal Section 120.57 hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the PSC enter a final order dismissing Globe's complaint that FPL acted improperly in refusing to provide electric service to the 808 Building pursuant to Globe's request. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of December, 1995. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints involving violations of the requirements of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 489.129(1), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set out in that section. At all times material to this case, Mr. Vega was a certified general contractor operating under a license issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, numbered CG C046448. Mr. Vega has been a licensed general contractor in Florida since 1989, and since 1994, he has been the licensed qualifying agent for Group Construction South Florida, Inc. The residence of David M. Hudson, located at 19801 Southwest 84th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida, was severely damaged in August, 1992, by Hurricane Andrew. In a letter dated October 13, 1992, Mr. Hudson, who holds a doctorate in biology and is the laboratory manager for the University of Miami Chemistry Department, proposed to Mr. Vega that he prepare plans for reconstructing the Hudson residence. On December 23, 1992, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Vega executed a contract for construction work to be performed on the Hudson residence. The parties contemplated that Mr. Vega would complete the work in accordance with the drawings and original blueprints prepared by Jose A. Sanchez, a structural engineer, at Mr. Vega's direction and based on preliminary plans approved by Mr. Hudson. Specifically, Mr. Hudson understood that the major elements of construction included in the December 23 contract were elevation of the house from one story to two stories, construction of a new living area on the second floor, and construction of a basement on the first floor to serve as a "bare bones storage area." The contract price specified in the December 23 contract was $146,338.33, with ten percent due upon acceptance of the proposal, ten percent due at completion of each of eight items of construction specified in the contract, and ten percent due upon completion of the project. The eight items of construction specified in the contract were "demolition work, rising work, tie beams, roof, doors & windows, plaster & tile, pool & fence, finish work and paint." On February 1, 1993, Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Information Department issued Permit Number 93119957 to Mr. Vega for the Hudson project. The building permit was based on the original plans for the project submitted by Mr. Vega on January 19, 1993, together with some items that were added to the plans at the county's request. Mr. Vega began work on the project on February 1, 1993, the day the permit was issued. Mr. Vega hired Ruben Armas to act as foreman for the project, and his duties included hiring and supervising day laborers and procuring materials needed for construction. At the time, Mr. Armas was not licensed, registered, or certified by either Dade County or the State of Florida. Mr. Vega had an arrangement with Mr. Armas whereby he paid Mr. Armas periodic advances on a lump sum payment that Mr. Armas was to receive when the Hudson project was complete. Mr. Vega did not deduct FICA or withholding tax from the payments made to Mr. Armas under this arrangement. Mr. Vega dealt directly with Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson regarding the project, although they would occasionally leave messages for him with Mr. Armas. Mr. Vega directly supervised Mr. Armas and gave him instructions on the work that was to be performed and the way it was to be done. Mr. Vega was routinely at the job site at least two or three times a day to inspect the work that had been done. Mr. Vega was present at the site during the entire time that cement was poured for footings or other structural elements. Mr. Vega arranged for various subcontractors to work on the project, including electricians, plumbers, air conditioning workers, roofers, carpenters, and drywall hangers. On April 14, 1993, a Department investigator conducted an inspection of the Hudson project during a "hurricane task force sweep." When she and the other members of the task force arrived on the job site, she observed Mr. Armas and two other men "inside working," but she did not observe them working or see the type of work they were doing. Mr. Armas walked out to meet the inspector and gave her a card that contained his name and phone numbers and the words "General construction & roof repair." Mr. Armas told the Department investigator that, when she arrived, he was "working on the footing for the elevation of the house." On April 21, 1993, Mr. Vega signed a Cease and Desist Agreement in which he acknowledged that the Department was investigating allegations that he had "engaged in the practice of aiding and abetting unlicensed contractor Ruben Armas." By signing the agreement, Mr. Vega agreed to cease "engaging in this activity," but he did not admit that the Department's allegations were true. The Department investigator was at the Hudson job site on April 14, 1993, for thirty minutes to an hour, during which time Mr. Vega did not appear at the site. This was the only time she was at the job site while work was being done. As the work progressed on the project, everything appeared to be going well, and Mr. Vega felt that he enjoyed a very good working relationship with Mr. and Mrs. Hudson. Mr. Hudson paid Mr. Vega a total of $116,400.00, or eighty percent, of the original contract price of $146,338.33, in ten percent increments as provided in the contract. By check dated December 23, 1992, Mr. Hudson paid the down payment of $14,633.38. By check dated February 5, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,600.00 upon completion of the demolition work. By check dated March 5, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of raising the structure to two stories. By check dated March 24, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of the tie beams. By check dated April 19, 1997, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 upon completion of the roof. By check dated May 13, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $14,633.00 which should have been paid upon completion of the doors and windows but which he paid even though the installation of the doors and windows was not complete. By check dated June 23,1993, Mr. Hudson paid $12,000.00 of the $14,633.00 draw because, in his opinion, the project was not being completed on schedule. Finally, by check dated July 2, 1993, Mr. Hudson paid $17,000.00 to bring the payments up to the amount consistent with the contract schedule for completion of the pool and fence. In a letter to Mr. Vega dated June 7, 1993, Mr. Hudson stated that he wanted to make "a major change" in the plans. Specifically, Mr. Hudson wanted to eliminate the swimming pool, which he estimated would save $20,000.00 of the $146,633.00 contract price, and use the money saved "to completely finish the downstairs to be a nice guest area," to "install the better quality carpet we want, complete wooden fence, air conditioning in 1st floor, plumbing ~ electric in 1st floor, [and] indoor wooden shutters for all windows." Mr. Hudson went on to state that he wanted certain enumerated appliances, which would cost $4,108.00, and new furniture, which he estimated would cost $6,000.00, for a total of $10,108.00. According to Mr. Hudson's proposal, Mr. Vega should be able to "finish off the 1st floor the way we want it, install the nice carpet and tile, and do all the other jobs previously listed (fence, plumbing, etc., for 1st floor) for about $10,000.00." The basement area which Mr. Hudson wanted to finish as a "nice" living area consisted of approximately 2,000 square feet and had originally been designed as a storage area, with concrete floor and walls. Mr. Vega and Mr. Hudson discussed the proposal and the costs of the changes, but they did not reach an agreement on the cost of the additional work. 3/ Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Vega to leave the job site and cease work on the project on or about July 3, 1993, and Mr. Vega did not perform any work on the Hudson residence after this time. Mr. Hudson terminated Mr. Vega from the project solely because of the dispute with Mr. Vega over the cost of the changes he had requested in his June 7 letter. Mr. Hudson did not complain to Mr. Vega about the quality of the work that had been completed, and, although he thought that the project was getting behind schedule, Mr. Hudson issued a check dated July 2, 1993, which brought the total payments to eighty percent of the original contract price. When Mr. Vega stopped work on the project, the structure contained deviations from the original plans. 4/ Some of the deviations were items shown in the original blueprints which had not been incorporated into the structure; some were items that were not shown in the original blueprints but were incorporated into the structure at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson; some were deviations in the size of openings to accommodate doors and in the location and size of windows; most were minor deviations in the placement of electrical switches and receptacles or other similar deviations. The construction was, however, generally consistent with the original plans. 5/ There were three items that were significant deviations from the original plans. The most serious deviation concerned the changes made in the dimensions of the structural slab that formed the floor of the second floor balcony off the family room, kitchen, and dining room and the roof of the first floor terrace. The original plans included a second floor balcony with a width of six feet. The Hudsons asked Mr. Vega to increase the width of the balcony, and Mr. Vega called Mr. Sanchez, the structural engineer who had prepared the original plans, and asked if the width of the slab could be increased. Mr. Sanchez approved an extension from the original six feet to eight feet, eight inches, and he advised Mr. Vega of the additional reinforcement that would be needed to accommodate the increased width. On the basis of Mr. Sanchez's approval, Mr. Vega incorporated the additional reinforcement specified by Mr. Sanchez and poured the slab to the requested width of eight feet, eight inches. Even though Mr. Vega consulted a structural engineer, he did not submit revised blueprints to the building department and obtain approval for the structural change before doing the alteration. He was aware that the building code required approval before such a change could be incorporated into a structure and that his actions violated the code. 6/ The second significant deviation from the original plans was Mr. Vega's failure to construct the fireplace shown in the original plans. According to the plans, a fireplace was to be constructed in the living room, on the second floor. Although the roof was completed and the drywall installed, no accommodation had been made for the fireplace in either the wall or the roof. Mr. Vega intended to construct the fireplace and would have done so had he not been told to cease work on the project. The third significant deviation from the original plans concerns the windows installed in the structure. No window permits or product approvals were contained in the permit file for the Hudson project. In addition, some of the windows were not the size specified in the original plans, some were too deep, and some were placed lower than the thirty inch sill height specified in the original plans. Many of the items identified as "deviations" were actually items not shown on the original plans but incorporated into the structure at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. Neither the requests for the additional items nor the costs of the items were reduced to writing by Mr. Hudson or Mr. Vega. At the time Mr. Hudson directed him to cease work on the project, Mr. Vega had contracts with subcontractors to provide the labor and materials specified in the original contract. He was prepared to complete the project in accordance with the original plans and for the original contract amount, with adjustments for the extras that had already been incorporated into the project at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. He was also prepared to correct all deficiencies and code violations in the structure. After he was terminated from the project, Mr. Vega continued to negotiate with Mr. Hudson's attorney to arrive at an agreement for completion of the project that would be satisfactory to Mr. Hudson. In a proposal submitted to Mr. Hudson's attorney in the fall of 1993, Mr. Vega offered to complete the project in seven weeks in accordance with the original plans, as modified to incorporate the changes and upgrades Mr. Hudson had requested in the June 7 letter and the changes and upgrades that had already been incorporated into the project at the request of, or with the approval of, Mr. and/or Mrs. Hudson. The total price for completion proposed by Mr. Vega was $56,750.00, which included the cost of the upgrades and extras and the $29,572.00 balance owing under the original contract. Mr. Hudson did not accept this proposal. Instead, he eventually hired a contractor named Robert Krieff, who did some work on the project. In February, 1994, Mr. Hudson took over the building permit himself and hired various subcontractors to work on the project. According to Mr. Hudson, in addition to the $116,400.00 he paid Mr. Vega, he has paid approximately $50,000.00 for work done after he terminated Mr. Vega, and he anticipates spending another $35,000.00 before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Hudson paid off a lien on his property for work done pursuant to his contract with Mr. Vega. A Claim of Lien in the amount of $4,712.00 was filed by Luis A. Roman on October 5, 1993, for drywall hung and finished at the Hudson residence under an arrangement with Mr. Vega. Summary of the evidence. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega willfully violated the building code with respect to the alteration of the width of the second floor balcony. Mr. Vega admitted that he knew he was violating the building code when he extended the width of the second floor balcony beyond the width specified in the original blueprints before submitting revised engineering plans to the county and receiving approval to make the alteration. This violation is one of procedure only, however, and there was no competent evidence presented to establish that Mr. Vega failed to include adequate reinforcement to compensate for the additional width prior to pouring the slab or that there were structural problems with the slab. 7/ The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega violated the building code because the work completed by Mr. Vega on the Hudson project contained deviations from the original approved plans. 8/ On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that this violation is a minor one. The Department's experts testified that the construction done on the Hudson residence by Mr. Vega was generally consistent with the approved plans and that it was commonplace for contractors in Dade County to deviate from the approved plans and later submit revised plans for approval. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega did not file product approvals or obtain window permits prior to windows being installed in the Hudson project. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient, however, to establish that these omissions on Mr. Vega's part constituted a violation of section 204.2 of the South Florida Building Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Although there was some testimony that the building code requires that product approvals be filed and window permits obtained before windows are installed, the applicable code and section were not identified by the Department's witnesses or otherwise made a part of the record. Thus, there is no evidence of the precise obligations imposed on Mr. Vega by the code that was applicable at the time of the Hudson project. As a result, it is not possible to determine whether Mr. Vega fulfilled his obligations under the code. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega assisted Mr. Armas in engaging in the unregistered or uncertified practice of contracting. There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Armas performed any work on the Hudson project that could be performed only by a licensed contractor. 9/ Notwithstanding the opinions stated by the Department's experts, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Vega is guilty of incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting as a result of the work done on the Hudson project. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Hudson suffered financial loss in the amount of $4,712.00, which is the amount Mr. Hudson paid to clear the lien placed on his property by Luis A. Roman. Although this loss is attributable to Mr. Vega's failure to pay Mr. Roman for hanging and finishing drywall in the Hudson residence, the evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Hudson suffered financial loss as a result of the violation with which Mr. Vega was charged and of which he was proven guilty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order dismissing Counts I and III of its Administrative Complaint, finding that Gonzalo Vega is guilty of violating section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1997.
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether the Petitioner's notice of bid protest filed on June 5, 1996, was timely under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Petitioner has waived its right to participate in bid protest proceedings; and (2) if Petitioner's bid protest was timely filed, whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioner's bid.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a general contractor which operates in Alachua County and surrounding areas. The Respondent is the governing body of the school district in Alachua County. In April and May, 1996, the Respondent publicly advertised an Invitation to Bid on the Project which consists of hard courts for basketball, driveway paving and new drainage provisions. Petitioner and three other bidders timely submitted sealed bids to the Respondent at its office located at the E. Manning, Jr. Annex, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's bid proposal included a Contractor's Qualification Statement setting forth Petitioner's experience and financial qualifications to act as the general contractor for the Project. There is no evidence that Petitioner is disqualified as a responsible bidder because: (a) it colluded with other bidders; (b) it based its proposal on bid prices which were obviously unbalanced; (c) it included any false entry in its bid proposal; or (d) it failed to completely fill out the required list of subcontractors. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth any other specific conditions which would disqualify an otherwise responsible bidder. However, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all bids when it determines that such rejection is in its interest. Respondent publicly opened the bids and read them aloud at 2:00 P.M. on May 9, 1996 as required by the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not attend the opening of the bids. The Invitation to Bid specified that the bids would be "tabulated and evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County or member or members of his staff or other individual or individuals designated by him." Edward Gable is Respondent's Director of Facilities. The Superintendent designated Mr. Gable to evaluate bids received for facility projects and to formulate recommendations to Respondent. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth a time certain in which Respondent will notify bidders of its decision or intended decision. However, it does state as follows: At the next regular or special meeting of the Board or at the designated meeting thereafter, the bids, as so opened, tabulated and evaluated, and the recommend- ation of the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County regarding them shall be presented to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the law and the State Board of Education Regulations. In Section 19.1 of the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent informs bidders that it will award the contract to the lowest bidder as soon as possible provided that the lowest bid is reasonable and in Respondent's best interest. The Invitation to Bid provides bidders with the following notice relative to Respondent's decision or intended decision concerning a contract award: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. Notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statues, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written "Notice of Protest" within seventy-two (72) hours after posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days after filing the 'Notice of Protest.' Section 17.1 of the Instructions to Bidders contains the following language concerning Respondent's decision or intended decision: 17.1 The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. For any other decision, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Section 18.1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the Planning and Construction Department, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, following the bid opening, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute as (sic) waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders distinguish between a protest concerning a contract award and a protest related to the specifications contained in an invitation to bid or in a request for proposals. In the latter context, a bidder must file a written protest within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of the project plans and specifications. This case does not involve a protest of a bid solicitation. By virtue of the above referenced provisions in the Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent gave all bidders sufficient and reasonable notice that a posted tabulation together with its recommendation constituted Respondent's intended decision. The bid specifications in the instant case required bidders to submit a bid on a base contract for certain school facility improvements with alternate bids relative to additional improvements in the event Respondent decided to include such features in the Project. Petitioner's base bid was $135,000; it was the lowest bid submitted. The next low bid was from Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson) at $133,345. Two additional bids were higher than Watson's bid. On the morning of May 30, 1996 one of Petitioner's employees, Roger "Dave" Williams" phoned Mr. Gable to inquire about the status of the bid award. Mr. Gable was unavailable to take the call. Mr. Williams left a message for Mr. Gable to return the call. Next, at approximately 10:00 a.m. on May 30, 1996, Mr. Williams called a member of Mr. Gable's staff who stated that, as far as he knew, Respondent had not made a decision on the contract. Mr. Gable completed his evaluation and posted the bid tabulation on May 30, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Included on the bid tabulation was the following statement: RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Board reject the low base bid as submitted by D. E. Wallace Construction Corporation, Alachua, Florida, due to past unsatisfactory contract performance. It is recommended that the Board accept the base bid of $133,345. and award a contract for construction totaling $133,345. to Watson Construction, Gainesville, Florida. Completion of this project shall be within ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the date indicated in the 'Notice to Proceed.' The bid tabulation clearly notes that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Respondent regularly posts notices of intended decisions concerning bid awards on a bulletin board in the main hallway of the E. D. Manning Annex. A title at the top of the bulletin board identifies it as the location for bid postings. Respondent posts a copy of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and a copy of the Respondent's Policy DJC--Bidding Requirements below the title of the bulletin board. Respondent has adopted Policy DJC as a rule through a formal rulemaking process. Policy DJC states as follows in pertinent part: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award. For a bid solicitation, notice of a decision or intended decision shall be given by United States mail or by hand delivery. For any other Board decisions, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall contain the following two paragraphs. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written notice of protest within 72 hours after the posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within 10 calendar days after filing the notice of protest. . . . Failure to file a timely notice of protest or failure to file a timely formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Immediately below Policy DJC is a space where Respondent always posts its bid tabulations which include the recommended action on each project and notice that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The bottom of the board, in large letters, contains the following words: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." This permanent bulletin board, read as a whole, contains more than enough information to provide bidders with notice of an intended decision and the time frames within which a disappointed bidder must file a written protest. Although he was not required to do so, Mr. Gable telephoned Petitioner's office on the afternoon of May 30, 1996 to advise its president, D. Wallace, of the recommendation. Petitioner was not available to accept that call. Mr. Gable placed another courtesy telephone call to Petitioner on the morning of May 31, 1996. During that conversation, Mr. Gable informed Mr. Wallace of the recommendation for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid and accept the next lowest bid. Petitioner's representative inspected the posting board in the afternoon on May 31, 1996. On June 3, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner by facsimile transmission a copy of the agenda for Respondent's June 4 meeting, items H.1. of which was: H.1. Bid Award for Project SBAC CB436 - Newberry High School Site Improvements. Bids for the construction of this project were received on May 9, 1996. Recommendation will be presented. The seventy-two hour window in which a bidder may file a protest does not include Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Therefore, the time in which a bidder could have filed a protest of Respondent's intended decision in this case, expired June 4, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. No bidder had filed a written protest at that time. Respondent held a regular meeting on June 4, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent considered the bid award for Project SBAC CB 436, Mr. Gable presented the recommendation that the Board reject Petitioner's bid and accept Watson's bid due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory contract performance. Petitioner's counsel spoke against the recommendation. At that time the Petitioner had not filed any written notice of protest. After discussion, Respondent voted to award the contract to Watson. Respondent and Watson executed a contract for the construction of the Project on June 4, 1996. The next day, on June 5, 1996, at 3:40 p.m., Petitioner filed with Respondent, by facsimile transmission, a Notice of Protest challenging the award of the contract for the Project to Watson. The filing of this protest was untimely. Therefore, Petitioner waived its right to protest Respondent's decision or intended decision on the Project. The basis of Respondent's intended decision and ultimate final decision to reject Petitioner's low bid was due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory performance. The following facts support a finding that Petitioner was not a responsible bidder. Respondent awarded Petitioner the contract for a previous construction project, Project SBAC CA 149, Additions and Renovations for Terwillegar Elementary School. That project included the construction of a number of school buildings. The contract amount was approximately 5.1 million dollars. The last building in the Terwillegar project became "substantially complete" in September, 1995. In January, 1996, Mr. Gable wrote a letter to Petitioner, informing him of the outstanding punch list items for the Terwillegar project. A contractor must complete punch list items and have them approved prior to "final completion." In the Terwillegar Project, the contract provided for compilation of items on the punch list within thirty (30) days from "substantial completion." As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to Mr. Gable's letter about the Terwillegar punch list, nor had it completed the punch list. Many of the items on the list were minor, but some of the items involved the safety or integrity of the building structure. The Terwillegar project contract also contained a project closeout section which listed a variety of documents and other materials that Petitioner had to provide to Respondent as part of the "final completion." Included in the Terwillegar project's closeout were items such as insurance change-over requirements, warranties, workmanship bonds, maintenance agreements, final certifications, a final payment request, consent of surety, maintenance manuals, record drawings, record specifications, record project date, and operating instructions. As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not provided any of the Terwillegar project closeout materials to the Respondent. The delay in project closeout, after substantial completion, is completely unacceptable to the Respondent. Prior to the opening of bids in this case, Petitioner filed a civil suit against Respondent seeking approximately $1,500,000 representing the unpaid contract balance, subcontractors' and material suppliers' claims for labor and material, and other delay-related damages on the Terwillegar project. Petitioner's claim that Respondent's intended decision and/or final decision was based on personal animosity and bias against Mr. Wallace is contrary to more persuasive evidence. Specifically, Petitioner's Exhibit 6 is not persuasive evidence of bias. The Petitioner's president, D.E. Wallace, has over 30 years in the construction field, including 22 years as an owner/operator of a general contractor company. He has completed more than 100 projects in north Florida in the past eighteen (18) years, including 30 school board construction projects. Mr. Wallace has worked on approximately nine (9) school board projects in Alachua County. He holds himself out as being "completely familiar and knowledgeable in government and building codes, ordinances, regulations, etc."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's protest as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601-5498 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (“Respondent” or “FWC”) determination that Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC (“Petitioner” or “TCC”), submitted a nonresponsive reply to FWC’s Invitation to Negotiate (“ITN”) No. 770-0235 is contrary to the Commission’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether it was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. ITN No. 770-0235 and Background FWC is a state agency that seeks office space to be occupied by personnel from six of FWC’s divisions. FWC currently leases office space from TCC, which expires in October 2019. On July 19, 2017, FWC issued ITN No. 770-0235, seeking vendors that could provide 53,000 square feet of office space for lease. FWC anticipates occupying the space by November 1, 2019. Between August 15, 2017, and November 2, 2017, FWC issued four addenda to the ITN, which contained amendments, modifications, and explanations to the ITN. There were no bidders that challenged the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the ITN or its amendments. TCC and NLH were two of the potential lessors that submitted replies in response to the ITN. FWC seeks to lease either a building that already exists or a non-existing building to be constructed in the future. The ITN describes the proposals requested as follows: Competitive proposals may be submitted for consideration under this Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for the lease of office space in either an existing building or a non- existing (build-to-suit/turnkey) building. NOTE: All buildings must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as stated in Attachment A, Agency Specifications, Section 6.D., page 32. OPTION 1 - an ‘existing’ building: To be considered an ‘existing’ building, the facility offered must be enclosed with a roof system and exterior walls must be in place at the time of the submittal of the Reply. OPTION 2 - a ‘non-existing’ building: Offeror agrees to construct a building as a ‘build-to-suit’ (turnkey) for lease to FWC. Each applicant that submitted a proposal in response to the ITN was required to meet the specification in Attachment A of the ITN. The ITN provides as follows: FWC is seeking detailed and competitive proposals to provide built-out office facilities and related infrastructure for the occupancy by FWC. As relates to any space that is required to be built-out pursuant to this Invitation to Negotiate in accordance with this Invitation to Negotiate, see Attachment ‘A’ which includes the FWC Specifications detailing the build-out requirements. The specifications in Attachment A provided the basic requirements for the potential leased space such that proposals offering existing or non-existing building may be compared and evaluated together. The ITN included certain provisions to clarify the rights contemplated by the ITN, and included the following disclaimer: This ITN is an invitation to negotiate and is for discussion purposes only. It is not an offer, contract or agreement of any kind. Neither FWC nor the Offeror/Lessor shall have any legal rights or obligations whatsoever between them and neither shall take any action or fail to take any action in reliance upon any part of these discussions until the proposed transaction and a definitive written lease agreement is approved in writing by FWC. This ITN shall not be considered an offer to lease. The terms of any transaction, if consummated, shall not be final nor binding on either party until a Lease Agreement is executed by all parties. This ITN may be modified or withdrawn by FWC at any time. The ITN also included a provision expressly reserving FWC’s “right to negotiate with all responsive and responsible Offerors, serially or concurrently, to determine the best-suited solution.” The term “Offeror” was defined by the ITN to mean “the individual submitting a Reply to this Invitation to Negotiate, such person being the owner of the proposed facility or an individual duly authorized to bind the owner of the facility.” This reservation of rights placed interested lessors on notice that only responsive lessors could be invited to negotiations. While TCC and NLH were two of the potential lessors that submitted replies in response to the ITN, the bidders submitted different proposals. TCC submitted a proposal for an existing building, and NLH submitted a proposal for a non- existing building. During an initial review of all replies, FWC determined TCC’s reply to be nonresponsive based on TCC’s response to ITN section IV.G (Tenant Improvements) and a statement titled “Additional Response” that TCC submitted with its reply. As a result, FWC did not evaluate or score TCC’s reply. After TCC’s reply was declared nonresponsive, there were no further negotiations with TCC regarding the ITN. NLH’s reply passed the initial responsiveness review and was then evaluated and scored by FWC. FWC ultimately issued an intended award of the contract to NLH after conducting negotiations. Tenant-Improvement Cap The ITN prohibited vendors from proposing conditional or contingent lease rates that included a tenant-improvement cap, or allowance. A tenant-improvement cap reflects the maximum amount the landlord is willing to spend to make improvements to leased space. Mr. Hakimi asserted that the tenant-improvement cap would be an incentive to FWC to enter a lease. However, the tenant-improvement cap would also place a limit on improvements. According to ITN section IV.E, any reply offering a lease rate with a tenant-improvement cap would be deemed nonresponsive: FULL SERVICE (GROSS) RENTAL RATE The Offeror shall provide FWC with a Full Service (gross) lease structure. Therefore, the lease rate must include base rent, taxes, all operating expenses (including, but not limited to, janitorial services and supplies, utilities, water, insurance, interior and exterior maintenance, recycling services, garbage disposal, pest control, security system installation and maintenance, and any amortization of required tenant improvements to the proposed space). There shall be no pass through of additional expenses . . . . Offerors must provide their best, firm lease rates. Lease rates that are contingent, involve a basic rate plus “cap” or “range” for such things as tenant improvements will be deemed nonresponsive. The ITN also provided, in section IV.G, that any current lessor must meet all ITN requirements, including those set forth in ITN Attachment A: TENANT IMPROVEMENTS The State requires a “turn-key” build-out by the Landlord. Therefore, Offeror shall assume all cost risks associated with delivery in accordance with the required specifications detailed in this ITN, including Attachment A (see pages 28-45). Additionally, replies for space which is currently under lease with, or occupancy by, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission does not exclude the Offeror from meeting the requirements specified in this ITN document. Offeror agrees to provide “turn-key” build-out/improvements in accordance with the specifications detailed in this ITN. (use an X to mark one of the following): YES or NO TCC responded “NO” to the statement “Offeror agrees to provide ‘turn-key’ build-out/improvements in accordance with the specifications detailed in this ITN.” Additional Response Not only did TCC include a barred tenant-improvement cap, but TCC also attached an addendum to its proposal, which provided the following: The reality is that as the current Landlord, it would be impossible to ask FFWCC to move out of its existing office space in order to meet the requested Agency Specifications in Attachment A. If this condition makes our response to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) “non-responsive”, we stand willing to continue further negotiations with FFWCC. There was no provision in the ITN for additional responses outside what was requested in the ITN. More importantly, the addendum indicated TCC could not comply with the ITN, unless certain conditions were met. Mr. Hakimi confirmed the effect of what was written in the addendum when he testified that TCC is unable to meet Attachment A’s specifications because it presently has a tenant in place (i.e., FWC) that prevents it from constructing the building improvements necessary to comply with ITN Attachment A. Proof of Ownership of Property The ITN also provided that to be responsive, each lessor was required to submit certain documentation demonstrating the lessor’s control of the property proposed for the leased space: Replies must completely and accurately respond to all requested information, including the following: (A) Control of Property (Applicable for Replies for Existing and/or Non- Existing Buildings). For a Reply to be responsive, it must be submitted by one of the entities listed below, and the proposal must include supporting documentation proving control of the property proposed. This requirement applies to: The real property (land); The proposed building(s) (or structure(s); The proposed parking area(s). Control of parking includes the area(s) of ingress and egress to both the real property and the building(s). The owner of record of the facility(s) and parking area(s) – Submit a copy of the deed(s) evidencing clear title to the property proposed. The authorized agent, broker or legal representative of the owner(s) – Submit a copy of the Special Power of Attorney authorizing submission of the proposal. The Special Power of Attorney form was attached to the ITN as Attachment K. TCC’s certification was executed by TCC president, Lyda Hakimi. However, TCC did not execute Attachment K or include an executed power of attorney to demonstrate that TCC has control of the property. The evidence offered at hearing of the property’s ownership contained in TCC’s reply was a deed showing DRA CRT Tallahassee Center, LLC to be the property owner. Respondent argued that although TCC owns DRA CRT Tallahassee Center, LLC, the two are different legal entities. Because these were two different legal entities, TCC was required to provide a copy of Attachment K to its response to be deemed responsive. Broker Commission The ITN required lessors to agree to execute a broker- commission agreement, which was attached to the ITN as Attachment J: Offeror understands FWC is utilizing the services of a Tenant Broker representative for this lease space requirement and the successful Offeror shall execute a Commission Agreement, in coordination with FWC’s Tenant Broker representative, within fifteen (15) business days of notification of Award. Offeror agrees and acknowledges that a Tenant Broker Commission Agreement is a requirement and the successful Offeror shall be required to execute a Commission Agreement as described above. (use an X to mark one of the following): YES or NO The ITN included a schedule for the commission rate based on the total aggregate gross base rent that could be paid ranging from 2.50 percent to 3.50 percent. TCC conditioned its reply by agreeing to pay a two-percent broker commission, which is inconsistent with the commission schedule. By offering a lower commission rate, TCC could save money. TCC would then have a competitive advantage over other bidders. TCC’S Bid was Nonresponsive Based upon the foregoing, TCC’s bid submission added a tenant-improvement cap, failed to comply with the broker commission rate, failed to provide supporting documents to demonstrate proof of property ownership, and added additional conditions regarding compliance with the ITN requirements. The information requested and terms of the ITN were required for TCC’s bid to be responsive. TCC did not file a challenge to the specifications or any of the requirements of the ITN. It is now too late for such a challenge. TCC’s inclusion of a tenant-improvement allowance limits the amount that would pay for improvements. The lower broker commission increases the profit advantage for TCC more than for other bidders, which would be an unfair advantage over other bidders. TCC’s failure to comply with the terms of the ITN and failure to provide the required attachment to show proof of ownership were not minor irregularities, which FWC could waive. Therefore, FWC properly determined that TCC’s bid submission was nonresponsive. Standing TCC submitted a bid proposal that did not conform to the requirements of the ITN and it seeks relief that includes setting aside FWC’s rejection of its proposal. Therefore, TCC has standing to bring this protest. If it is determined that TCC was nonresponsive, NLH has standing to the extent the procurement process could be deemed contrary to competition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order dismissing Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
Findings Of Fact On September 29, 1975 Respondent, R. J. Hunt Construction Company, through its President and qualifying general contractor, Richard J. Hunt, entered into a contract with Richard McCarty to construct two Second Story Additions to Palm Ocean Villas, Pompano Beach, Florida for a price of $53,700. The contract provided that the contractor would complete the building within 8 weeks of the issuance of a building permit and, if not completed, a 5 percent penalty would be deducted until December 10, 1975 and thereafter, if not complete, an additional 5 percent of the contract price would be deducted each week until complete. Building permits were issued on October 3 and 6, 1975 and work proceeded satisfactorily until the end of the 8 weeks contract period on December 1, 1975 when the project was 90 percent to 95 percent complete. At this time the contractor stopped work on the project and transferred his employees to another job. One of the contract provisions not completed was the application of waterproofing on a deck. Despite Hunt's assurances that he would get a subcontractor to complete this waterproofing, it still had not been completed by Christmas and McCarty employed a contractor to apply the waterproofing material in early January for which he paid $1,000 allowed by the contract. Subsequent thereto McCarty received notice of liens filed against his property from 4 subcontractors. These were American Metal Products Company, J. P. Electric Company, Ole Eds Construction, and Margate Plumbing. In order to get a certificate of occupancy it was necessary for McCarty to pay some of these subcontractors. American Metal Products installed an aluminum railing around the balcony for which they filed a notice of lien for $1,200 and subsequently filed a petition in bankruptcy. The present status of this lien was not ascertained. J. P. Electric Company had split their draw into three parts and they were paid by Hunt $700 for the initial work. When they refused to allow final inspection Hunt asked McCarty to pay them and take it off his last draw. McCarty paid $2,000 to J. P. Electric, leaving a balance owed of $781.92. Hunt also asked McCarty to pay Margate Plumbing and take this payment off the draw. Margate had been paid $1,000 upon completion of the rough work. In order to get occupancy McCarty paid Margate $1,800 which satisfied the lien of Margate. Ole Ed installed the septic tank and drain field for which they have filed a lien for $2,500 which is unpaid to date. Numerous miscellaneous items included in the contract for which McCarty advanced funds to keep work progressing amounted to $671.54. Hunt also requested McCarty to order the appliances which were included in the contract price since he (McCarty) could get them at contractor's price. For these appliances (stoves, air conditioners and refrigerators) McCarty expended $2,373.28. Total expenditures made by McCarty are as follows: McCarty paid to Hunt in draws $48,400.00 McCarty paid to J. P. Electric 2,000.00 McCarty paid to Margate Plumbing 1,800.00 McCarty paid for waterproofing deck 1,000.00 Misc. items paid for by McCarty 671.54 Appliances for which McCarty paid 2,373.28 Total paid by McCarty under contract $56,244.82 Balance owed to subcontractors. American Metals Corporation $ 1,200.00 J. P. Electric 781.92 Ole Ed's Construction 2,500.00 Total cost of project $61,736.74 At the time licensee stopped work on the project the railing around the balcony had not been installed, top decking had not been approved by building inspectors and waterproofing of deck had not been done. Extra costs not included in the contract price which were agreed to by McCarty included $300 to $500 extra for larger electric wire and $400 to $500 for larger septic tank than contract called for. These costs totaled approximately $800 which would bring the total contract price to $54,500. The working foreman on the job for the first three or four weeks of the contract, who testified on behalf of Respondent, was unfamiliar with all terms of the contract or with the finances of Hunt. When the existing roof was removed for the second floor addition to be added, conduits had to be replaced and some 2 x 12 joists had to be replaced. This work unexpectedly increased the cost of the contract to the contractor. The septic tank could not be placed where originally intended, and as a result, about 100 fee of sidewalk had to be torn up and replaced. Further, a larger septic tank than originally planned had to be installed. This latter increase was agreed to and paid for by McCarty. One character witness testified that Richard J. Hunt enjoys a good reputation in the construction industry.
The Issue The questions presented here concern the entitlement of the Petitioner or Intervenor to be awarded lease rights under the Respondent's proposed Lease No. 590:8026, in that Petitioner and Intervenor have claimed that entitlement to the exclusion of the other party.
Findings Of Fact Respondent invited bid proposals for the provision of approximately 32,000 square feet of office space for its District VIII operation in Fort Myers, Florida. Petitioner, Chuck Bundschu, Inc., and Intervenor, Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company, responded to the bid proposal by offering to provide the office space. Those responses may be found as part of the Composite Hearing Officer's Exhibit. Following the October, 1981, submittal of bid proposals, a bid evaluation committee was appointed by the Subdistrict Administrator for District VIII to consider the bids. In turn, he afforded guidance to that committee on the subject of the evaluation of the proposed bids offered by Bundschu and Walco, the only bidders for the project. The evaluation committee performed the task of weighing the bid proposals, in keeping with evaluation criteria which are outlined in Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual" dealing with the procurement of lease space, which criteria are set forth in a form referred to as "HRSM 70-1, page A1-4-8," which is attached to chapter four of the manual. All criteria used for the evaluation process were drawn from that form with the exception of criterion No. 7, related to staff and client marking which was a product of this bid evaluation effort. (A copy of the HRS manual and forms may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The evaluation committee's summarization utilizing the form criteria and the additional parking criterion may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, which is a replication of the original.) The HRS manual for procuring leased space is a publication of February, 1980, and establishes uniform guidelines by which bid proposals are considered by local officials who are part of Respondent's organization. Nonetheless, the exact weight to be afforded each criterion outlined in the manual is determined by the local evaluation committee. Weighing concerns the subject of awarding numerical values for beach bidder related to the various criteria with a maximum possible score being 100 points. On the basis of the evaluation performed by the committee, the Bundschu total was 88.25 points and the The Walco point total was 82 out of the possible 100 points. Consequently, the evaluation committee recommended that Bundschu be awarded the lease. Mark Geisler, in his capacity as Subdistrict Administrator, for District VIII, concurred in this evaluation as may be seen in his November 6, 1981, transmittal of the bid materials and associated evaluation, which transmittal may be found as pert of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The District Administrator, District VII, in the person of Frances Clendenin, who was acting for the District Administrator, Ivor D. Groves, Ph.D., also recommended acceptance of the Bundschu bid. This position was made known by a memorandum of November 16, 1981. A copy of that recommendation is found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The recommendations spoken to thus far were made known to Lester C. Missman, an official within the Division of General Services of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This division was, at the time of the bid proposals, and is now, headed by Dr. Homer Ooten, whose function within Respondent's organization includes the responsibility to evaluate lease proposals involving the Respondent agency and to make a final decision on the question of the lease award, based upon a review of the local subordinate unit's recommendation. By this, it is meant that the lease by Health and Rehabilitative Services as "user agency" is signed by Ooten based upon a delegation of authority to him through the vehicle of correspondence signed by the agency head. Ooten, upon considering the recommendation of the District Administrator's office, the Subdistrict Administrator and the evaluation committee, did not find fault with the criteria nor the point weighing scheme used in the evaluation process. He did question the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee on the subject of client mileage for those clients receiving services from Respondent in a move from the HRS office in the Bundschu building where they were located at the time, to the building where Walco intended to let property. This was a distance of seven/tenths (7/10) of a mile and based upon the number of clients receiving services, there would be an estimated $100,000.00 in client mileage cost increase. This item was not deemed to be an appropriate consideration by Ooten and was disregarded in his review of the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee. That cost analysis may be found as part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 2, and includes interlineations by Ooten in his opinion on the subject of the cost analysis. That analysis had indicated an overall advantage of approximately $11,000.00 in favor of Bundschu and was premised upon costs related to Item 12 in the criteria, which criterion is cost of moving. It assumed a difference of over $131,000.00 in moving costs, the majority of which costs pertained to client inconvenience ($100,000.00), discounting $120,000.00 plus dollars related to the difference in the bid amount between the Walco and Bundschu bids which bid estimate was in favor of Walco. Ooten's opinion on the subject of the priority of including $100,000.00 plus dollars in clients' travel costs, when considered in the context of point awards under Item 12 in the criteria, lead Ooten to believe that the differential in point awards would not result in a 9.25 value of Bundschu versus a zero value for Walco. In his mind, the differential would be much less. Ooten made his own evaluation of moving costs per se, and through that process determined that approximately $15,600.00 would be necessary for a move into the Walco facility whereas $5,600.00 would be involved in the Bundschu move, which required the expansion of existing space in the Bundschu facility. Based upon an evaluation of the point differential in the rental rate criterion which was a differential of 2, that is 30 points out of a possible 30 for Walco and 28 points out of a possible 30 for Bundschu, Ooten also opined the this was an unreasonable assessment in view of the fact that the Walco bid amount was more than $120,000.00 less than the Bundschu bid. This taken together with the fact that there only existed approximately a $9,000.00 difference on moving costs between Bundschu and Walco, which was in favor of Bundschu, and there having been indicated a 9.25 out of a possible 10 point difference in Item 12 on the question of costs related to moving, led Ooten to believe that the true factual status of criteria Nos. 1 and 12 was not as depicted by the evaluation committee. Per Ooten, with proper assessment Walco would have received a higher point count than Bundschu through the process of applying the bid criteria, as well as being the lower bidder from the point of view of rental rates alone. After several exchanges with the District level personnel of Respondent who had been involved in the lease evaluation process, in which, on two (2) occasions, the local officials continued to support their initial opinion of the propriety of the award to Bundschu, a decision was made at the District VIII level to support the award of the lease to Walco as may be seen in the January 6, 1982, correspondence from the District Administrator to Missman, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. On January 6, 1982, Ooten issued a letter to the District VIII Administrative Services Director indicating the authority to award Lease No. 590:8026, formerly referred to as No. 590:1472, for the benefit of Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company. Having learned of this decision and in keeping with the provision Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, Bundschu, through counsel, indicated opposition to that award on January 12, 1982, followed by a formal petition letter setting forth grounds for the opposition, which petition was filed on January 19, 1982. This series of documents is part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, through copies. Subsequently, Items 4 and 6 in the petition letter were resolved between the parties without the necessity of a hearing and this is borne out by a copy of the February 1, 1982, correspondence from counsel for the Respondent to counsel to the Petitioner, part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing by correspondence from the Assistant General Counsel for Respondent, dated February 4, 1982, a copy of which may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. There followed the intervention of Walter Lee Johnson as a party of record and the hearing was held on April 27, 1982. Petitioner's first contention deals with the idea of discounting the lease value based on the value of the "stream of future lease payments." This theory is contended for through Robert Sizemore, C.P.A., expert witness of the Petitioner. He would call for the discount of lease payments on the theory that present dollars will have a discounted value in the future, as the lease period unfolds. Taking into account the method of payment by the Respondent and the vicissitudes involved in attempting to establish the value of today's dollar at a future time, this theory of discounted dollars at a 10 percent or 12 percent rate per annum in succeeding years is not indicated. Assessment through the legislative appropriations process of sufficient funds to meet lease payment demands is not contingent upon the value of the dollar at any given point in the history of the lease. Therefore, the "stream of future lease payments" concept is inapplicable here. Likewise, trying to project the value of today's dollar at some future date is so tenuous as to be an unacceptable method to evaluate the competing lease proposals. Finally, even if this method was used, a 10 percent discount rate for inflation would leave approximately a $67,000.00 difference in the bid proposals and a 12 percent per annum discount rate related to inflation would leave approximately $52,000.00 difference in the bid proposals, in favor of the Walco bid. Petitioner has contended that Respondent failed to properly account for direct moving expenses. In that regard, the calculations made by Ooten on the question of moving expenses as reported above are accepted as fact. As a third claim, Petitioner has alleged the agency s disregard for recommendation of its evaluation committee in making the lease award. While the initial recommendations of the evaluation committee and staff were disregarded, the District Administrator eventually accepted the point of view of the Division of General Services within the Respondent's Department. Moreover, even if the local officials within the Respondent's Department had not accepted Ooten's viewpoint, the initial evaluation committee's development of criteria was flawed and the Ooten perception was correct, leading to a decision in favor of Walco. Finally, the contention by Petitioner that the agency did not seek adequate input from third parties affected by the relocation of the facility was not demonstrated through testimony. The method for review of the proposed lease was acceptable and to the extent that it required an appreciation and response to the needs of others not directly involved in the lease process, it has been amply afforded. Evaluation was in keeping with Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual, HRSM 70-1, fourth chapter" and the award is based upon concurrence of the Division Director of the General Services Division of HRS pursuant to that chapter. Through argument, counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the fact that in the initial evaluation process set forth in the sixth criterion, superior points of 2.5 for Walco as opposed to 2.25 for Bundschu had been awarded, when in fact the narrative summary of the reasons for such awards indicate an advantage to Bundschu. Even if the .25 points were allowed in the favor of Bundschu, this would not change the result.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the single state agency in Florida authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). In order to participate in the federal Medicaid program, AHCA is required to maintain a state plan for Medicaid in compliance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. AHCA is required to operate the Florida Medicaid program in compliance with the state plan. AHCA is apparently concerned by costs associated with the Florida Medicaid program's hemophilia population. Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries constitute a relatively small, but costly population to serve. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous "clotting factors," which normally causes a persons' blood to coagulate. Hemophilia is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to the person with the disorder. AHCA seeks to control the cost of providing hemophilia-related services to this population through a combination of case management and medication discounts known as the Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management (MCHM) program. AHCA believes that a single vendor responsible for operation of the MCHM program can provide managed care to the population while achieving significant drug-cost savings. Through a federal requirement referred to as "freedom of choice," Florida's Medicaid program state plan must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service and who undertakes to provide such services. The freedom of choice requirement is subject to being waived in accordance with applicable federal law. Such waiver requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). AHCA began seeking approval from CMS for an amendment to an existing "Managed Care Waiver" to implement the MCHM program in October 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2003, CMS approved AHCA's request to amend the existing waiver to permit implementation of the MCHM program. Subsequent correspondence between the agencies has further established AHCA's authority to implement the MCHM program. AHCA issued the RFP ("RFP AHCA 0403") on October 1, 2003. The RFP seeks to implement the MCHM program. There were no timely challenges filed to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2003), requires that an agency must make a written determination that an invitation to bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or contractual services prior to issuance of an RFP. AHCA did not make such a written determination prior to issuance of the RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA will contract with a single provider for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. RFP Section 10.2 sets out an extensive list of vendor requirements designed to provide care to Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries and better management of related costs. The RFP provides that the successful vendor will be paid only on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement for factor product costs. No additional payment beyond payment of factor product costs will be provided. The RFP stated that the successful vendor would be reimbursed for factor product cost based on the average wholesale price (AWP) of the factor product minus a minimum discount of 39 percent. The RFP provided that vendors may offer a greater discount than 39 percent. An Addendum to the RFP indicated that if a vendor proposed a discount greater than 39 percent, the increased discount must apply to all factor products and that vendors could not propose varying discounts for individual factor products. The RFP contains language in the background section referencing budget "proviso" language adopted by the Legislature and referring to the MCHM program as a "revenue enhancement program." HHS asserts that because this RFP does not create a revenue enhancement program, AHCA had no authority to proceed with the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that this program will enhance revenue. The evidence fails to establish that based on the "proviso" language, AHCA is without authority to issue the RFP. RFP Section 20.11 sets forth the "proposal submission requirements." The section included a number of requirements set in capital letters and highlighted in boldface. The terms of each requirement indicated that failure to comply with the requirement was "fatal" and would result in rejection of the proposal submitted. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. RFP Section 20.16 provides that AHCA may waive "minor irregularities," which are defined as variations "from the RFP terms and conditions, that [do] not affect the price of the proposal or give one applicant an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others or adversely affect the state's interest." RFP Section 20.17 provides as follows: Rejection of proposals Proposals that do not conform to all mandatory requirements of this RFP shall be rejected by the Agency. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal was received after the submission deadline; The proposal was not signed by an authorized representative of the vendor; The proposal was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.11 of this RFP; The vendor failed to submit a proposal guarantee in an acceptable form in accordance with the terms identified in Section 20.12 of this RFP or the guarantee was not submitted with the original cost proposal; The proposal contained unauthorized amendments, deletions, or contingencies to the requirements of the RFP; The vendor submitted more than one proposal; and/or The proposal is not deemed to be in the best interest of the state. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. RFP Section 30.1 provides that the "total cost of the contract will not exceed $36,000,000 annually." RFP Section 30.2 provides in part that the "total cost for the contract under any renewal will not exceed $36,000,000 per year." The RFP's contract amount apparently was based on historical information and assumed that some level of cost control would occur through case management. The contract amount cannot operate as a "cap" because Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries are an "entitled" group and services must be provided. If the amount of the contract is exceeded, AHCA is obliged to pay for necessary factor products provided to the beneficiaries; however, in an Addendum to the RFP, AHCA stated that if the contract fails to contain costs "there would be no justification to renew or extend the contract." The RFP required vendors to submit a performance bond based on 20 percent of the $36 million contract amount. The RFP stated that proposals could receive a maximum possible score of 2000 points. The proposal with the highest technical evaluation would receive 1340 weighted points. The proposal with the lowest cost proposal would receive 660 weighted points. The combined technical and cost proposal scores for each vendor determined the ranking for the proposals. The RFP set forth formulas to be used to determine the weighted final score based on raw scores received after evaluation. AHCA conducted a bidder's conference related to the RFP on October 8, 2003. All parties to this proceeding attended the conference. At the conference, AHCA distributed a copy of a spreadsheet chart that listed all factor products provided to Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries during the second quarter of 2003. The chart identified the amount of each factor product used and the amount paid by AHCA to vendors for the factor product during the quarter. The chart also showed the amount that would have been paid by AHCA per factor product unit had the vendors been paid at the rate of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA received six proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were received from Caremark, HHS, Lynnfield, PDI Pharmacy Services, Inc., Advance PCS/Accordant, and Coram. RFP Section 60 contained the instructions to vendors for preparing their responses to the solicitation. As set forth in RFP Section 60.1, the technical response was identified as "the most important section of the proposal with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." The section requires vendors to include "evidence of the vendor's capability through a detailed response describing its organizational background and experience," which would establish that the vendor was qualified to operate the MCHM program. Vendors were also directed to describe the proposed project staffing and the proposed "technical approach" to accomplish the work required by the RFP. Vendors were encouraged to propose "innovative approaches to the tasks described in the RFP" and to present a detailed implementation plan with a start date of January 10, 2003. The technical responses were opened on October 29, 2003. AHCA deemed all six proposals to be responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP and each technical proposal was evaluated. For purposes of evaluation, AHCA divided the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria. AHCA assembled the technical evaluators at an orientation meeting at which time an instruction sheet was issued and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals were delivered. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. The five AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposal were Maresa Corder (Scorer "A"), Bob Brown-Barrios (Scorer "B"), Kay Newman (Scorer "C"), Jerry Wells (Scorer "D"), and Laura Rutledge (Scorer "E"). AHCA employees Dan Gabric and Lawanda Williams performed reference reviews separate from the technical evaluations. Reference review scores were combined with technical evaluation scores resulting in a total technical evaluation score. Reference review scores are not at issue in this proceeding. Kay Newman's review was limited to reviewing the financial audit information provided by the vendors. Technical evaluators reviewed each technical response to the RFP and completed evaluation sheets based on the 50 evaluation criteria. Other than Mr. Wells, evaluators included comments on the score sheets. Mr. Wells did not include comments on his score sheet. The technical proposal scoring scale set forth in the RFP provided as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each evaluator worked independently, and they did not confer with each other or with anyone else regarding their evaluations of the responses to the RFP. Janis Williamson was the AHCA employee responsible for distribution of the technical proposals to the evaluators. She received the completed score sheets and evaluation forms from each of the technical evaluators. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to technical proposals as follows: The total final point scores for proposals will be compared to the maximum achievable score of 1340 points, and the technical proposal with the highest total technical points will be assigned the maximum achievable point score. All other proposals will be assigned a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when a proposal's total technical points are divided by the highest total technical points awarded. S = P X 1340 N Where: N = highest number of final points awarded to t technical proposal P = number of final points awarded to a proposal S = final technical score for a proposal According to the "Summary Report and Recommendation" memorandum dated December 4, 2003, after application of the formula, Caremark received the highest number of technical points (1340 points). Of the parties to this proceeding, HHS was ranked second on the technical proposal evaluation (1132.30 points), and Lynnfield was ranked third (1101.48 points). Lynnfield and HHS assert that the scoring of the technical proposals was arbitrary based on the range of scores between the highest scorer and the lowest scorer of the proposals. Review of the score sheets indicates that Scorer "A" graded "harder" than the other evaluators. The scores she assigned to vendor proposals were substantially lower on many of the criteria than the scores assigned by other evaluators. The range between her scores and the highest scores assigned by other evaluators was greater relative to the Lynnfield and the HHS proposals than they were to the Caremark proposal, indicating that she apparently believed the Caremark technical proposal to be substantially better than others she reviewed. There is no evidence that Scorer "A" was biased either for or against any particular vendor. The evidence fails to establish that her evaluation of the proposals was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to establish that AHCA's evaluation of the technical proposals was inappropriate. After the technical evaluation was completed, cost proposals were opened on November 21, 2003. Section 60.3 addressed the cost proposal requirements for the RFP. RFP Section 60.3.1 provides as follows: The cost proposal shall cover all care management services, hemophilia specific pharmaceuticals dispensing and delivery, and pharmacy benefits management activities contemplated by the RFP. The price the vendor submits must include a detailed budget that fully justifies and explains the proposed costs assigned. This includes salaries, expenses, systems costs, report costs, and any other item the vendor uses in arriving at the final price for which it will agree to perform the work described in the RFP. The maximum reimbursement for the delivery of services and factor products used in factor replacement therapy (inclusive of all plasma-derived and recombinant factor concentrates currently in use and any others approved for use during the term of the contract resulting from this RFP) will be at Average Wholesale Price (AWP) minus 39%. Proposals may bid at a lower reimbursement but not higher. All other drugs not otherwise specified in factor replacement therapy will be paid at the normal Medicaid reimbursement. RFP Section 60.3.2 provides as follows: A vendor's cost proposal shall be defined in terms of Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and conform to the following requirements: The first tab of a vendor's original cost proposal shall be labeled "Proposal Guarantee" and shall include the vendor's proposal guarantee, which shall conform to the requirements specified in this RFP, Section 20.12. Copies of the cost proposal are not required to include the proposal guarantee. The second tab of the cost proposal shall be labeled "Project Budget" and shall include the information called for in the RFP, including the total price proposed, a line item budget for each year of the proposal, a budget narrative, and other information required to justify the costs listed. The RFP does not define the "detailed" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.1 and does not define the "line item" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.2. No examples of such budgets were provided. RFP Section 80.1 provides as follows: Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Cost Proposal Upon completion of the evaluation of all technical proposals, cost proposals will be opened on the date specified in the RFP Timetable. The Agency will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the evaluation team will review each cost proposal against the following criteria: Was the cost proposal received by the Agency no later than time specified in the RFP Timetable? Did the vendor submit an original and ten copies of its cost proposal in a separate sealed package? Was the vendor's cost proposal accompanied by a proposal guarantee meeting the requirements of the RFP? Did the cost proposal contain the detailed budget required by the RFP? Does the proposal contain all other mandatory requirements for the cost proposal? The AHCA employee who opened the cost proposals apparently determined that each proposal met the requirements of RFP Section 80.1, including providing a "detailed" budget. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to cost proposals as follows: On the basis of 660 total points, the proposal with the lowest total price will receive 660 points. The other proposals will receive a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when the total cost points are divided by the highest total cost points awarded. Where: S = L X 660 N N = price in the proposal (for two years) L = lowest price proposed (for two years) S = cost points awarded The cost proposal scoring process clearly required comparison of each vendor's total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Caremark's proposal included estimated total costs of $44,797,207 for FY 2002-2003, $43,245,607 for FY 2003-2004, and $44,542,975 for FY 2004-2005. According to RFP Section 30.1, the maximum annual contract was not to exceed $36,000,000. All of Caremark's estimated annual costs exceeded the contract amount set forth in the RFP. Caremark's proposal also provided as follows: The above budget includes all salary expenses for Caremark employees involved in providing services for the program including the Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist, Care manager, additional pharmacist(s), Client Service Specialists in Florida for the expanded hemophilia program. Also included are the support staff such as pharmacy technicians, materials management, field service representatives, warehouse, reimbursement, marketing, sales and administrative staff. Also included are all delivery, data and report development, educational and marketing communication expenses. Product costs including medically necessary ancillary supplies, medical waste disposal and removal, protective gear and therapeutic devices. Caremark's proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that Caremark indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. The HHS proposal projected estimated costs identified by month and year. The HHS proposal estimated total first-year costs of $14,261,954 and second-year costs of $27,333,389. HHS did not propose to assume responsibility for serving all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries at the start of the contract, but projected costs as if beneficiaries would "migrate to our service at a rate of 20 per month" during the first year and that full service provision would begin by the beginning of year two. RFP Section 10.2 provides as follows: The purpose of this RFP is to receive offers from qualified vendors wishing to provide the services required by the Florida Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management Program. The contract resulting from this RFP shall be with a single provider for up to two years commencing on the date signed, with an option to renew for two additional years. Otherwise stated, all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries would be served though the program's sole provider from the start of the contract period. The RFP provides no option for a vendor to gradually increase service levels through the first half of the two-year contract. The HHS proposal also included a breakdown of costs by factor product unit, identifying the AWP for each listed factor product and applying a discount of between 39 percent and 45 percent to indicate the product cost-per-unit that would be charged to AHCA. In Addendum 2 to the RFP, AHCA stated that it has received a written inquiry as follows: Knowing that the minimum accepted discount is AWP less 39%, can different products have different discounts. AHCA's response to the inquiry was as follows: No. The proposed discount will apply to all factor products. As to the costs included in the proposal annual total, the HHS proposal provided as follows: The product price above will include the following costs incurred in servicing the patients: The cost of the product dispensed to the patient. The cost of freight and other delivery expense of transporting the product to the patient. Pharmacy, warehouse and patient supplies. Cost incurred for patient protective gear and education materials Salary costs for the following: o Project/Contract Manager Clinical Pharmacist Staff Pharmacist Case Management Coordinator Pharmacy Care Coordinators Shipping Clerk Warehouse Coordinator Community Advocates Insurance Reimbursement Specialist The cost of Information Technology support for systems and reporting The cost of rent, office supplies, equipment, postage, printing. The HHS proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that HHS indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. Lynnfield's proposal estimated total costs of $34,000,000 for calendar year 2004 and $36,000,000 for calendar year 2005. Lynnfield's budget proposal included information identifying the specific expense lines which form the basis for the cost estimation, including salary costs by position, travel costs, employee insurance, postage, equipment costs, and various office expenses. Lynnfield's budget proposal included a significantly greater level of detail than did either the Caremark or the HHS proposals. Jerry Wells was assigned the responsibility to evaluate the cost proposals. Mr. Wells failed to review the RFP or the related Addenda prior to evaluating the cost proposals submitted by the vendors. Mr. Wells asserted that it was not possible, based on the information submitted by the vendors, to perform an "apples- to-apples comparison." Each vendor set forth information in its proposal sufficient to calculate a total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Mr. Wells testified at the hearing that his cost review was intended to determine what AHCA would be paying for each of the individual factor products that AHCA provides hemophiliacs through Medicaid because the cost of the products was all AHCA would be paying to the vendors. The RFP did not require vendors to include a detailed list of, or unit prices for, factor products. The RFP specified only that factor products be provided at a minimum of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA employees, under the direction of Mr. Wells, created a cost comparison chart which purported to identify the price proposed by each vendor for certain factor products and which projects an estimated quarterly factor product cost for each vendor. HHS's cost proposal included a listing of specific prices to be charged for factor products. The list was based on products being used by existing HHS patients. Caremark offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. Caremark also suggested various "innovative cost savings," which specified use of factor products and indicated discounts greater than the 39 percent required by the RFP. Lynnfield did not include a product-specific listing of factor costs in its proposal, but offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. The AHCA employees used the HHS cost proposal, including the HHS range of discounts, as the basis for preparation of the cost comparison chart that included the other vendors. The factor products listed on the AHCA cost comparison mirror those listed in the HHS cost proposal. AHCA employees apparently applied the factor product usage information from the second quarter of 2003 that was included on the spreadsheet distributed at the bidder's conference to the HHS factor product list. The AHCA spreadsheet distributed at the bidder conference lists 29 factor products by name and dosage. Of the 29 products, 15 are listed in the HHS cost proposal. The AHCA cost comparison created at Mr. Wells' direction includes only the 15 factor products listed on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison assumed no costs would be incurred, where the AHCA spreadsheet information indicated no usage of the factor product that had been included on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison did not include factor products which have been supplied by AHCA to Medicaid beneficiaries, but which do not appear on the HHS list. Mr. Wells relied on this cost comparison to determine that the cost proposal submitted by HHS offered the lowest cost to the agency and was entitled to the 660 points. Lynnfield and Caremark were both ranked according to cost proposals of AWP minus 39 percent, and according to the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum, were awarded 652.74 points. Calculation of the points awarded to Lynnfield and Caremark in the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum does not appear to comply with the formula set forth in the RFP. The AHCA cost comparison spreadsheet identifies the HHS proposed cost as $10,706,425.66 and identifies the AWP minus 39 percent cost as $10,795,477.48 (assigned as the Lynnfield and Caremark cost proposal). The Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum states the lowest cost proposal to be $10,706,405.66 (perhaps a typographical error). The methodology applied by AHCA assumed that all vendors would utilize identical quantities of identical factor products (based on historical usage in Quarter 2 of 2003 of those listed in the HHS cost proposal) and that there would be no cost savings related to disease management. The application of methodology to compare vendor cost proposals outside the process established by the RFP is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. The vendors who are party to this proceeding assert that each other vendor's budgetary submission is insufficient, flawed, or unreliable for varying reasons. It is unnecessary to determine whether the budgetary information submitted by the vendors meets the requirements of the RFP because, despite having requested the information, AHCA has no interest in the data. There is no evidence that in making an award of points based on the cost proposals, AHCA relied on any of the budgetary information required by the RFP or submitted by the vendors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted in response to the RFP AHCA 0403. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Thomas R. McSwain, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Martin R. Dix, Esquire Akerman & Senterfitt Law Firm 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
