Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of March, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 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 by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 22nd day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Corrections (Corrections) initially published an Invitation to Bid (ITB) 90-Region-001 for the provision of a recyclable baling machine which had an opening date and time of 1:00 p.m., August 22, 1989. Upon opening and evaluation of the bids filed in response to ITB 90- Region-001, Corrections' purchasing and technical staff determined that the specifications for this initial ITB had been drafted too narrowly for them to validly and reasonably compare the bids submitted. This was Corrections' first attempt to meet certain recycling mandates and the agency personnel were initially unfamiliar with all of the machinery available in the marketplace. Lack of technical literature from some bidders was also a problem. In comparing the five bid responses received, it became apparent to Barbara Stephens, Corrections' Purchasing Director, that the specifications she had initially drafted worked against agency interests in that they were so narrow that different models could not be compared. In Ms. Stephens' words, one could not even compare "apples and apples," let alone "apples and oranges." The line item on Page 6 defied comparison and other line items presented significant comparison problems. After a review by Corrections' General Services Specialist Bob Sandall, it was determined that it was to the agency's advantage, as well as advantageous to the competitive bidding process, to rebid on more general specifications instead of specifications solely geared to one single model of one type of baler already owned by the agency, a McDonald single phase baler. For the foregoing reasons, Corrections elected to reject all bids received in response to ITB 90-Region-001 and rebid the item so as to broaden the eligibility base through new specifications, thereby ensuring that more than a single manufacturer could compete while making line item comparisons by the agency possible. Line item comparisons were considered advantageous to all potential bidders and to the agency and essential to a fair competitive bidding process. Considering purely bottom-line cost, Petitioner Solid Waste was the low bidder on initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 if its mathematical error were ignored and its bid were recorded as $23,960.00 instead of as $35,970.00. There were apparently some other problems with Solid Waste's bid response. These were not clearly addressed by any witness' testimony, but it is apparent that the requested manufacturer's specification sheet was included with Solid Waste's response to ITB 90-Region-001. Corrections did not reach any of the potential bid defects of Solid Waste because the agency elected to discard all the bids almost immediately. Rule 13A-1.002(9) F.A.C. provides that an agency shall reserve the right to reject any and all bids and shall so indicate in its invitation to bid. Corrections followed this requirement in General Condition 10 of ITB No. 90- Region-001, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids . . Bob Sandall and Barbara Stephens redrafted the bid specifications for the recyclable baling machine more broadly, primarily to encourage greater competition of bidders. Corrections properly published these new specifications in ITB No. 90-Region-001 on or about September 18, 1989. Bids were to be opened on October 3, 1989. On October 3, 1989, the bids submitted in response to ITB No. 90- Region-001 were opened and checked for completeness. Upon opening the bid packet submitted by Petitioner Solid Waste, Corrections personnel discovered that the manufacturer's specification sheet which had been required in both initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 and in rebid ITB No. 90- Region-001R was missing. Based on the missing specification sheet, Petitioner's bid on ITB No. 90-Region- 001R was rejected as unresponsive. General Condition 7 in ITB 90-Region-001R provided in pertinent part: Bidder shall submit with his bid, cuts, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications. Reference to literature submitted with a pervious bid will not satisfy this provision. The State of Florida reserves the right to determine acceptance of item(s) as an approved equivalent. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subiect to reiection. (Emphasis supplied) Special Condition VI of ITB 90-Region-001R, "Submission of Mandatory Forms/Literature," further provided that: 5. Complete Technical Data on items other than as specified shall be provided with bid by the vendor, for evaluation purposes, otherwise bid will not be considered. Nowhere in ITB 90-Region-001R is there any suggestion that responses thereto are supplemental to those filed for ITB 90-Region-001 or that "carryovers" or "reactivations" of earlier ITB 90-Region-001 responses would be considered. Corrections rejected other bidders' responses for other acts of non- responsiveness, and it was not necessary to waive any condition in order to award the bid to any of the bidders who were in full compliance with ITB 90- Region-001R. Petitioner timely filed a formal written protest to Corrections' bid tabulation of ITB 90-Region-001R on October 23, 1989. In this protest, Petitioner also included its only and untimely challenge to the agency's rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region-001.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest and ratifying its rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region- O01R and its tabulation of bids for ITB 90-Region-001R. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5854BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1. is accepted except for the ultimate conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. 2-3, 5-7 are rejected as mere legal argument or proposed conclusions of law. See Conclusions of Law. 4 is rejected as characterization of testimony. Respondent' s PFOF: 1-7 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. K. Lally, P.A. 6160 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Perri M. King Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Courtesy copy to: Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Thomas W. Riggs, President Department of Corrections Municipal Sales and Leasing 1311 Winewood Boulevard Inc. Post Office Box 90306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lakeland, Florida, 33804 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the Department issued an Advertisement for Bids (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (Department Project No. NV-30A, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving the expansion of the water treatment facility at the Martin Correctional Institution. The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a two-volume Specifications Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") that was made available for public inspection. Section B of the Manual's first volume contained the Instructions. Section B-2 2.A.(11) thereof provided that "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications must be submitted and the qualifications listed therein must be satisfactory to the Owner and the Engineer. " "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications" was a "Bidder's Qualification Form, Reverse Osmosis Treatment System Component" (hereinafter referred to as the "R.O. Form"), on which the bidder was to provide "R.O. [Reverse Osmosis] System Supplier" information. The R.O. Form repeated the directive that the bidder was to "[r]eturn [the] [c]ompleted [R.O.] Form [w]ith [its] proposal." Section B-14 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "preparation and submission of bids" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Bidder shall copy the proposal form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the Base Bid and for alternates on which he bids. . . . Proposals containing . . . . items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Section B-16 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "disqualification of bidders" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that a Bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the same work will cause the rejection of all proposals in which such Bidders are believed to be interested. The subject of "contract award" was addressed in Section B-21 of the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The qualified bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that bidder who has submitted the lowest price for the base bid, or the base bid plus additive alternates or less deductive alternates, taken in the numerical order listed in the bid documents in an amount to be determined by the Owner. The Order of the alternates may be accepted by the Owner in any sequence so long as such acceptance does not alter the designation of the low bidder. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. Section C of Volume I of the Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use to indicate their bid prices. The following statement appeared at the bottom of the second page of the Proposal Form: There is enclosed: A certified check, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or Bid Bond in the amount of not less than five (5) percent of the Base Bid payable to the Department of Corrections, as a guarantee. An executed Trench Excavation Safety Certification, Section F-13. An executed Experience Questionnaire and Contractor's Financial Statement and Public Entity Criminal Conviction Form, Section L. An executed Bidder's Qualifications Form (Reverse Osmosis), Technical Specification Section 01420. While one completed R.O. Form had to accompany each bid, there was no provision in any of the bid documents issued by the Department requiring a bidder to submit only one such completed form and no more. Petitioner, McMahan and R.J. Sullivan Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sullivan") were among the contractors that timely submitted bids in response to the Advertisement. McMahan's and Sullivan's bids were each accompanied by more than one completed R.O. Form. Petitioner, on the other hand, provided the Department with only one completed R.O. Form along with its bid. Of the bids submitted, McMahan's was the lowest, Sullivan's was the second lowest and Petitioner's was the third lowest. McMahan's base bid price was $857,000.00. Petitioner's was $905,000.00. McMahan's total price, including the nine additive alternates accepted by the Department, was $948,000.00. Petitioner's was $1,032,600.00, $84,600.00 more than McMahan's. By letter dated July 1, 1993, the Department advised McMahan of its intent "to award the contract [for Department Project No. NV-30A] to [McMahan] as the lowest responsive bidder." On July 9, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the preliminary determination to award the contract to McMahan alleging that McMahan was not a responsive bidder inasmuch as McMahan "submitted Reverse Osmosis ("R.O.") Qualifications Forms for more tha[n] one vendor." According to Petitioner, "[t]his [was] not in conformance with the Bid Documents and gave [McMahan] an unfair advantage."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order finding Petitioner's bid protest to be without merit and awarding McMahan, as the lowest responsive and qualified bidder, the contract for Department Project No. NV-30A. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of September, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The Department of Corrections sought bids for construction of a health services building for a correctional facility. A discrepancy existed between the written specifications and the architectural drawings for the project. An addendum was issued to clarify the matter. The low bidder (Intervenor) did not acknowledge receipt of the addendum until several hours after the opening of bids. The Department accepted the Intervenor's bid. The Petitioner timely protested the action. The issue in this case is whether, in accepting the Intervenor's bid, the Department acted contrary to the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1990, the Department of Corrections (hereinafter "Department") issued an Invitation To Bid ("ITB") for PR-35-JRA, Project #90015, consisting of the construction of a Health Classification Building at the Columbia County Correctional Institution. In relevant part, the ITB requested price proposals for said construction, provided that the bid would be awarded to the responsive bidder submitting the lowest cost proposal, provided that "in the interest" of the Department, "any informality" in bids could be waived, and provided space on the bid form for acknowledgment of receipt of all addenda to the ITB. Bids were to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 11, 1990, the time scheduled for bid opening. Documents issued with the ITB included architectural drawings and written specifications for the building. The architectural firm of Jim Roberson and Associates, (hereinafter "JRA") had been employed by the Department to prepare the drawings and specifications. JRA was responsible for preparation and distribution of related addenda. Further, a JRA representative presided over the opening of bids on behalf of the Department. Following release of the ITB and supporting documents, JRA became aware of a conflict between sink faucets required by the drawings and those required by the written specifications. The specifications provided that sink faucets operated by hand levers or foot pedals were to be installed in the facility. The architectural drawings JRA indicated that sink faucets were to operate by means of "electric-eye" activators, rather than by hand levers or foot pedals. On September 10, 1990, JRA issued an addendum (identified as Addendum #2) 1/ to clarify that "electric-eye" type operators were to be included in the bids. The addendum was sent by telephone facsimile machine to all anticipated bidders. In part the addendum provides as follows: "This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Specifications and Drawings, dated 31 July 1990, as noted below. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to Disqualification." On September 11, 1990, the eight bids submitted in response to the ITB were opened by the JRA representative. The Intervenor, Custom Construction (hereinafter "Custom"), submitted the lowest bid at $898,898. The Petitioner, David Nixon (hereinafter "Nixon"), submitted the next lowest bid at $900,000. The bid form provided by the Department as part of the ITB materials to prospective bidders provided space for acknowledgment of addenda to the ITB documents. Upon opening the bid submitted by Custom, the JRA representative officiating at the opening noted that the Custom bid failed to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the appropriate space on the bid form. 2/ Robert L. Harris, president of Custom Construction, attended the bid opening. When the JRA representative noted the lack of acknowledgment of Addendum #2, Mr. Harris stated that he was unaware of the addendum. At hearing, Mr. Harris testified that his secretary told him that Addendum #2 was not received by his office. The JRA representative testified that his review of JRA's FAX transmission records indicated that the FAXed Addendum #2 was received by all bidders. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Addendum #2 was transmitted to and received by, all bidders. Upon leaving the bid opening, Mr. Harris immediately contacted his plumbing subcontractor, Jerry Stratyon, and discussed the situation. Approximately two hours after the bid opening, and after talking with Mr. Stratton, Mr. Harris notified JRA, in a letter transmitted by FAX machine to JRA, that his bid price did include plumbing fixtures required by Addendum #2. Mr. Harris concluded the letter, "[w]hen can we start work. I know you don't want the alternate." On October 8, 1990, JRA recommended to the Department, that the Custom bid be accepted. The letter of recommendation, in part, provides: The apparent low bidder however, did not verify receipt of Addendum No. 2 on the Bid Proposal. Our office did receive a, facsimile after the bid verifying Addendum NO. 2 receipt from the Contractor's Office." However, the actual letter from Custom to JRA states, not that Addendum #2 was received, but that it was included in the price bid by Custom's plumbing subcontractor. Both Nixon and Custom obtained plumbing bids from the same subcontractor, Jerry Stratton. The cost increase attendant to the requirements of Addendum #2 is approximately $2,400 over the plumbing fixtures indicated in the written project specifications. Mr. Stratton was aware of Addendum #2 and testified that the requirements of Addendum #2 were reflected in his price quotes to both bidders. Mr. Stratton provided the same price bid to Nixon and Custom. Mr. Stratton also provided bids to Nixon and Custom for HVAC work. Mr. Stratton was accepted as Custom's HVAC subcontractor. Nixon's bid indicates that another HVAC subcontractor will perform the cork should Nixon receive the contract. The ITB provided that bid modification or withdrawal was permitted on written or telegraphic request received from a bidder prior to the time fixed for opening. Mr. Harris did not attempt to either withdraw or modify Custom's bid prior to bid opening. No bid modification was permitted subsequent to the bid opening. The Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of the State and would not be unfair to other bidders. The evidence does not establish that Custom Construction's failure to acknowledge the addendum was purposefully designed to permit withdrawal of their bid subsequent to the public bid opening. The omission of acknowledgment of Addendum #2 provided Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid that was not available to other bidders. Custom could have informed the Department that the bid price did not include the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bid could have been withdrawn. Custom was therefore provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had no opportunity to, and would not have been permitted to, withdraw their aids. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order rejecting the bid submitted by Intervenor as nonresponsive and awarding the contract to the Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1994, the Respondent received and opened bids for its Project No. HSMV 92044000, Repairs, Art Sutton Drivers' License Office, Miami, Florida (the Project). The bid specification documents (the Specifications) for the Project included requirements for a Base Bid and for specific alternate proposals with respect to three defined items of alternate work. Section 01100 of the Specifications stated that "[a]ll Alternates described in this Section are required to be reflected on the Bid Form as submitted by the bidder." Part 2 of that section provided: ALTERNATE NO. 1 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the removal of existing window units and the installation of new units as indicated in plans and specification Section 08520. ALTERNATE NO. 2 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the provision of communications conductors see specification Section 16400. ALTERNATE No. 3 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the installation of all landscape materials as indicated on plans and as per specification Section 02960. Also included in the Specifications as Exhibit 4 was a Proposal Form. The Specifications required each bidder to submit this form in triplicate on the bidder's letterhead. With respect to alternates, the Proposal Form required: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ The Respondent's architect received four bids on August 31, 1994. As recorded on the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation, three bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates, as well as a Base Bid. The Bid Tabulation shows that two bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates and included the alternate prices in their Base Bids. The Petitioner provided specific prices for the three alternates, but excluded the alternate prices from its Base Bid. The fourth bidder provided a specific price for only one alternate and excluded that alternate price from its Base Bid. (The fourth bidder was disqualified as non-responsive for failing to submit prices on all three alternates.) In pertinent part, the Petitioner's proposal read: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications: Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct . . . $4,400.00 Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct . . . $1,158.00 Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct . . . $2,084.00 These Alternates were in addition to the Petitioner's Base bid of $204,322.00. The proposal form submitted by the Petitioner comports with Exhibit 4 to the Specifications, which was the mandatory Proposal Form. On August 31, 1994, William Phillip Austin, Peitioner's President, wrote the architect: Per our telephone conversation this date regard- ing the confusion relating to the Add/Deduct for Alternates 1, 2 and 3 for the above project, please be advised that our base bid did not include the work described in the Alternates. As stated if you want work described in Alternates 1, 2 and 3, you must add the cost to our base bid. The base bid including Alternates 1, 2 and 3 would, therefore, be $211,964.00. If we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Respondent's architect completed and submitted the bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation to the Respondent in early September. The document clearly discloses the amounts of each bidder's Base Bid and Alternate proposals. Using plus (+) and minus (-) signs, the Bid Tabulation further shows each bidder's method of calculation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent had any problem in evaluating the bids and identifying the lowest bidder. The Petitioner was the lowest bidder on any combination of base bid plus or minus any or all alternates. Subsequently the Petitioner received a NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION dated October 4, 1994. The Notice informed the Petitioner that the Respondent "has recommended that the contract be awarded to your firm in the total amount of $211,964.00, accepting the Base Bid and Alternates #1, #2 & #3. The Administrator of Contracts Design and Permitting, Division of Building Construction, Department of Management Services, State of Florida will consider this recommendation." Larry R. Coleman, Construction Projects Administrator, signed the letter. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt. A representative of the second lowest bidder, Kalex Construction, then contacted the Respondent, complaining of the Award Recommendation. The grounds for the Kalex complaint are not in the record. However, on October 14, 1994, H. R. Hough, the Respondent's Contracts Administrator, sent the Petitioner a letter "to notify you of the State's decision to reject all bids on the above referenced project due to ambiguities in the specifications." Mr. Hough's reasons for the rejection are "other than those stated by the protestor," Kalex. The Respondent's Rule 60D-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, states: Determination of Successful Bidder. All projects except where competitive bidding is waived under the provisions of Rule 60D-5.008 will be publicly bid in accordance with the provisions in the project specifications bidding documents. Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder, determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents, that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract, taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Under the above-quoted rule, the Respondent compares bids beginning with the lowest "base bid." The Respondent is of the view that for this comparison to be fair and equal, all bidders must include the same scope of work in the "base bid." The Respondent does not interpret the above-quoted rule to allow deductive alternates from some bidders and additive alternates from others. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, the Respondent's interpretation and application of the above-quoted rule is erroneous.) The Specifications contain some ambiguous and inconsistent language regarding whether alternates should be treated as additive or deductive. The ambiguous and inconsistent language did not provide any bidder with an advantage or a disadvantage, nor did it otherwise affect the fairness of the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order in this case awarding a contract for the subject project to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: This is primarily a statement of position and is addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 2 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. Third sentence is accepted as an accurate statement of how Respondent has been interpreting the subject rule, but is not accepted as constituting a correct interpretation of the rule. Paragraph 8: Rejected as misleading and confusing because the "scope of work" to be performed under the contract can only be determined after the Respondent decides which alternates to include and which to exclude. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esquire Armstrong & Mejer Suite 1111 Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Lee County School District (District) Invitation to Bid #4908 (ITB) was provided to the vendors on December 9, 1992. The ITB sought bids for 61 hardware and tool items to be used in the District Supply Department. The District maintains an inventory of hundreds of miscellaneous hardware items. Quantities of available materials are monitored through a computerized system which is used to generate a list of items which need to be replenished. The District has historically utilized ITB's to acquire hardware items in order to maintain appropriate inventory levels. Eight sealed bids were opened on January 6, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Bids were submitted by Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware, W.W. Grainger, Action Bolt & Tool, Biscayne Electric & Hardware Distributors, Bob Dean Supply, Scotty's, Shadbolt & Boyd, and the Petitioner. The ITB states that the School District of Lee County: reserves the right to waive minor variations to specifications, informalities, irregularities and technicalities in any bids; to reject any and all bids in whole or in part with or without cause, and/or to accept bids that in its judgement will be in the best interest of the District. The District further reserves the right to make awards on a multiple, lump sum, or individual item basis or combination as shall best serve the interest of the District unless otherwise stated. Three of the vendors bid on all 61 items. The remaining vendors bid on some but not all of the items. The bids were tabulated by personnel in the Purchasing Department. The information in the bids is set forth in tabulation sheets which facilitate comparison of buds. On January 7, 1993, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Respondent stating that there were only "two authentic submissions: Ace Hardware and S.W. Supply, Inc." The tabulation sheets and additional materials included in the bid responses were forwarded to the Supply Department where supply personnel reviewed the submissions and made recommendations to the Purchasing Department as to which vendors should receive awards. As part of the evaluation of the bid proposals, the District determined that the cost of the total bid award would be lower if the awards were made on an individual item basis. The District considered prompt payment discounts in making this determination. The total amount of the proposed awards to the eight vendors is $7,104.55. Were the Petitioner to receive awards for all items, the total amount of the award would be $7,965.00, accounting for the Petitioner's proposed prompt payment discount. The Purchasing Department posted a Notice of Intention to Award on January 15, 1993. The proposed awards were made on an individual item basis. All eight vendors received awards. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest. Subsequent to the January 15 posting, the Petitioner discovered several errors in determining the proposed awards. In the Petitioner's formal protest, four awards are identified as incorrect. Despite the Petitioner protest, the first item identified was correctly awarded because the Petitioner failed to account for the prompt payment discount offered by the winning vendor. A second item protest was based on clerical error and was withdrawn by the Petitioner. The two remaining items were resolved and were addressed in a corrected Notice of Intention to Award posted February 16, 1993. There is no evidence that the errors were other than mistakes made in calculation or transcription of bid data from the vendor's documents to the bid tabulation form. No further specifically challenged items were identified by the Petitioner prior to the hearing. General condition 1.d. of the ITB states as follows: For purposes of evaluation, the bidder must indicate any variances from specifications, terms and/or conditions regardless of how slight. If variations are not stated in the proposal, it will be assumed that the product or service fully complies with the specifications, terms and conditions herein. (emphasis supplied) General condition 6 of the ITB states as follows: Use of brand names, trade names, make, model, manufacturer, or vendor Catalog Number in the specifications is for the purpose of establishing a grade or quality of material only. It is not the District's intent to rule out other competition; therefore, the phrase OR APPROVED EQUAL is added. However, if a product other that specified is bid, it is the vendor's responsibility to submit with the bid brochures, samples and/or detailed specifications on item(s) bid. The District shall be the sole judge concerning the merits of bids submitted. If a bidder does not indicate what he is offering in the proper blank and if the bidder is successful in being awarded the item(s) then the bidder shall be obligated to furnish the specified item(s). If packing is different from that specified, the bidder must note manner and amounts in which packing is to be made. (emphasis supplied) Only one vendor, Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware, proposed to supply all items exactly as specified in the ITB. The remaining vendor proposals included at least some items which varied in some respects from the items identified in the ITB. Where a vendor fails to identify that a product bid is "not as specified", the proposal is evaluated as if all specifications have been met, in which event, price is the determining factor in determining the award. Where a vendor identifies a variance related to a specified item, the proposal is evaluated as if all specifications other than the identified variance are met. If the product is determined by the Supply Department to be the equivalent of the product identified in the ITB, price is again the determining factor in determining the award. Where the ITB specifies a brand name followed by the word "ONLY", the vendor may not bid another brand. Where the ITB does not qualify the brand name as "only", the vendor may propose an equivalent product. Where a vendor does not identify the brand name of the item to be supplied, the vendor presumed to be bidding an item which will meet the specifications. If the vendor delivers goods which are not as specified, the District rejects delivery and cancels the order. The evidence establishes that, where bid items were not as specified in the ITB, the District had access to sufficient information to permit a determination of equivalency and an award of bids. The evidence fails to establish that, except as stated herein, the Petitioner should have received an award other that as set forth in the February 16, 1993, Notice of Intent to Award. General condition 5 of the ITB states as follows: Cash discount for prompt payment of invoices will be considered in making awards. The District prefers cash discount items which allow at least twenty (20) days for approval and payment of invoices. Four vendors included proposals for prompt payment discounts in the responses. One vendor offered a 2 percent discount for payment within 20 days, one offered a 1 percent discount for payment within 15 days and one offered a 1 percent discount for payment within 10 days. The Petitioner offered a 12 per cent discount for payment within five days, but only if the Petitioner received the award for all items bid. The District preference for a 20 day payment period reflects the time needed to accept delivery, process invoices and make payment for goods received. The District has accepted a five day prompt payment discount when the purchase was for a single item and the delivery date was specified. Such payment is otherwise difficult and results in other vendor payments being delayed. There is no evidence that based on the costs of goods involved in this bid, the savings are of such event as to warrant such extraordinary treatment of deliveries and invoices. General condition 16 of the ITB states as follows: Any and all special conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Special condition 1 of the ITB states as follows: A SAMPLE OR COMPLETE SPECIFICATION SHEET MUST ACCOMPANY EACH BID ITEM THAT IS NOT "AS SPECIFIED." IF AN ITEM CANNOT BE EVALUATED, IT WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware submitted product brochures or other materials related to items bid. The Petitioner submitted an extensive selection of photocopies pages from a hardware product catalog. W.W. Grainger submitted an index of part numbers and identified where such parts could be located in the Grainger catalog, which was on file with the District. Action Bolt and Tool included product information by brand name and model number in the ITB response. The remaining four vendors (Biscayne Electric & Hardware Distributors, Bob Dean Supply, Scotty's, and Shadbolt & Boyd) attached no specification sheets or other descriptive materials for items bid. As stated previously, the ITB directed vendors to submit specification sheets for "not as specified" items. The request for such information was intended to facilitate the review of the bids by eliminating the need for District personnel to consult vendor product catalogs already in the District files. The ITB also provided for disqualification where an item could not be evaluated. The Petitioner asserts that the failure to submit such product information materials with the bids is a material defect which cannot be waived and which renders the bids nonresponsive. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Of the four vendors which included no specification sheets, all four had product catalogs on file in the Purchasing and/or Supply Departments of the Lee County School Board. The District had sufficient information to evaluate the bids submitted by the vendors with catalogs on file. The Petitioner asserts that it was disadvantaged by the District's decision to waive the failure to attach specification sheets where catalogs were on file, because it was allegedly not possible to compare his bid to those submitted by the other vendors. The evidence does not support the assertion. The relevant catalogs are on file in the Purchasing and Supply Departments of the District and are available for public inspection. There is no evidence that the Petitioner sought at any time to reference the materials on file. The fact that the omitted specification sheets made such a comparison less convenient than it would have been had such sheets been attached to the bids does not render the bid proposals nonresponsive. At hearing, the Petitioner challenged many of the individual intended awards announced by the District. Prior to the hearing, the Petitioner had not asserted that such items were inappropriately awarded. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would be entitled to an award of any of the additional items challenged at hearing. In the case of individual items, a bidder other than the Petitioner would be entitled to the award if the Petitioner's challenge succeeded. None of the other bidders challenged the proposed bid awards. No vendors intervened in this proceeding. Accordingly the Petitioner is not affected by such individual awards and is without standing to challenge the items first identified at hearing. The Petitioner asserted that if the low bidder for each identified product is disqualified, and the next lowest bid included in the total bid calculation, the Petitioner's total bid, including the prompt payment discount, would be lower than the total of individual bids, and that accordingly, he would be entitled to an award of all items. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The Petitioner identified one item at hearing for which the Petitioner should have received the award. The ITB sought bids to supply 24 galvanized one quart metal funnels, item #58115. One of the vendors proposed to supply a plastic funnel at a cost of .56 each. The next lowest bidder was the Petitioner which proposed to supply the metal funnel requested at a cost of $1.44 each. On a previous bid, a plastic funnel was proposed by a vendor and rejected by the District as not meeting the specifications. Although in the instant case, purchasing personnel were informed by supply personnel that a plastic funnel would serve the same purpose and was acceptable, the vendors were not provided the opportunity to bid on the provision of the plastic funnels. General condition 9.c. of the ITB states as follows: If the material and/or services supplied to the District is found to be defective or does not conform to specifications, the District reserves the right to cancel the order upon written notice to the seller and return the product to the seller at the seller's expense. In other words, the District has the right to reject delivery and cancel orders for items which are not as specified in the ITB and for which no variance was identified by the successful vendor. A vendor delivering goods which are not as specified in the vendor's proposal will not be invited to participate in the ITB process for an indeterminate period of time. At hearing, the Petitioner asserted that item #58800 (a plastic sheet of twelve garden hose washers) was mistakenly awarded to a vendor whose proposal was for individual washers rather than the sheet. The Respondent acknowledged that accordingly the proposed vendor's bid was not the lowest. The next two lowest bids (one of which is an "as specified" bid) were received from vendors other than the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore would not receive this award. The Petitioner asserts that some bidders did not complete "drug-free workplace" forms. Although correct, the assertion is irrelevant. Such forms are used to determine award winners where there are identical bids ("ties"). There were no tie bids related to this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The School Board of Lee County enter a Final Order directing that the District Purchasing Department refrain from purchasing item #58115 pending the next invitation to vendors to submit bids for miscellaneous hardware supplies and otherwise DISMISSING the Petitioner's Notice of Bid Protest. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1993, 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 2nd day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-1260BID 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: 7. Rejected, irrelevant. Item #58038 does not require that ONLY an Ace Hardware item may be bid. Based on the ITB, it is clear that the item bid by Action Bolt & Tool meets the specifications set forth in the proposal. 11-12. Rejected, irrelevant. 14. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner attempted to obtain the materials used by District personnel to evaluate the bids. 16-17. Rejected, irrelevant. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 9. Rejected, immaterial. 23. Rejected, irrelevant. 28. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Garey F. Butler, Esquire Humphrey & Knott 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
