The Issue 1. Whether the proposals submitted by Consultec and EDS met the mandatory requirements of the Request for Proposals, and, if not, whether the proposal submitted by GTE met the mandatory requirements; (2) Whether the evaluation of the proposals by HRS was infected with substantial, material irregularities which resulted in an arbitrary scoring and evaluation process; (3) Whether GTE has standing to contest the award of the contract to Consultec; and (4) Whether GTE has waived any of the issues it has raised due to its failure to timely challenge the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposals.
Findings Of Fact General Background of the RFP On January 6, 1987, HRS released a Request for Proposals for Florida Medicaid Program Fiscal Agent Services (RFP) for qualified organizations to implement and operate a certifiable Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) for the Florida Medicaid Program. There were several reasons why HRS wanted a new MMIS system for the Florida Medicaid Program. First, the current system was more than ten years old and, although enhanced and modified numerous times, had been determined to be archaic. Second, the federal government indicated to HRS that it would not participate in future funding of the operation of the current system. Third, the federal government recommended that Florida purchase a new system. In February 1986, HRS began the process of preparing the RFP to be used in selecting the fiscal agent for the new MMIS. The process began with the development of an Advanced Planning Document (APD). Since the federal government pays for the large majority of Medicaid services, the federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is very much involved in the various stages of the state procurement process. The purpose of the APD, which describes in detail the planned procurement process, is to obtain federal approval of the procurement process proposed by the state to ensure federal financial participation. The APD was submitted to and approved by HCFA. After approval of the APD, HRS contracted with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company-Compass Consulting Group (PMM Compass) for consultant services regarding HRS's Medicaid fiscal agent procurement. PMM Compass is a nationally known consulting firm in Medicaid procurements. Its function was to review the proposed evaluation section of the RFP and to prepare a detailed evaluation plan, including written evaluation instruments and an evaluation manual, evaluation procedures, and evaluation training and materials, which would be used in evaluating the fiscal agent business and technical proposals. After the RFP was prepared, it was submitted to HCFA for approval. HCFA oversees federal financial participation in the Medicaid program and reviews state RFP's for MMIS systems to ensure that federal acquisition regulations have been met. The HCFA approved the RFP on November 28, 1986. On December 8, 1986, the Information Technology Resource Procurement Advisory Council of the Department of General Services approved the RFP. On January 6, 1987, the RFP was issued. Section 60.800 of the RFP provided that any party adversely affected by the bid solicitation must file a notice of protest within 72 hours after receipt of the RFP. No one filed a protest contesting any of the provisions of the RFP. On April 6, 1987, proposals were received from the following three offerors: Consultec, Inc. (Consultec), EDS Federal Corporation (EDS), and GTE Data Services, Inc. (GTE), subcontracting with The Computer Company (TCC). The RFP The RFP was issued for the procurement of fiscal agent services for the Florida Medicaid Program. The contractor chosen will serve as the HRS fiscal agent to administer the state's Medicaid program. The contractor must furnish all computer hardware, computer software, personnel, and other necessary resources to process approximately 24 million Medicaid claims each year and to keep current track of all Medicaid providers and recipients. The contractor must design and implement the computer and personnel systems to provide these services, must implement necessary changes to the system during the life of the contract, and must perform certain tasks to turn the system over to the state or to the new contractor at the end of the contract term. The total dollar amount paid during the contract will be approximately 45 to 50 million dollars. The RFP is a two-volume document containing approximately 500 pages, including the Appendix which is Volume II. The RFP consists of nine sections which are numbered 10, 20, 30, and so forth through 90. Section 10 provides an administrative overview; Section 20 provides a summary of the present system; Section 30 outlines the scope of the work required setting forth the responsibilities of the contractor and of the state; Section 40 sets forth the Florida MMIS System requirements; Section 50 contains the terms and conditions of the contract; Section 60 sets forth the procurement procedures; Section 70 contains the required contents of the technical proposal, which includes sections concerning corporate background and experience, project organization and staffing, project management and control, work plan and schedule, MMIS system description, and data processing; Section 80 sets forth the required content and format of the business proposal, which contains each offeror's price information; and Section 90 relates to the manner in which the proposals will be evaluated. The RFP provided that the proposal should be submitted in two parts: the technical proposal and the business proposal. The technical and business proposals had to be sealed separately, though submitted simultaneously, and would be open at different stages. The technical proposals were opened on April 6, 1987; the business proposals were opened on June 15, 1987, after scoring of the technical proposals was completed. Each technical proposal was several volumes in length. The Evaluation Process The evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the formal evaluation plan developed by the RFP Project Director, Tom Arnold, and PMM Compass. Section 90 of the RFP set forth the manner in which proposals would be evaluated. The evaluation was conducted in five phases: Phase 1, Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements of Technical Proposals; Phase 2, Evaluation of Technical Proposals; Phase 3, Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements of Business Proposals; Phase 4, Evaluation of Business Proposals; and Phase 5, Ranking of Proposals. The way in which the proposals would be evaluated in each of the five phases was described in Section 90 of the RFP. Phase 1 The first phase of the evaluation process was to review the technical proposals submitted by the offeror to ascertain whether the proposals complied with all the mandatory requirements of the RFP. The purpose of Phase 1, as stated in Section 90.200 of the RFP, was to determine whether each technical proposal was sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. This phase of the evaluation was performed on a "pass-fail" basis and was conducted immediately following the proposal due date. Section 90.200 of the RFP lists the 27 questions that would be used to determine whether the technical proposals met the mandatory requirements of the RFP. HRS considered that an offeror met the mandatory requirements for the technical proposals if an affirmative answer could be given to all 27 questions. The 27 questions were divided into two categories, proposal submission and technical proposals. The questions under the proposal submission category were questions such as the following: Was the proposal received by HRS no later than 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) on April 6, 1987? Did the vendor submit separate, sealed business and technical proposals and the required proposal bond? Is this the only proposal? (Alternate proposals not allowed). Are there fifteen (15) copies of the technical proposal? Does each copy of the technical proposal contain the required transmission letter? The questions under the technical proposal category were simply questions to ensure that each of the sections required to be included in the technical proposal had in fact been included. There were eight questions to correspond to the eight sections that were required. Each question was worded in the same manner, such as, "Is a Corporate Background and Experience section included? All three offerors submitted technical proposals that were determined to be sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Each offeror received a "pass" designation for all questions except GTE. GTE did not receive a pass on Question No. 4, which required that 15 copies of technical proposal be submitted. GTE submitted only 14 complete copies of its technical proposal by the deadline. However, HRS determined this was a minor irregularity, and GTE was allowed to submit the missing volume of its technical proposal the following day. In the appendix to the RFP a "minor irregularity is defined as follows: Minor irregularities are those exceptions which will not have an adverse effect on costs or performance. The first phase of the evaluation process was conducted by Tom Arnold, Tom Wallace, and Barbara Thrower of HRS. This phase was completed within 3 or 4 hours after the proposals had been opened. The mandatory requirements portion of the HRS evaluation manual was used in determining whether each offeror met the mandatory requirements. The same 27 questions listed in the RFP were contained in the evaluation manual. The evaluators were instructed in the manual to assign a "pass" score to each item for which their response to the question defined in the item is "yes." Phase 2 After determining that all of the technical proposals met the mandatory requirements and were sufficiently responsive to permit a complete evaluation, Phase 2 of the Evaluation Process was begun. The purpose of Phase 2 was to measure the individual merit of each technical proposal in each of several areas according to preestablished criteria. A maximum of 2,000 points could be received for each technical proposal. The basic categories evaluated and their maximum number of points were: Corporate Background and Experience 200 pts. Project Organization and Staffing 225 pts. Technical Approach 225 pts. Project Management and Control 150 pts. Work Plan and Schedule 200 pts. MMIS Description 800 pts. Data Processing 200 pts. Proposals were evaluated through four separate methods: (1) Review of the written response to the RFP; (2) Oral presentation; (3) Visits to sites where each offeror operated a baseline system; and (4) Reference checks. The RFP advised the offeror of the scoring system for the technical proposals and the ways in which information would be obtained. The offerors were advised by the RFP that detailed evaluation criteria had been developed for each of the categories listed. Further, for each of the categories listed, the RFP contained a paragraph which was meant to "describe generally the factors covered by the detailed criteria." Section 90.390 of the RFP set forth the manner in which points would be assigned to the technical proposal. Section 90.390 reads as follows: Scoring of the seven areas in each technical proposal shall be done using preestablished criteria and predefined scoring values. Each criterion within an area will be independently scored by evaluators. Indivi- dual raw scores from the evaluators, for each criterion, for each offeror's proposal, will be averaged then multiplied by a predetermined weight to get a weighted point value for that criterion. Scoring weights will not be available to the evaluation committee, but will be applied to raw scores by other designated staff. Weighted point values for all criteria in an offeror's proposal will then be tallied. The final technical score for each proposal is then calculated using the following methodology: A maximum of two thousand (2,000) weighted points will be assigned to the highest passing technical proposal. . . . The formula to be used to award all other offerors a proportional amount of points was also included. The formal evaluation and initial scoring of the technical and business proposals was performed by a Technical Evaluation Committee (Evaluation Committee) appointed by the Secretary of HRS. The Committee consisted of eleven members with backgrounds and experiences in MMIS program development, data processing, and financial analysis. While the members of the Evaluation Committee did not formulate the evaluation criteria which were used, they were well-qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided. Further, on March 24-27, 1987, prior to the receipt of Proposals on April 6, HRS Sponsored a three and one- half day training session for the members of the Evaluation Committee. Judith Hansen, a consultant with PMM Compass, headed the training sessions. During the course of these training sessions, the evaluators went over each of the criteria on which proposals were to be judged to ensure that all of the evaluators understood the scoring criteria in the categories they would be scoring. Ten of the Evaluation Committee members were responsible for evaluating the technical proposals in Phase 2 of the evaluation process. The individuals were divided into subgroups representing each of the seven categories to be evaluated. Five of the categories had three evaluators. The MMIS Description category had six evaluators, and the Technical Approach category had five evaluators. None of the members of the Evaluation Committee was an evaluator in each of the seven categories; the most categories scored by any one evaluator was four. Each member of the Evaluation Committee scored each of the proposals in the categories to which they were assigned; however, to ensure that each proposal was judged solely by the detailed evaluation criteria provided rather than against each other, an evaluator was permitted to have only one proposal before him to score at a time. Evaluators were also instructed not to discuss their scoring with the other evaluators but to independently score each proposal. The Evaluation Committee began reviewing the technical proposals on April 7, 1987, the day after proposals were submitted. Proposals were evaluated by the committee members at the Government Employee's Credit Union, a location away from their normal work place. Each evaluator was given a technical proposal and was allotted two days simply to read the particular proposal and become familiar with it. They then began to evaluate the proposal in the categories assigned. When the evaluators had finished the first proposal, they turned in both the proposal they were reviewing and their scoring manual for that proposal and received another offeror's technical proposal to read and evaluate. Each evaluator was given a separate scoring manual for each of the offerors which contained the criteria to be used in scoring the proposal in the assigned categories. Each category had criteria to be scored. Different categories had a different number of criteria. For example, the Corporate Background and Experience category had fifteen criteria; the Project Management and Control had eight; and the MMIS Description had 49 criteria. Each criterion in every category was to be scored from zero to ten by the evaluator. A zero was to be given when the offeror had omitted the particular aspect of the area or did not establish the capability to perform it. One to three points was "poor," four to six points was "average," seven to nine points was "good," and ten points was excellent. The scoring manual was organized with the criterion to be scored, and matters that might be considered under that criterion, on the left-hand page. The scoring sheet for that criterion was on the right-hand page. The scoring sheet contained a space for the numerical points awarded and also provided space for comments to indicate the reason for the score given. All proposals were initially scored based on the information provided in the proposals. The scores were Subsequently reviewed and revised, if appropriate, as additional information became available through the reference checks, the oral presentations, and the on-site visits. The evaluations of the technical proposals took over two months to complete. Throughout this period, but after the initial scoring was completed, debriefing sessions were conducted with the evaluators to ensure that the evaluators neither misunderstood nor overlooked relevant information from the proposals, reference checks, oral presentations, or site visits. Reference checks were conducted to verify both the corporate capabilities of the offeror and the qualifications of proposed senior project personnel. The reference checks were conducted by two members of the Evaluation Committee, Diana Flagg and George Strickland. These two individuals were chosen to conduct the reference checking because of their skills and abilities--they both had experience in contract management functions and dealing with state agencies-- because their workload was such that they had the time available. Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland were given a reference check manual that had been prepared as part of the evaluation package which contained the questions to be asked; however, they were not told which references to call. After discussing the matter, they decided to contact three (3) different states as corporate references for each of the bidders. They used the following criteria to determine which states to contact: (a) whether the state used the same baseline system proposed by the offeror for Florida; (b) whether the state had recent experience with the offeror; and (c) whether the state had experience with the development and operations of MMIS systems that would be similar to Florida's. The term "baseline system" refers to the proposed subsections of a certifiable, operational MMIS. An MMIS is comprised of six to seven federally required general system design subsections. The RFP defined "Baseline System" as "[t]he basic systems code used for the FMMIS consisting of, at the minimum, the Claims Processing Subsystem, the Reference Subsystem and the MAR Subsystem." The RFP required offerors to propose a certifiable operational MMIS and stated that the baseline system had to be operational in some state. Therefore, contacting the states that had the same or a similar baseline system as that proposed for Florida was the important factor in choosing the states to be contacted. Based on the three criteria stated, HRS decided to contact Montana, Ohio and Washington for Consultec; Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia for GTE/TCC; and Arkansas, Kentucky and Georgia for EDS. The corporate reference checks were conducted in the following manner: After deciding the states to be contacted, Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland jointly called the person listed by the offeror as the corporate reference for that state. Upon reaching the listed person, Mr. Strickland asked the corporate reference the predetermined questions in the reference check manual regarding that state's experience with the offeror. The reference was asked to rate the offeror on a scale of 0 to 4 and to give comments supporting the score where appropriate. To insure accuracy, both Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland recorded both the scores and the comments given by the reference for each offeror. After each call was completed, they compared their notes to make sure the reference's scores and comments were accurately transcribed. The personnel reference checks were conducted by Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland in the same manner. The personnel references called were those listed as references in the proposal for the individual, except in one case the listed reference referred the evaluators to another individual who had worked more closely with the person being checked. After the corporate and personnel reference checks were completed, the reference check manual containing the information received was made available to all of the evaluators for use in scoring the proposals. Oral presentations by each offeror were held on May 26, 27, 28, 1987. The orals provided the offerors with a chance to present their proposals and provided the committee with an opportunity to obtain answers to questions developed during their initial review of the proposals, to observe the offerors in action, and to request clarification of an offeror's proposal. The offerors were advised at the beginning of the presentation that any answers given at the oral presentation would be considered part of the proposal. In addition to the oral presentation, six members of the Evaluation Committee, plus the project director and the evaluation oversight manager, made visits to one installation site where each offeror's baseline system was operational. The site visits gave the evaluators an opportunity to see the offerors in action and to speak with state personnel in person about the offeror. The following site visits were made: June 1-2 EDS Little Rock, Arkansas June 3-4 GTE Data Services/The Computer Company Nashville, Tennessee June 8-9 Consultec, Inc. Jefferson City, Missouri Columbus, Ohio For Consultec, two locations rather than one were visited because while Ohio utilizes the Consultec baseline system bid in Florida, Consultec does not-run the system. In Missouri, on the other hand, Consultec is operating an MMIS system originally designed by EDS. Thus, by visiting two locations, HRS was able to evaluate Consultec's baseline system and analyze Consultec's operations and capabilities as a fiscal agent. The information received as a result of the site visits was recorded in the Site Visits Manual for each offeror. The manual contained the questions to be asked at each site and was part of the evaluation package. As with the Reference Check Manual, the Site Visits Manual was made available to all of the evaluators. On June 15, 1987, after the scoring of the technical proposals was completed by the Evaluation Committee, the raw scores assigned by each evaluator for each criterion were transferred to a summary scoring document. The scores were averaged then multiplied by the weight factor assigned to that criterion. The weighted scores for each of the criteria in each category were then added together, providing a total score for category. The following are the weighted scores received by each offeror, rounded to the nearest whole number: Corporate Background Consultec EDS GTE and Experience 107 139 98 Project Organization and Staffing 128 115 112 Technical Approach 132 121 127 Project Management and Control 87 95 75 Work Plan & Schedule 88 118 80 MMIS Description 425 473 418 Data Processing 126 135 135 1093 1196 1045 34. Since EDS had the highest total points scored, it received 2,000 points for its technical proposal. The others received a comparable point value determined by dividing the offeror's score by EDS's score and multiplying the result by 2,000. Consultec received 1,828 points, and GTE received 1,747 points. The completed technical evaluation points were locked in a bank vault and were not disclosed. On June 15, 1987, the business proposals were publicly opened. Prior to that time the sealed business proposals had been kept in the vault. Thus, no one knew the contents of the business proposals while the technical proposals were being evaluated. At the public opening, the business proposal summary pricing schedules were read to all offerors and posted at HRS. Phase 3 Following the public opening of the business proposals, HRS reviewed the business proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements for business proposals contained in the RFP. HRS conducted this "pass-fail review" of the business proposals by determining whether the business proposals submitted by each offeror complied with the requirements of Section 90.400 of the RFP. The first two paragraphs of this Section read: The purpose of this phase is to determine if the business proposal is sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. The following items will be reviewed as mandatory requirements: Section 90.400 of the RFP then lists 19 questions regarding the business proposals submitted by offerors. HRS considered an offeror as having met the mandatory requirements for the business proposals if an affirmative answer could be given to all 19 questions contained in Section 90.400. All three offerors submitted business proposals which were determined to have met the mandatory requirements for business proposals contained in the RFP. Phase 4 The business proposals then underwent a more detailed review by three of the HRS evaluators, all of whom were accountants and two of whom were CPAs. This review was to determine whether the business proposal for each offeror was consistent with that offeror's technical proposal and whether the calculations in the pricing schedules contained in the business proposals were accurate. For each offeror, the overall business proposal was determined to be consistent with the technical proposal. Minor arithmetic errors and inconsistencies were noted by the evaluators on each of the business proposals. For example, GTE's installation task salaries appeared to be unreasonable compared to the effort required to complete the tasks proposed in the technical proposal. Although all three evaluators noted this problem, it was determined that the inconsistency was not significant enough, considering the entire project, to merit rejection of the bid. The evaluators noted that Consultec had combined the building and utility categories on the pricing schedules, but found this also to be insignificant Section 90.520 of the RFP provides as follows: "Any business proposal that is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsisten- cies or inaccuracies may be rejected by HRS. (e.s.) As specified in the RFP, points were awarded for the business proposal as follows: the lowest evaluated operational price, the total fixed price per claim for the five-year contract period, was awarded 850 points; the lowest total installation price, the sum of the planning, design and development, acceptance testing and implementation tasks, was awarded 50 points; the lowest systems personnel billing rate was awarded 50 points; the lowest total field representative price was awarded 25 points; and the lowest hourly cost of CPU time was awarded 25 points. The other offerors in each category were awarded a proportional share of the maximum points allowable. The price per claim category received 850 of the 1,000 possible points because this payment represents the most important work to be performed under the contract and because payment will occur during at least five years of the contract. The fixed price per claim is of vital importance to the state because it allows the risk of claims volume variance to be transferred to the contractor. A 10 million variance in annual claims volume, from 19 million to 29 million was established in the RFP, with provision for dealing with claims volume outside the range parameters. There is considerable risk for abnormal claims variance due to program changes that can occur during the life of the contract such as federal establishment of new eligibility groups, new services, or redefined claims definitions. The state legislature may require additional Medicaid services or additional eligibles. However, a fixed price per claim limits the cost of handling increased processing services. The following table displays the points awarded for the business proposals by offeror: Consultec EDS GTE Installation Price 23 43 50 ($7,439,321) ($4,030,129) ($3,433,822) Price Per Claim 850 620 689 ($.2652) ($.3637) ($.3270) Composite Hourly Rate 29 21 50 for Systems Personnel ($95/hr) ($134/hr) ($55/hr) Provider Field Reps 23 25 21 for Five years ($1,892,820) ($1,810,380) ($2,124,450) Price for CPU Time 25 13 4 ($1,100) ($3,625) ($400) TOTAL 951 722 814 Phase 5 After the proposals were rated by the Technical Evaluation Committee, points awarded to the business proposals were added to the technical points to determine the ranking and recommendation of the committee. The ranking and recommendation of the committee along with supporting materials were conveyed to the Steering Committee, composed of four HRS executives. The Proposal Evaluation Committee's Report to the Steering Committee provided a 116 page detailed summary of the overall evaluation results, concluding with the Evaluation Committee's ranking of proposals, which were as follows: Consultec EDS GTE Technical Proposal 1,828 2,000 1,747 Business Proposal 951 722 814 Total 2,779 2,722 2,561 Ranking 1 2 3 In addition to receiving the Evaluation Committee's report, the Steering Committee, through Mr. Moody, one of its members, became aware of a letter written by Senator Grant to the Secretary of HRS concerning the evaluation of the proposals. Attached to the letter was a position paper prepared by GTE which attempted to compare the business proposals submitted by Consultec and GTE by considering the "future value of funds" or "time value of money" based on interest that could be earned on the difference between Consultec's installation price and GTE's installation price. Mr. Moody, a CPA, had been assigned the task of responding to the letter and the position paper. Mr. Moody raised the topic with the Steering Committee and also explained the deficiencies in the GTE analysis. After a thorough review of the Evaluation Committee's report, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the evaluation process. The Steering Committee unanimously recommended the selection of Consultec as the contractor for fiscal agent services for the State of Florida. The Secretary of HRS concurred with the recommendation, and by letter dated July 9, 1987, the offerors were notified of the intent to award the contract to Consultec. GTE filed its notice of protest on July 15, 1987, and its Formal Written Protest on July 24, 1987. After announcing its decision to award the contract to Consultec, HRS informed HCFA of its choice and submitted to HCFA a revised APD reflecting the costs contained in Consultec's business proposal. After reviewing this document and, having previously approved the evaluation process used in selecting the successful offeror, HCFA informed HRS that it did not need any additional information in order to approve the contract award and that the initial review indicated that approval would be granted at the appropriate federal financial participation rate. However, HCFA cannot give the state final approval while the contract award is being disputed. DID THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY CONSULTEC MEET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP? FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Among the several sections required in each technical proposal was one entitled "Corporate Background and Experience." The required contents of this section were set forth in Sections 70.400 through 70.440 of the RFP. Section 70.400 stated: The Corporate Background and Experience section shall include for the offeror and each sub-contractor (if any): details of the background of the company, its size and resources, details of corporate experience relevant to the proposed fiscal agent contract, financial statements, and a list of all current or recent Medicaid or related projects. The detailed requirements for each of the required elements listed in Section 70.400 was contained in the subsequent sections to the RFP. The requirement for financial statements was detailed in Section 70.420 as follows: Financial statements for the contracting entity shall be provided for each of the last three years, including at a minimum: balance sheets statement of income statements of changes in financial position auditors' reports notes to financial statements summary of significant accounting policies The word "shall" is defined in the Glossary of the RFP as "[i]ndicates a mandatory requirement or condition to be met." After the RFP was released but prior to the submission of bids, HRS provided an opportunity for all prospective offerors to submit written questions to HRS regarding the terms and conditions of the RFP. After receiving these questions, HRS sent all prospective offerors both the written questions submitted by the various prospective offerors and HRS' written responses to them. During this process, one bidder, EDS, submitted the following question to HRS: Since our parent corporation does not publish financial statements for each of its individual subsidiaries, will the financial statements for the parent company be satisfactory? In response, HRS provided all prospective bidders with the following answer: It is the department's intent to review the financial stability of each offeror. Offerors should present appropriate documen- tation to meet this requirement. From the answer given, it is apparent that HRS did not intend to preclude the submission of consolidated financial statements but did intend that each offeror should include "appropriate documentation" to allow HRS to review, and evaluate, the financial stability of the offeror. Like EDS's parent corporation, Consultec's parent, General American Life Insurance Company (General American), has a policy of not releasing the financial statements of its subsidiaries. Based on this policy and HRS' written response to the EDS question, Consultec submitted with its proposal the consolidated financial statements of its parent, General American. Consultec also submitted an annual report showing Consultec achieved a before tax income of $3.4 million in 1985. In its response to the RFP, Consultec indicated that the financial resources of General American backed any agreement Consultec entered into, as follows: The considerable resources of General American ensure Consultec's financial stability. Additionally, our access to the resources of our parent company (including manpower, data processing facilities, and financial support) ensures the successful performance of any contractual obligations. Because of this support, Consultec has greater capacity now than at any time in its corporate history to meet any and all contractual requirements and commitments. However, the General American consolidated, audited financial statements contained in the Consultec proposal contained no ascertainable information about the separate financial condition or financial performance of Consultec. Section 90 of the RFP explained how the technical proposals would be evaluated and specified what items would be considered "mandatory requirements." Technical proposal Mandatory Requirement No. 21 asks only the general question, "Is a Corporate Background and Experience section included? (Section 70.400)". A Corporate Background and Experience section was included in Consultec's submission. The detailed evaluation of criteria under the Corporate Background and Experience section occurred under the Phase 2 Evaluation of Technical Proposals. Oral presentations were considered a part of the technical proposal evaluation process. During Consultec's oral presentation, HRS asked Consultec to clarify its proposal by stating whether General American would be financially responsible for the Florida MMIS project. In a follow-up question, Mr. Tom Arnold asked Consultec if it would consider either submitting separate financial statements for Consultec or agreeing that General American would guarantee Consultec's performance if Consultec were awarded the contract. Consultec responded to this request by submitting a letter to HRS wherein Consultec stated that General American was willing to guarantee Consultec's performance under the contract. This letter was signed by Richard Martz, Senior Vice President of Consultec. RFP specifically stated that the state reserved the right to request amendments to the proposals or to waive minor irregularities. The purpose of the oral presentations was to clarify any information provided in the technical proposals. Further, the financial statements were considered in scoring only one criterion in the Corporate Background and Experience section which was worth a total of 10 points. Finally, GTE included in its proposal the financial statements of its parent, GTE Corporation, and all three evaluators considered the financial strength of GTE's parent in award points for that criterion. GTE also scored more points in this area than Consultec. Consultec received no material advantage over other offerors by submitting consolidated financial statements. If Consultec's failure to include its own financial statements in the technical proposal can be considered a deviation at all from the requirements of the RFP, in light of HRS's clarification of those requirements, it certainly cannot be considered a deviation that would require the rejection of its proposal. CONSISTENCY OF THE BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL PROPOSALS Sections 90.500 and 90.510 of the RFP provide: 90.500.--Each business proposal successfully meeting the mandatory requirements reviewed in Phase 3 will be examined to determine if the business proposal is consistent with the technical proposal and its calculations are accurate. 9O.510--Any business proposal that is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies may be rejected by HRS. The state reserves the right to reject all proposals. In its Formal Protest, GTE alleged that Consultec's business and technical proposals were not consistent because Consultec "front-end loaded" its proposal. "Front-end loading" means moving a cost from the later part of a contract to the front or charging for a cost that will not be incurred until later in the contract. Section 80 of the RFP describes the RFP's requirements for the business proposals. In the business proposal, each offeror sets forth the costs of its proposed FMMIS. The RFP directs each offeror to include in its business proposal "a firm fixed price for each of the requirements contained on the pricing schedule. . . ." One of the five requirements is installation costs. Section 81.210 of the RFP states that Pricing Schedule B of the business proposal summarizes the four major tasks involved in the installation phase of the Florida MMIS system as described in the RFP. Those four major tasks are described in the RFP at Sections 30.120 through 30.450. The offeror is directed to "schedule the fees for each of these tasks on the detailed Schedules B-1 through B-4" and is told that "[t]hese fees will form the basis from which the installation price is determined." Section 80.120 similarly states that "the installation price will be calculated as the combined sums of the prices of the Planning Task, Design and Development Task, Acceptance Testing Task and the Implementation Task." As required by the RFP, Consultec submitted a business proposal including Pricing Schedule B, which set out the price components of its installation price by task. One line item of the price components is labeled "computer resources." GTE's argument is that the cost of certain computer equipment (computer hardware and software) which Consultec included in the installation price under "computer resources," should have been allocated over the life of the contract and included in the operational price. Consultec's total price bid for the installation phase was $7,439,321, as compared to $4,030,129 for EDS and $3,433,822 for GTE. These differences are largely explained by differences in the cost item, "computer resources." These costs total $3,049,809 for Consultec, $1,130,856 for EDS, and $608,493 for GTE. The treatment of the acquisition price of the computer equipment to be purchased by Consultec is not consistent with generally accepted accounting practices. Proper accounting practices would distribute the cost of the equipment over its useful life rather than charging the entire purchase price as an initial cost in the installation period. Nevertheless, nothing in the RFP required the use of "generally accepted accounting practices" in allocating costs. Nothing in the RFP required that the costs of purchasing the computer equipment be made a part of the operations costs, by allocation over the life of the contract, as opposed to being charged as an installation cost at the time of purchase. Section 30.220 specifically states that it is the contractor's responsibility in carrying out the Design and Development Task, described as part of the installation phase, to [a]cquire the equipment to be used for the design, development, implementation, and operation of the new system." GTE has failed to show how Consultec's business proposal was inconsistent with its technical proposal. The purpose of requiring consistency between the two proposals, generally, is to ensure that each bidder has sufficient funds in its business proposal to perform the tasks required in the technical proposal. If computer hardware to be used during the life of the contract is purchased during the installation phase, the expense is incurred and paid for at that time, and inclusion of such cost as an installation cost is appropriate. GTE also argues that Consultec's business and technical proposals are inconsistent because Consultec has failed to provide sufficient data entry operators in their proposal. GTE attempted to establish this shortage through the testimony of Ms. Clark. However, there were discrepancies in her calculations and she was confused in her testimony. Further, her testimony was based on several assumptions that Consultec did not necessarily make or have to make. Finally, Ms. Clark's calculations indicated that Consultec was short 10 data entry operators in the first year of operation, yet Consultec provided 49 data entry operators the first year--the same number provided by both EDS and GTE in their proposals. In short, there was no competent evidence presented to show that Consultec's proposal provided for an insufficient number of data entry operators. After HRS announced its intent to award the contract to Consultec, HCFA reviewed Consultec's technical and business proposals to determine whether they were consistent with one another. After conducting this consistency review, it was HCFA's conclusion that Consultec's technical and business proposals were consistent. PRICING SCHEDULES - CORPORATE REGISTRATION In its formal protest, GTE alleged that Consultec "modified several of the pricing schedules in its proposals so that the cost categories submitted were different from those required." This was not included as an issue in respondent GTE's prehearing statement, and at the hearing, GTE presented no evidence that any such modifications were material or gave Consultec an advantage. In its formal protest GTE alleged that the corporate charter number provided by Consultec in its transmission letter was for a corporation named "General American Consultec, Inc." This was not included as an issue in GTE's prehearing statement, and there was no evidence presented to support this allegation. WAS THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS BY HRS INFECTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL, MATERIAL IRREGULARITIES? CRITERIA USED IN THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION. In evaluating the technical proposals, the HRS evaluators used an evaluation or scoring manual which contained the criteria to be used in scoring the technical proposal in each of the seven sections or categories. In its Formal Protest, GTE alleged that the scoring manual used by the HRS evaluators contained criteria and tests which were materially different from those set forth in RFP. The RFP evaluation criteria for the "Corporate Background and Experience" section of the proposal included, among others: (a) large scale data processing development and implementation experience, (b) medical claims processing experience, and (c) medicaid and MMIS experience. The RFP evaluation criteria for the "Data Processing" section of the proposal included, among others: (a) telecommunications network support, and (b) telecommunications experience. GTE has no previous MMIS contracts, but is the country's fourth-largest data processing company. It designed and submitted its proposal expecting to be graded on large-scale data processing experience, telecommunications network support and telecommunications network experience. Mr. Brandenburg, a Medicaid project director for GTE, testified that he felt HRS' scoring manual did not give any weight to an offeror's large scale data processing experience or telecommunications network experience even though these were listed as items HRS would consider in the RFP. However, several of the scoring criteria reference communication links, telecommunications network support, telecommunications network experience and number of persons engaged in claims processing operations. Further, in scoring GTE on criteria 8, 13 and 5 under the Data Processing section, the evaluators referred to GTE's section on telecommunciation experience and support. Section 90 of the RFP made it quite clear that proposals would be evaluated based on preestablished criteria that had been developed for each of the various sections of the technical proposals. The RFP stated that paragraphs 90.320 - 90.380 described "generally" the factors covered by the criteria. In essence, because "large-scale data processing development and implementation experience" was listed as one of the factors that would be covered by the criteria under Corporate Management and Experience, GTE assumed that it would be accorded more weight than it was in the evaluation criteria. Mr. Brandenburg felt that too much consideration was given to MMIS experience in the evaluation process and not enough to experience outside the MMIS industry. However, section 90.310 of the RFP provides: Offerors should note that the entire evaluation will place considerable emphasis on demonstrated experience directly applicable to MMIS transfer or replacement, modification development, and Medicaid fiscal agent operations. In summary, there was no competent evidence presented to support GTE's allegation that the scoring manual used to evaluate the proposals contained criteria that was materially different than those set forth in the RFP. THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND REFERENCE CHECKS Although the RFP set forth generally the criteria to be used in evaluating the technical proposal, the specific criteria used in evaluating the proposal were not included in the RFP. However, the RFP made it clear to offerors that there were predetermined criteria that would be used. The RFP indicated that information would be obtained from reference checks, from the proposal itself, from site visits, and from oral presentations. The RFP specified that the raw scores from the evaluators for each criterion would be averaged and then multiplied by a predetermined weight to get the point value for each criterion. None of the offerors protested the method of evaluating the proposals. Further, there was no evidence presented to suggest that the use of undisclosed weights was irregular. The initial recommended weights from the evaluation expert, PMM Compass, were modified by the Issuing Officer to reflect the areas most important to Florida, then reviewed with and approved by HCFA officials. Mr. Larry Platt of HCFA confirmed that the use of non-disclosed weights is very typical. Indeed, he had not been involved in any procurements in which weights were disclosed to offerors. He also confirmed that it was customary not to include the detailed evaluation criteria in the RFP. GTE also challenged the manner in which corporate reference checks were conducted. In this regard, Dr. Elton Scott testified that it would have been better if the HRS evaluators had contacted all the states where the offerors had certifiable MMIS systems even though this would result in as many as 18 states being contacted for one offeror and as few as 3 for another. Dr. Scott admitted, however, that if, due to time restraints or other reasons, less than all of the listed references could be contacted, it was reasonable to contact those states which used a baseline system similar to the offeror's proposed system for Florida, to contact states with recent experience with the offeror, and to contact states with experience similar to Florida's. Larry Platt has had extensive experience with state RFPs in his position with HCFA and his testimony is accepted. He testified that it was important that an equal number of references be contacted for each offeror and that a state's decision to contact three corporate references for each offeror was reasonable. He further testified that contacting states with recent experience with the offeror and states with the same baseline system were the criteria normally used in determining which states should be contacted as references. In support of its contention that the corporate reference checks were unreliable due to the number of references contacted, GTE introduced into evidence the depositions of Joel Schnedler, Jeff Harriott, Helen Condry, Ruth Fisher, and Robert Kelly, to show that, had additional references been contacted, GTE's corporate reference checks would have been better. However, with one exception, these individuals are Medicaid officials in states purposefully not contacted by HRS as corporate references. Mr. Schnedler is employed by the State of Missouri, which was not contacted because the baseline system operated by Consultec in Missouri was designed and installed by EDS. Ms. Condry is employed by the State of West Virginia, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because TCC's responsibilities in West Virginia are limited--TCC does not perform many of the provider relations and some of the other operations. Ms. Fisher is employed by the State of Delaware, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because the baseline system used in Delaware has not been certified by the federal government, a requirement for the baseline system proposed for Florida. Robert Kelly is an employee of the State of Pennsylvania, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because the baseline system operated in Pennsylvania was not developed, designed or installed by GTE or TCC. GTE contended that it received lower scores on the corporate background and experience questions dealing with MMIS experience solely because the experience shown in its proposal for that area was that of a subcontractor, TCC. In fact, the evaluators did not penalize GTE's proposal in this or any other manner. If the evaluators had not considered the MMIS experience of TCC in evaluating GTE's proposal, GTE would have received zero points in this area for the simple reason that GTE had no previous MMIS experience. Although Ms. Flagg testified that her scoring might have been different if GTE's and TCC's roles were reversed, it does not mean GTE did not receive proper credit for TCC's experience. If their roles were reversed, GTE and TCC would be performing different functions, and thus the scoring would very likely be different. The evaluation of the technical proposals in this case may not have been perfect; however, a review of the entire evaluation package and the evaluation manuals completed by the individual evaluators reveals that the evaluation was thorough and fair. The evaluation package was reviewed by HCFA section by section to determine whether the evaluation process ensured open and free competition. The evaluation package was approved by HCFA. Mr. Platt felt that the evaluation manual was "a very thorough job." Mr. Platt reviewed the evaluation itself after it was completed to ensure that the evaluation plan had been followed. He was satisfied with the process. The completed evaluation manuals show that the evaluators performed their tasks conscientiously and were well-informed. The analyses performed by Dr. McClave revealed high consistency among evaluators and good inter-evaluator reliability. These results support the conclusion that the evaluation procedure was reliable. There was no evidence to suggest that scores were assigned arbitrarily or that the evaluation process was infected with substantial material irregularities. PRESENT VALUE EVALUATION: As stated previously, the RFP provided that business proposals would be scored according to a preestablish point system for the five different types of costs required to be bid. The various categories of costs and the maximum number of points to be awarded to the low bidder for each category were: Max. Pts. Available Installation Price 50 Price Per Claim 850 Hourly Rate for Systems Personnel 50 Provider Field Representatives 25 Price for CPU Time 25 From the above scoring system contained in the RFP, prospective offerors knew or should have known that the State did not propose to evaluate bids on a present value basis. At the time that the RFP was developed, Mr. Arnold was aware of Section 287.0572, Florida Statutes, which requires the use of present value methodology to evaluate the cost of contracts "which require the payment of money for more than 1 year and include provisions for unequal payment streams or unequal time payment periods." Mr. Arnold did not believe that the statute applied to this RFP, and therefore did not change the scoring system. Merrill Moody is the Assistant Secretary for Administration. In that capacity, Mr. Moody oversees personnel, budget, finance, accounting, staff development and training, revenue enhancements, contracting, purchasing, leasing, management systems, audit, and quality control for HRS. Mr. Moody is a CPA, has been employed by HRS for nine years, and oversees a 60 million dollar budget. Like Mr. Arnold, Mr. Moody had considered whether Section 287.0572, Florida Statutes, applied to this procurement prior to the issue being raised by GTE. It was Mr. Moody's considered opinion that the statute did not apply because the contract does not call for an uneven payment stream. Dr. McClave, an expert in econometrics, testified that there is not enough certainty in this RFP to say whether or not there are unequal payment streams, and, accordingly, whether or not the statute applies. He also explained why the application of the statute would be an exercise in futility. First, the only part of the contract arguably subject to present value analysis is the installation phase. This takes place within the first year of the contract and, accordingly, makes it practically impossible to do a useful present value analysis. Furthermore, even if the installation phase payments could be construed as an unequal payment stream within the meaning of the statute, the statute does not require a present value analysis to be applied to unequal payment streams which are to take place under a contract whose duration is less than one year. To apply a present value analysis to the installation phase price would be counterproductive. During the installation phase, the contractor is to be paid at certain points during the first year at which milestones or tasks are completed. At such points, the contractor is to be paid a certain percentage of the total installation price. If a present value analysis were performed, the proposal most highly valued would be that in which all tasks would be finished on the last day of the contract, clearly not a result in the state's best interest. The application of present value analysis to the remaining four fixed price components of the bids is simply not necessary. Each one of the remaining categories called for a fixed price for a certain unit of services to be delivered to HRS by the contractor. There is clearly not an unequal payment stream or unequal time payment periods for these items. Where there is a fixed price for a unit of service, there is obviously no need to apply a present value analysis. If, for example, HRS knows that it will be charged $.2652 per claim by Consultec as opposed to $.3270 per claim by GTE, Consultec's price will always be lower regardless of claim volume. To apply a present value analysis to the cost per claim, systems personnel hourly rate, and CPU hourly rate would create uncertainty in the cost evaluation. This is because the RFP did not specify the number of claims or hours involved. The RFP contained an estimate of between nineteen and twenty-nine million Medicaid claims per year, a ten million claim difference. Likewise, the number of hours of systems personnel time and CPU time is not specified. To conduct a present value analysis assumptions would have to be made. If the assumptions prove wrong, the lowest present value cost bid could become the most costly contract. Dr. James E. Pitts, an expert in the field of economics, agreed with Dr. McClave's conclusion that given the range of possible volumes on the number of claims as well as in systems personnel and computer time, a present value analysis would provide a "horrendous" range of possible present values and the analysis would be extremely sensitive to the assumptions that would be made. Although a present value analysis of the cost of the proposal would require certain assumptions to be made, and thus swould provide a comparison of costs that is not as accurate as comparing the fixed rate costs, a present value analysis can be performed using reasonable assumptions. However, the present value analyses of both GTE and HRS show that Consultec's business proposal yields the lowest present value. Accordingly, had a present value analysis been performed, Consultec would remain the lowest bidder. GTE's expert Dr. Scott, HRS' expert Dr. McClave, and Consultec's expert Dr. Pitts all agreed that even when a present value analysis was used, Consultec's bid remained less than GTE's. THE EDS BID GTE alleged that the proposal submitted by EDS did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the RFP in two respects: (1) It submitted consolidated financial statements; (2) it proposed to supply one element of the FMMIS by using a subcontractor's "propriety" software. The first allegation has been previously discussed in reference to the Consultec proposal. The submission of consolidated financial statements did not make EDS's proposal unresponsive. The financial statements were used as a source of information from which the financial stability and corporate background of the offeror could be evaluated. As to the second allegation, GTE has simply failed to show how EDS's proposal materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. EDS's transmittal letter stated that EDS would use Health Information Designs (HID) as a subcontractor to produce Drug Utilization Review Reports, thus subcontracting out a total of .78 percent of the work as measured by total contract price. The letter from HID stated that it would not "convey access to or title in any of HID's proprietary DURbase software or system documentation." When EDS was questioned at the oral presentation about how it would comply with Section 50.900, which would be part of the contract to be entered into and requires that HRS shall receive "a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use . . . all software . . . and documentation comprising the Florida MMIS", EDS responded that the purchase of DUR-based services was the procuring of services, not software. Further, if the subcontractor's statement in its letter is considered a deviation from the requirements of the RFP, then EDS complied with the requirements of Section 70.100 of the RFP by identifying and explaining the deviation in the transmittal letter. There was no evidence presented to show that the deviation was material or that the state could not accept the proposal with the deviation. Section 50.000 provides that modification of the contract can be made by mutual agreement of the state and contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order awarding the contract for the Florida MMIS system to Consultec. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3188BID GTE's proposed findings of fact 1-19. Accepted generally, though not with same wording or quotations. 20-21. Rejected due to contrary findings. 22-27. Accepted as true but not included in detail in RO because unnecessary. 28-33. Rejected as irrelevant, except to the degree these paragraphs reflect that Consultec intends to purchase computer equipment in the installation phase and charge the cost during the installation phase. Rejected - no competent substantial evidence (CSE) that Florida will pay for costs not attributable to this contract. Accepted in part; rejected in part by contrary finding. 36-40. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by CSE. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by CSE. 44-45. Accepted. 46-53. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence accepted, second rejected. Rejected. 58-59. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted to the degree relevant. Accepted generally. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted generally. Accepted generally. Rejected. 66-70. Accepted to the degree relevant. 71. Rejected. 72-73. Accepted, except for last sentence which is rejected as not supported by CSE. 74-77. Accepted generally. 78. Rejected as irrelevant, there was no evidence of bias in scoring. 79-81. Rejected generally by contrary finding. Rejected as unnecessary, last part of last sentence rejected for lack of CSE. Accepted generally. 84-85. Rejected by contrary findings. HRS's proposed findings of fact 1-26. Accepted generally. 27-34. Accepted to the degree that Dr. McClave's analyses support the conclusion that the evaluation process was reliable. Accepted generally. Rejected, not supported by cited reference. Though criterion 2 related to the prime contractor, the criterion also related to financial resources not MMIS experience. Last part of paragraph accepted. 37-39. Accepted generally. Accepted generally; however, first sentence rejected because the evaluation manuals of all three evaluators reflect that the guarantee was factor in scoring. However, the comments also reflect that it was not the only consideration. Accepted in part. Part relating to GTE rejected as unnecessary. Last sentence rejected in that letter is not in the exhibit cited. 42-51. Accepted generally. 52. Rejected as unnecessary. 53-54. Accepted generally that Consultec had computer equipment costs in installation phase. Unnecessary. Accepted generally. Unnecessary. Unnecessary. 59-60. Accepted generally. 61-80. Accepted generally. 81-82. Unnecessary. Consultec's proposed findings of fact 1-18. Accepted. 19. Accepted, except as to date and when scoring was begun. 20-38. Accepted generally. 39. Accepted generally, except third from last sentence. 40-42. Accepted generally. Rejected, in that was not reflected in information known at time of evaluation. Accepted generally. Rejected as unnecessary, but accepted as true. 46-55. Accepted to the degree necessary considering Ms. Clark's testimony was not credible. 56-98. Accepted generally but included in order only to the degree necessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire M. Stephen Turner, Esquire BROAD AND CASSEL 300 E. Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Jann Johnson, Esquire Steven C. Emmanuel, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE CAROTHERS AND PROCTOR Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. Michael Madsen, Esquire James Hauser, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH AND MADSEN First Florida Bank Building Suite 701 215 South Monroe Street P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Insurance acted according to the requirements of law in reviewing submissions of vendors responding to the Department's request for proposals for provision of licensure and examination services.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of insurance agents in Florida pursuant to the Insurance Field Representative Licensing Procedures Law set forth at Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. Persons seeking to become licensed by the Department are required to take and pass an examination. Insurance Testing Corporation (ITC) develops and administers insurance licensure examinations in other states. Assessment Systems Incorporated (ASI) develops and administers insurance licensure examinations in other states. Since 1990, the Department has contracted with the University of South Florida (USF) for exam administration. The contract was to expire on September 30, 1994. It has been twice extended and is currently set to expire on September 30, 1996. The parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. On December 29, 1995, the Department of Insurance issued a Request for Proposal Number 95/96-07 (RFP) seeking the provision of testing development and administration services. The RFP was prepared through a collaborative effort within the Department. In issuing the RFP, the Department intended to broaden the level of services obtained from a contracted vendor and to take advantage of the expertise of companies already in the business of regulatory examination provision. The Department issued an RFP to permit vendors to generate their own programs for licensure and examination programs. The alternative, an Invitation to Bid, would have required vendors to bid on a program designed by the Department. The RFP provided that the contract between the Department and the successful vendor would consist of the RFP, addenda and amendments to the RFP, and the successful vendor's proposal. The RFP also provided that Department reserved the right to negotiate with the selected contractor, to waive minor irregularities and to reject all submissions. The RFP provided a schedule and deadlines as follows: submission of questions and requests for clarification by vendors, January 15, 1996; the preproposal conference with vendors, January 22, 1996; submission of proposals, February 12, 1996; oral presentations by vendors, February 19, 1996; and posting of the intended award, February 23, 1996. There was no protest to the RFP's specifications. Submissions were received from five vendors. The RFP evaluation panel scheduled separate oral presentations by the five vendors submitting proposals. The purpose of oral presentations was to permit the vendors to present their proposals and to respond to questions from the evaluation committee. The first thirty minutes of each one-hour presentation were reserved for the vendor presentation; the second thirty minutes were reserved for questions from the evaluation panel to vendor representatives. Vendors were not invited to and did not attend the oral presentations of other vendors. For reasons discussed herein, ITC's proposal was deemed non-responsive and was not evaluated. After completion of oral presentations, the evaluation panel independently reviewed and scored the proposals (other than ITC's) and submitted the scores to the Department's purchasing office. The purchasing office opened and scored the vendors cost proposals, then calculated the vendors' total scores. Of the proposals which were evaluated, ASI's received the highest total score of 134.5 points. The second highest score, 115 points, was received by USF. The Department posted a Notice of Intended Award to ASI on February 23, 1996. On February 23, 1996, ITC contacted the Department purchasing director and requested a copy of the ASI proposal. At that time, ITC was advised that a notice of protest would be due on February 28, 1996. ITC filed a Notice of Protest on February 28, 1996. ITC filed a formal protest on March 8. 1996. Although the State of Florida insurance licensure tests are currently administered by USF, the Department retains ownership of the questions ("test items") used in the examination. Upon the expiration of the contract with USF, all test items are to be returned to the Department. The test items used in Florida insurance exams are developed by employees of the Department with experience in the subject matter being tested. Test items have been revised and updated by USF according to psychometric principles. The Department desires to continue ownership of the "Florida bank" of test items. Section 2.1B of the RFP, "EXAMINATION DEVELOPMENT," states: The Department currently retains ownership of all test items in use for existing exams. The Department shall maintain exclusive owner- ship of the items developed, item bank(s), examinations, and all related materials deve- loped for use in fulfilling the requirements of this RFP. The Contractor will be respons- ible for continued development and maintenance of an item bank for use in preparing the examinations.... Section 2.2 of the RFP, "Related Requirements and Information," states: Use of any test items owned by the Department or developed to fulfill obligations resulting from a contract entered into as a result of this RFP for any purpose other than those covered by said contract is prohibited with- out advance written authorization by the De- partment. Any violation of this provision will result in immediate cancellation of the contract and/or legal actions against the contractor. Vendors were allowed to submit questions and requests for clarification by January 15, 1996. At the preproposal conference, an addendum to the RFP was issued which included the Department's responses to vendor requests for clarification. All potential vendors received the addendum. As did other vendors, ITC submitted question and requests for clarification. ITC question Number 8 states: The Department claims ownership of all existing test questions and requires owner- ship of all items, examinations, and related materials used in the Florida tests. This requirement precludes the use of previously developed, calibrated, and validated banks of items owned by the major providers of insur- ance license examinations. It thus requires the development and maintenance of a completely separate bank of test questions for Florida. This can be done only at considerable expense, which must be reflected in the test fees. Is it truly the Department position that all questions used in Florida insurance tests will be or become the property of the Depart- ment? Is this a negotiable item? The Department's response to ITC's question Number 8 states: The desire of the Department to retain owner- ship of its test items does not preclude the use of previously developed, calibrated and validated banks of items. Subject to the approval of the Department, the selected vendor may use test items it has already de- veloped as long as the subject/line of auth- ority listings for Florida are adhered to and are in accordance with Florida law and administrative rules. It is the Department's position that all items currently owned by the Department or developed for the Department in fulfillment of services requested through this RFP, re- main the property of the Department. This is not a negotiable item. ITC question Number 22 states: Will the Department grant the contractor the right to use test items owned by the Depart- ment in other states where it has testing contracts. If so, what guarantees will the Department offer that the Department will treat these questions as confidential material in the future, when they are used in other states. The Department's response to ITC's question Number 22 states: Yes, the Department will grant the vendor authority to use test items owned by the Department in other states where it has testing contracts. However, some agreement would have to be reached regarding the vendor's liability and responsibility should any test item become compromised as a result of such use. The question relating to the Department offering a guarantee that it will treat such questions as confidential when they are in use in other states is not understood. Obviously, the Department would not want to compromise its own test items. By February 12, 1996, the deadline for submission of proposals, five vendors had submitted responses to the RFP, including ITC, ASI and USF. On the question of test item creation, ITC's proposal states: Generally, we provide the entire bank of questions that are used in the tests of a state we serve. Florida is unusual in providing a bank of questions to start with. Our approach to questions for the Florida tests will follow three tracks. First, we will use the questions in the current Florida tests. Second, we will identify those ques- tions in our own bank that are appropriate for use in Florida. Third, we will write additional questions where shortages are identified in the banks, or to cover add- itional topics in the study manuals. ITC's proposal further states, "ITC staff will write and develop all of the new test questions. We will not rely upon Department staff or the Florida insurance industry...to write any of the new questions required for your tests." On the question of test item ownership, ITC's proposal states: Since you currently own a bank of test ques- tions, we understand that you will want to own a bank of test questions when a contract you may establish with us comes to an end. We currently own our bank of questions and would not want to relinquish ownership to that bank as a result of contracting with Florida. Therefore, our proposal is to divide the bank ownership according to four criteria: (1) Ownership of questions in the original Florida bank will remain with Florida; (2) ownership of questions in ITC's bank as of contracting will remain with ITC; (3) owner- ship of ITC-developed questions that are Florida specific and not applicable to other states will be assigned to Florida; (4) ownership of ITC-developed questions that are applicable to other states will remain with ITC. Florida questions that are materially revised by ITC will be considered ITC questions. During the ITC oral presentation, the evaluation panel sought clarification of ITC's position on test item ownership. ITC indicated that its position was as set forth in the proposal. The issue of test item ownership was the central question discussed at ITC's oral presentation. Essentially, the ITC proposal provides that at the close of any potential contract period, the Department will own the questions it currently owns and only those ITC-developed questions that are specific to Florida and to no other state. Further, under the proposal, ITC would be able to "materially revise" any question in the current Florida test item bank and claim ownership of the revised question. Neither ITC's proposal nor its oral presentation provided reliable information as to what would constitute a "material revision" of a test item. After the oral presentations were concluded, the evaluation panel and Department purchasing personnel determined that the ITC proposal did not comply with RFP's requirement related to test item ownership. The ITC proposal was disqualified and was not evaluated by the panel. The evidence fails to establish that the Department acted improperly in disqualifying the ITC proposal. The evidence establishes that the ITC proposal fails to meet the requirements of the RFP relating to ownership of test items, and was properly disqualified from further evaluation. As set forth in the RFP, the Department requires "exclusive ownership of the items developed, item bank(s), examinations, and all related materials developed for use" in providing examination and licensure services to the Department. RFP Addendum Number 1 clearly states "the Department's position that all items currently owned by the Department or developed for the Department in fulfillment of services requested through this RFP, remain the property of the Department" and further states that the item is not negotiable. The purpose of the Department's insistence on ownership of test items is to assure that, at the conclusion of the contract period, the Department will own the questions which have been prepared by the successful vendor for use in Florida exams. ITC's proposal fails to provide the Department with test item ownership as specifically required by the RFP and addendum. ITC asserts that on the question of test item ownership, its proposal is essentially the same as the proposal submitted by ASI. The evidence fails to support the assertion. ASI's proposal states: ASI acknowledges that the Department currently owns all examination items in use for existing exams. Furthermore, the Depart- ment will also retain ownership of all items developed for use in Florida examinations. Unlike the ITC proposal, the ASI proposal clearly states that the Department will own all items developed for use on the Florida exam. Items developed for the Florida exam will be owned by the Department, whether or not the items are applicable to other states. ITC asserts that the inclusion of cost information within the body of the RFP warrants disqualification of the ASI proposal. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Each vendor was evaluated on compliance with Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE) contracting goals. Evaluation points were awarded if a vendor established that CMBE firms would receive at least 10 percent of the contract award. Section 2.4 of the RFP, "Proposal Form and Content," provides instructions on how to structure a vendor proposal and states: ...ATTENTION IS CALLED TO SECTION 1.8. ANY REFERENCE TO COST IN PARAGRAPHS (A) THROUGH (G) BELOW MAY DISQUALIFY THAT PROPOSAL. Paragraphs (A) through (G) include items related to technical portions of vendor proposals. Section 1.8 addresses copies of proposals and states, "[c]ost proposals must be labelled as such and be submitted in a separate envelope." ASI's proposal included the following statement: ...ASI has signed a Letter of Agreement with Stallion Properties Management of Tallahassee to provide certain real estate and property management services specifically related to the Department's RFP and this Proposal. In total, it is estimated that ASI's Letter of Agreement with Stallion Properties Management will provide a total income of approximately $600,000.00 to Stallion over the term of ASI's three year contract with the Department. This project income to Stallion represents ten percent of the total projected income that ASI will earn should we be awarded the Department's contract. The requirement for submission of sealed cost proposals is intended to assure that the technical review of proposals is not influenced by cost factors. Other than to note compliance with the CMBE goal, the members of the evaluation panel did not extrapolate the ASI disclosure to determine the total ASI cost proposal. There is no evidence that the ASI disclosure affected the panel's evaluation of the proposal. Had the ASI technical proposal included its total cost proposal, evaluation panel members would have referred the issue to the Department's purchasing office. Apparently because the panel members did not note the inclusion of the CMBE total and did not extrapolate cost information based on the CMBE disclosure, the members did not refer the matter to purchasing. Because no other vendor included cost information within the technical portion of the proposals, there was no comparative cost information available for evaluation until the cost proposals were opened by Department purchasing personnel. Cost proposals were reviewed after the evaluation of technical factors was completed. ITC asserts that ASI's proposal modification after the proposals had been opened and during the oral presentation warrants rejection of ASI's proposal. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Section 2.1L of the RFP, "COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF FEES," states: The Department requires the collection of certain fees from applicants for services related to the licensure and examination process. It is intended that the Contractor collect these fees, as necessary and appropri- ate, and remit these fees daily (exclusive of weekends and State of Florida holidays) in a manner acceptable to the Department. It is intended that the Contractor retain its fee for services as provided for in the contract and remit the balance to the Department as appropriate. The Department is currently not prepared to accept electronic funds transfers in this area, however, it is interested in proposals which could accommodate such tran- sactions during the contract period. The Department contemplates technological enhance- ments in the Receipt's database within the contract period, however it is unable to specify the details of such at this time. Contractor must be able to accommodate such technological changes and enhancements. If any invoices are required to be submitted by the contractor to the Department, they must be submitted in a manner acceptable to the Department and in detail sufficient for a pre- audit and postaudit thereof. The Contractor shall have a system which maintains certain data, as specified by the Department, related to its activities in this area. The Department had indicated that a vendor could collect the total fee, deduct the vendor service charge, and remit the balance of the fee to the Department. Prior to the preproposal conference, ITC submitted a question (Number 21) seeking information on how fees were to be conveyed to the Department. In Addendum Number 1, the Department indicated that a response to the question would be provided in a second addendum to be issued after the preproposal conference. In the second addendum, the Department's response to ITC's question Number 21 states: The Department intends for the vendor to receive, on behalf of the Department, certain fees currently paid by licensure applicants and/or exam candidates. These fees may be paid by personal check, certified check or money order. Cash cannot be accepted. All checks or money orders must be made payable to the Florida Department of Insurance and must be deposited by the vendor into a state concentration account (with Barnett Bank) or a clearing fund in the name of the Department. The Department will assist in establishing these accounts. The Department will require a daily accounting of all monies collected and/or deposited. This information must be in the format prescribed by the Department. This information must be transmitted via an automated system compatible with the Department's existing information systems in this area. The vendor will be required to submit in- voices to the Department for services rendered on a monthly basis. Such invoices must be in sufficient detail for pre-audit and post-audit purposes and be in a format prescribed by the Department. The Department's response in addendum Number 2 specifically noted that the Department's position had changed. ASI's proposal states: Fees will be collected on the day of examina- tion and/or license issuance. This method will eliminate late payment processing. We will collect examination fees payable to ASI. This will minimize reconciliation tasks for the Department, and will allow accounting efforts to focus on those fees collected on behalf of the Department. Application re- venues will be shared with the vendor, based on prices stipulated in the price proposal and associated processing volumes. Appli- cation and fingerprinting fees will be collected via checks made payable to the Department. ASI will provide a reconcilia- tion of these fees, and daily deposits will be made to the Department's account. ASI will invoice the Department for its applica- tion screening services on a monthly basis. ASI's proposal further states: As part of the standard project planning process, [ASI will work side-by-side with the Department to identify specific requirements to be included in the implementation plan, including fee collection procedures], de- tailed invoice requirements, and the most appropriate method to transmit detailed tran- saction information to the Department.... [emphasis supplied] The proposed fee collection process suggested by ASI is inconsistent with applicable Florida law and does not follow the procedure set out by the Department in Addendum Number 2. Section 2.4 of the RFP, "Proposal Form and Content," subsection (C) "Work Plan" states: Describe in narrative form your plan for accom- plishing the work described....Modifications of requirements of this RFP are permitted, however, reasons for changes should be fully explained and justified. " At the oral presentation, and prior to evaluation of the proposals, the evaluation panel advised ASI that the fee collection proposal was not legally appropriate. ASI representatives indicated that they were attempting to provide an improved fee reconciliation process and were not aware that Florida law prohibited their fee collection plan. ASI utilizes the two-check fee payment system in some of the states where ASI administers licensing exams. At the oral presentation, ASI representatives assured that, as specifically stated in the proposal, ASI was committed to working with the Department "...to identify specific requirements to be included in the implementation plan, including fee collection procedures...." ASI representatives stated that the fee collection procedure desired by the Department would be accomplished within the costs set forth in the proposal. Although ASI's fee collection procedure does not follow the method suggested in the RFP, such does not warrant rejection of the ASI proposal. As stated in the RFP, ASI's modification of the RFP requirement was permitted where the reasons for changes were fully explained and justified. ITC implies that ASI can't provide the services offered in the ASI proposal within the fee and cost structure set forth in the response to the RFP. There is no credible evidence supporting the implication.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order DISMISSING the case and awarding the contract to Assessment Systems, Incorporated. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM, 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 21st day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1330BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, comment on testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, unnecessary. The ITC proposal is not responsive to the Department's requirement of test item ownership. 12-13. Rejected, contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 22. Rejected, subordinate. 23-24. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, subordinate. 3-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 7-8. Rejected, unnecessary. 14. Rejected, irrelevant. 20-23. Rejected, unnecessary. 34-37. Rejected, cumulative. 48-59. Rejected, cumulative. 61-62. Rejected, irrelevant. 63-69. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, cumulative. 83. Rejected, cumulative. 96. Rejected, unnecessary. Intervenor ASI Intervenor ASI's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, unnecessary. Intervenor USF Intervenor USF's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 20-21. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected as to use of phrase "final offer;" the ASI RFP specifically committed to working with the Department on fee collection procedures. Rejected, unnecessary. 45. Rejected, subordinate. 50. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carl D. Motes, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis and Wells, P.A. 2804 Remington Green Circle, Suite 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2429 Frank Fernandez, Esquire Thomas Valentine, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William B. Graham, Esquire Richard N. Sox, Jr., Esquire Bateman and Graham, P.A. 300 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regina L. DeIulio, Esquire Office of the General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded Bid No. 432-730-310-W for configurations 1, 2, and 3, Service Area 1.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The ITB for Bid No. 432-730-310-W consisted of three sections: general conditions, special conditions, and technical specifications. Bidders were evaluated on their technical and non-technical responses to the ITB. Once the Department determined the bidders to be compliant with their non-technical responses, they were ranked according to the evaluation award criteria described in Appendix F of the ITB. Once ranked, the Department forwarded the bid responses to the engineering staff of the Division of Communications for a technical review. This technical review consisted of verifying a lowest compliant bidder and a competitive compliant bidder. To complete the technical review the engineering staff considered the responses submitted on the ITB forms, technical literature provided by the bidder, and technical responses submitted to supplement other information. To the extent that an ambiguity in one response was satisfactorily explained elsewhere in the bid documentation, the bidder was given the benefit of the doubt and found to be responsive to the ITB. Prior to submitting bids, all bidders were given an opportunity to raise questions regarding the ITB at a pre-bid conference conducted by the Department. Petitioner's representative attended the conference and received a copy of the specimen bid. The ITB required specific mandatory responses. Failure to include the mandatory information resulted in the disqualification of the bid. An equipment list for the baseline system was a mandatory requirement of the ITB. Identification of the manufacturer and the part number, if any, were required to be provided. Another mandatory feature required by the ITB was a "handsfree" intercom. The ITB defined this feature as follows: Handsfree answer and talk back on intercom: Enables a station user to answer an intercom call through the station instrument's internal speaker/microphone without lifting the instruments handset. (This feature shall not be controlled by the calling party instrument intercom button.) Speed-dialing was another mandatory feature of the ITB. This feature could be provided at the station (an individual telephone) or by the system. If at the station, there was no requirement that the instrument retain memory in the event of a power outage. The central memory of the system, however, had to retain its memory in the event of a power failure. The ITB prohibited a method of programming which required access to the inside of the Key Service Unit (KSU) to make switch settings or set a switch to enter and/or leave the program mode. All mandatory operational service features of the ITB were listed on page 27, Section 3.4. Optional operational service features and equipment were listed on page 34, Section 3.16.8 of the ITB. An optional operational feature listed was "Station Message Detail and Equipment." The bidding of an SMDR or an option for an SMDR was not required. No bidder was disqualified because it failed to bid an SMDR or an SMDR option. All bidders were required to submit a spare parts price list. Any bidder failing to submit the list was disqualified. Any bidder which submitted the list automatically met the requirement. The lists were not evaluated as art of the bid criteria and no bidder was disqualified based upon the content of the information supplied on the list. Configuration 1 The Department determined Petitioner to be the seventh lowest bidder for configuration 1. Lower bidders, in order of their ranking, were Henkels & McCoy, Southern Bell Advanced, St. Joe Communications, Inter-Tel, Lanier Business, and Tel-Plus Communications. Tel Plus was considered the low compliant bidder and Inter-Tel was the competitive compliant bidder. Following a complete review of the bid responses, the parties agreed that Southern Bell Advanced, St. Joe Communications, and Lanier Business were non-compliant for configuration 1. The Henkels & McCoy bid provided a "handsfree" feature as described above in paragraph 8. The Henkels & McCoy bid did not provide an SMDR or an SMDR option. The Inter-Tel bid did not provide an SMDR or an SMDR option. The Tel Plus bid included a spare parts price list. The Tel Plus bid included an equipment list for the baseline system, however, such list did not completely and accurately describe the baseline system. The discrepancies with the equipment list were fully explained elsewhere in Tel Plus' bid response. Configuration 2 The Department determined Petitioner to be the fourth lowest bidder for configuration 2. Lower bidders, in order of their ranking, were Inter-Tel, Tel Plus Communications, and St. Joe Communications. St. Joe was determined to be non-compliant, leaving Tel Plus as the low compliant bidder and Inter-Tel as the competitive compliant bidder. The Inter-Tel bid provided a statement indicating the equipment bid would be modified to relocate a "DIP" switch to the outside of the KSU. This modification was necessary to comply with the requirement described in paragraph This modification is a minor, simple procedure done by many technicians. No documentation was provided as to how Inter-Tel intended to make the modification. The parties agreed, however, that the modification could be done. The Inter-Tel bid provided the speed-dialing feature described in paragraph 9 at the station. The findings of fact relating to configuration 1 and the Tel Plus bid are applicable to configuration 2. Configuration 3 The Department determined Petitioner to be the seventh lowest bidder for configuration 3. Lower bidders, in order of their ranking, were Business Telephone Systems, Henkels & McCoy, Marcom Telecommunications, Lanier Business, Tel Plus Communications, and Inter-Tel. Inter-Tel was determined to be the low compliant bidder with Henkel & McCoy the competitive compliant bidder. Following a complete review of the bid responses, the parties agreed that Marcom, Tel Plus and Lanier were non- compliant for configuration 3. The Business Telephone bid included a spare parts price list. The Business Telephone bid failed to include on the baseline equipment list the surge protector part number, however, such information was provided elsewhere in the bid response. The Business Telephone bid failed to include a part number for wiring, however, the part number for wiring was not required. The Henkels & McCoy bid included a spare parts price list. The Henkels & McCoy bid failed to list a console card on the baseline equipment list, however, this was to be provided with the console which was properly described elsewhere in the bid response. The findings of fact relating to configuration 2 and the Inter-Tel bid are applicable to configuration 3. Petitioner's bid for configuration 1 was $3641.08. The lowest responsive bid was $2343.00. Petitioner's bid for configuration 2 was $5407.97. The lowest responsive bid was $4723.00. Petitioner's bid for configuration 3 was $12,136.90. The lowest responsive bid was $9271.00. The parties stipulated that Petitioner timely filed its notice of intent to protest and the formal protest of bid award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services enter a Final Order dismissing the formal protest of the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted in part. The information requested on the spare parts price list was for planning purposes only. Response of hourly rate etc. was not required to comply with the ITB. Paragraph 4 is accepted; see Finding of Fact paragraph 13. Paragraph 5 is accepted. 6 With regard to paragraphs 6-8, to the extent such paragraphs track the language of the ITB they are accepted; however, the SMDR or SMDR option was not a mandatory item of the bid. It was indicated as an optional operational feature. To the extent paragraph 9 sets forth optional operational features (as described in Section 3.16.8 of the ITB) it is accepted; however this specific proposed Finding is irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusion of issues raised in this proceeding. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected. The SMDR or SMDR option was an optional operational feature. No bidder was disqualified because it did not have the SMDR or an SMDR option. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is accepted. With regard to paragraphs 18-20, to the extent such paragraphs track the information on p.23 of ITB they are accepted; however, the listing of the printed circuit card may not be required when bid as a component of the console which is properly described in the bid response. Paragraphs 21-23 are accepted, however, speed dialing may be provided at the station which does not require memory retention. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25-26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27-29 are accepted. Paragraphs 30-33 are rejected. Each paragraph makes a conclusion contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraph 34 is accepted. Paragraph 35 is rejected as unnecessary. For the reasons explained in the conclusions of law, whether Petitioner was or was not compliant is not material. Assuming, arguendo, Petitioner was compliant, it still lacked sufficient standing to challenge the awards. Paragraph 36-38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Paragraphs 39-40 are accepted. Paragraphs 41-44 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Findings of Fact submitted by the Department. Paragraphs 1-7 are accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted to the extent it rephrases the definition found in the ITB. Paragraphs 9-11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12, the system was required to retain memory. Accordingly, that reference is accepted, however, the station was not required to retained memory. Paragraphs 13-15 are accepted. Paragraphs 16-18 are accepted. Paragraphs 19-21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is accepted in part as it correctly restates the ranking of the bidders; the rest of the paragraph is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 23 is accepted in part as it correctly states the ranking of the bidders and disqualifications; however the rest is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 24 is accepted in part as it correctly states the ranking of the bidders, however, the rest is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 26 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3127 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of General Services 453 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate No. 2011-18 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, and the specification of the solicitation.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued the ITN, Revised Standards Tutorial, on December 17, 2010. The purpose of the ITN was to contract with one or more vendors "to provide assistance with the state's need to support teachers in the implementation, and students in the mastery of the English Language Arts and Mathematics Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Next Generation Sunshine State Science and Civics Standards." The Department sought to purchase, among other things, the following: [T]he development of a new robust web-based system that includes but is not limited to interactive adaptive student practice lessons for each of the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Sunshine State Science and Social Studies Standards (Science grades 5, 8, Biology 1 and Civics) to address individual student needs and provide a means of individual progress monitoring for students, parents, and teachers; secure mini-interim assessment checks for students; student performance reports for teachers on the mini-interim assessment checks; and programming for parent, student, and teacher log-ins that provide different levels of access to support materials. The ITN required that the system developed would be the property of the Department during and after the contract and stated: All equipment, software and licenses, programming code and language, documentation and content (both instructional and informative) that is developed as part of this project will be the property of the Department during and after the grant period. All such items must be completely transferred to the Department prior to the end of the contract period, including any licenses to the extent that they have not expired. Any proprietary products owned by the Contractor must provide for a perpetual royalty free and non-exclusive license for use by the Department. Vendors were given the opportunity to ask technical questions about the ITN, and the Department posted the questions and the Department's responses on the vendor bid system on December 29, 2010. One vendor submitted the following question: "Will the DOE require a perpetual license to continued use of any content (assessments or lessons) after the end of the four- year contract if those materials are the vendor's proprietary, pre-existing materials that are provided for use in the Standards Tutorial?" The Department gave the following written response, which was included in Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. "All content and applications developed will be the property of the Department. All content, application code and documentation must be turned over to the Department upon deliverable completion." It is clear from the ITN and the first addendum that the Department required the materials developed pursuant to the contract to be the property of the Department. One of the main goals of the Department in issuing the ITN was to have a product that could be sustained after the contract period. When the ITN was developed, the Department was not aware of the variety of arrangements that might be possible in order to meet all of the Department's goals. However, the Department made the choice to go with ownership of the products developed for the contract and a perpetual, royalty-free non- exclusive license for products that were owned by the contractor and provided pursuant to the contract, but were not developed as a result of the contract. The Department could have worded the ITN so that the vendors would provide a solution for the sustainability component of the contract, but it did not do so. The method chosen by the Department to meet its sustainability needs became a requirement of the ITN. Sustainability was a material aspect of the contract, and, because the Department had specified the method to achieve sustainability in the ITN with no leeway for the vendors to propose a different methodology, the ownership of products developed pursuant to the contract became a material requirement of the ITN. Nothing prevented the Department from negotiating different methods of sustainability during negotiation, but in order to determine whether a vendor was responsive, the Department was bound by the ITN, no matter whether it inadequately reflected what the Department was seeking. The remedy to the flawed ITN would have been to change the specifications prior to the replies being submitted. The Department argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that the ITN did not call for ownership of the content or the software. This argument is disingenuous in light of the testimony of the Department's representative that the ITN contemplated complete ownership of the products developed pursuant to the contract. Section 7.1 of the ITN required that the vendor include completion dates for deliverables in its Reply and provided a list of deliverables for each year of the contract. The ITN stated that the Deliverable Completion date contained in the ITN was for "informational purposes only." The actual completion dates were to be negotiated. Section 3 of the ITN provides: "Award will be made to the responsible and responsive vendor that the Department determines will provide the best value to the state." Section 3.3. of the ITN defines a responsive bid as "a Reply submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor which conforms in all material respects to the solicitation." The term "Reply" is defined by the ITN as "the complete response of the Respondent[1/] to the ITN, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation." Section 4.11 of the ITN provides: As in the best interest of the state, the right is reserved to award based on all or none thereof, to a responsive, responsible Respondent. As in the best interest of the state, the right is reserved to reject any and/or all Replies or to waive any minor irregularity in replies received. Conditions which may cause rejection of Replies include, without limitation, evidence of collusion among Respondents, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, failure to perform, or meet financial obligations on previous contracts. Section 5.2.2 of the ITN is entitled Mandatory Submittal Documents and requires that the vendors submit, among other things, a transmittal with their replies which contains the following: a statement certifying that the person signing the Reply is authorized to represent the Respondent and bind the Respondent relative to all matters contained in the Respondent's Reply the company's federal tax identification number a statement certifying that the Respondent has read, understands, comply [sic] and agrees to all provision of this ITN a statement that the Respondent is authorized to conduct business in Florida in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 607, F.S. In lieu of such statement, the Respondent alternatively must certify that authorization to do business in Florida will be secured prior to the award of the contract a statement certifying that the Respondent is registered on the MyFloridaMarketPlace website in accordance with the provisions by the state of Florida. In lieu of such statement, the Respondent must alternatively certify that registration authorization will be completed prior to the award of the contract. Once the replies were submitted, the ITN required that the replies be reviewed to determine if they met the mandatory submittal requirements. If it was determined that a reply met the mandatory submittal requirements, the reply would be evaluated by an evaluation committee. Section 8 of the ITN sets out the evaluation and negotiation process and provides: 8.1 REPLY EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION PROCESS Using the evaluation criteria specified below, in accordance with Section 287.057, F.S., the Department shall evaluate and rank responsive Replies and, at the Department's sole discretion, proceed to negotiate with one or more Respondent(s) . . . : Section 8.2 of the ITN provides: The ITN is designed to assess the most points to the Respondent presenting the best solution for the required services. The Evaluation Committee will consider only those Replies, which are determined to meet the mandatory requirement review (See SECTION 5.2.2) first completed by the Department's Bureau of Contracts, Grants and Procurement Management Services. Each member of the Evaluation Committee will be provided a copy of each Technical Reply. Replies will be evaluated on the criteria established in the section above entitled "Criteria for Evaluation" in order to assure that Replies are uniformly rated. The Evaluation Committee will assign points, utilizing the technical evaluation criteria identified herein and the Procurement Office will complete a technical summary. Oral presentations (or seeking clarification) will be evaluated by the committee based on the criteria established in SECTION 5.2.1 above. During this stage Respondents will be asked to provide any clarifications needed by the evaluation committee to assist in evaluating their Reply. Information received in this stage will be added to the Respondent's Reply and evaluated as a part of the appropriate section above. Section 8.1 of the ITN provides that the evaluation of the prices would be done through a comparison of the prices submitted in the replies: "The maximum points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Price Reply. Replies with higher costs will receive the fraction of the maximum points proportional to the ratio of the lowest Price Reply to the higher Price Reply." Section 8.1(E) of the ITN provides: In submitting a Reply Respondent agrees to be bound to the terms of this ITN, however, the Department reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if the Department determines that it is in the state's best interest to do so. Four vendors, including Infinity and Microsoft, submitted replies to the ITN by the deadline of January 10, 2011. Microsoft's Reply stated: The information contained in this document [the reply] (a) represents Microsoft's current statement of the features, functions, and capabilities of the products and services described herein, which is subject to change at any time without notice to you, (b) is for your internal evaluation purposes only and should not be interpreted as a binding offer or commitment on the part of Microsoft to provide any product or service described herein; and (c) constitutes Microsoft trade secret information and may not be disclosed to any third party. Any procurement that may result from this information is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement between [sic] and its chosen authorized Microsoft reseller incorporating applicable Microsoft commercial terms. Microsoft does not guarantee the accuracy of any information presented and assumes no liability arising from your use of the information. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN THIS DOCUMENT. The transmittal letter submitted by Microsoft stated: "[T]his letter certifies that Microsoft has read and understands the provisions of the ITN." The transmittal letter did not meet the requirements of the ITN that Microsoft certify that it complies and agrees with all provisions of the ITN. The reply submitted by Microsoft did not provide that all materials developed as a result of the contract would become the property of the Department. Microsoft intended to subcontract with Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt (HMH) to develop the content, which includes the practice lesson plans for the students. Microsoft stated in its Reply: "The Department of Education will have a perpetual license to use these lessons; HMH will retain copyright and ownership of all lessons provided." Microsoft intentionally did not agree to provide complete ownership of the project deliverables to the Department when it submitted its reply. David Gallagher, Microsoft's representative and the person who submitted the reply on behalf of Microsoft, admitted at the final hearing that he did not have authorization to give the Department ownership of the project deliverables when he submitted Microsoft's reply. Section 5.2.3 of the ITN provided that prices were to be submitted on a form that was provided in the ITN. The price form contains the following language: We propose to provide the services being solicited within the specifications of ITN 2011-18. All work shall be performed in accordance with this ITN, which has been reviewed and understood. The below prices are all inclusive. There shall be no additional costs charged for work performed under this ITN. The price form submitted by Microsoft did not contain this language. Taking the evidence as a whole, it is clear that Microsoft did not intend to be bound by its reply and thought that anything that was contrary to the ITN would be worked out in negotiations. The Department appointed an evaluation team that met on January 18, 2011, to score each reply. Some of the evaluators made note in their evaluations that Microsoft's reply did not meet the requirements of the ITN relating to ownership of the project deliverables. The evaluation committee awarded the maximum number of points for price to Microsoft. The two top-scoring vendors, Infinity and Microsoft, were invited into negotiations. The Department submitted questions to both Infinity and Microsoft before the negotiations, and both vendors submitted written responses to those questions. The Department submitted the following question to Microsoft: Your proposal states "HMH will retain copyright and ownership of all lessons provided" (pp.3-25, 3-33). How does this meet the ITN requirement that "All equipment, software and licenses, programming code and language documentation and content (both instructional and informative) that is developed as part of this project will be the property of the Department during and after the grant period. All such items must be completely transferred to the Department prior to the end of the contract period, including any licenses to the extent they have not expired. Any proprietary products owned by the Contractor must provide for a perpetual royalty free and non-exclusive license for use by the Department." (p. 6)? Microsoft responded to the question of ownership, in part, as follows: Developments. Upon payment in full, we assign you joint ownership in all rights in any custom computer code or materials (other than products, fixes or pre-existing work) developed by us (or in collaboration with you) and provided to you in the course of performance of this contract ("developments"). "Joint ownership" means each party has the right to independently exercise any and all rights of ownership now known or hereafter created or recognized, including without limitation the rights to use, reproduce, modify and distribute the developments for any purpose whatsoever, without the need for further authorization to exercise any such rights or any obligation of accounting or payment of royalties, except you agree you will exercise your rights for your internal business operations only, and you will not resell or distribute the developments to any un-affiliated third party. These use restrictions shall survive termination or expiration of this contract. Each party shall be the sole owner of any modifications that it makes based upon the developments. * * * Educational-Digital Content & Assessments. We will grant a perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license (except as set forth below) for all of the content and lesson instruction and assessments created as part of this project to the State of Florida. As such, we will retain copyright and ownership of this created material, while the State of Florida may leverage the material on an exclusive basis in the State of Florida anywhere within its offices, school facilities, and education programs, including use extended to staff, administration, teachers, students and parents. Much of the content, particularly in the Reading, Language Arts/Literature and Civics disciplines is integrated into the lessons from third-party sources. The ownership of material permissioned from outside our team is unavailable to be granted or transferred to the State of Florida. However as part of the sustainability plan for the Student Standards Tutorial, we will ensure that mechanisms are in place to allow for permission renewals as required by contract with third-party content owners for a period encompassing four years from the final delivery of the contract period. Although Microsoft was given an opportunity to clarify its position on ownership of the product deliverables developed for the contract, Microsoft's response was still not responsive to the requirements of the ITN. The Department appointed a negotiation team that met separately with Infinity and Microsoft on February 3, 2011. During the negotiation session, a Microsoft representative stated that it would be "impossible" for Microsoft to provide complete ownership of equipment and software, that there was no way that Microsoft could put in its best and final offer that the Department would have complete ownership, and that Microsoft did not want to be non-responsive but it did not know how to fix the problem. After the negotiation session with Microsoft, Regina Johnson (Ms. Johnson) and Mary Jane Tappen, who were members of the negotiation team, engaged in email communications regarding whether the Department could change the language of the ITN to allow the Department to accept the licensing proposal offered by Microsoft. Ms. Johnson noted that if the ITN language were not changed, Microsoft could be rejected for non-compliance. On February 7, 2011, after the negotiation sessions, Ms. Johnson sent an email to Infinity notifying Infinity that the Department would accept a license or co-ownership proposal, reflecting a change in the ITN specifications. Following negotiations, each vendor was given the opportunity to submit a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) by February 11, 2011. Both vendors submitted BAFOs. On February 16, 2011, the negotiators held an Intent to Award meeting. Following discussion, two negotiators voted for Microsoft, and one voted for Infinity. On March 1, 2011, Chancellor Frances Haithcock sent an Intent to Award memorandum to Commissioner Eric Smith (Commissioner Smith), explaining why Microsoft provides the best value to the state. Commissioner Smith signed that memorandum on March 4, 2011. On March 7, 2011, the Department posted the Intent to Award to Microsoft.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the intended decision to award a contract to Microsoft pursuant to ITN 2011-18 is contrary to section 287.057 and the ITN. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 7th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a liquidated damages term in the Department’s specification for Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) constitutes an unadopted rule, as defined in section 120.52(20), Florida Statutes, in violation of section 120.54(1)(a).
Findings Of Fact Parties All Seasons is a licensed maintenance contractor with more than 30 years of experience bidding on and performing Department maintenance contracts. All Seasons is currently performing on Department projects and intends to bid on future projects. The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11, Florida Statutes, to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the state highway system, the state park road system, and roads placed under its supervision. Applicable Statute The statute at issue in this proceeding, section 337.18(2), provides in pertinent part. 337.18 Surety bonds for construction or maintenance contracts; requirement with respect to contract award; bond requirements; defaults; damage assessments. * * * (2) The department shall provide in its contracts for the determination of default on the part of any contractor for cause attributable to such contractor. The department shall have no liability for anticipated profits for unfinished work on a contract which has been determined to be in default. Every contract let by the department for the performance of work shall contain a provision for payment to the department by the contractor of liquidated damages due to failure of the contractor to complete the contract work within the time stipulated in the contract or within such additional time as may have been granted by the department. The contractual provision shall include a reasonable estimate of the damages that would be incurred by the department as a result of such failure. The department shall establish a schedule of daily liquidated damage charges, based on original contract amounts, for construction contracts entered into by the department, which schedule shall be incorporated by reference into the contract. The department shall update the schedule of liquidated damages at least once every 2 years, but no more often than once a year. The schedule shall, at a minimum, be based on the average construction, engineering, and inspection costs experienced by the department on contracts over the 2 preceding fiscal years. The schedule shall also include anticipated costs of project-related delays and inconveniences to the department and traveling public. Anticipated costs may include, but are not limited to, road user costs, a portion of the projected revenues that will be lost due to failure to timely open a project to revenue-producing traffic, costs resulting from retaining detours for an extended time, and other similar costs. Any such liquidated damages paid to the department shall be deposited to the credit of the fund from which payment for the work contracted was authorized. The statute requires that the Department adopt regulations for determination of default. Background On February 6, 2018, the Department issued an ITB for Contract No. E3R69-R0, to perform mechanical sweeping of designated roads and bridges in addition to edging and sweeping of sidewalks and curb edgings on designated locations in Gadsden and Leon counties. A specification package was included with the ITB referencing the January 2018 Edition of the Department’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (“Standard Specifications”). The Standard Specifications are revised two times each year. The specifications package included a 37-page “Special Provisions” supplement to the Standard Specifications. Article 5-1.7 of the Special Provisions provided a work schedule, requiring the successful bidder to begin work within 14 calendar days from receipt of the initial work document, and within five working days from receipt of any subsequent work document, and states: If the Contractor does not begin work by the end of the date specified in this Subarticle, or the assignment of work in the Work Document is not complete within the number of days stipulated in the Work Document, then the Contractor and the Department agree that the Department will assess the Contractor, per day, not as a penalty but as liquidated damages, 1% of the total Work Document amount or the amount shown in Subarticle 8-10.2 (Amount of Liquidated Damages), whichever is less. The Department’s contract solicitations incorporate the Department’s Standard Specifications. Sections 8-10.1 and 8-10.2 of the Standard Specifications for January 2018 provided: Section 8-10.1 Highway Code Requirements Pertaining to Liquidated Damages: Section 337.18, paragraph (2) of the Florida Statutes, requires that the Department adopt regulations for the determination of default and provides that the Contractor pay liquidated damages to the Department for any failure of the Contractor to complete the Contract work within the Contract Time. These Code requirements govern, and are herewith made a part of the Contract. Section 8-10.2 Amount of Liquidated Damages: Applicable liquidated damages are the amounts established in the following schedule: Original Contract Amount Daily Charge Per Calendar Day $50,000 and under. $956 Over $50,000 but less than $250,000 $964 $250,000 but less than $500,000. $1,241 $500,000 but less than $2,500,000. $1,665 $2,500,000 but less than $5,000,000. $2,712 $5,000,000 but less than $10,000,000. $3,447 $10,000,000 but less than $15,000,000.$4,866 $15,000,000 but less than $20,000,000.$5,818 $20,000,000 and over. $9,198 plus 0.00005 of any amount over $20 million (Round to nearest whole dollar). On March 8, 2018, All Seasons submitted a bid on Contract No. E3R69-R0. In April 2018, Respondent awarded All Seasons Contract No. E3R69-R0, which All Seasons accepted. In the contract, All Seasons agreed to perform the work as described in the ITB as follows: [I]n the manner and to the full extent as set forth in the Proposal, Standard Specifications as Amended by the Specifications Package and any Supplemental Specifications Packages, and the Plans, under security as set forth in the attached bond, all of which are adopted and made a part of this Contract and incorporated by reference herein, and to the satisfaction of the duly authorized representatives of the Department of Transportation, who shall have at all times full opportunity to inspect the materials to be furnished and the work to be performed under this contract. All Seasons did not protest the terms, conditions, or specifications of the contract during the timeframe provided for such challenges. The Standard Specifications has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to the rulemaking procedures in section 120.54. The liquidated damages clause has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to the rulemaking procedures in section 120.54. Challenged Statement On January 28, 2019, Petitioner initiated this proceeding by filing a petition for Rule Challenge Under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, which alleged that the liquidated damages clause in the specifications for Contract No. E3R69-R0 was an unadopted rule that violates section 120.54(1)(a) (“Challenged Statement”). Standing Petitioner performs on Department projects and intends to bid on future projects. The liquidated damages clause is included in each contract. As a result, Petitioner is substantially affected by the Challenged Statement. Feasibility and Practicability of Rulemaking Although Respondent asserts that rulemaking for the Challenged Statement is not feasible or practicable, it did not present evidence to support its argument.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a Florida corporation that provides software development and consulting services to various commercial entities and state agencies. It has its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to regulate various professions and businesses licensed by the State of Florida. In carrying out its responsibilities it engages the services of outside vendors through competitive bidding. Respondent's principal business office is at 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida. Intervenor is a California corporation that designs, manufactures and services equipment and systems for measurement, computation and communications, together with its consolidated subsidiaries. The RFP In 1993, Respondent was created by legislative action merging the Department of Professional Regulation and Department of Business Regulation. Respondent perceives that the merger was intended to improve the efficiency of the regulatory process and to facilitate accurate and efficient processing of consumer complaints. To further those purposes, on April 12, 1996 Respondent issued RFP 96-006. In the executive summary to the RFP prospective vendors who considered responding to the RFP were informed: This RFP has been developed in support of the merger for the purpose of acquiring contractor consulting service and software development to support the conversion of existing computer application systems for the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, the Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering, and the conversion of regulatory, inspection, investigation and complaint processing for all the Business Regulation divisions, including the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Through this Outcome Based RFP, the Department intends to contract with a vendor to not only provide analysis, system design, development, conversion, and selective consulting services, but serve as an integrator and primary contractor on this project. Contractor responding to this RFP will be expected to recommend services based on deliverable specified in this RFP. Since this is an Outcome Based RFP (see definition on Page 2), the Department will not be specifying unique contractor products and/or services or how the contractor is to design the system. In the RFP "Outcome Based RFP" was described as: A Request For Proposal in which the contractor's client will specify concepts, technology directions, size/number of things, and required results (primarily standards and system deliverables). The contractor will respond by recommending the design and proposed solutions -- how to get desired results, by what means (hardware, software, process, and contractor services), and for what cost. The purpose of the RFP was further described as: The purpose of this Outcome Based Request for Proposal (RFP) is to contract with a contractor (serving as integrator as well as contractor) to recommend (RFP bid response) and provide consultant services in conjunction with selected Department staff to: conduct an information management analysis study to identify the business functions performed as well as the data and information flows required to support these functions for the Divisions of Hotels and Restaurants, Land Sales and Condominiums, Pari-Mutual Wagering and regulatory, inspection, investigation and complaint management for all the Business Regulation Divisions, including Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, develop an integrated, data-driven information systems design that addresses the needs of the Business Regulation divisions and their information requirements, convert the business functions and data into the appropriate agency application system, develop detailed design and program specifications, modify existing applications and develop new applications necessary to support the system design, develop an implementation plan which provides a phased approach for migrating from the current environment to the planned environment, including system testing and training of agency personnel, provide post-implementation support for the resolution of problems. The contractor will be expected to contribute (under contract) a predetermined number of calendar months, not to exceed 26, towards systems analysis and design, specification and application development, conversion, testing, training, implementation and post- implementation support. The contractor will be responsible for designing, in detail, the methodology by which data files are to be converted from the multiple applications and various platforms and loaded into predefined relational data bases. The contractor will be responsible, under contract, for all services meeting the requirements of this RFP. All components proposed by the contractor must be at a turn-key level with 100 percent compatibility as far as integrating with installed hardware and software currently utilized by BPR. The scope of the work contemplated by the RFP through services performed by the contractor was to this effect: The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (BPR) is requesting contractors to propose consulting services for system analysis, design, specification development, application, development, conversion, training, implementation and post- implementation support. The contractor will propose recommendations for products and services required and serve as an integrator/contractor. At minimum, this Business Regulation/Complaint Regulatory Management Conversion solution shall be capable of providing those services outlined within this RFP. The section addresses ten subject areas that must be addressed in contractor's proposal. Section III-A (Contractor Proposal Format) presents the required "Tab" format and refers backs to details in this section for the contractor to use. In the RFP an "Integrator" is defined as: The contractor who has total accountability, under contract, for all products and services being provided to a customer even those supplied by or acquired from other vendors and/or sub-contractors. In the RFP the term "Turn-Key" is defined as: Contractor is solely responsible for delivering a completed system with sign- ificant client involvement. Vendor awarded contract, will be responsible, under bond, for specified deliverables to the department, as well as being the integrator and contractor for the complete system as proposed which will include the roles of the contractor and appropriate involvement of BPR personnel. The RFP provided the vendors with instructions concerning the format for proposals, especially as it related to Tabs 1 through 24 and the need to complete those tabs consistent with the instructions. The vendors were reminded: [A]s required by Tab, the proposal will present specific consulting services that are recommended, and how these services will technically meet requirements as stated, and/or requirements developed and/or uncovered by the vendor that have been determined to be necessary for the project to be successful. Respondent provided a questionnaire to the vendors concerning the prospective vendors' commitment to the project. Those questions were to be answered "yes" or "no" with the opportunity for clarifying sentences to accompany the answers. The RFP instructed the vendors concerning the submission of cost information. It reminded the vendors that they should "submit firm costs to provide the state with the required deliverables, found in Section II of the RFP." The RFP described the manner in which the proposals would be evaluated through two separate committees, a "technical subcommittee" and a "vendor evaluation committee." The vendors were also reminded that the proposals would first be reviewed by the purchasing arm of the Respondent to assure that the vendors provided all mandatory documentation required by the RFP. In the instance where required documentation was missing the response would be determined "non-responsive." The evaluation process contemplated the "technical subcommittee" evaluating technology sections in responses to the RFP and providing those results to the "vendor evaluation committee." The latter committee would then evaluate other subject areas in the proposals and consolidate/finalize results from both evaluation processes into an overall rating. The RFP explained the subject areas that were to be considered by the two committees with particularity. The RFP described in detail the assignment of points and set forth the format for carrying out the evaluation process. The successful vendor would be selected upon the basis of the highest points awarded. The maximum points that could be received were 1950. The maximum points that could be received for the vendors' proposed costs were 250. The RFP sets terms and conditions and identifies mandatory requirements as: The state has established certain require- ments with respect to proposals to be submitted by proposers. The use of "are", "shall", "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in the RFP indicates a requirement or condition. A deviation is material if the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this [sic] RFP requirements. Moreover, the RFP reminded the vendors that: Any proposal which fails to meet the mandatory requirements stated in this Request For Proposal shall be rejected. The RFP gives further instructions involving the rejections of proposals where it is stated: The department reserves the right to either make awards or to reject proposals by individual category, groups of categories, all or none, or a combination thereof. Any proposal which fails to meet the mandatory requirements stated in this Request For Proposal shall be rejected. Any proposal that contains material deviations or is conditional or incomplete shall be rejected. The department may waive an immaterial defect, but such waiver shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the proposer from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the proposer is awarded the contract. The RFP refers to subcontracts where it states: The contractor is fully responsible for all work performed under the contract resulting from this RFP. The contractor may, with the consent of the department, enter into written subcontract(s) for performance of certain of its functions under the contract. The sub- contractors and the amount of the subcontract shall be identified in the contractor's response to this RFP. Subcontracts shall be approved in writing by the department's Executive sponsor, or designee, prior to the effective date of any subcontract. The Sub- contractor shall provide the Executive sponsor documentation in writing, on company letterhead, indicating known responsibilities and deliverables, with timeframes. No sub- contract which the contractor enters into with respect to performance under the contract resulting from this RFP shall in any way relieve the contractor of any respons- ibility for performance of its duties. All payments to sub-contractors shall be made by the contractor. Tabs 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 require specific information about sub- contractors the vendor might employ in meeting the requirements in the RFP addressed under those tabs. In addition to the specific requirements in the RFP, paragraph 4 to the general conditions reminds the vendor to submit "firm prices." Paragraph 6 to the general conditions states that contract awards are made: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all proposals or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in proposals received. Proposers are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their proposal has been evaluated as being responsive All awards made as a result of this proposal shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. The RFP explained the manner in which addenda to the RFP would be provided, in which case the addenda would be in writing with the content and number of pages described and sent to each vendor that received the original RFP. The RFP also contemplated the possibility that Respondent might require the vendors to supplement their responses to the RFP with oral presentations to either of the evaluation committees. The RFP explained that there would be a bidders' conference to discuss the contents of the RFP, in view of any written inquiries from the vendors and recommended changes. On April 30, 1996 the bidders' conference was conducted. In this conference information was presented to the vendors and questions from the vendors were presented to Respondent, both oral and written. On May 10, 1996, addendum number 1 resulting from the bid conference was provided to the vendors. Through addendum number 1, Respondent more specifically informed the vendors concerning its expectations in the vendors' responses to the RFP. Additionally the addendum rescheduled certain events in the bid process. It changed the proposal due date and public opening of the technology portion of the proposal to June 7, 1996. The date for opening of proposals in the cost portion was changed to July 12, 1996. The date for posting of the intended award was changed to July 17, 1996. Two vendors responded to the RFP. Those vendors were Petitioner and Intervenor. In addition to the information provided through responses to the RFP, Respondent propounded written questions to the vendors as attachments A and B. Attachment A constituted common inquiry to the vendors. Attachment B was designed to solicit additional information unique to the respective vendors. Both vendors responded to the questionnaires on July 9, 1996. Both vendors' proposals were found responsive. The two committees performed their respective evaluations. Through this process Petitioner was awarded 1206.46 points. Intervenor was awarded 1321.39 points. As a consequence, on July 16, 1996 Respondent posted notice that it intended to award a contract to Intervenor. Respondent also sent a letter on that date notifying the Petitioner that it intended to contract with Intervenor. As described in the preliminary statement, and incorporated here, Petitioner gave notice and formally challenged the decision to award. In its opposition to the decision to award to the Intervenor, Petitioner does not allege that Respondent failed to implement the procedures for evaluation in scoring the competitor's. Rather, Petitioner challenges the results obtained in that implementation. Where Respondent found Intervenor responsive to certain alleged material requirements in the RFP, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor was not responsive to those material requirements. In performing their duties the committee members who evaluated the proposals had a week to prepare themselves to render their input. During that time they were allowed to review the responses to the RFP. Following that opportunity the evaluators were allowed to seek clarification on any items where there might be uncertainty, to include legal advice from the Respondent agency. In carrying out their assignment the evaluators compared the requirements in the RFP to the responses by the vendors. Through this process no evaluator indicated that either proposal was unresponsive. In their review function the evaluators also considered the answers to the questions that had been provided by the vendors on July 9, 1996. The evaluators had been instructed to review the requirements contemplated by Tabs in the RFP, to read the RFP and the addendum to the RFP. Petitioner specifically challenges Respondent's determination that Intervenor was responsive in meeting the following alleged requirements in the RFP: Did the Intervenor Fail to Submit an Outcome Based Proposal in Response to the RFP? The RFP contemplates the necessity that a vendor will submit a proposal that is Outcome Based as defined in the RFP and explained in other provisions within the RFP. The requirement to submit an Outcome Based Proposal is a material requirement. If a vendor does not meet that requirement, the failure to comply is a material deviation from the requirements in the RFP. If a vendor does not meet the requirement for providing an Outcome Based Proposal and the evaluators ignored that irregularity, their actions would be arbitrary. Tab 3 discusses: Business Regulation/Complaint Management Conversion Project Life Cycle Presentation: This section will present the overall scope of the project and the methodology. This section will need to specifically deal with how the vendor addressed the technical design requirements as spelled out in Project Scope. As described, this Tab was designed to have the vendor identify the overall scope of the proposal and the methodology to be employed in reaching the outcome required by the RFP. As Section 3-1 to its response Intervenor replied: Hewlett-Packard's (HP) approach is to provide BPR with both fixed price and 'time-boxing'. Time-boxing is defined as an allocation of consulting hours (3360) which will be delivered by HP technical consultants or sub- contractors. HP is proposing to fix price the Information Management Analysis Study, Integrated System Design, and Project Management. The remaining sections (Detail Design and Program Specification, Data Conversion Phase, Development, System Testing, Implementation, Training, Post-Implementation Support) will be time-boxed with a total of 3360 hours. HP has made suggestions as to the number of hours to be used for these sections. However the final allocation will be mutually agreed upon by HP's project manager and BPR's project manager. HP Professional Services Methodology Moving from a legacy computing model, to a distributed, open client/server computing environment, requires the organization to rethink the process, people, and technology requirements of the enterprise. Organiza- tional integration and effective evaluation of IT solutions tend to get lost in the rush to develop specific applications. If not lost, there is rarely a structured logical process that is followed in defining, designing, developing, implementing, and operating the solution. The remaining provisions within Section 3 to the Intervenor's response to the RFP detail the overall scope of the project and the methodology to be employed. In other respects the Intervenor's response to the RFP explains the manner in which it would reach the outcome contemplated by the RFP in all phases related to its proposed consulting services in this project. Facts were not presented that proved that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in determining that the Intervenor's proposal was based upon the required outcome in the project. Did the Intervenor Submit a Firm Price Proposal? The RFP creates a material requirement that a vendor complete Attachment "E" to the RFP. Attachment "E" provides cost information from the vendor. In every respect Intervenor has complied with that requirement. The evaluators were not arbitrary in determining that the requirement was met. Notwithstanding the use of "time-boxing" for certain phases in the project, the cost information submitted in Attachment "E" assigns a money amount for those phases. By that assignment the consulting hours that are "time-boxed" have an equivalent dollar figure which constitutes firm costs for those deliverables/phases in the project. The evaluators did not act arbitrarily in assigning 234 points to the Intervenor for its cost proposal. Did the Intervenor fail to Submit a List of Sub-contractors Whose Services will be used by the Intervenor? Tab 16, Corporate (vendor) qualifications and commitment; makes it incumbent upon the vendor to indicate the sources committed to the project in terms of personnel and other resources, to include sub-contractors involved with the project. Tab 17, Corporate (vendor) financials; requires the vendor to produce financial information about it and any sub-contractors involved with the project. Tab 19, Individuals proposed to work on contract; requires resumes of individuals who work for the vendor or a sub-contractor and information about key personnel of the vendor and sub-contractors. Tab 20, Contract and support services including post-implementation plan, requires; the vendor to indicate where its services will be provided by the vendor or sub-contractors. Tab 21, Contractor questionnaire; solicits information from the vendor about sub-contractors. As seen, in many provisions the RFP requires a vendor to identify information about sub-contractor whose services would be used by the vendor. These are material requirements. If the evaluators ignored the requirements, their actions would be arbitrary. In addressing intervenor's proposal, the evaluators acted arbitrarily. The problem is that Intervenor in many places in its response has left open the possibility that it would use sub-contractors without naming those sub- contractors and their contribution to the project. Ultimately, the lack of disclosure could provide the Intervenor with an advantage that Petitioner does not enjoy and potentially adversely impact the interests of the Respondent. The following are examples in response to the RFP where Intervenor has maintained its option to use sub-contractors without disclosing information about the sub-contractors: Section 1-3: "The Regulatory Management Conversion solution being proposed is comprised of world-class services from HP and our partners." The reference to partners is seen to include the possibility that sub-contractors might be used. Section 3-1, that has been commented on, referring to time-boxing, describes allocation of the 3360 consulting hours through delivery by the intervenor's technical consultants or sub-contractors. Section 10-2, refers to the implementation of the management plan which follows-up "sub- contractor's work." Section 12-2, refers to Intervenor and its training partners offering "standard and custom instructor led training, computer based training and net work based training." Training partners is taken to mean some persons who reasonably could be considered sub-contractors. Section 13-1, makes reference to third party services involved with the Intervenor's custom solution to the project needs. The reference to third party is equivalent to a sub-contractor. Section 16-9, referring to the flexibility in managing the engagement (project) describes partnering and involvement in sub-contracting. Section 21-2, in responses to the question- naire to Tab 21, Intervenor refers to its time- boxing approach for providing services, in which, according to Section 3-1, Intervenor leaves open the possibility that it would use sub-contractors to deliver the services. It is realized that on occasions in which Intervenor was required to provide contemporaneous and detailed information concerning its intentions to use sub-contractors, answers that it gave in association with Tabs 16, 17, 19 and 20 did not refer to sub-contractors. Consequently, one might assume that Intervenor did not intend to employ sub-contractors in this project notwithstanding references to unnamed sub-contractors found in other places in the response to the RFP. This raises the issue whether the lack of reference and response to the more specific questions about the use of sub-contractors overcomes the implications of the possibility that sub-contractors will be used that is made in response to other requirements in the RFP. That internal inconsistency should not favor an interpretation that creates advantage for Intervenor and potential difficulty for Respondent, which it does. For the evaluators to allow the conflict to remain is an arbitrary act. To seek to resolve the conflict would also constitute an arbitrary act as it would require an amendment to the Intervenor's response. The fact that Respondent must approve subcontracts before their effective dates does not satisfactorily mitigate the need to disclose subcontractor information with the response. Did Intervenor's Proposal Fail to Meet the Requirements in the RFP in the Technical Categories for Tabs 4 through 7, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 21? Petitioner made allegations concerning those issues associated with Intervenor's technical responses in those tabs. However, in the proposed recommended order Petitioner limited its discussion to Tabs 5, 6, 7 and 11. It is assumed that Petitioner abandoned its contentions concerning the remaining tabs described in the interrogatory. Tab 5, Integrated system design, states: In this section the vendor will present the methodology to be used in support of the RFP requirements. The evaluators found that Intervenor had met this requirement. It has not been shown that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in determining that the Intervenor had complied with requirements at Tab 5. Tab 6, Detail design and program specifications, states: In this section the vendor will present the methodology in support of the RFP requirements. Petitioner has failed to prove that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in concluding that the Intervenor met the requirements for Tab 6. Tab 7, Data conversion states: In this section vendor [sic] will provide a description of their approach to the data conversion phase. Petitioner has failed to prove that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in determining that the Intervenor met the requirements for Tab 7. Tab 11, Post-implementation support, states: In this section the vendor [sic] will provide a description of their approach to post-implementation support. Petitioner has failed to show that the evaluators acted arbitrarily in concluding that the Intervenor had met the requirements for Tab 11. Nor has it been shown in any respect that the evaluators acted illegally, fraudulently, or dishonestly. Was the Intervenor a responsible proposer? Petitioner alleged in its petition that the Intervenor was not a responsible proposer. Petitioner did not offer proof to sustain that allegation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found in the conclusions of law reached it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which declares Intervenor to be unresponsive to the RFP and takes such other action as Respondent deems appropriate in pursuing this project. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 10th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire Blank, Rigsby and Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mary C. Piccard, Esquire Cummings, Lawrence and Vezina, P.A. Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard T. Farrell, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Forida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: On December 1, 1995, respondent, Department of Management Services (DMS), issued RFP No. 95/96-030 entitled "Outsourcing Data Center Operations at the Technology Resource Center" (RFP). The purpose of the RFP was "to solicit proposals for acquiring a vendor that (would) assume the responsibility for supplying the products and services necessary to support the TRC's (Technology Resource Center's) data processing and network management requirements of the Unisys 2200/622ES and IBM 3090/400J platforms." Such proposals were to be due and opened on February 16, 1996. It was contemplated that DMS would enter into negotiations with the successful proposer for the actual services to be delivered. The TRC is an integrated utility that provides information technology type services to DMS and other State agencies. By its RFP, DMS sought to "outsource" to a private vendor those services currently provided by the in- house staff of its TRC for a period of five years with an option to renew for an additional year. The RFP provided, in part, that the "contract will be awarded to the (vendor) whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the State, price and other evaluation factors in the RFP considered." The RFP further provided that DMS reserved "the right to accept or reject any and all proposals, in whole or in part, received in response to the RFP, or to waive minor irregularties to serve the best interest of the State of Florida." Under the terms of the RFP, proposals received from vendors were to be reviewed by an evaluation committee appointed by DMS. The committe was to review all vendors' proposals and score them according to the evaluation sheet and criteria attached as Section 4.7 to the RFP. DMS in fact appointed three evaluation committees, two for various aspects of the technical proposals and one to evaluate the price proposals. The technical evaluation under the terms of the RFP comprised seventy percent of the total evaluation, whereas the cost model evaluation comprised thirty percent of the total evaluation. The RFP contained twenty-four technical items and four cost items labeled "MUST." Any proposal not meeting all MUST requirements would be rejected, and the accompanying cost proposal would be returned unopened. In the technical evaluation, a vendor could receive a total of 100 points, which would then be multiplied by the seventy percent weighting factor to yield a total of seventy evaluation points. Similarly, in the price evaluation, a vendor could receive a total of 100 points, which would then be multiplied by the thirty percent weighting factor to yield a total of 30 points. Section 4.7 of the RFP provided that any proposal "receiving less than 75 percent of total possible technical points or (which does) not meet the minimum requirements or a single MUST requirement will be rejected." This requirement was not included among the 28 MUST requirements relating to technical and cost evaluations. The purpose of the seventy-five percent requirement was to avoid a situation where a contract would be awarded to a vendor who barely met the basic minimum requirements. Three vendors timely submitted proposals in response to the RFP: petitioner, Lockheed Martin Integrated Business Solutions (petitioner or Lockheed), Integrated Systems Solutions Corporation (ISSC), and Amdahl Corporation. These proposals were evaluated by the DMS evaluation committees during March and April 1996. The RFP called for scoring in whole numbers, that is, no provision was made for fractional scoring. However, DMS instructed its evaluators that they should attempt to reach a consensus point value for each MUST item and the total for the group of MUSTs for the team. If a consensus point value could not be reached, the instructions provided that "evaluators' individual point values will be averaged." Scoring sheets were not rounded to the next highest or lowest number because scoring by not rounding numbers was more accurate. This process was applied uniformly to all responses. Because a consensus point value could not be reached on its technical evaluation, Lockheed received a total of 74.85 points, which was the result of averaging several scores of various evaluation team members. Although the 74.85 technical score did not meet the minimum requirement of 75.00, and Lockheed should have been disqualifed at that time, through inadvertence DMS failed to detect this disqualifying factor until several months later. On April 23, 1996, DMS posted a Bid/Proposal Tabulation indicating "No Award" for this RFP. In a memorandum to vendors, DMS explained that it was unable to make an award because the proposed contract prices contained in the responses to the RFP exceeded the amount of the legislative appropriation for these services, and that Section 216.311, Florida Statutes, prohibited DMS from entering into any agreement to expend monies in excess of appropriated funds unless specifically authorized by law. The DMS memorandum further explained that Amdahl Corporation had been disqualified as nonresponsive to the requirements of the RFP. Although Lockheed should have also been disqualified in the first posting for failing to meet the minimum technical score, due to DMS' inadvertence, it was allowed to continue in the evaluation process. The posting of April 23, 1996, advised Lockheed and ISSC that they would be afforded an opportunity to submit sealed final price proposals, that only price proposals could be changed in the second submission, and that "to receive further consideration, the sealed final price for services displaced by outsourcing must be below the TRC cost, as determined by the TRC Cost/Price Model, for delivering the displaced services." In other words, the vendor could not exceed the bottom line TRC cost figure ($25,062,000) in order for its proposal to be further considered. Neither Lockheed nor ISSC challenged the procedures set forth in the posting of April 23, 1996, regarding the opportunity to submit sealed final prices. By letter dated June 3, 1996, DMS instructed Lockheed and ISSC to submit final price proposals by Friday, June 7, 1996. On June 7, 1996, both Lockheed and ISSC timely submitted final sealed price proposals. The costs contained in their proposals, when reduced to present value as required by the RFP, were $21,884,900 and $30,385,400, respectively. Thus, the ISSC proposal exceeded the TRC cost model by 21.2 percent, and the Lockheed proposal was 12.7 percent below the TRC cost for the five year period. After final price proposals had been received, a posting was made by DMS on July 16, 1996, stating that DMS had decided to outsource and that authority would be sought to negotiate with the highest ranked proposer. The highest ranked proposer was ISSC, with total evaluated points of 80.77. Lockheed had 72.4 total evaluated points. In making this determination, DMS inadvertently failed to note that ISSC's proposal had exceeded the TRC cost and that ISSC should have been disqualified from further consideration at that time. A request for authority to negotiate with the highest ranked bidder was submitted by DMS to the Division of Purchasing and was posted on July 17, 1996. The following day, the request for authority to negotiate was withdrawn for further consideration of the decision. This change in position occurred after Lockheed advised DMS that ISSC's price proposal was too high. After a series of meetings involving various DMS personnel, a unanimous decision was made to disqualify the ISSC proposal due to its failure to comply with the requirements of the April 23, 1996, posting, and to proceed to negotiate with Lockheed. On July 30, 1996, DMS posted yet another "Bid/Proposal Tabulation" in response to the final cost submissions, announcing that "the only proposal received pursuant to the posting made on April 23, 1996, that was below the Cost/Price Model as determined by the TRC, was the proposal received from Lockheed Martin." The posting also found that "ISSC failed to submit a proposal below the Cost/Model as determined by the TRC and is, therefore, pursuant to the terms of the posting made on April 23, 1996, disqualified from further consideration." ISSC was given the right to file a protest to this decision. Based on the erroneous assumption that Lockheed had submitted a responsive proposal, a request for authority to negotiate with the remaining bidder, Lockheed, was then submitted by DMS to the Division of Purchasing. This request was approved by the Division of Purchasing on August 14, 1996. Had DMS known at that time that the proposal was nonresponsive, it would have terminated the process and rejected all proposals. On August 2, 1996, ISSC filed a notice of intent to protest DMS' decision to negotiate with Lockheed pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. On the same date, and presumably in the spirit of good citizenship, ISSC advised DMS that Lockheed's proposal was nonresponsive because Lockheed had not attained a minimum technical score of 75.00, as required by the RFP. On August 12, 1996, ISSC filed its formal written protest to contest the decision. However, it failed to post with its protest the requisite bond required under Chapters 120 and 287, Florida Statutes. On August 13, 1996, DMS issued a final order in which it advised ISSC that its protest had been denied for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes, which requires the posting of a bond at the time of the filing of a formal written protest, and that ISSC was entitled to judicial review of the final order in an appropriate district court of appeal. On August 21, 1996, DMS posted notice of its intent to reject all proposals pursuant to the provisions of Rule 60A-1.002(11), Florida Administrative Code, and paragraph 2.3, section II of the RFP wherein it asserted that it was "in the best interest of the State" to do so. It can be reasonably inferred that, after learning of this action, ISSC saw no reason to appeal DMS' final order of August 13, 1996. The parties agree that no negotiations have ever occurred between DMS and Lockheed pursuant to the posting of July 30, 1996, and the entry of the final order on August 13, 1996. In reaching a decision to reject all proposals, DMS concluded that (a) Lockheed's proposal was nonresponsive in a material respect in that its total technical score of 74.85 was less than the minimum required technical score of 75.00, (b) the numerous postings between April and August 1996 had caused "confusion" among the vendors and "compromised" the integrity of the bidding process, and (c) Lockheed's projected cost of running the programs, while within the cost model perameters, was nonetheless not fiscally advantageous to the state. According to the RFP's specifications, a minimum technical score of at least 75.00 was a requirement, that is, a threshold "mandatory" requirement in order for a vendor's proposal to be further considered. Indeed, on page 34 of the RFP is found the following language: Proposal(s) receiving less than 75 percent of total possible technical points . . . will be rejected. Scoring was done by three evaluation committees and consisted of two parts, technical and cost. The two scores were then averaged together to two decimal places for a total score. As noted above, a material requirement of the RFP was that each proposer have a minimum score of 75.00 in technical points in order to qualify for further consideration. By having a total technical score of 74.85, petitioner failed to meet this threshold requirement. Therefore, Lockheed was properly disqualified. In making this finding, the undersigned has rejected petitioner's contention, unsupported by any persuasive evidence, that this deficiency was a minor irregularity that could be waived by DMS. Indeed, Section 4.7 of the RFP, as corroborated by testimony of DMS officials, clearly indicates that DMS always considered this to be a material requirement. Lockheed should have been disqualified in late March 1996 when its technical score was first calculated. Through inadvertence, the DMS evaluation committee failed to note this deficiency for almost five months. Even so, DMS was not acting arbitrarily or illegally in disqualifying the vendor for this reason as soon as the deficiency was discovered. When it expressed concerns over the integrity of the bidding process, DMS was referring to the fact that both ISSC and Lockheed were actually nonresponsive but had been allowed to continue participating in the process, contrary to its own requirements. In both cases, DMS had failed to note their disqualifying deficiencies until a competing vendor had brought this fact to its attention. While DMS took the position that these multiple errors compromised the integrity of the process, and may have "confused" Lockheed and ISSC, there is no persuasive evidence to support this view. Therefore, this concern was not a valid basis to reject Lockheed's proposal. Based on a preliminary cash analysis performed by DMS' chief internal auditor, DMS expressed a concern that the actual cash outlay by DMS for performing the services in-house was less than the cost proposed by the lowest proposer, Lockheed. The preliminary cash analysis, however, was not done on a present value basis even though the bid proposals by ISSC and Lockheed were prepared in this manner. The only credible evidence on this issue shows that Lockheed's proposal, when reduced to present value, is $21,884,900, or over $3 million less than the TRC cost of $25,062,000. Therefore, this concern cannot serve as a valid reason to reject Lockheed's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order affirming its rejection of all proposals for RFP No. DMS95/96-030. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William E. Williams, Esquire Rex D. Ware, Esquire Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1794 Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Transportation’s intended decision to conduct negotiations with Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., under ITN-DOT-13/14-8001-SM is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The ITN The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with planning, acquiring, leasing, constructing, maintaining, and operating toll facilities and cooperating with and assisting local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system. § 334.044(16)-(22), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill these duties. See §§ 20.23(6) and 334.044(7), Fla. Stat. FTE is a legislatively created arm of the Department and is authorized to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate, and manage the Florida Turnpike System. § 338.2216(1)(b), Fla. Stat. FTE is also authorized to cooperate, coordinate, partner, and contract with other entities, public and private, to accomplish these purposes. Id. The Department has the express power to employ the procurement methods available to the Department of Management Services under chapter 287, Florida Statutes.2/ § 338.2216(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of Transp., Case No. 06-1541BID (Fla. DOAH July 20, 2006; Fla. DOT Aug. 21, 2006). OOCEA (now known as the Central Florida Expressway Authority), MDX, and THEA are legislatively created or authorized agencies of the State with the power to fix, alter, charge, establish, and collect tolls, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges for the services and facilities system. §§ 348.0003(1)- .0004(2)(e), Fla. Stat. Each of these authorities has the power to enter contracts and to execute all instruments necessary or convenient for the carrying on of its business; to enter contracts, leases, or other transactions with any state agency or any other public body of the State; and to do all acts and things necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business and the general welfare of the authority in order to carry out the powers granted to it by law. § 348.0004(2)(g), (h), (k), Fla. Stat. On November 1, 2013, the Department advertised the ITN, soliciting proposals from vendors interested in participating in competitive negotiations for the award of a contract to provide a CCSS and associated operations and maintenance. The ITN was issued pursuant to section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the ITN is to replace the existing customer service center systems of FTE, OOCEA, THEA, and MDX with a CCSS that can be expanded over time to include other tolling and transit agencies in the State of Florida. The CCSS is expected to process nearly all electronic toll transactions in Florida. The successful vendor will enter a contract directly with the Department. The Department will then enter agreements with the other authorities to address coordinated and joint use of the system. Generally, the ITN sets forth a selection process consisting of two parts. Part one involves: (a) the pre- qualification, or shortlisting, of vendors in order to determine a vendor’s eligibility to submit proposals; and (b) the proposal submission, evaluation, and ranking. Part two is the negotiation phase. The instant proceeding relates only to part one. Part two -- negotiations -- has yet to occur. The TRT and Selection Committee – The Evaluators Cubic alleges that “not all of the members of either [the Technical Review or Selection Committee] teams had the requisite experience or knowledge required by section 287.057(16)(a)1., Florida Statutes.” Accenture alleges that “the Selection Committee did not collectively have expertise in all of the subject areas covered by th[e] ITN.” Section 287.057(16)(a) provides in part that the agency head shall appoint “[a]t least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought.”3/ In accordance with the requirements of section 287.057(16)(a), the ITN established a Technical Review Team (TRT) that would be “composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff.” The ITN also provided for a Selection Committee that would be “composed of executive management at the Agencies.” Each agency executive director appointed two individuals from their agency to the TRT. Each agency director was familiar with the background and qualifications of their appointees, who had experience in various aspects of tolling operations including tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals were appointed to serve on the TRT. Bren Dietrich, a budget and financial planner for FTE, has an accounting degree and has worked at FTE for 12 years in budget and financial planning. Mr. Dietrich has been a technical committee member for seven or eight procurements. Mohamed Hassan, a senior operations manager for FTE, has been in information technology for nearly 40 years and with FTE for 22 years handling all aspects of software development and maintenance for the state’s largest tolling authority. Mr. Hassan’s expertise is in software development and maintenance. Mr. Hassan oversees staff that is responsible for maintaining the database application systems, hardware, communications coming in and going out of the customer service center, and any development projects such as transaction processing or account management system upgrades. Steve Andriuk is a deputy executive director for MDX and oversees all tolling operations within MDX’s jurisdiction. Mr. Andriuk’s tolling background goes beyond his tenure at MDX, as he previously was an executive director at Chesapeake Bay Bridge Authority. Jason Greene, MDX’s comptroller of financial controls and budget manager, has a background in finance and accounting and in project management. Mr. Greene has been with MDX for 11 years. Lisa Lumbard, who has been with OOCEA for 16 years, is the interim chief financial officer and previously was the manager of accounting and finance. Ms. Lumbard runs OOCEA’s finance and accounting office and has both procurement experience and substantial experience in the financial aspects of back- office tolling. David Wynne is the director of toll operations of OOCEA and is responsible for the overall collection of all tolls and for the violation enforcement process. Mr. Wynne has held some iteration of this position for approximately 11 years and worked for OOCEA for 16. He also has both procurement and substantial tolling experience. Robert Reardon, THEA’s chief operating officer, is responsible for THEA’s day-to-day operations, including tolls. Mr. Reardon has been with THEA for six years and has experience as a technical evaluator for public procurements. Rafael Hernandez is THEA’s manager of toll operations and oversees all toll operations within THEA’s jurisdiction. The TRT members collectively have the requisite knowledge and experience in tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals constituted the Selection Committee. Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti has been FTE’s executive director since 2011 and worked for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for over 20 years, the last two as executive director and the previous 14 as deputy executive director. Laura Kelley is OOCEA’s deputy director over finance administration and the interim executive director. Ms. Kelly has 30 years’ experience in transportation finance and management, 15 of which occurred at the Department and eight of which occurred at OOCEA overseeing information technology, finance, and procurement. Javier Rodriguez, MDX’s executive director, oversees all MDX operations, including planning, finance, operations, and maintenance functions. Mr. Rodriguez has been with MDX for seven years and was with the Department for over 15 years prior to his employment with MDX. Joseph Waggoner has been THEA’s executive director for approximately seven years. Prior to joining THEA, he was with the Maryland Department of Transportation for nearly 30 years, six of which were in tolling operations. ITN section 2.6.2 provides as follows: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. The ITN is structured such that both the TRT and the Selection Committee have shared responsibility for evaluating proposals, with the Selection Committee having ultimate responsibility for ranking the Proposers for the negotiations stage of the procurement process. Combining the eight members of the TRT with the four members of the Selection Team means that there were a total of 12 individuals tasked with the responsibility of evaluating the proposals prior to the negotiations stage of the process. Pre-Qualification and Rankings In the pre-qualification portion of the ITN, interested vendors initially submitted reference forms to demonstrate that the vendors met the minimum project experience set forth in the ITN. Vendors meeting this requirement were invited to give a full-day Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation to the TRT in which each vendor was given the opportunity to demonstrate its proposed system. Under ITN section 2.6.1, A Technical Review Team will attend the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations and will develop scores and written comments pertaining to the reviewed area(s) identified in Section 2.5.1. The Technical Review Team will be composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff. The scores provided by each Technical Review Team member for each area of the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations will be totaled and averaged with the scores of the other Technical Review Team members to determine the average score for an area of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation. The average score for each area of a Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation will then be totaled to determine a total Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation score. Each vendor’s Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation was then scored based on criteria set forth in ITN section 2.5.1. Any vendor that received a score of 700 or higher was “short- listed” and invited to submit proposals. Put differently, those receiving a score of at least 700 were deemed qualified to submit formal proposals. ITN section 2.5.1 provides that the “review/evaluation of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list of Proposers to proceed in the ITN process.” Accordingly, the scores assigned in the pre-qualification phase were irrelevant after the short-listing. Six vendors submitted pre-qualifications responses, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. On January 21, 2014, the Department posted its short-list decision, identifying that all six vendors, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, were deemed qualified to submit formal written proposals to the ITN (the “First Posting”). As required by section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the posting stated, “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” This posting created a point of entry to protest, and no vendor initiated a protest. After the First Posting, short-listed vendors submitted technical and price proposals and made Proposal Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.24 provides detailed instructions for technical and price proposal preparation and submission. ITN section 2.25 (as amended by Addendum 8) sets forth the process for short-listed vendors to make Proposal Oral Presentations to the TRT. Short-listed Proposers will each be scheduled to meet with the Technical Review Team for Proposal Oral Presentations of their firm’s capabilities and approach to the Scope of Work and Requirements within the time period identified in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. Short-listed Proposers will be notified of a time and date for their Proposal Oral Presentation. Proposal Oral Presentation sessions are not open to the public. The Selection Committee will attend these Presentations. In advance of the Proposal Oral Presentations Proposers will be given detailed instructions on what the format and content of the Proposal Oral Presentation will be, including what functionality shall be demonstrated. The Department may also provide demonstration scripts to be followed. Proposers should be prepared to demonstrate key elements of their proposed System and Project approach and to respond to specific questions regarding their Proposals. These Proposal Oral Presentations will be used to present the Proposer’s approach and improve understanding about the Department’s needs and expectations. The Technical Review Team will participate in all Proposal Oral Presentations. After each Oral Presentation, each individual on the Technical Review Team will complete a written summary evaluation of each Proposer’s technical approach and capabilities using the criteria established in Section 2.5.2 in order to assure the Technical Proposal and Oral Presentations are uniformly ranked. The evaluation will consider both the Technical Proposal and the Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.5.2 is titled “Best Value Selection” and provides as follows: The Department intends to contract with the responsive and responsible short-listed Proposer whose Proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Department. “Best value,” as defined in Section 287.012(4), F.S., means the highest overall value to the state, based on objective factors that include but are not limited to . . . . ITN section 2.5.2 goes on to delineate seven “objective factors,” or evaluation criteria, on which proposals would be evaluated: Company history Project experience and qualifications Proposed Project approach to the technical requirements Proposed approach to the Project plan and implementation Proposed approach to System Maintenance Proposed approach to Operations and performance Price ITN section 2.6.2 explains the process for evaluation of technical proposals and Proposal Oral Presentations and states that: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see Section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review Team and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. Of the six short-listed vendors, five submitted proposals and gave Proposal Oral Presentations, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. The Department then undertook a ranking using the evaluation criteria delineated in ITN section 2.5.2. To perform this ranking, TRT members individually evaluated the proposals and prepared detailed, written evaluations that tracked the evaluation criteria factors. The TRT’s evaluations, together with proposal summaries prepared by HNTB, were provided to the Selection Committee in preparation for a joint meeting of the TRT and Selection Committee on April 9, 2014. At the April 9th meeting, the TRT and Selection Committee members engaged in an in-depth discussion about the bases for and differences between the individual TRT members’ rankings and evaluations. Thereafter, the Selection Committee made its ranking decision. On April 10, 2014, the Department posted its ranking of vendors, with Xerox first, Accenture second, and Cubic third (the “Second Posting”). The Second Posting also announced the Department’s intent to commence negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked vendor.4/ If negotiations fail with Xerox, negotiations will then begin with second-ranked vendor Accenture, then Cubic, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. Accenture and Cubic each timely filed notices of intent to protest the Second Posting and timely filed formal written protest petitions and the requisite bonds. Negotiations are not at Issue ITN section 2.26 provides: Once Proposers have been ranked in accordance with Section 2.6.2 Proposal Evaluation, the Department will proceed with negotiations in accordance with the negotiation process described below. Proposers should be cognizant of the fact that the Department reserves the right to finalize negotiations at any time in the process that the Department determines that such election would be in the best interest of the State. Step 1: Follow the evaluation process and rank Proposals as outlined in Section 2.6 Evaluation Process. Step 2: The ranking will be posted, in accordance with the law (see Section 2.27), stating the Department’s intent to negotiate and award a contract to the highest ranked Proposer that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. Step 3: Once the posting period has ended, the Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established, or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be achieved with such Proposer. If negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract. The Department reserves the option to resume negotiations that were previously suspended. Negotiation sessions are not open to the public and all negotiation sessions will be recorded by the Department. Step 4: The Negotiation Team will write a short plain statement for the procurement file that explains the basis for Proposer selection and how the Proposer’s deliverables and price will provide the best value to the state. Step 5: The Department will contract with the selected Proposer. As Accenture and Cubic protested the decision by the Department to enter negotiations with Xerox (and because of the automatic stay provision of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes) the negotiation phase of the procurement never commenced. Thus, this proceeding concerns the Department’s actions up to the Second Posting, and not what may happen during future negotiations. Second Posting and Intended Award Section 1.2 of the ITN sets forth the procurement timeline for the CCSS project. The ITN originally indicated that the “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” would occur on March 31, 2014. By addendum issued on February 13, 2014, the date for “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” was changed to April 10, 2014. Section 1.3.1 of the ITN provides an agenda for the April 10, 2014, “Meeting to Summarize and Determine Ranking/Intended Award.” Section 2.27 of the ITN is labeled “POSTING OF RANKING/INTENDED AWARD.” Section 2.27.1, Ranking/Intended Award, provides that “[t]he Ranking/Intended Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Proposer that is determined to be capable of providing the best value and best meet the needs of the Department.” Section 2.27.2 is labeled “Posting of Short- list/Ranking/Intended Award” and provides in part that “[a]ny Proposer who is adversely affected by the Department’s recommended award or intended decision must . . . file a written notice of protest within seventy-two hours after posting of the Intended Award.” Joint Exhibits 10 and 12 are copies of forms used to announce the rankings of the Proposers. It is not clear from the record if these forms are a part of the ITN. Nevertheless, the forms are identical in format. Each form has three boxes that follow the words “TYPE OF POSTING.” The first box is followed by the word “Shortlist,” the second box is followed by the word “Ranking,” and the third box is followed by the words “Intended Award.” The form also has three columns that coincide with the three boxes previously referenced. The three columns are respectively labeled, “X indicates shortlisted vendor,” “ranking of negotiations,” and “X indicates intended award.” With respect to the last two columns, explanatory comments appearing at the bottom of the form read as follows: ** Ranking: The Department intends to negotiate separately and will award a contract to the highest ranked vendor that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. The Department will commence negotiations with the number one ranked vendor until an acceptable contract is agreed upon or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with such vendor. If negotiations fail with the number one ranked vendor, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department is able to negotiate an acceptable agreement. *** Intended Award: “X” in the Intended Award column indicates the vendor whom the Department intends to award the contract to, but does not constitute an acceptance of any offer created by the vendor’s proposal or negotiations. No binding contract will be deemed to exist until such time as a written agreement has been fully executed by the Department and the awarded vendor. If irregularities are subsequently discovered in the vendor’s proposal or in the negotiations or if the vendor fails to submit required [b]onds and insurance, fails to execute the contract, or otherwise fails to comply with the ITN requirements, the Department has the right to undertake negotiations with the next highest vendor and continue negotiations in accordance with the ITN process, reject all proposals, or act in the best interest of the Department. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a posting wherein the “Ranking” box was checked and the “Intended Award” box was not. According to Sheree Merting, it was a mistake to have only checked the “Ranking” box because the box labeled “Intended Award” should have also been checked. Petitioners contend that by not simultaneously checking both the “Ranking” and “Intended Award” boxes that the Department materially changed the process identified in the ITN. Protesters’ arguments as to this issue appear to be more related to form than substance. In looking at the plain language of the ITN, it reasonably appears that the Department intended to simultaneously announce the “Ranking” and “Intended Award.” The fact that the Department failed to combine these two items in a single notice is of no consequence because neither Cubic nor Accenture have offered any evidence establishing how they were competitively disadvantaged, or how the integrity of the bidding process was materially impaired as a consequence of the omission. In other words, Sheree Merting’s confessed error of not checking the “Intended Award” box contemporaneously with the “Ranking” box is harmless error. See, e.g., Fin. Clearing House, Inc. v. Fla. Prop. Recovery Consultants, Inc., Case No. 97-3150BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 25, 1997; Dep’t of Banking & Fin. Feb 4, 1998)(applying harmless error rule to deny protest where agency initially violated provisions of section 287.057(15), Florida Statutes, by selecting two evaluators instead of three required by statute, but later added required evaluator). Sequential Negotiations As previously noted, section 2.26 of the ITN provides that following the ranking of the short-list proposers, the “Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first- ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established . . . [and] [i]f negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract.” Petitioners assert that the Department has abandoned the sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 and has announced “that it will conduct the procurement negotiations only with Xerox as the number one ranked proposer” and that the process of negotiating with only one proposer is contrary to the law because section 287.057(1)(c) “requires that the Department negotiate with all proposers within the competitive range.” Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti testified as follows (T: 1119): Q: Now, you understand that as a result of the rankings that were posted on April 10th, negotiations under this ITN are to proceed with only a single vendor, is that right? A: I believe the ITN provided for consecutive negotiations starting with the first-ranked firm and then proceeding down until we reached a contract. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertions, the evidence establishes that the Department intends to follow the negotiation process set forth in section 2.26. Petitioners’ contention that section 287.057(1)(c) does not authorize sequential negotiations is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Petitioners have waived their right of protest with respect to this issue. Petitioners’ waiver notwithstanding, section 287.057(1)(c) does not preclude the type of sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 of the ITN. Section 287.057(1)(c) provides in part that “[t]he invitation to negotiate is a solicitation used by an agency which is intended to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem and identifies one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” (Emphasis added). Section 287.057(1)(c)4. provides that “[t]he agency shall evaluate replies against all evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation to negotiate in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award [and] [t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). The opening paragraph of section 287.057(1)(c), which is essentially the preamble portion of the ITN provisions, expresses the purpose for which the ITN process was developed, to wit: “to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem.” In furtherance of the stated purpose, the Legislature instructs, in the preamble, that the process should “identif[y] one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” If the preamble is read in statutory isolation, then one could reasonably conclude that if the agency identifies more than one responsive vendor then the agency should negotiate with each of the vendors “in order to receive the best value.” Arguably, the preamble merely looks at vendor “responsiveness” as the guidepost for determining with whom the agency shall negotiate. Mere “responsiveness” however, is clearly not the only standard for selecting a vendor through the ITN process and illustrates why this portion of the statute cannot be read in isolation. As previously noted, subparagraph four of section 287.057(1)(c), provides that the agency “shall . . . establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award,” and once this is done, “[t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). By using the word “may” in subparagraph four, the Legislature is authorizing agencies to exercise discretion when selecting vendors with whom to negotiate. In exercising its discretion, agencies can decide to negotiate with a single vendor or with multiple vendors. An agency’s exercise of its discretion is not absolute and the “check” on the exercise of its discretion, in the context of the instant case, is a bid protest whereby an unsuccessful bidder can attempt to prove that the procurement process was impermissibly tainted. Contrary to Petitioners’ allegations, the sequential negotiation process utilized by the Department in the present case does not run afoul of section 287.057. Petitioners forcefully argue that they have been shutout of the negotiation process because neither of them was ranked first. This assertion mischaracterizes the nature of the sequential negotiation process used by the Department. The evidence shows that if the Department fails to come to terms with Xerox, then negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. The truth of the matter is that neither of the protesters has been shutout of the negotiations. It is simply the case that neither occupies the preferred position of being the highest ranked, short-listed vendor. Petitioners also argue that the Florida Department of Transportation Commodities and Contractual Services Procurement Manual – 375-040-020, prohibits sequential negotiations. For invitations to negotiate, the manual provides: There are two general negotiation methods used: Competitive Method A – Vendors are ranked based on technical qualifications and negotiations are conducted commencing with the first ranked vendor. Competitive Method B – Vendor qualifications are evaluated and vendors may be short-listed. Negotiations of scope and price will be conducted with short-listed or all vendors. An award is made to the vendor with the best combination of proposal, qualifications, and price. According to Petitioners, the ITN does not comport with either Method A or Method B. Again, Petitioners failed to timely challenge the ITN specifications regarding sequential negotiations and thus have waived this argument. Even if the merits of the argument are considered, Petitioners’ argument fails. The methods described in the manual are not the only methods available to the Department; in fact, the manual, by stating that “there are two general negotiation methods used (emphasis added),” recognizes that the methods are subject to refinement or modification as the Department deems best to meet the perceived needs of a particular solicitation as long as the final method complies with section 287.057(1), Florida Statutes. Further, the procurement manager for the ITN, Sheree Merting, testified that the shell, or template, provided by the Department’s central office, and used when drafting an invitation to negotiate, contains a combination of the manual’s methods A and B, which is referred to as A/B. The order of negotiations provided for in the ITN and reiterated in the First and Second Postings is not, therefore, inconsistent with the Department’s policies or procedures. Best Value Decision Petitioners contend that the Department, via the Second Posting, has already (and improperly) determined which vendor will provide the best value to the State even though negotiations have not yet occurred. This contention is not supported by the evidence. ITN section 2.5.2 states the Department’s intent to contract with the vendor whose proposal is determined to provide the best value and sets forth the statutorily mandated objective factors, or criteria, on which proposals will be evaluated. ITN section 2.6.2 provides that the TRT and Selection Committee will review and discuss the TRT members’ individual summary evaluations and the Selection Committee “will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities and best value.” The evidence reflects that the evaluation factors were applied during the evaluation process to formulate a best value ranking, but the question of which vendor ultimately provides the best value to the State will not be conclusively determined until after negotiations are concluded. See § 287.057(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. (“After negotiations are conducted, the agency shall award the contract to the responsible and responsive vendor that the agency determines will provide the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.”). As testified by Ms. Gutierrez- Scaccetti, “[t]he Selection Committee agreed upon the ranking of firms. It has not made an award.” This is consistent with the ITN and Florida law, which require award to the best value proposer after negotiations. Evaluation Criteria Properly Followed As explained above, ITN section 2.5.2 sets forth the evaluation factors that the TRT and Selection Committee were to use in evaluating proposals. Petitioners allege that the TRT and Selection Committee did not follow the ITN and based their evaluations and rankings on factors other than those listed in ITN section 2.5.2. The evidence establishes that the TRT did in fact use these factors, as evidenced by the detailed evaluation summaries prepared by each of the eight TRT members, which almost uniformly tracked these factors. Seven of these summaries are organized by headings that mirror the seven criteria of section 2.5.2. The remaining summary, prepared by TRT member Mohamed Hassan, was formatted in terms of pros and cons, but nonetheless addressed all of the section 2.5.2 evaluation criteria. Reflective of the TRT’s approach, TRT member David Wynne prepared detailed, typed proposal summaries that are four pages long and single-spaced for each proposal. Mr. Wynne’s summaries capture his deliberate thought process in ranking the proposals and include headings that directly tie back to the evaluation criteria in the ITN. His summaries include specific details from each proposal justifying his qualitative assessment of the proposals. For example, he discusses the benefits of Xerox’s Vector 4G tolling platform, Xerox’s proposed project schedule, and maintenance. Mr. Wynne even included a breakdown of the pricing and his thoughts on how the pricing compared to the other vendors. The other TRT members had equally detailed summaries. When read as a whole, these summaries demonstrate that the TRT engaged in a rational, deliberative, and thoughtful evaluation of the proposals based on the ITN criteria. Additionally, the TRT members testified that they applied the ITN section 2.5.2 factors in conducting their evaluations. Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the TRT members did as instructed in the ITN and evaluated proposals based on ITN section 2.5.2’s factors. There is no credible basis to find that the section 2.5.2 criteria were not the bases of the TRT’s evaluations, rankings, and narratives. The evidence also establishes that the Selection Committee applied ITN section 2.5.2 factors in reaching its decision. The Selection Committee reviewed the TRT summaries, along with a detailed notebook prepared by HNTB, the Department’s consultant. The HNTB notebook was a comprehensive summary of information compiled from the vendors’ voluminous proposals and organized in a digestible format to aid the Selection Committee’s review, including helpful summaries providing head-to-head objective comparisons of vendor pricing, software development, and vendors’ exceptions and assumptions. The HNTB notebook of materials objectively compiled the content taken directly from the vendors’ own proposals and included no editorial comments or opinions by the Department’s consultants. Moreover, the HNTB notebook contained a chart summarizing the TRT’s rankings by TRT member, along with copies of each TRT member’s detailed written summaries. It also contained a detailed, 36-page pricing summary that pulled price information directly from the vendors’ proposals and summarized the information in a manner that allowed for easy side-by-side comparison. The notebook also included a systems matrix summary that was prepared by taking proposed systems information directly from the vendors’ proposals and combining it in a format that could be easily processed. In fact, the notebook even included pages copied directly from the proposals. Armed with the comprehensive TRT summaries and the HNTB notebook, the Selection Committee then engaged the TRT in a thoughtful and detailed discussion and analysis of the qualitative merits of each vendor’s proposal -- all within the bounds of the section 2.5.2 criteria. Petitioners contend that during the TRT and Selection Committee’s discussions, issues such as risk were improperly considered. Although “risk” was not a separately labeled criterion under section 2.5.2 (“risk of solution” is, however, referenced as a sub-bullet), risk is inherently a significant consideration in each of the evaluation factors. Stated differently, the concept of risk is integral to the ITN section 2.5.2 factors, and the Department properly considered such risks. For example, a vendor’s prior project experience -- whether it has successfully completed similar projects before -- was a listed criterion, which is directly relevant to the risk the Department would take in selecting a vendor, that is, the risk that the vendor’s experience is or is not sufficient to assure a timely project completion and quality services under the ITN. Indeed, section 287.057(1)(c) requires that the Department consider prior experience. Another example of risk considered by at least one Selection Committee member was the potential that Accenture’s project manager would not be assigned solely to this project, but might be shared with Accenture’s Illinois tolling project (“local presence commitment” is referenced as a sub-bullet in section 2.5.2). The evidence shows that Accenture stopped short of saying without qualification that its project manager would be released from Illinois and solely assigned to CCSS. This uncertainty raised a risk concern whether the critical project implementation would be properly managed. Considerations such as these are rational and reasonable. There is a Reasonable Basis for the Department’s Ranking Petitioners further contend that there was no reasonable basis for the Department’s intended decision to begin negotiations with Xerox. However, as explained above, the evidence demonstrates the opposite as the TRT and Selection Committee collectively discussed and considered the evaluation criteria and the Selection Committee reached consensus on moving forward to negotiations with Xerox. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Selection Committee’s decision was rational and reasonable. The TRT and Selection Committee’s discussion at the April 9, 2014, meeting where the ranking decision was reached, demonstrates the studied analysis by which the evaluations were conducted. At the meeting, the four Selection Committee members, who had already reviewed the TRT members’ individual rankings and evaluations, each questioned the TRT members about their assessments of the proposals. Selection Committee members asked about the bases for the differences between the individual TRT members’ evaluations, and the TRT members explained why they ranked the vendors the way they did. The discussion revolved around the top three ranked vendors, Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, which one TRT member described as being “head and shoulders above the rest” -- that is, above the vendors ranked fourth and fifth. As noted above, the Selection Committee members’ primary focus in these discussions was on risk assessment -- the financial risks, operations risks, and information technology risks that the TRT members believed accompanied each proposal. Major Selection Committee items of discussion included modifications to the existing systems, proprietary versus off- the-shelf software issues, and the vendors’ proximity to Florida. Additional discussion points included the risk associated with Accenture’s use of multiple subcontractors and Cubic’s lack of experience with certain tolling systems. From these discussions, it appears that the overriding factor behind the Selection Committee’s ranking decision at the April 9 meeting was Xerox’s proven experience with other similar and large tolling projects, including some of the country’s largest tolling systems, which Accenture and Cubic simply did not possess.5/ As one Selection Committee member expressed, Xerox brought a “comfort level” that did not exist with Accenture and Cubic. Moreover, Xerox, with 78 percent, is the leader in the evaluative category that looks at the percentage of the company’s existing baseline system that meets the CCSS requirements -- more than Accenture’s and Cubic’s combined percentages. As the percentage of existing baseline system compliance increases, the implementation risks decrease. Selection Committee members Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti and Joseph Waggoner expressed the importance of this based on their firsthand experience with existing tolling systems in use for their respective agencies. In sum, this analysis and assessment is a valid and reasonable basis for the Department’s decision. Cubic also contends that such analysis is improper because the ITN allowed transit firms to submit proposals, thus making tolling experience an irrelevant evaluative factor. This contention fails because by prequalifying transit firms to bid, the Department was not precluded from considering a vendor’s specific tolling experience as part of the evaluative process. Contrary to Cubic’s allegation, the factors listed in ITN section 2.5.2, including “Project Experience and Qualifications,” contemplate tolling experience as being part of the relevant analysis. Therefore, the Selection Committee was fully authorized under the ITN to consider the benefits of a proven commodity -- a firm with Xerox’s extensive tolling experience. The Selection Committee’s qualitative assessment that, on the whole, Xerox was the better choice for commencing negotiations was supported by reason and logic and was wholly consistent with the ITN specifications. Petitioners further argue that the Department’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the pre-qualification scoring, where Accenture and Cubic each scored slightly higher than Xerox. This argument fails as ITN section 2.5.1 expressly provides that the evaluations and scoring of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list. Regardless, these three vendors were essentially tied in that scoring: Accenture’s score was 885.38, Cubic’s was 874.75, and Xerox’s was 874.00. Petitioners also contend that the Selection Committee’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the ranking decision of the TRT majority. The ITN is clear, however, that the Selection Committee would be the final arbiter of ranking. No Demonstrations Were Cancelled The procurement timeline in the original ITN allotted ten business days for Proposal Oral Presentations. The revised timeline in Addendum 8 allotted two days. Cubic asserts that this reduction in presentation time occurred because the Department, without explanation, cancelled planned vendor demonstrations that were to occur during Proposal Oral Presentations, thus placing Cubic at a disadvantage as it was unable to present its demonstrations to Selection Committee members. Cubic also asserts that the cancellation of demonstrations is an indication that the Department had already made up its mind to select Xerox. The ITN and the testimony are unequivocal that no demonstrations were “cancelled.” ITN section 2.25 contemplates that the Department may request demonstrations in the proposal evaluation phase but in no way states that demonstrations will be held. Section 2.25 also provides that if any demonstrations were to be held, they would be as directed by the Department. Thus, the ITN did not guarantee Cubic any presentation, as Cubic suggests. Moreover, all vendors were treated equally in this regard. Further, the evidence reflects that the decision to hold demonstrations only during the Pre-Qualification Presentations was made when the ITN was released and that the Department never planned to have vendor demonstrations at the Proposal Oral Presentations. Indeed, during the mandatory pre- proposal meeting, the Department informed all vendors of the planned process, to include one demonstration at the pre- qualification phase and an oral presentation and question-and- answer session during the proposal and ranking phase. In short, Cubic presented no credible evidence in support of its allegations regarding the alleged cancellation of the demonstrations or any resulting harm. Exceptions and Assumptions were properly considered The ITN required vendors, in their technical proposals, to identify assumptions and exceptions to contract terms and conditions. Significantly, the ITN states that the Department is not obligated to accept any exceptions, and further that exceptions may be considered at the Department’s discretion during the evaluation process. ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 provides, in its entirety: Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions If Proposers take exception to Contract terms and conditions, such exceptions must be specified, detailed and submitted under this Proposal section in a separate, signed certification. The Department is under no obligation to accept the exceptions to the stated Contract terms and conditions. Proposers shall not identify any exceptions in the Price Proposal. All exceptions should be noted in the certification provided for in Proposal Section 9. Proposers shall not include any assumptions in their Price Proposals. Any assumptions should be identified and documented in this Section 9 of the Proposal. Any assumptions included in the Price Proposals will not be considered by the Department as a part of the Proposal and will not be evaluated or included in any Contract between the Department and the Proposer, should the Proposer be selected to perform the Work. Failure to take exception in the manner set forth above shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department. Petitioners allege that the ITN did not clearly set forth how vendors’ exceptions and assumptions would be treated and that the Department accordingly failed to consider such exceptions and assumptions. This is a belated specifications challenge and therefore has been waived. Regardless, the evidence demonstrates that both the TRT and Selection Committee did, in fact, consider the exceptions and assumptions in the evaluation and ranking of proposers. The TRT and Selection Committee were instructed to consider exceptions and assumptions and to give them the weight they deemed appropriate subject to staying within the confines of the ITN’s section 2.5.2 criteria. Consistent with these instructions, some TRT members included comments regarding exceptions and assumptions in those members’ evaluation summaries, reflecting that exceptions and assumptions were considered during the evaluation process. Other TRT members considered the exceptions of minimal significance given that the Department would address them during negotiations and was not bound to agree to any. Indeed, the evidence was that it was the Department’s intent to sort out the exceptions and assumptions in the negotiation process and, again, that the Department need not agree to any exceptions initially set forth by the vendors. Thus, the Department acted rationally and within the bounds of the ITN and its discretion when considering exceptions and assumptions. The Selection Committee Reached Consensus Accenture alleges that the Selection Committee failed to carry out its duty to reach a “consensus” in ranking vendor proposals. The evidence establishes the exact opposite. The ITN provides that the Selection Committee will come to “consensus” about ranking the vendors in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities, and best value. A consensus does not require unanimity. According to the testimony of Selection Committee member Javier Rodriguez, who was the only Selection Committee member who voted for Accenture as his first choice, “at the end, Xerox got three votes from the Selection Committee; Accenture got one. So for me, consensus meant: Are we in consensus to move forward with Xerox? And as I said at the selection meeting, I didn’t object. So from a consensus standpoint, we’re moving on to starting negotiations with Xerox, and that was the intent.” Therefore, the unrebutted evidence is that the Selection Committee did, in fact, reach consensus. Subject Matter Experts Accenture contends that the TRT and Selection Committee made use of subject matter experts in the course of the evaluation and ranking in violation of Florida statutory requirements and governing procurement policies. The record, however, is void of any substantial competent evidence in support of these allegations. Tim Garrett is the tolls program manager for HNTB under the General Engineering Consulting contract for FTE. Mr. Garrett was the overall project manager assigned to support FTE in the development and execution of the ITN. He and other HNTB employees, such as Wendy Viellenave and Theresa Weekes, CPA, provided support to both TRT and Selection Committee members in regards to summarizing proposals and defining the process. There is no evidence that any employee of, or sub-consultant to, HNTB communicated qualitative assessments or opinions about any of the competing proposals to TRT or Selection Committee members. Rather, the evidence shows that HNTB facilitated the TRT’s and Selection Committee’s evaluation work by presenting to the committee members data in the form of summaries, charts, and recapitulations pulled from the voluminous technical and price proposals submitted by the five competing vendors. Other than the support provided by HNTB, the record is essentially devoid of evidence that proposal evaluators made use of subject matter experts.6/ But in any event, neither Petitioner has made a showing that the use of subject matter experts is proscribed by governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of the ITN. Although the use of subject matter experts was not addressed in the ITN itself, the Department, before the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations in early January 2014, issued written “Instructions to Technical Review Committee.” These instructions authorized TRT members to confer with subject matter experts during the procurement process on specific technical questions and subject to certain additional parameters, as follows: Subject Matter Experts Subject matter experts are authorized to support the TRC on specific technical questions that the TRC members may have throughout the procurement process. Subject matter experts may respond to questions on any aspect of the procurement or proposal, but may not be asked to, nor will they support, the evaluation of proposals, which is the responsibility of each TRC member. A subject matter expert can discuss the specific elements of the ITN and a vendor’s proposal with a TRC member, but they cannot meet with more than one TRC member at a time, unless in a public meeting – subject to the Procurement Rules of Conduct stated above. The subject matter experts are fact finders. A subject matter expert cannot disclose the specific questions asked by another TRC member. No evidence has been presented to establish that the Instructions to Technical Review Committee, as to the use of subject matter experts, violated Florida law or the terms of the ITN, or that any subject matter expert -- whether affiliated with HNTB or not -- failed to perform within the parameters set forth in the Instructions.7/ Both Petitioners devoted significant hearing time to the FTE consultancy work of John McCarey, McCarey Consultants, LLC, and John Henneman, an employee of Atkins Engineering, Inc., and sub-consultant to HNTB. There has been no showing by Petitioners that either Mr. McCarey or Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert to any member of the TRT or Selection Committee or that either had improper contacts in regards to the evaluation or ranking of the vendors. The undisputed evidence is that Mr. McCarey did not serve as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators. As for Mr. Henneman, although one TRT member testified in deposition that he “believe[d]” Mr. Henneman was a technical expert or considered one of the subject matter experts, there is no evidence that Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators -- TRT or Selection Committee. In sum, there is simply no evidence that any of the subject matter experts had any improper influence on the TRT or Selection Committee members.8/ No Improper Contacts, Attempts to Influence, or Bias Cubic alleges that there was improper contact between the Department and Xerox during this protest that violates the statutorily imposed “cone of silence” for procurements. Cubic also asserts that there were attempts by Xerox to influence the evaluations or rankings based on the Department’s, or the other agencies’, past or existing relationships with Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. There simply is no record support for the assertions that there was any improper contact or any attempt by any person to influence the Department’s evaluations or rankings based on past or existing relationships between the Department and Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. Xerox’s counsel did not have any contact with the TRT or the Selection Committee prior to the filing of the protests and the attendant “stop” of the procurement process pursuant to section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The only contact Xerox’s counsel had with TRT or Selection Committee members was as a participant with the Department’s counsel in pre-deposition meetings with some witnesses designated by Petitioners -- all in the context of ongoing litigation following the filing of Accenture’s and Cubic’s protest petitions. This contact is essentially no different than Petitioners’ contact with Department personnel in depositions and the trial, as well as during the section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes, settlement conference with the Department. Furthermore, all such contact was after both the TRT’s and the Selection Committee’s work under the ITN was completed and the said contact was of no import to the procurement process. In short, there is no evidence of attempts by Xerox to influence the process, improper contact between Xerox and the Department, or Department bias in favor of Xerox. Responsiveness of Xerox’s Proposal The evidence, at best, is that the Department has yet to fully vet the representations made in the proposals by the respective Proposers, including Xerox. Protesters suggest that such a full vetting is a condition precedent to negotiations. Such an argument, however, ignores ITN section 2.12, which has to be reconciled with ITN section 2.9.1 b). ITN section 2.9.1 b) provides in part that “[t]he Proposer shall have Key Team members with the following experience at the time of Proposal submission.” The section then goes on to list several positions that fall within the “Key Team Personnel” category. Petitioners contend that the Contract Project Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Human Resources Manager proposed by Xerox fail to meet the “Qualifications of Key Team Personnel” set forth in ITN section 2.9.1 b), thus rendering the Xerox proposal nonresponsive. ITN section 2.12 provides in part that “[a]fter the Proposal due date and prior to Contract execution, the Department reserves the right to perform . . . [a] review of the Proposer’s . . . qualifications [and that] [t]his review will serve to verify data and representations submitted by the Proposer and may be used to determine whether the Proposer has an adequate, qualified, and experienced staff.” Xerox’s omission, at this point in the process, amounts to a non-material deviation from the ITN specifications given that ITN section 2.12 reserves in the Department the right to review key personnel representations made by Xerox, and any other short-listed Proposer, at any time “prior to Contract execution.” Cubic also contends that Xerox and Accenture submitted conditional Price Proposals rendering their proposals non- responsive under ITN section 2.16. The analysis turns on the provisions of Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions, which provides a detailed description of how exceptions and assumptions are to be provided by vendors, and explains that “[e]xceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department.” As provided by the ITN, all vendors included a detailed listing of exceptions and assumptions in their Technical Proposal. Consistent with the discretion afforded to the Department under ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 to consider listed exceptions during the Proposal evaluation process, the Department then made the following inquiry of each of the Proposers: Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Exceptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Assumptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Xerox responded to both inquiries as follows: “The Xerox price proposal is based on the assumptions and general risk profile created by the inclusion of Section 9. We assume the parties will reach mutual agreement on the issues raised in Section 9 without a material deviation in the price proposal.” In addition to providing written answers to the questions, the vendors also addressed these issues in the Proposal Oral Presentations in response to questions by the Department. By the end of the Proposal Oral Presentations, all three vendors had made clear to the Department that resolution of exceptions and assumptions would not affect the proposed price. For example, Xerox’s senior executive in charge of the procurement, Richard Bastan, represented that there is no financial implication to any of the exceptions and that Xerox would honor the terms and conditions and the scope of services in the ITN for the price set forth in the Price Proposal. Accordingly, none of the proposals were improperly conditioned, and Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic were treated equally. Cubic also contends that Xerox’s proposal was nonresponsive as Xerox allegedly failed to meet the stated experience minimums for transactions processed and accounts maintained. There is, however, no credible evidence to support this contention. Indeed, the evidence is that the Department, through its consultant HNTB, verified these requirements by calling the referenced projects. Moreover, Xerox met or exceeded the stated minimums with its New York project reference. The Department’s decision that Xerox was responsive on this issue is logical, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. Price Proposals ITN section 2.5.2 lists “price” as a factor to consider in determining “Best Value.” The vendors’ price proposals were presented to the TRT members for purposes of conducting their evaluations. Price was also an appropriate factor for consideration by the Selection Committee. Accenture argues that “[t]he ITN does not indicate how pricing will be considered by FDOT during the selection process.” Accenture’s contention that the ITN failed to disclose the relative importance of price is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation, as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Accenture has waived its right of protest with respect to this issue. Conflict of Interest Accenture complains that “[n]either Mr. Henneman nor Mr. McCarey submitted conflict of interest forms as required under the Department’s Procurement Manual . . . [because both] were present during the oral presentations made by the vendors in connection with this procurement.” Accenture also complains that Wendy Viellenave never disclosed that her husband works for TransCore, a company that is a subcontractor for Xerox. Ms. Viellenave’s husband currently works for TransCore as a maintenance and installation manager in California and has not worked in Florida in nearly twenty years. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Viellenave, through the relationship with her husband, has any “significant” direct or indirect -- financial or otherwise -- interest in TransCore that would interfere with her allegiance to the Department. The fact that Ms. Viellenave is married to an individual that works for a Xerox subcontractor is insufficient, in itself, to establish a real or potential conflict of interest. Jack Henneman currently runs the back office operation for FTE at its Boca Raton facility. His future role for the CCSS is as project manager for the implementation of the CCSS. Mr. Henneman became aware of the CCSS procurement through his work on a Florida Transportation Commission Report that culminated in 2012. This report documented the cost efficiencies for all of the tolling authorities in Florida. Mr. Henneman attended some of the Pre-Qualification Demonstrations as his schedule would permit because he is the “go-forward” project manager for the CCSS implementation. Mr. Henneman formerly worked for ACS from 2002 – 2009, and met Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti during his employment with the company. Mr. Henneman was the transition manager for the transfer of the back office operation of the New Jersey Turnpike from WorldCom to ACS. Mr. Henneman did not have any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti from approximately 2009 to 2012. In his capacity as the “go-forward” project manager, Mr. Henneman reviewed the technical proposals submitted by the vendors in the instant proceeding but he did not have any discussions with the TRT members or the Selection Committee members about the proposals. He reviewed the technical proposals for the purpose of educating himself so that he would be better prepared to carry out his functions as the “go-forward” project manager. John McCarey is a sub-consultant to FTE general engineering contractor, Atkins. Mr. McCarey has a future role as being a part of the negotiations group for the CCSS. Mr. McCarey formerly worked for Lockheed for approximately 25 years and then spent 5 years working for ACS. Mr. McCarey was the chief financial officer for ACS’s State and Local Solutions Group at one time. Mr. McCarey left the employment of ACS in 2006. Mr. McCarey currently assists with various functions, including work on issues with the consolidation of the back office systems of OOCEA and FTE. For approximately 10 years before becoming a sub-consultant, Mr. McCarey had not had any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti. As it relates to the CCSS project, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. McCarey provided recommendations to the TRT or the Selection Committee.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioners’ protests be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2014.
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1978, the Department, through its Division of Purchasing, submitted an Invitation to Bid on State Contract number 451-600-38-BS, to various vendors of copying equipment to secure contracts for the State's annual requirements of bond and bond-like magazine-finish paper copying machines. The Invitation to Bid included General Conditions, Special Conditions and technical specifications which described the various categories of copying equipment based on type, class and system. Paragraph 7 of the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provided, in part, that: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening, file number and bid number. Failure to comply with this condition will result in bidder waiving his right to dispute the bid specifications. Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions provided that: The award hereunder is subject to the provisions of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. All bidders must disclose with their bid the name of any officer, director or agent who is also an employee of the State of Florida, or any of its agencies. Further, all bidders must disclose the name of any State employee who owns, directly or indirectly, an interest of ten percent (10 percent) or more in the bidder's firm or any of its branches. Finally, paragraph 10 of the General Conditions, covering service and warranty, reads as follows: Unless otherwise specified, the bidder shall define any warranty service and replacements that will be provided during and subsequent to this contract. Bidders must explain on an attached sheet to what extent warranty and service facilities are provided. In addition to the General Conditions, the Invitation to Bid also contained Special Conditions, several of which are pertinent to this proceeding. Paragraph 6(A) concerning machine A cost, provides that: In determining the per copy cost of each type and class of copy machine bidders must include installation and removal costs as well as verify operation of all equipment and training of key operators and warranty for operation of one (1) year. On an Outright Purchase Plan the monthly machine costs shall be determined by dividing the purchase price by 36 months. To this figure add the current monthly cost for preventive maintenance service. In paragraph 29 (D) , the Special Conditions require that: A copy of the manufacturer's standard warranty must be submitted with the proposal. A warranty is required against defective material, workmanship, and failure to perform in accordance with required performance criteria, for a period of not less than one year from date of acceptance. Replacement of all parts found defective, including all labor and materials, within the warranty period shall be made without cost to the State. Finally, paragraph 30 of the Special Conditions provides that: All questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than May 1, 1978. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. Failure to comply with this condition will result in bidder waiving his right to dispute the bid conditions and specifications. Written response to all questions will be mailed to all bidders by May 10, 1978. For the Type I/Class 1 and Type I/Class 1-A categories, the Department received responsive bids from Petitioner and Saxon. Petitioner submitted its bid on June 30, 1978. Saxon submitted its bid from which the Department computed an average per-copy cost of $.0613. In arriving at this figure, the Department applied the following methodology: The $2,525 total cost of the Saxon machine was divided by 36 months, resulting in a figure of $70.14; Saxon's current monthly maintenance cost of $27.71 was then multiplied by 24 months, and that figure was divided by 36 to arrive at a monthly pro-rated maintenance cost of $18.47 for the three year life of the machines; this figure was then added to the $70.14 to arrive at a total monthly machine cost of $88.61. When supply costs and labor costs for various copy volumes were added to the fixed monthly machine costs, an average per-copy cost of $.0613 resulted. Petitioner, however, used a different methodology in formulating its bid and calculating its per-copy cost. Petitioner's methodology was as follows: Petitioner's total machine cost of $2,475 was divided by 36 months, resulting in a figure of $68.75; to this figure was added the current monthly maintenance cost of $10.00, which, when added to the above figure, resulted in a monthly machine cost of $78.75. When supply costs and labor costs were added for various monthly volumes, an average per-copy cost of $.0624 resulted for Petitioner's machine. The essential difference in the bid submitted by Petitioner and that submitted by Saxon is that Saxon amortized its 24-month cost of preventive maintenance over a period of 36 months with the understanding that the first 12 months of preventive maintenance would be furnished by Saxon to the State at no cost. Petitioner, on the other hand, computed its monthly maintenance cost at a flat rate for the full 36-month period apparently assuming that the one-year warranty required in the Special Conditions would necessitate Petitioner's also furnishing preventive maintenance for the first year at no cost. Petitioner therefore contends in its Third Amended Petition that the Department erred in its computations which concluded that Saxon had submitted the low bid in that Petitioner, like Saxon, provides the first year of preventive maintenance at no charge to the State and that: When the first year of maintenance, $120.00, is taken out of [Petitioner's] computation, it results in a copy cost of $.0605, whereas Saxon's stated cost A is $.0613. The manufacturer's warranty submitted by Petitioner with its bid provides, in part, that: Canon U.S.A., Inc. warrants all Canon Copier Products for a period of one year from date of installation against defective material and workmanship. All broken or defective parts not caused by accident or misuse will be replaced at contractors expense, including nonconsumable parts, labor and transportation, if any. Canon U.S.A., Inc. also warrants Canon Copiers against failure to perform in accordance with required performance criteria. Although the Special Conditions require that bidders supply a one-year warranty against defective material, workmanship and failure to perform in accordance with required performance criteria, there is no requirement that a bidder agree to provide cost-free preventive maintenance. Other than Petitioner's notation in its bid of a $10.00 monthly maintenance cost, Petitioner makes no other notation in its bid with respect to the provision of cost-free preventive maintenance. Further, the evidence clearly establishes that the types of services contemplated by the phrase "preventive maintenance" were different from, and outside the "warranty" requirements. The warranty requirements amount essentially to a guarantee of performance for the first 12 months of machine life, whereas the phrase "preventive maintenance" clearly was intended to cover periodic servicing of the machines short of actual repairs of mechanical malfunctions. Had Petitioner intended that its warranty cover cost- free preventive maintenance for the first year of machine life, it should have, but did not, so indicate in response to paragraph 10 of the General Conditions requiring a bidder to define to what extent warranty and service facilities are to be provided. The warranty requirements for outright purchase of copying equipment contained in paragraph 29(D) of the Special Conditions do not include an express or implied requirement that a bidder provide preventive maintenance service at no cost during the first year following purchase of copying equipment. Further, the cost formulas contained in paragraph 6A of the Special Conditions do not require a bidder to include a cost for current monthly preventive maintenance service which it does not intend to charge, and there is no prohibition in that paragraph against expressing the actual monthly preventive maintenance cost for the months in which these costs will be charged. Petitioner failed to submit written questions concerning its interpretation of any of the conditions in the Invitation to Bid or to question the Department's interpretation of those provisions. Additionally, Petitioner failed to define, in accordance with paragraph 10 of the General Conditions, the warranty service which it intended to provide, and likewise failed to express any intent to provide preventive maintenance service at no cost during the first year following possible purchase of its equipment. The Department properly accepted Petitioner's cost data for machine costs set forth in its bid, and properly calculated a per-copy cost for the three-year period without altering Petitioner's machine cost data. Based solely upon data supplied by Petitioner and Saxon, the Department has correctly determined, according to the formula set forth in the bid request, that Saxon's per-copy cost for equipment in the Type I/Class 1 and Type I/Class 1-A categories is lower than that submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner next contends that the Department's bid specifications for bond paper copying machines in the Type I/Class 4 and Type IV/Class 5 System A categories allowed only for machines utilizing a selenium drum, whereby precluding the use of Petitioner's machine which was equipped with a cadmium sulfide drum. Petitioner asserts that the Department " . . . has failed to demonstrate any justification . . ." for the use of a selenium, as opposed to a cadmium sulfide drum, and that " . . . [b]ased on latest available industry-wide data, there is no reason to distinguish between the [selenium] and the [cadmium sulfide] drum used in Petitioner's copying equipment." Although the Department acknowledged that it had no written rules or criteria established for the writing of technical specifications in the Type I/Class 4 and Type IV/Class 5 System A categories, the Department decided on the use of selenium drums in these categories based upon at least five years favorable experience with the selenium drum. Based upon this experience, and a familiarity with literature in the machine copier field, the Department determined that machines equipped with the selenium drum were generally guaranteed for greater volumes than a cadmium sulfide drum equipped machine, and that machines with selenium drums were less susceptible to breakdown in greater volume categories. On the other hand, information available to the Department indicated that machines with cadmium sulfide drums were less likely to withstand heavy usage in types and classifications requiring greater copy volume. Finally, on this issue, at no time prior to the opening of the bids in these categories did Petitioner either question the Department's specifications or attempt to have the Department amend its specifications in these types and classes in order to allow for machines equipped with cadmium sulfide drums. Petitioner neither submitted to the Department prior to bid opening, nor submitted any evidence at the hearing in this cause to substantiate its allegations that the Department was not justified in requiring machines with selenium drums in these categories. In addition, Petitioner failed to submit any evidence to substantiate its allegation that, based upon latest available industry-wide data, there was no rational basis to distinguish between the selenium and cadmium sulfide drums. In its third and fourth affirmative defenses, the Department asserts that Petitioner, in submitting its bid, failed to disclose the name of a corporate officer who was also an employee of the State of Florida, and also failed to disclose indirect ownership of ten percent (10 percent) or more of the Petitioner corporation by an employee of the State of Florida. In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact concluding that the Department reasonably interpreted and correctly applied the bid specification pertaining to the calculation of monthly preventive maintenance costs for the Type I/Class 1 and Type I/Class 1-A categories and that the Department's bid specification requiring a selenium drum for the Type I/Class 4 and Type IV/Class 5 System A categories was a reasonable one, it is unnecessary to reach, and this Recommended Order does not reach the question of whether Petitioner complied or failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.
