The Issue The issues presented in this proceeding are whether Petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid on CTB 5998 and whether Petitioner is entitled to the bid award.
Findings Of Fact On November 5, 1990, Florida A & M University, acting as the agent of the Board of Regents, issued a Call to Bid (CTB) for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium (repainting project). The total project was estimated to cost $595,000.00. The funds for the project would come from the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget. 1/ Specifically, the funds for the repainting project were appropriated by the legislature as a specific line item in the 1990-1991 budget. The line in the budget read, "Fire Code Corrections/Repainting-Bragg Stadium (includes $490,000.00 Reimb. to Aux. Fund), of $682,000.00." The $682,000.00 figure was obtained from several documents submitted by FAMU to the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents then submitted the University's budget requests to the Commissioner of Education who, in turn, submitted an integrated budget to the governor and legislature. See Chapter 216 and 235, Florida Statutes, for the specifics of this budgetary process. The beginning of the budgetary process in relation to the repainting project occurred on October 16, 1989, when Louis A. Murray, the Associate Vice President of Florida A&M sent a document titled "the University's 1990-91/1992- 93 Capital Improvement Fee Project List for Legislative Consideration" to Dr. Carl Blackwell, the Vice Chancellor for Budgets. The document contained two attachments entitled "Capital Improvement Fee Project List, Project Information Sheet" (Project Information Sheet) for the fire code corrections at Bragg Stadium and the repainting of Bragg Stadium. It also included a Project Information Sheet for the remodeling of the Commons Building. The Project Information sheet dealing with the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium contained the amount of funding being requested by FAMU for the repainting project and a breakdown of the project's estimated costs. The project cost detail for the repainting of Bragg Stadium states: Construction $495,000.00 (Assumes bid date of 1991) Professional Fees . . . . 43,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . 30,000.00 Contingency . . . . . 27,000.00 Total Project Cost: $595,000.00 Importantly, the Project Information Sheet for the repainting of Bragg Stadium contains the basis utilized by FAMU to arrive at the repainting project's estimate. FAMU represented in the Project Information Sheet as follows: The basis for the estimate is the bid experience of a prior advertisement of the project by our own Plant Operations Maintenance Office, which came in at over $400,000. 2/ This estimate was again verified in a letter, dated October 25, 1989, from Dr. Murray to Dr. Blackwell. The letter states, in part, as follows: . . . . Since the opportunity for completing this project is between football seasons, the University wishes to advance dollar requirements from its Auxiliary Trust Fund with expected reimbursement from Capital Improvement Trust Fund after Legislative approval on July 1, 1990. This action will permit us to proceed with the Bid process and construction contract through completion before the 1990 football season. The scope of this project is summarized as follows: This project includes sandblasting, repainting and structural repairs for Bragg Stadium. Sandblasting and repainting is estimated at $415,000, while structural repair, primarily isolated rust spots, will cost approximately $75,000. . . . . The total estimate in Dr. Murray's October 25, 1990, letter was $490,000.00. It was this letter which prompted the parenthetical language in the line item of the General appropriations act for 1990-1991, passed by the legislature and enacted it to law. The Project Information Sheet for the fire code corrections to Bragg Stadium (fire code project) contained a project cost detail as follows: Construction $70,000.00 Professional . . . . . 7,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . (No entry) Contingency . . . . . 10,000.00 Total Project Cost: $87,000.00 The contract for the fire code corrections was let for bid prior to the repainting project. The amount of the contract for the fire code project was approximately $107,000.00. This contract amount exceeded the amount of the construction portion of the Project Cost Detail of $70,000.00 shown in the Project Information Sheet for the fire code project. Dr. Murray testified that this action was acceptable because it was within the discretion of Florida A&M to use the $682,000.00 appropriation to perform the fire code project in any amount it deemed appropriate, without regard to the break-outs shown in the Project Information Sheets. However, even assuming the correctness of Dr. Murray's position and deducting the amount of the fire code project's contract and the architectural fees of $7,000.00 listed in the Project Information Sheet, $568,000.00 of the original budgeted amount of $682,000.00 would remain for use on the repainting project. Florida A&M University, also prepared a document titled, "Summary of Capital Improvement Fee Projects for 1990-91/1992-93." The document is a summary of Florida A&M's budget requests for those years. This document also lists the fire code project and the repainting project along with the requested funding for those projects for the years 1990 through 1991. The funds requested for the projects are broken into three categories; Planning, Construction and Equipment. The entries for the repainting project show that the amount of $522,000.00 is for "Construction". The $522,000.00 figure was obtained by taking the $495,000.00 figure for construction contained within the Project Information Sheet for the repainting project, and adding the amount of the contingency cost ($27,000.00) for the project which was also shown on the Project Information Sheet. The combined total for the two projects was $682,000.00, the exact amount appropriated by the legislature for the two projects. Once the legislature had appropriated the money, FAMU, on November 5, 1990, requested that A Capital Outlay Implementation Plan be established with the Capital Outlay Trust Fund. The establishment of such a Plan is similar to creating a special account within the trust fund from which the University can draw. On November 26, 1990, the Plan was established for both projects in the amount of $682,000.00, as had been appropriated by the legislature. 3/ The Capital Outlay Implementation Plan contained a section titled, "estimated budget". The estimated budget contained estimates for the various phases of both projects as follows: Construction. $565,000 Professional Fees. 50,000 Furnishings and Equipment. 30,000 Contingencies. 37,000 .................................$682,000 Significantly, these documents were the only pre-established construction budgets developed by FAMU prior to the opening of the bids in this case. 4/ The specific pre-established construction budget for the repainting project was $522,000.00. Later, after the filing of the bid protest, FAMU would attempt to render a strained interpretation of the phrase "pre-established construction budget" contained in the bid specifications and engage in some inappropriate accounting in order to create several lower budget estimates. The Bid Package for CTB 5998 provided in the "Instructions to Bidders", Item D-21, Rejection of Bids, as follows: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the owner such rejection is in the best interest of the owner. The Bid Package further provided in the "Instructions to Bidders" at B-23, Contract Award, page 16 of 106, in relevant part: The contract will be awarded by the Florida Board of Regents for projects $500,000 or more, and by the President of the University, on behalf of the Florida Board of Regents, for projects of less than $500,000.00, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the owner to accept it. . . . The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. The aggregate bid shall consist of the base bid plus accepted active alternate bids, or less accepted deductive alternate bids, applied in the numerical order in which they are listed on the bid form. If the base bid exceeds the amount of the pre-established construction budget, the owner may reject all bids. (Emphasis added) A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on December 6, 1990, and was attended by seventeen contractors, including Petitioner. By the terms of the bid package, the bid opening date was set for December 18, 1990. However, by addendum, the bid opening date was extended to December 21, 1990. Seven bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. 5/ The bids were opened at 10:00 a.m. on December 21, 1990, at the conference center of Florida A&M University. The bids were opened by Chuks Onwunli on behalf of Florida A&M, and tabulated by William Sabella, a representative of the architectural firm , Barnett, Fronczak Architects, the consulting architects for the repainting project. The opening and tabulation of all the bids was recorded on a document titled "Bid Tabulation". The result of the opening was that Phoenix Coating was the low bidder with a bid of $419,000.00. Feimster-Peterson, Inc., was the second lowest bidder with a bid of $474,320.00, and Monoko, Inc., was the third low bidder with a bid of 487,462.00. The four other bidders listed on the bid tabulation sheet were all over the amount of $490,000.00. 6/ As can be seen from the numbers, the top three bids were well within the pre-established construction budget for the repainting project. On December 21, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent a Notice of Protest by telecopy and overnight delivery for delivery on Monday, December 24th. The basis of the protest was that the low bidder, Phoenix Coating, was not responsive because it had not attended the mandatory pre-bid conference and had not complied with the minority participation requirements of the specifications. On December 28, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent its formal protest to Forrest Kelly, the Director of Capital Programs at the Florida Board of Regents by telecopy and by overnight delivery with delivery on December 31, 1990. The formal protest was filed in a timely manner. On or about January 14, 1991, Oscar Martinez, the Purchasing Director for Florida A&M issued a letter regarding Bid No. 5927 for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium. 7/ The letter rejected all seven bids. Phoenix Coating's bid was found to be nonresponsive because it did not meet the 15% minority participation requirements of Bid 5998 and because the company had not attended the December 6, 1990, mandatory pre-bid meeting. Because Phoenix Coating's bid was non-responsive, Petitioner became the lowest responsive bid on CTB 5998. The letter further advised that the other six bids, including Petitioner's bid, were rejected because all six bids allegedly exceeded the pre- existing construction budget estimate for the project. The letter did not contain any language affording Petitioner a clear point of entry as required by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The letter did indicate that the University would modify the scope of work. Attached to the same letter was a new invitation to bid. Clearly, at this point in time, FAMU knew or should have known that there was a bid protest filed with it which was unresolved and which required a formal administrative hearing. However, during this time instead of following its statutory duties under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, FAMU, at its peril, chose to re-let the project for bids. The new bid opening was set for February 28, 1991, and a new mandatory pre-bid meeting was also set for February 28, 1991. The bid deadline was extended to March 21, 1991. The scope of the work was not significantly altered in the re-bid. 8/ On or about January 16, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson sent a letter to the Florida Board of Regents. The letter was prompted by Robert Petersen's, president and stockholder of Petitioner, belief that something was not right about the monetary and funding claims that FAMU was putting forth as its basis for rejecting all the bids. In essence, the numbers Mr. Petersen was aware of, which did not include any of the Project Information Sheet figures referenced above, did not make any sense to him. The letter stated, in part, as follows: Re-bidding the Project is unfair to all bidders now that the results of the first bid have been made public. Each bidder now has a target . . . to shoot at which will override the customary free market environment. Rewriting the Specifications will not eliminate this effect. Be advised that Feimster-Peterson requests the opportunity to either see the estimates or negotiate with the Board to reach a mutually acceptable scope of work. I request that you delay re-bidding until this option can be explored. (Emphasis added). On January 23, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson again wrote to the Office of General Counsel at Florida A&M University and stated in relevant part: This letter is to reiterate our concern for the actions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department and regarding the painting contract for Bragg Stadium. We filed bid protest for the Florida Board of Regents filed on December 28, 1990 pursuant to paragraph B-22 of the bid documents. Neither the Florida Board of Regents or the administration of Florida A&M has acted upon our bid protest. The bid protest remains unresolved and we intend to pursue the administrative remedies provided to us through the bid protest procedure. Moreover, it is our position that the decisions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department subsequent to our filing may be included and adjudicated within the administrative procedures of the original bid protest . . . Mr. Martinez apparently takes the position that a new bid protest filing is necessary to formally dispute his decision [about the University's available budget]. As indicated, we disagree and intend to dispute this action within the existing, unresolved bid protest . . . By indicating the precise amount of the budget, Mr. Martinez has eliminated the basic purpose of competitive bidding, which is to achieve the lowest responsive price. All bidders now have a target price, and a minor modification of the specifications will not eliminate this effect. This serves neither Florida A&M's interest nor the interest of the original responsive bidders. Feimster-Peterson has requested that negotiations be commenced so that a mutually beneficial contract price be determined and the contract work commenced. To date, Mr. Martinez has refused to enter such negotiations and have given several oral, unsatisfactory reasons for this position. The Purchasing Department's refusal to negotiate with Feimster-Peterson, the lowest responsible bidder, should be clearly articulated in writing and sent to us. Feimster-Peterson believes such negotiations may prove successful, and work could commence without further delay or expense to Florida A&M . . . . (Emphasis added). Feimster-Peterson intends to pursue its rights under the bid protest originally filed on December 28, 1990. As low responsive bidder, Feimster-Peterson is entitled to an award of the contract . . This letter was sent by both telecopy and Federal Express to Mr. Holifield at the Office of the General Counsel and added the additional issues of whether FAMU's action in regard to this bid constituted bid shopping and whether Petitioner's bid, in fact, exceeded the estimated construction budget for Bid 5998. 9/ Significantly, the Martinez letter did not mention that Respondent was rejecting Petitioner's bid because the University believed that it could increase the number of contractors participating in a re-bid and could achieve a lower price by re-bidding the project. This issue was raised for the first time at the hearing. In that regard, the evidence clearly indicates that Respondent was attempting to shop its bid in order to obtain a lower price by re-bidding the project. Bid shopping is a process by which the general contractor or, as in this case, the owner of a project attempts to play off one bidder against another bidder in order to obtain a lower price. Bid shopping is done either by establishing a target figure which is represented to bidders to be a number which must be beaten in order to obtain the contract; or by the bid shopper relaying the amount of a competitor's bid to a bidder or group of bidders in order to encourage the bidder or group of bidders to lower its bid to below that of the competitor in order to secure the contract. A basic assumption in bid shopping is that the scope of the work is not significantly altered in order to lower the cost of the project. Bid shopping is considered to be unethical in a public competitive bidding situation and has been disapproved of by the Florida courts. In this case, Respondent established a target price in its letter of January 14, 1991, by communicating the amount of the alleged overage, enabling a bidder to calculate the budget figures to shoot for and, at the same time, keeping the scope of the work substantially the same in the re-bid. Additionally, the amount of the bids, as well as details involving those bids became public once the bids were opened, converting the possibility of unfair advantage accruing to potential bidders on the re-bid to a probability of such unfair advantage in this instance. 10/ Such a reason for rejecting the bids in this case strikes at the very heart of the bid process, which is to ensure that bidders have an equal and fair opportunity to have their bids considered and prevent an agency from picking and choosing among various bidders or potential bidders. There was absolutely no evidence which indicated that the number of contractors participating in Bid 5998 was non-competitive or was in any way fundamentally unfair. 11/ By rejecting all the bids in order to attempt to shop its bid, Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and therefore, its rejection of the bids in this case cannot stand. Additionally, Respondent's attempt to reject the bids in order to allegedly increase the number of bidders participating in the re-bid and thereby reduce the price, violated its own specification in the bid documents which states: The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. (emphasis supplied) By going outside the scope of its bid specifications, Respondent has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and may not reject Petitioner's bid on this basis. After the protest of Feimster-Peterson raised the issue of the amount of the budget/estimate and after its request to see the budget, Florida A&M began to review documents to determine its response to Feimster-Peterson. The basis underlying the figures cited in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 13, 1991, was arrived at by subtracting amounts spent by Florida A&M from the $682,000.00 appropriated by the legislature for the fire code and repainting projects. The overage of $55,000.00 claimed in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 14, 1991, was calculated by taking the "proposed budget" of $682,000.00 and subtracting the amount of $257,105.00 "in expenses for the stadium", for an "available balance" of $424,895.00. 12/ It was this account balance which was being claimed by FAMU to be the pre-existing construction budget referred to in the bid documents. Such an account balance does not constitute a pre-established construction budget because the balance was not established prior to the submission or opening of the bids. Additionally, an account balance is simply not a budget as that term is normally defined and used in the bid documents. Mr. Martinez did not identify the source of the expenses or the purpose for those expenditures. Mr. Martinez deferred all questions as to verification of the figures or the purpose of the expenditures to "Bob", which referred to Robert Goodwin, Jr. Mr. Goodwin was and still is, the Director of the Facilities Planning Office of Florida A&M and is responsible for the various purchase orders involved in this case. Mr. Goodwin took his instructions on which purchase order numbers to use from Dr. Murray and/or Dr. Humphries, Associate Vice President and President of Florida A&M University, respectively. For reasons outlined later in this Recommended Order, the expenditures claimed for the stadium are highly suspect. On or about February 6, 1991, Mr. Holifield, General Counsel of Florida A&M University, responded to Petitioner by enclosing a statement of budget estimate for Bid No. 5998. 13/ Attached to Mr. Holifield's letter of February 6th was a memorandum addressed "[t]o whom it may concern" dated February 5, 1991, from Robert Goodwin, Jr., the Director of Facilities & Planning for Florida A&M. The memo stated that the "budget estimate" for the Project was $367,351.00. Mr. Holifield's letter noted that Feimster-Peterson's bid "exceeded the budget estimate by $106,969.00." (emphasis added). He further noted that FAMU had chosen to re-bid the repainting project rather than accept the bid of the Petitioner. Mr. Holifield also addressed the pending bid protest by Feimster-Peterson as follows: Florida A&M University feels that it is the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers of the State of Florida to re-bid this Project rather than to award the job to your client. In view of the discrepancy between the bidder and the client and the estimated budget it would seem that now that you have been provided with the budget estimate, that you and your client would be willing to forego the bid protest which you are attempting to pursue. Rather, it would appear to be far more appropriate for you to simply join in the rebidding process. (emphasis added). Again, the basis for the decreasing budget figure was the legislatively appropriated funds available for the project less amounts which were supposedly attributable to the repainting and fire code projects, i.e. the account balance. However, what the evidence clearly showed was that, like the budget figures underlying Mr. Martinez's assertions in his letter of January 14, 1991, the latest budget figure of $367,351.00 was calculated by Florida A&M subtracting sums for expenditures which were made for projects unrelated to the fire code or repainting projects. In fact, several of the expenditures were for improvements to the public address system at Bragg Stadium. Similarly, some of the amounts claimed to have been expended for the repainting and fire code projects were expended for architectural fees on other projects. 14/ FAMU's officials were aware that such accounting was inappropriate. From this evidence, it appears that FAMU is attempting to spend or has spent money specifically appropriated for two certain purposes on projects unrelated to the appropriation and not approved for such use by either the legislature or the Board of Regents. Since these expenditures are all part of other projects separate and distinct from the fire code and repainting projects, they should not have been subtracted from the amount of money available to FAMU for the repainting project. 15/ There is no doubt that this "budget estimate" and the budget underlying the assertions made by Mr. Martinez in his letter of January 14, 1991, were false and were red herrings, developed after the fact, in an attempt by Respondent to throw Petitioner off the track of an otherwise valid bid protest. Moreover, beyond utilizing improper accounting, one of the most significant facts in this proceeding was that FAMU created no less than eight separate figures which it claimed to be the budgets for this project. Which figure FAMU used depended on who FAMU was dealing with at the time and the result FAMU desired to achieve. Such tactics by an agency are totally unacceptable and the use of such false figures to justify rejection of a bidder's bid is nothing short of bad faith on the part of an agency akin to fraud. Since Petitioner submitted the lowest and best responsive bid, Petitioner, at this point in time, was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. Another point not directly raised by FAMU in this proceeding, but suggested by the underlying facts and necessary to the resolution of this bid protest, is the question of whether bids may be rejected by an agency if the funds necessary to complete the project are no longer available, i.e. the agency has run out of money. On the surface, given the constraints of Florida's finance system, an honest lack of funds would appear to be an appropriate basis for an agency to reject all the bids. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. However, in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that the University no longer has the necessary funds to pay for the repainting project since the actual money from the trust fund has not been disbursed to FAMU and since FAMU's representations in regards to the status of the repainting project's account balance appear to be based on unlawful accounting and are less than credible. Since the evidence did not establish that FAMU no longer has the funds necessary to complete the project, Petitioner was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. However, because of FAMU's actions regarding Petitioner's bid protest which actions were highly prejudicial to Petitioner, time had moved on and, on February 25, 1991, FAMU discovered that there was lead in some portion of the paint on Bragg Stadium, in the amount of 1.9% by weight. The test was conducted by Professional Services Industries, Inc. on some paint chips from the stadium. The test utilized by Professional Services is known as the TCLP test. This discovery began a review by Florida A&M, in conjunction with Barnett, Fronczak Architects, of what changes, if any, needed to be made to the Specifications and what options were available for carrying out the repainting of the stadium. 16/ On March 19, 1991, the Project was "cancelled" by Addendum number 4 until the fall of 1991. Presently, it appears uncontradicted that the paint which is on Bragg Stadium contains lead. It is probable that the lead is contained in the primer coat, which is the first coat on the steel. In fact, the current specifications for the repainting project call for a red lead and oil primer coat to be placed on the steel structure of the stadium. Of the options which have been proposed by the architect, two of them assume that the lead paint will not be removed from the structure, but will essentially be sealed in by the new coatings. These options will avoid the creation and need for disposal of any hazardous waste containing lead and should result in either the same cost to perform the work or in a reduction in cost to perform the work. The third option is to completely remove all the paint and possibly create material which may be hazardous waste. This option is essentially the same type of sandblasting called for in Bid 5998, but may require more money to perform. Any possible increase in the cost of Bid 5998 would be due to the greater expense of disposing of any hazardous waste, if any such waste is created by the blasting operation, and whether the presence of the lead is an unforeseen condition as defined in the proposed contract which would entitle Petitioner to an increase of the bid price caused by the potential cost of disposal to it. In this case, the evidence did not demonstrate that the presence of the lead was an unforeseen condition. Article 3.15 of the proposed contract when compared to Article 10.1 appears to comtemplate the discovery of potentially hazardous materials. Additionally, as indicated earlier, the current specifications of Bid 5998 call for a lead primer coat. Under all the facts of this case, the presence of lead or lack of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium would appear to be a circumstance the risk of which is assumed by the bidder in bidding the project; and therefore, would not be a changed or unforeseen condition which would justify rejecting all the bids. Importantly, the scope of the work, i.e. sandblasting and structural repair, would not change. Sandblasting is the same whether the surface being removed contains lead or does not contain lead. The structural repair required by Bid 5998 is not effected by the presence of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium. The only differences would occur in the type of equipment used and the type of respirators worn by the workers. The equipment for lead removal has vacuums incorporated in its operation and uses a steel grit instead of sand. The steel grit actually reduces the amount of any potential hazardous waste by compacting it into a smaller volume. The respirators differ in the type of filters. Neither of these differences affect the cost of the work required in Bid 5998. Similarly, disposing of the end product of the blast operation would still be required under Bid 5998 whether the debris contains lead or does not contain lead. The only difference would be the ultimate disposal site of the barrels of debris, i.e whether at a regular landfill or at a disposal site for hazardous waste. All of these differences are already required under EPA, OSHA and DER rules regulating lead abatement, toxic chemicals and hazardous waste and are utilized by Petitioner when it encounters lead in its paint removal operations. Moreover, the bid documents contemplate that the bidder is familiar with all federal, state and local laws and regulations which affect the project in any manner. See Section B-3 "Instructions to Bidders." While it is uncontroverted that the paint contains lead, it is also not clear whether the end product created by a blasting operation would be hazardous waste requiring expensive disposal in a hazardous waste landfill and what amount, if any, would need to be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. The TCLP tests performed by Professional Service Industries were run on paint chips and not the abrasive debris that remains after a blasting operation. Therefore, the TCLP test results have no relevance as to what amount of hazardous waste, if any, would need to be removed from the site. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether the debris left over from the blast operation will be hazardous waste until the blast operation has begun and produced debris sufficiently representative of what may be expected during the course of the work and which is capable of being tested. The issue of lead arose long after the rejection of the bids on the basis of Feimster-Peterson's bid being over the budget and would not have become a potential basis had FAMU acted in a responsible manner in the award of this bid. It is understood that the University and its architects are still trying to determine what, if any, action needs to be taken regarding the presence of lead in the paint. The evidence established that at a minimum the architect would have suspended the project to give them time to study the lead and determine what course of action should be taken. At the most, the architect would have cancelled the project. Added to such an analysis is the fact that the Bid specifications appear to require a red lead and oil primer paint to be placed on the structural steel of the stadium and that under the facts of this case, the presence of lead in the paint on the stadium would not be an unforeseen condition. In either event, the discovery of the lead did not undermine the scope of the repainting project as it is comtemplated in the bid documents and may have only resulted in change orders under the terms of the proposed contract. 17/ The General Conditions of the contract provide in Article 3, Administration of the Contract, paragraph 4.3, Claims and Disputes, subparagraph 4.3.6, Claims for Concealed or Unknown Conditions, as follows: If conditions are encountered at the site which are (1) subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions which differ materially from those indicated in the contract documents or (2) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist and generally recognized as inherent in construction activities of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, then notice by the observing party shall be given to the other party promptly before conditions are disturbed and in no event later than twenty-one days after the first observance of the conditions. The Architect/Engineer will promptly investigate such conditions and, if they differ materially and cause an increase or decrease in the contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, will recommend an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time, or both . . . . Article 7, Changes in the Work, also provides a mechanism by which the Architect/Engineer and the Owner may order changes in the work after execution of the contract. Paragraph 7.3, Construction Change Directives, provides the mechanism by which the amount of a construction change directive is determined. A change order is simply a revision of the scope of the contract, requiring that something be done differently, that more be done, or that less be done, than what is within the original scope of work of the contract. Article 14, Termination or Suspension of the Contract, paragraph 14.3, Suspension by the Owner for Convenience, provides in relevant part: The owner may, without cause, order the contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the work in whole or in part for such period of time as the owner may determine. An adjustment shall be made for increases in the cost of performance of the contract including profit on the increased cost performance, caused by suspension, delay or interruption . . . . (Emphasis added). It is clear that conditions, such as the lead in this case, are contemplated by both the bid and the contract which is part of that bid. In this case, but for FAMU's actions, Petitioner would have been awarded the contract prior to the discovery of the lead. Had Florida A&M entered into a contract with Feimster-Peterson to perform the repainting project when it should have, it would have been guided by Article 14.3 of the specifications, "Suspension by the Owner for Convenience." The evidence did not demonstrate that the discovery of the lead would sufficiently change the scope of the repainting project to the extent that a new bid would have to be developed and that the contract terms of Bid 5998 were inadequate to handle any changes in the scope of the work for the repainting project. Such a result is especially desirable where, as in this case, the University has acted in such a way so as to undermine the fairness of the competitive bidding process and is attempting to spend appropriated money in a manner not authorized by statute. In essence, FAMU has undermined the competitive bidding process to the extent that it would be unfair to re-bid the project since it is impossible to remove FAMU's past conduct from any rebid on any re-vamped specifications. The only remedy, in this case is to award Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest and best responsible bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Florida A&M University enter, on behalf of the Board of Regents, a Final Order awarding Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest, responsible bidder on the repainting project. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Transportation, advertised its Invitation to Bid on Contract No. E4504, State Project Job No. 99004-3509 for work consisting of providing trees and shrubs with on-site placement for State Road 858 in Broward County, Florida. The Invitation to Bid advised that a mandatory pre-bid conference would be conducted on January 10, 1991. Although it was the responsibility of Kathleen L. Mims to submit bids on behalf of Mims Gardens, Inc., and to attend pre-bid conferences, Stephen H. Mims attended the mandatory pre-bid conference for this bid instead. At the pre-bid conference, after all attendees were provided with bid packages, the meeting was called to order by Teresa L. Martin, Respondent's Assistant District Contracts Administrator. Martin and Carl Higgins, the Project Engineer, explained unit pricing and how averaged prices were to be calculated. Higgins explained that although some of the pay items consisted of aggregate quantities of different plants, only a single average price was to be calculated for the total number of plants required for that category and only one figure was to be placed in the box for each pay item even if that pay item consisted of different plants with different prices. When Martin and Higgins concluded their remarks, they gave the attendees the opportunity to ask questions regarding the bid and the proper completion of the bid form. Stephen Mims heard the explanation for calculating the average price for the total number of plants in a single pay item category. He did not pay much attention to the explanation, however, because he was concentrating on counting the number of pages in his bid package. Although he did take some notes on some of the information given during the mandatory pre-bid conference, he made no notes regarding calculating the prices to be submitted on the bid form. He assumed that whatever information was needed would be included in the bid package itself. After the mandatory pre-bid. conference, he gave the bid package to Kathleen L. Mims to complete and submit to Respondent. He did not show her the notes that he had taken and did not give her the information given to him at the mandatory pre-bid conference regarding the fact that only one number was to be provided for each pay item even if that pay item consisted of plants with different prices or regarding how to calculate a single average price for the total number of plants in each pay item category. Kathleen L. Mims completed and submitted a bid on behalf of Mims Gardens, Inc. When she completed the bid price proposal sheet, she listed individual unit prices for each of the plants in the pay item categories that contained more than one plant. She did not calculate a single average price as required by Respondent in order that all bids could be evaluated against each other. Although Kathleen Mims had never previously submitted a bid to the Department of Transportation, and although the bid price proposal sheet was different than those she routinely completed, she did not contact Teresa Martin or Carl Higgins to inquire as to the proper method for completing the bid price proposal sheet. Although the Bid Blank itself contained no directions regarding the specific procedure to be used in filling out the bid price proposal sheet, she did not ask her husband Stephen Mims what information had been given to him during the mandatory pre-bid conference. Additionally, although the bid package advised potential bidders as to requirements for filing a protest regarding the bid solicitation itself, Mims Gardens did not protest the bid solicitation. Stephen Mims did not assist in the preparation of the bid proposal of Mims Gardens. When the bid proposal for Mims Gardens was completed, Kathleen Mims did not show it to Stephen Mims to ascertain if it complied with the instructions given to him at the mandatory pre-bid conference. She simply filed her bid with the Department of Transportation on January 18, 1991, the deadline for submittal of bids for the project in question. Thirteen sealed bids were received and opened by the Department of Transportation. Mims Gardens submitted the lowest bid based on the contractor's total bid price from the bid form. Vila and Son Landscaping submitted the second lowest bid. On January 25, 1991, the Department posted its Notice of Intent to award the project to Vila and Son Landscaping. That notice advised that the Department had determined the bid of Mims Gardens to be an irregular bid proposal and that the bid of Mims Gardens was therefore rejected. One other bid also contained multiple quantities and prices in some of the pay item categories, was also declared irregular, and was also rejected. Kathleen Mims admitted at the final hearing in this cause that if she had attended the mandatory pre-bid conference, she would have been able to fill out the bid proposal sheet correctly. Mims filed its notice of intent to protest on January 25, 1991, and its formal protest filed on February 1, 1991, was timely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Declaring Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive; Rejecting Petitioner's bid; and Awarding Contract No. E4504, State Project Job No. 99004-3509 to Vila and Son Landscaping Corp. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-0990BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 except for the second and third sentences, 3-7, and 10-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The second and third sentences of Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 8, and 9 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, the first sentence of 3, 4, and 6-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 and the second sentence of Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Hankins, Assistant General Counsel Susan P. Stephens, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Nancy Katherine Neidich, Esquire 2810 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 102 Post Office Box 5121 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN.: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58
The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading 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 February, 1992.
The Issue This is a bid challenge case in which the primary issue is whether the Petitioner's bid is responsive to the RFP.
Findings Of Fact Some basic background facts The Department issued Request for Proposals No. 700:0652, Office Space (the "RFP"). The RFP requested bidders to submit proposals to provide 7,750 square feet of office space (+/- 3 percent) in Broward County to be leased by the Department for a probation and parole office. Under the RFP terms the space had to be available by June 1, 1993. Proposals had to be filed with the Department by January 5, 1993. In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., and Janc, Inc., submitted bids. Pursuant to an evaluation of the bids conducted by the Department, In- Rel Acquisitions, Inc., was given a contingent award of the lease on March 31, 1993, as the vendor with the lowest price and the overall highest evaluation score. The contingent award letter of March 31, 1993, read as follows in pertinent part: It is the intent of the Department of Corrections to award the above referenced bid to In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., as the vendor with the lowest bid price and the overall highest evaluation score. The award to In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., is contingent upon: (a) obtaining the necessary zoning approval to operate a probation and parole office at the bid premises by May 6, 1993, and (b) the Department obtaining sufficient assurances from the Resolution Trust Corporation that the bid premises will not be taken over by the RTC and the Department's leasehold interest will not be affected. On May 18, 1993, the Department issued a letter awarding the subject lease to Janc, Inc., because the Department was of the view that In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., had not met the conditions of the contingent award of March 31, 1993. The award letter of May 18, 1993, read as follows, in pertinent part: This letter is to inform you that the Department of Corrections has determined that the award of the lease for the above referenced bid is hereby made to Janc, Inc. The bid from In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc. has been rejected because it has not met either of the conditions stipulated on the March 31st award letter, and the property has not been properly maintained under the existing lease agreement. Both the contingent award letter of March 31, 1993, and the award letter of May 18, 1993, contained "boiler-plate" language advising the addressee of the basic details of the written protest process. In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., filed a timely protest of the award to Janc, Inc. Facts about the zoning situation The award of the lease to In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., was made contingent because the property was not properly zoned to support a probation and parole office for the Department. At the time of soliciting bids on the subject project, the Department was currently leasing the space proposed by In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., and had done so for almost five years. Shortly after the deadline for the submission of bids, the Department was notified that it was in violation of the Plantation City Code because the office was not properly zoned, and the Department was subject to fines if it did not obtain proper zoning or leave the premises by June 1. The fine was at the rate of $200.00 per day. In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., did not obtain necessary zoning approval by May 6, 1993. First, the zoning approval passed by the City of Plantation limited the hours of operation of the probation office. As approved by the City of Plantation, the Department can only operate its probation office Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., plus one evening a week until 7:00 p.m. These time limits do not satisfy the contingency placed in the March 31, 1993, award because the Department cannot operate a probation and parole office within these limited hours. The Department has 14,000 probationers in Broward County under its supervision. The caseload puts a severe strain on the caseworkers making it essential that they have flexible hours to get their job done. The caseload also requires working evenings and weekends. For example, some probation officers must maintain evening hours to test offenders for drugs. Although the officers could make the offenders visit the Department's office during the day, this would jeopardize the employment status of many offenders. Therefore, the Department needs flexible evening hours to do the drug testing. One of the major functions of the probation officer is to help rehabilitate the offender. That means that the Department must do what it can to help the offender stay employed. In addition, the probation officers need evening and weekend hours to do their paperwork, including preparing weekly reporting schedules, and recording their contacts. The officers also need evening hours to receive monetary payments due from offenders, meet with offenders who must report in person into the office each month, and counsel offenders in the office. Under the prior lease with In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., the Department had operated and held evening hours at a minimum of three nights per week. This included both probation officers and offenders appearing at the office during the evenings. The RFP specifically notified bidders that there would be evening hours. Section B(14) of the RFP states: Staff of both sexes will be required to work in this facility during both daylight and evening hours. An environment in which staff can expect to be safe is essential. Section D(11) of the General Provisions of the subject RFP reads as follows: Federal, state, county, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the items covered herein apply. Lack of knowledge by the bidder will in no way be a cause for relief from responsibility. The records of the City of Plantation meetings show that the May 5, 1993, vote was not final. A mandatory second reading of the zoning change took place on May 12, 1993, and the minutes were approved on May 19, 1993, and June 2, 1993, with respect to the first and second reading. Even if the zoning change with its limited hours had been sufficient to meet the terms of the contingent award, the limited zoning approval was not received before May 6, 1993; and therefore, the mandatory second reading of May 12, 1993, caused the limited zoning approval to be untimely. Finally, the limited and untimely zoning change as approved on May 5, 1993, was itself contingent on satisfying all concerns of the Landscape Architect. Facts regarding the RTC assurances The second award contingency required In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., to provide the Department with sufficient assurances from the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) that the bid premises would not be taken over by the RTC and that the Department's leasehold interest would not be affected. The property submitted by In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., was in litigation; the RTC as successor mortgagee, had filed or secured a Notice of Lis Pendens, an Amended Complaint, a Summary Final Foreclosure Judgment, and a Notice of Sale. The RTC has an interest in the property offered by In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc. Paragraph 1(E) of the Summary Final Foreclosure Judgment provides that the Summary Final Foreclosure Judgment shall eliminate the interest of anyone that has acquired an interest since the filing of the Lis Pendens, including the Department's leasehold interest if it were to enter into a lease on the property. The property bid by In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., was subject to a second mortgage. The record does not reflect that the first mortgagee and the second mortgagee entered into any type of written agreement not to disturb the leasehold interest of the Department. By letter dated May 11, 1993, an attorney for the RTC responded to the Department's request for assurances. The May 11, 1993, letter included the following: Pursuant to your request of yesterday, I am writing to belatedly confirm the April 19, 1993 telephone conference had you, Robert Gellman of Real Estate Recovery, Inc., and I. This telephone conversation was had to provide the Department of Corrections (the "Department") with the assurances requested from the RTC in the Department's March 31, 1993 letter of intent to award the subject least [sic] to In Rel Acquisitions, Inc. During this discussion you expressed the concern of the Department that the RTC intended to take title to the property and would then utilize special powers and privileges to dispossess the Department. If that were to be the case, you indicated that the Department would want an assurance that it would receive 90-days' notice before it could be dispossessed. (You indicated that 90-days is how long it would take to complete the bid process that would have to precede the Department's move.) Robert Gellman indicated that he was pursing [sic] numerous resolutions to the pending litigation, some of which might involve the RTC's taking title to the property and others which might not. Mr. Gellman assured you, however, that the RTC perceived it to be in its own best interest, and in the interest of any subsequent landlord, that the Department be kept happy and its tenancy undisturbed. Mr. Gellman also explained that he could not agree to anything at the time, as the appropriate committee approval had to be secured, but that he anticipated no problem in obtaining the necessary approvals of any writing consistent with our discussions once those writings were prepared. (I believe at the time we contemplated a written lease and a written assurance letter from the appropriate RTC official.) You indicated that your concerns had been satisfied and that these assurances were sufficient to satisfy the Department. The three of us discussed that it would not make sense to begin drafting anything at that time as the issues regarding the property's zoning still had to be cleared up and our efforts might otherwise "be all for not." Accordingly, it was mutually decided that we would wait to see the outcome of the May 5, 1993 hearing on the zoning issue before proceeding further. In the interim you indicated that you would be providing us with a list of the specific items of tenant improvements that your local officials expected to have made to the property. (We received this list on May 3, 1993.) On May 5, 1993 the Plantation City Council approved In-Rel Acquisition Inc.'s, request for a rezoning of its property and for a "special use" condition by a 4-0 vote, thus effectively resolving the zoning issue. Yesterday you and I spoke on this issue and discussed the situation. I indicated that the RTC is now in a position to provide you with written assurance that it has no intention of dispossessing the Department or interfering with its lease tenancy (either under the old or the new lease), and that the Department's leasehold interest would not be affected by the RTC taking title to the property (if it ever does). I asked and you indicated that this would give you what you needed and everything would be fine. In addition, I indicated that once the lease by and between the Department and In Rel is finalized, the RTC, if it still owns the note and mortgage, would be able to approve same. In light of the foregoing your call to me this morning, indicating that the Department had decided to withdraw its award to In Rel Acquisitions, Inc. and make the award to "Viloci" (phonetic(?), the next ranked bidder. During this discussion you indicated that Viloci's legal counsel had stated that the RTC would never be able to provide the Department with the requisite assurances. It is unfair for you to make decisions based in whole or in part on any statements made by Viloci's counsel regarding what the RTC can and cannot do without giving us an opportunity to respond -- especially in light of your indications on April 19th and again yesterday that the Department was satisfied with the RTC. The record reflects that the "Notice of Sale" failed to contain language providing that the property would be sold subject to any leasehold interest, either previously or subsequently acquired.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petition of In-Rel Acquisitions, Inc., and awarding the subject lease to the Intervenor, Janc, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of September 1993. 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 17th day of September 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3438BID The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: First three sentences accepted in substance. Fourth sentence rejected as constituting primarily irrelevant or subordinate details. Last sentence reject as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent it is intended to imply that the zoning change obtained was sufficient. Paragraph 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The first two sentences are rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant and also as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as suggesting implications not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 7: Rejected because it goes further than the evidence and suggests inferences not warranted by the evidence. Messrs. Gellman and Guerra told Mr. Ferst that they did not expect that the Department would have any problems with RTC, but the statements of Messrs. Gellman and Guerra stopped short of making any guarantees or of binding the RTC. Paragraph 8: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance, with the deletion of the words "in ignoring the foregoing." Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting a summary of a party's argument or statement of position, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 11: First sentence is accepted in substance. Second sentence is accepted as literally true, but as also substantially irrelevant because during most of the original five-year lease there was no issue about hours of operation because there was no effort at restriction of hours of operation. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 12: The first two sentences are rejected as constituting a summary of a party's argument or statement of position, rather than a proposed finding of fact. The third and fourth sentences are rejected because they go further than the evidence and suggest inferences not warranted by the evidence. As noted above, Messrs. Gellman and Guerra told Mr. Ferst that they did not expect that the Department would have any problems with RTC, but the statements of Messrs. Gellman and Guerra stopped short of making any guarantees or of binding the RTC. Paragraph 13: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 14: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 16: It is accepted that Messrs. Gellman and Guerra made statements as to what they expected the RTC's position to be, but, as noted several times above, the statements of Messrs. Gellman and Guerra stopped short of making any guarantees or of binding the RTC. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary restatement of a party's position. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: Rejected as repetitious. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17: Accepted. Paragraph 18: First sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 30: Accepted. Paragraph 31 and 32: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 35 and 36: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 37: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 38, 39, 40 and 41: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 42, 43, 44 and 45: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 46, 47, 48 and 49: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 50: Accepted. Paragraph 51: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 52: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second sentence rejected as repetitious. Paragraphs 53, 54 and 55: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 56: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 57: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 58: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64: Rejected as primarily constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings submitted by Intervenor Although there are some differences in the numerical sequence, the vast majority of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Intervenor are identical to those submitted by the Respondent. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat the rulings on all of those findings. The following rulings address the few proposed findings submitted by the Intervenor that are different from the ones submitted by the Respondent. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary restatement of a party's position. Paragraph 30: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 37: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 44: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 54: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 61: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 62, 63 and 64: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 65, 66 and 67: Rejected as constituting argument or proposed legal conclusion, rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael S. Riley, Esquire 200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Steven S. Ferst, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Joseph J. Villacci, Esquire 315 Northeast Third Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether the Department of Management Services acted arbitrarily, fraudulently, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the bid proposed by Petitioner Stimsonite Corporation; and Whether the Department of Management Services' proposed award of a contract to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Inc. was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent or dishonest.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1995, DMS mailed to interested vendors ITB No. 20-550-590-A for Sign Material, Reflective Sheeting & Related Materials. Stimsonite and 3M were among the vendors who received copies of the ITB. After receiving the ITB, no interested vendor, including Stimsonite and 3M, requested that DMS clarify any of the ITB's general or special terms and conditions. Similarly, no one timely filed any protest to challenge any ITB terms or conditions. On or about December 28, 1995, DMS opened the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Thereafter, DMS evaluated the bids and determined which were responsive to the ITB requirements. Stimsonite and 3M were the only vendors to submit bid prices for ITB Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22, which pertain to reflective sheeting. DMS's bid tabulations reflect that 3M and Stimsonite offered the following bid prices, per square foot, for reflective sheeting under ITB Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22: Item No. 13 15 22 Stimsonite $3.5489 $3.2199 $3.2199 3M $3.588 $3.25 $3.25 On or about January 23, 1996, DMS posted the bid tabulations. DMS's bid tabulations specify an NAS (not as specified) code indicating reasons why it rejected certain bids. Stimsonite's bids on ITB Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22 were rejected as non-responsive with an indication of NAS Code 1. NAS Code 1 provides: "Vendor did not submit diskette as required by the bid." Stimsonite admittedly did not include a computer diskette with its 1995 bid. Because of the absence of the diskette, the Stimsonite bid had neither a price list nor a material list. No responding vendor, except 3M, included a computer diskette in response to the 1995 ITB. l3. DMS consistently rejected all bids submitted in response to its 1995 ITB which failed to include the required computer diskette(s). In evaluating the 1995 bids, DMS reviewed the material list information that 3M submitted with its bid in hard copy and on computer diskette. DMS posted its intent to award the bid to the only fully responsive bidder, 3M. Shortly after DMS posted the 1995 bid tabulations with its intent to award to 3M as the only responsive bidder, Stimsonite urged DMS to accept a materials list that Stimsonite had prepared on computer diskette. DMS refused to accept this diskette, which Stimsonite was offering nearly a month after the 1995 bid opening date. DMS rejected Stimsonite's late offering of the diskette because it was offered after bid opening, because it was offered after evaluation of bids, and because DMS's intent to award already had been posted. However, the greater weight of the evidence is that Stimsonite's after-offered diskette would not have met the 1995 ITB specifications even if it had been submitted simultaneously with Stimsonite's bid response. The after-offered diskette failed to offer the required size widths of reflective sheeting or the accessory items used with the sheeting such as process colors, inks, clears, and thinners. Stimsonite timely challenged the rejection of its 1995 bid as non- responsive and timely challenged DMS's intent to award the contract to 3M. Stimsonite contended, with regard to its failure to timely submit a conforming diskette, that the clear language of the 1995 ITB did not require the submission of a diskette for the items Stimsonite had chosen to bid on, and that submission of such a diskette could legitimately be made only by the successful bidder after bid opening. The 1995 ITB, which is at issue in this proceeding, contains the following Special Conditions directly related to a material list on Page 4: FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID On all bids which require any of the following documents: Manufacturer's or Dealer's Published Price Lists, Authorized Dealer's List Authorized Service Center Locations. Bidder shall provide these documents, with his bid, in a letter quality text response and with computer diskette media. The format for the computer diskette media shall be: WordPerfect 5.1 file format using an IBM Compatible Personal Computer, On 8-1/2" x 11" paper with portrait orientation, Margins: Left: minimum .3 inch; Right: minimum .8 inch, Top & Bottom: minimum .5 inch, Font: Courier 10 cpi, 3.5 or 5.25 inch diskette media, No landscape, No Tables or Columns, No Line Draw, No pictures, No strike- throughs and No Graphics allowed. These documents shall be submitted in hard copy as well as on 3.5 or 5.25 inch diskette media. [Failure to comply with this requirement will result in disqualification of your bid.] [Emphasis supplied] MATERIAL LIST A material list shall be provided on diskette formatted as specified in the Special Cond- ition "FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID" along with a print out of same for each item bid. The information must include product number for color, and size specified sheeting under the DMS thirteen (13) digit commodity number. If prices are included on the materials list they must be contract prices. [This list may be included on the same diskette as "Format for Submission of Bid" listed above.] (Emphasis supplied) Some other provisions of the 1995 ITB which affect the issues in this case are as follows: General Condition 4(b) on page 1 of the ITB specifies: ELIGIBLE USERS: Under Florida Law use of State contracts shall be available to political sub- divisions (county, local county board of public instruction, municipal or other local public agency or authority) and State Univer- sities, which may desire to purchase under the terms and conditions of the contract. General Condition 5 provides: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No addition- al terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and condi- tions shall have no force and effect and are inapplicable to this bid. If submitted either purposely through intent or design or inadver- tently appearing separately in transmittal letters, specifications, literature, price lists or warranties, it is understood and agreed the general and special conditions in this bid solicitation are the only conditions applicable to this bid and the bidder's autho- rized signature affixed to the bidder acknow- ledgment form attests to this. General Condition 7 states: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of the bid opening and the bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full comp- liance with this provision. . . General Condition 15 states: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: Applicable provisions of all Federal, State, county and local laws, and of all ordinances, rules and regulations shall govern development, submittal and evalua- tion of all bids received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and dis- putes which may arise between person(s) hereto and the State of Florida, by and through its officers, employees and authorized represent- atives, or any other person natural or other- wise; and lack of knowledge thereof shall not constitute a legal defense against the effect thereof. General Condition 26 provides that: [THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER(S) MUST PROVIDE: a copy of any product literature and price list, in excellent quality black image on white paper.] [Emphasis supplied] On the bottom of page 2, after the list of General Conditions, there is a note which states: [ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FROM THESE GENERAL CONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE.] THIS SHEET AND THE ACCOMPANYING BID CONSTITUTE AN OFFER FROM THE BIDDER. IF ANY OR ALL PARTS OF THE BID ARE ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVISION OF PURCHASING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, SHALL AFFIX HIS SIGNATURE HERETO, AND THIS SHALL THEN CONSTITUTE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES. THE CONDITIONS OF THIS FORM BECOME A PART OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. [Emphasis supplied] Page 2A of the ITB contains a Vendor Bid Preparation Checklist. No. 16 thereof reminds all bidders to review the FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID for compliance with bid requirements. After the list of General Conditions, the Special Conditions begin on page 3 of the ITB. Among the Special Conditions of note in addition to the FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID and MATERIAL LIST, stated above, are: PURPOSE: ...to establish a 12 month contract by all State of Florida agencies and other eligible users ... TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION: ... When technical documentation is required by this ITB, its pur- pose is to demonstrate compliance of the pro- duct bid with applicable technical require- ments of the ITB and to allow a technical evaluation of the product. [Failure to provide the required technical documentation with the bid submittal shall make the bidder nonre- sponsive], unless the Division of Purchasing, in its sole discretion and in the best inte- rest of the State, determines the accept- ability of the products offered through technical documentation available within the Division [as of the date and time of bid opening]. ... [Emphasis supplied] ACCESSORIES: [Inks, colors, clears, and thinners, required for use with non-perfor- ated commodities shall be included in the price per square foot bid price.] [Emphasis supplied] BALANCE OF LINE: [The bidder shall bid a balance of line which will include options and accessories at a fixed discount. Only vendors awarded specified sheeting items will be eligible for a balance of line award. Items in the balance of line which are dupli- cative of those specified will be deleted. The balance of line price list must be in effect on the date and time of the bid opening]. [Emphasis supplied] The Specification Summary and Bid Price Sheets for bidding items 13, 15, and 22 of the ITB are found on pages 25, 26, and 27 of the ITB and were as follows: SPECIFICATION SUMMARY AND PRICE SHEET COMMODITY NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION NET DELIVERED PRICE 550-590-350-0100 Sheeting, not perforated, reflective, Type IIIA, or Type IIIC sizes 1" through 48" by 50 yds, with a precoated pressure sensitive adhesive backing (Class I). Primer Not Required. Sheeting (Both Types) shall be available in no less than the following colors: blue, brown, green, yellow, and silver-white. Sheeting Manufacturer: Product No./Series: FDOT Qualified Products List Approval No. $ PER SQ. FT. (13 [Inks, colors, clears and thinners for use with non-preforated commodities shall be in- cluded in the per square foot price bid]. [Emphasis supplied] VENDOR: SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY AND PRICE SHEET COMMOD- ITY NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION NET DELIVERED PRICE 550-590-350-0120 Sheeting, not perforated, reflective, Type IIIA, or Type IIIC sizes 1" through 48" by 50 yds, with a precoated pressure sensitive adhesive backing (Class I). Primer Not Required. Sheeting (Both Types) shall be available in no less than the following color: orange Sheeting Manufacturer: Product No./Series: FDOT Qualified Products List Approval No. $ PER SQ. FT. (15 [Inks, colors, clears and thinners for use with non-preforated commodities shall be included in the per square foot price bid.] [Emphasis supplied] VENDOR: SPECIFICATION SUMMARY AND PRICE SHEET COMMODITY NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION NET DELIVERED PRICE 550-590-760-2600 Reflective sheeting, construction barricade sheeting, Type IIA, or IIIA, or IIIB, or IIIC pressure sensitive adhesive backing (Class I). 4" or 6" orange and white or orange and silver strips running diagonally across the sheeting at a 45 degree angle, size 12", 24" and 36" by 50 yds. Sheeting Manufacturer: Product No./Series: FDOT Qualified Products List Approval No. $ PER SQ. FT. (22 [Inks, colors, clears and thinners for use with non-preforated commodities shall be in- cluded in the per square foot price bid.] [Emphasis supplied] VENDOR: After the item-by-item specifications, the ITB provides a page (page 39) of specification summary and price sheet for bidding the "balance of line discount offered for directly related sign material, not specified on the Bid Price Sheet." That format requires that the bidder state a fixed percentage discount from the price list for balance of line items. "Balance of Line" as used by DMS in the ITB refers to any and all accessories that might be used with the individual Items that are bid. Stimsonite's bid supervisor claimed that Stimsonite's failure to submit a diskette containing a material list was a reasonable, and indeed a clear and unambiguous, reading of the 1995 ITB. He had read the ITB to provide that the three categories of list (a manufacturer's or dealer's published price list, authorized dealer list, or authorized service center location list) which were named under the Special Condition, FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID, on page 4 were required to be submitted on a diskette with the bid, but he also considered that the diskette was not required for the three items that Stimsonite bid upon (Items 13, 15, and 22 on pages 25, 26, and 27 at Finding of Fact 20 supra) because none of the categories of list under FORMAT were required specifically within those Item No. specifications on the subsequent specification pages. Apparently due to the admonition at the bottom of ITB page 2 of the General Conditions [see Finding of Fact 19(f)], he assumed that the Item No. instructions on the specifications and price summary sheets on pages 25, 26, and 27 took precedence over, i.e. supplanted, the Special Condition MATERIAL LIST paragraph requiring a material list for every item in both hard copy and on diskette which also included the requirement of including product numbers for color, size, and DMS commodity numbers. Stimsonite's bid supervisor also asserted that because the Special Condition MATERIAL LIST paragraph and the Item No. specifications of pages 25, 26, and 27 did not specifically reiterate that the material list diskette must be submitted with the bid, the material list diskette legitimately could be submitted after the bid award, as was attempted by Stimsonite. He ostensibly interpreted General Condition 26, applicable to successful bidders, to mean that only successful bidders must provide a price list and a material list. Accordingly, Stimsonite further argued in the alternative that even if the ITB could be construed to require submission of a material list on diskette, Stimsonite's failure to submit the diskette to DMS with the rest of its bid response was only a minor irregularity unworthy of being ruled unresponsive because DMS had no substantive need for the information on the material list diskette until it decided which bidder was going to be the successful bidder. The bid supervisor's perception that the information on the diskette was not needed for bid evaluation purposes was another reason he ostensibly did not timely submit a diskette. Stimsonite has not asserted that late submission was a waiveable irregularity. 1/ In fact and to the contrary, the diskette is used by DMS to evaluate bids for responsiveness. This evaluation technique was introduced in 1994. It allows the reviewer, in this case, Ms. Boynton, to use the material list on the diskette to determine if each bidder has actually bid everything DMS asked for in the item by item specifications. Without a diskette, the reviewer cannot confirm that a bid matches the ITB. DMS uses the bidder's material list on diskette to confirm that the bidder currently manufactures the full range of sheeting widths and sizes (1 inch through 48 inches by 50 yards), as the ITB requires, which is a nonstandard range in the reflective sheeting industry. Additionally, DMS uses the material list diskette to confirm that the bidder proposes to make the full range of required sheeting widths and sizes available to state and local government purchasers. (See General Condition (4)(b) ELIGIBLE USERS and Special Condition PURPOSE in the ITB) DMS also uses the material list diskette to ensure that the bidder will make the required range of inks, clears, colors, and thinners available at the bid price. After the bid has been awarded, Ms. Boynton also uses the diskette for dissemination to contract users for ordering purposes on the electronic contract system. The diskette system saves DMS the time and cost of wordprocessing data from hard copy and avoids transcription erors. This was one of the purposes behind DMS' decision to start requiring a diskette in 1994. It comports with General Condition 4(b) ELIGIBLE USERS and Special Conditions PURPOSE. The Stimsonite bid supervisor did not have a manufacturer's price list and was not offering any accessories other than those inks, etc. covered under the Special Condition ACCESSORIES paragraph and those stated on pages 25, 26, and 27. Therefore, he did not read the Special Condition BALANCE OF LINE paragraph saying duplicates listed on page 39 for balance of line would be disregarded by DMS as an indicator that DMS expected any balance of line bids to include more than just the inks, etc. listed under ACCESSORIES and on pages 25, 26, and 27. Because he could not conceive of any balance of line more extensive than the inks, etc. which seemed to him to be excluded by the language on the specifications summary and price sheets for each Item No. (ITB pages 25, 26, and 27) and the balance of line summary and price sheet (page 39), and because Stimsonite was offering these inks, etc. within the price per square foot of sheeting at no extra charge on pages 25, 26, and 27, Stimsonite's bid supervisor felt that the diskette was not needed to evaluate these prices. Therefore, when he showed a balance of line on the balance of line summary sheet (ITB page 39) he showed no discount and he submitted no material list or price list on diskette. The ITB required a discount if a balance of line was offered under Special Condition BALANCE OF LINE. According to DMS employees, a price list was only necessary if a balance of line was bid. If a balance of line was bid, then a price list was necessary. The result of Stimsonite's interpretation of the 1995 ITB was that Stimsonite submitted a bid without a diskette which therefore contained neither a price list nor a material list. The hard copy offered a balance of line with no discount from a price list. Responsiveness in bidding Item Nos 13, 15, and 22 in 1995 did not require that vendors submit an authorized dealer's list or service center location list. The ITB used the language "shall submit" with regard to bidding a balance of line, but according to Ms. Boynton, the evaluator, and Mr. Barker, Chief of DMS's Bureau of Procurement, submission of a balance of line was not mandatory. Ms. Boynton speculated that if DMS did not get a balance of line bid from a responding bidder, DMS "might possibly find it was a minor irregularity." Clearly, the ITB provided that if there were any duplications on the balance of line offering, the agency could unilaterally delete them. However, if a vendor did bid a balance of line, DMS would need a price list, since with a balance of line and no price list, there was no way to evaluate the bid because DMS then could not calculate what the percentage reduction would be based upon. Therefore, under this situation in 1995, Stimsonite's balance of line bid with no price list on diskette was rejected as nonresponsive. 2/ The greater weight of the credible evidence, particularly but not exclusively that of Ms. Boynton, Mr. Barker, and Mr. Johnson, is that allowing any bidder to turn in the diskette after bid opening and award would give that bidder the advantage of changing the balance of line prices. If permitted to submit the material list after award, the bidder could elect to offer only one size which would impose an additional cost on the contract users to provide labor and expertise to cut to size, thus lowering the bidder's cost. Under a scenario which required only successful bidders to submit a diskette, DMS would not have the opportunity to reject the bid if the information on the diskette was nonconforming to the bid specifications. The bidder who delayed or never submitted a diskette also could exclude cities and counties from the cost-saving electronic contract system and could take telephone orders from the Department of Transportation, one of the agencies eligible to tie-in to DMS's electronic contract. Requiring a diskette only after award might permit the successful bidder to limit the sizes and colors offered. By not submitting a diskette at all, even late, a bidder could even disqualify its bid and back out of the contract if that bidder unilaterally decided its bid was too low or if the price of raw materials increased. Experience with successful bidders who ultimately failed to submit a material list at all was another reason for DMS's decision to start requiring a diskette in 1994. Any of the foregoing situations creates an advantage to the bidder who files a diskette late or the bidder who never files a diskette. Any of the foregoing situations increases costs to the state agency and contract users. Factually, this is a material irregularity. Stimsonite alleged that 3M was unresponsive because its bid transmittal letter contained a paragraph on terms and conditions of sale and warranties. However, it appears that the warranty language in 3M's transmittal letter actually enhances its bid. Also, it is standard practice for DMS to ignore these letters pursuant to ITB General Condition 5, which states that transmittal letter variances are of no force and effect. Factually, since 3M's letter cannot be relied upon by 3M either to enhance or diminish its bid, and since all such letters are disregarded in the bid evaluation/tabulation, the transmittal letter is a minor, nondisqualifying irregularity as to the 3M bid. Stimsonite asserted that the 3M diskette was not responsive to the ITB specifications. There is no dispute that the diskette 3M submitted was in the wrong font. However, since font size can be customized by a "click" on a computer mouse, and since Ms. Boynton was able to use 3M's diskette for the purposes intended by the ITB specifications, the irregular font size of 3M's diskette is found factually to constitute an immaterial flaw not worthy of declaring 3M's bid nonresponsive. Finally, Stimsonite contended that because the 3M bid failed to answer an ITB question that requested information about why a vendor's price list was item by item higher or lower than previous years, the entire 3M bid was unresponsive. This contention was not acknowledged as viable by the agency witnesses. DMS, like 3M, viewed this question as only information gathering for some cost trend analysis by the agency apart from bid evaluation. The information requested could not alter the bid price offered by 3M and is not necessary to DMS's evaluation of its bid or comparison of its bid with other bids. It is a flaw systematically ignored by the agency in bid evaluation. There was no evidence that any bid has ever been rejected for such a flaw. The absence of such information does not affect the cost to the agency nor does its absence provide an advantage to 3M. Factually, it is a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order ratifying its award of ITB 20-550-590-A Item Nos. 13, 15, and 22 to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Inc. and dismissing the bid protest Petition of Stimsonite. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of June, 1996, at 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 14th day of June, 1996.
The Issue The following issues were raised in the challenge of the award of the bid: Did Harris/3M fail to comply with Special Condition 28 of the Invitation to Bid, which required each bidder to provide references from two customers having similar equipment? Did the Department request a demonstration of the bid equipment under Special Condition 15? If such a demonstration was requested, did Harris/3M comply with the request? Were the machines bid by Harris/3M available under terms of General Condition 4(d)? Did the machines bid by Harris/3M comply with General Condition 4(f) requiring that the equipment bid carry the Underwriter's Laboratory listing? In response to Harris/3M's Motion for Directed Verdict on issue number 5, the Hearing Officer granted the motion on a finding that no evidence had been presented on this issue by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's compliance with the specifications was not at issue.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 15, 1986, the Department issued and advertised its Invitation to Bid 3162-86 related to the acquisition of 15 microfilm reader/printers for use in searching, reading and printing motor vehicle documents which had been microfilmed by the Department of Highway Safety. Microfilm reader/printers are essentially units of hardware into which cartridges of microfilm are inserted and the microfilm is passed through a camera which reflects the images of the microfilm onto a screen from which information can be read and copies printed. The Invitation to Bid required that the equipment must have a "controller," a device for automatically locating specific microfilm documents by the use of coded information or "blips" on the film. On or about January 5, 1987, responses to the Department's bid were submitted by Petitioner OSC and Intervenor, Harris/3M, together with bids from other bidders whose bids are not an issue in these proceedings. All bids were opened on January 5, 1987. The equipment bid by Harris/3M was the Model MFB1100 Reader/Printer with a "page search" kit or controller. Special Condition 28 of the Invitation to Bid states: "28. REFERENCES The bidder shall supply with his bid the names, addresses and telephone numbers of two references for whom the bidder has previously provided similar equipment being bid. If the bidder is unable to provide satisfactory references to the Department, the Department may, at its discretion, reject the bidder's bid if it determines that a responsive offer in full compliance with the bid speci- fications and conditions was not submitted. Failure to supply the references as required may result in rejection of the bid." (e.s.) Harris/3M provided two references in satisfaction of Special Condition Both of the references had versions of the Model MFB1100; however, neither of the references had the "controller" or page search kit, which was called for in the Invitation to Bid. Special Condition 28 was drafted by Merelyn Grubbs. According to Ms. Grubbs, the purpose of this requirement was to assure the Department that the bidder was responsible. "Similar" equipment is sufficient to assess the bidder's responsibility based upon machines made by the same manufacturer which performed essentially the same function. The MFB1100 without a page search kit is a "similar" machine. The two references provided were sufficient. Special Condition 15 states: DEMONSTRATIONS After opening of bid and prior to award of bid, the apparent low responsive bidder may be required to demonstrate to the Division of Administrative Services the equipment he proposes to furnish. If requested, a "working model" of the equipment bid and to be supplied in compliance with these specifications must be demonstrated in Tallahassee, Florida, within seven (7) calendar days from receipt of notification. If apparent low responsive bidder cannot successfully execute the demonstration, the Department shall revert to the next low responsive bidder and request demon- stration, continuing through the list of responsive bidders until a successful demonstration is achieved, the list of responsive bidders is exhausted or it is in the State's best interest to terminate the bid process. Demonstrations to be furnished at no expense to the Department." On January 7, 1987, Mr. Ray Boetch, the supervisor of the division within the Department of Highway Safety where the reader/printers would ultimately be used, wrote a memorandum to Merelyn Grubbs requesting that a demonstration be made on the Harris/3M Model MFB1100 Reader/Printer prior to the awarding of the bid. Mr. Boetch also discussed the matter with Ms. Grubbs indicating his primary concern was verifying the quality of the prints produced by the machine and whether it could print half pages. Ms. Grubbs spoke with Nick Vuillemot of Harris/3M about a demonstration of the equipment in Tallahassee. In these discussions, Harris/3M offered to fly representatives of the Department to St. Paul, Minnesota, the home office of the manufacturer, for a demonstration of the equipment. This was because Harris/3M had only two prototypes of the equipment and it was more economical for Harris/3M to fly Department personnel to Minnesota for purposes of the demonstration than to disassemble, ship to Tallahassee and reassemble the prototype for a demonstration. The Department declined to accept Harris/3M's offer. The Department accepted instead a demonstration of a Model MFB1100 without the controller or page search kit at the Division of Elections in Tallahassee, Florida. The MFB1100 without controller does not meet the specifications in the Invitation to Bid. The "controller" or page search kit is of modular construction in the MFB1100, which can be ordered with or without the controller or page search kit. However, the bid specifically calls for a reader/printer with a page search device. Following the demonstration of the MFB1100 without page search capability, the Department officially posted its bid tabulations on January 12, 1987, designating Harris/3M as the low and responsive bidder and OSC was the next low and responsive bidder. Item 4 (d). Conditions and Packaging of the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be new, current standard production model available at the time of bid. (e.s.) Item 18. Delivery Schedule of the special conditions required delivery of the items bid within 30 days of the bid award or, in the alternative, a substitute item acceptable to the Department at no cost to the Department. The bid submitted by Harris/3M certified that delivery of all 15 units would be delivered within 30 days after receipt of a purchase order. Although the Harris/3M Model MFB1100 Reader/ Printer without page search had been on the market for a number of months prior to the issuance of the Invitation to Bid, the Model MFB1100 with page search had not been authorized for sale by the manufacturer until late November 1986. At the time demonstration was requested, only two prototypes existed of the MFB1100 with page search capability. As of the date of the hearing on February 11, 1987, no Model MFB1100 Reader/Printers with page search capability had been installed in any customer location within the United States. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to support its claim that the MFB1100 Reader/Printer with page search did not have a UL listing.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 3, 1987, DOT advertised that it would receive bids on State Project No. 97870-334, etc. in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties to improve portions of the Florida Turnpike. On June 24, 1987, bids were received by DOT from Gilbert, State Paving and Archer Western Contractors. The apparent low bidder at bid opening on June 24, 1987, was Gilbert and State Paving was apparent second low bidder. DOT was informally advised by John Beck, an attorney representing State Paving, that Gilbert's bid was believed to be unbalanced and the appropriate officials referred the issue to the DOT Bureau of Estimates to look into the low bid to see if it was unbalanced to the detriment of the State. Review of the Gilbert bid began with an internal analysis of the bid prices in comparison to the DOT Estimate of the Work. All bid prices above or below a certain percent of the engineer's estimate of costs were prepared in a computer printout and those items were checked by the consultants on the project. Basically, the major items in the project, which comprises some 400 bid items, were broken down to 10 groupings and the bids for each item in these groups was prepared for the three bidders and tabulated in Exhibit 2. The DOT Technical Committee reviewed the bids and concluded there was no unbalancing in Gilbert's bid which was detrimental to the State. This recommendation was approved by the Awards Committee which had also been furnished the information in Exhibit 2 by the consulting engineer for the project. Based upon this information, the Awards Committee concluded that the awards should go to Gilbert as no unbalancing detrimental to the State was found. Specification made a part of all DOT bid proposals provide that DOT may reject an unbalanced bid. As a matter of policy, DOT only rejects unbalanced bids deemed contrary to the interests of the State. Bids may be unbalanced in numerous ways. One significant method is known as front loading where the bidder submits a high bid for the work to be done at the beginning of the project such as clearing and grubbing and low bids for the work done later in the project. If successful in getting the award, this bidder would have excess profits on the clearing and grubbing which could draw interest while the less profitable later work was being done. Another variant is to study the plans and specifications to see if the quantities listed in the bid proposal are accurately reflected in the plans and specifications. If not, those items for which the bid proposal shows more than the plans and specifications reasonably required can be bid low, and for those items by which the bid proposal shows less than actually will be required can be bid high. Since the contractor is paid by the units used, those excess units at a higher price would result in more profit for the contractor yet allow him to submit an overall lower bid. For example, if the bid proposal contains two similar items for which the request for proposal estimates 100 each will be required, and the bidder concludes that only 50 will be required at Site A and 150 at Site B, he submits a low bid for Site A and a high bid for Site B. If the fair price for these units is $10 each, and the bidder bids $5 per unit for Site A or $500, and $15 for Site B or $1500, the total bid price is $2000, but if the bidder only installs 50 at Site A he would be paid $250 and install $150 at Site B for which he would be paid $2250. His total compensation would be $2500. In competitively bid contracts, such as the instant project, contractors modify their prices by taking a calculated risk that certain items bid on will not need to be accomplished and submit a nominal bid of $1 or 1 cent for such an item. By definition, such a bid is unbalanced, but if the item so bid has to be provided, the contractor has to provide this service at the bid price. The only evidence submitted by Petitioner tending to show Gilbert's bid was unbalanced to the detriment of the State was testimony, objected to and sustained, that the plans and specifications showed more of certain units would be needed than the estimated quantities on the bid proposal, which constituted the basis for the bids submitted. Such evidence constitutes a challenge to the bid specifications and is untimely. Gilbert's witness who prepared the bid submitted by Gilbert adequately explained the basis for bids submitted by Gilbert on the challenged items. The document entitled "This is Not an Addendum," clearly states on its face that "an addendum may follow containing the following information." No bids are solicited thereby and for no item contained thereon is the State obligated to contract. This document was provided all bidders before bids were open and no unfair advantage to anyone or detriment to the State was shown. In a project containing some 400 bid items, many modifications of the contract during construction is required to cover unforeseen circumstances that arise. While it would be better to get competitive bids on every bit of work done on this project, in this imperfect world unforeseen items will appear. The document complained of attempts to alert the bidders to some anticipated work not foreseen when the bid proposal was prepared, but it is not a part of the bid solicitation.
Findings Of Fact After its initial review of the bids, Respondent determined that Petitioner was the apparent low bidder, with a total bid of $344,971.53. Subsequently, however, it found an inconsistency in one of Petitioner's item prices and recomputed the subtotal which had the effect of increasing Petitioner's bid to $346,851.53. As a result of this recomputation, Intervenor became the apparent low bidder with its bid of $346,371.06. Respondent discovered that Intervenor had also made a similar error in one of its item prices which, had the subtotal been recalculated, would have increased Intervenor's bid by over $12,000. However, Respondent waived the error and allowed Intervenor's bid to stand. Respondent's bid forms specify various quantities of material required. Each quantity listed is followed by three columns which the bidder must complete. The first column is the unit bid in words (e.g. five dollars and no cents). The second column is the unit bid in numbers (e.g. $5.00). The final column, referred to as the "extension" is the total bid on the item in numbers (e.g. 30 units required times $5.00 per unit equals $150.00) Respondent's item number 10275 specified 1,890 construction signs. Petitioner entered one dollar and fifty cents in the unit bid (words) column, followed by $1.50 in the unit bid (numbers) column. Petitioner's extension column entry was $945.00. Respondent determined that 1,890 signs times one dollar and fifty cents each totalled $2,835.00, rather than $945.00, and raised Petitioner's bid accordingly. Respondent's item number 285710367 specified 7,070 square yards of material. Intervenor entered twelve dollars and no cents in the unit bid (words) column followed by $12.00 and $10.25 in the unit bid (numbers) column. A black line was drawn through the number $12.00, but was not initialed. Intervenor's extension column entry was $72,467.50. Here, Respondent determined that the $10.25 unit price should be permitted since 7,070 square yards times $10.25 did, if fact, equal the stated extension price. Using red ink, Respondent drew a second line through the number $12.00, and initialed this change. Respondent also drew lines through the words twelve (dollars) and no (cents), and wrote the words ten (dollars) and twenty-five (cents) and initialed this correction. Respondent's published policy on bid procedures is contained in its Standard Specifications Manual. Section 3-1 provides in part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price for any item. the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, in which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Respondent applied the above procedure to reject Petitioner's extension price on the signs since it did not agree with the unit price in figures or in words. Respondent applied the above procedure to accept Intervenor's extension price on the material since the $10.25 unit price in figures agreed with the extension. Acceptance of the $10.25 unit price figure (rather than the other entry of $12.00) was essential since no attempt had been made to change the twelve dollar unit price in words. Respondent's policy on bid procedures as set forth in its Standards Specification manual requires initialling of all changes made by the bidder. Section 2-5.1 provides in part: In case a change is made in a word or figure after it has been written in ink or typewritten, the bidder shall write his initials by the change. Intervenor failed to initial the change in its unit price figure. However, Respondent did not consider this to be a significant error and accepted the uninitialed change. Respondent's Standards Specifications Manual, Section 3-1, provides in part: Until the actual award of the contract, however, the right will be reserved to reject any or all proposals and to waive technical errors as may be deemed best for the interest of the State. This policy permits Respondent to reject either or both of these bids because of the errors discussed herein. Conversely, Respondent could consider either or both errors to be merely technical errors and waive them. Respondent's testimony and documentary evidence demonstrated that it does not enforce the policy requiring initialling of corrections. Additionally, Respondent's evidence established that it rigorously applies the procedure in Section 3-1 requiring the unit price in words to prevail where there are discrepancies except when the unit price in numbers and the extension agree. Respondent argues that the unit price figure is critical since the State may wish to order more of a given item and would not want to be bound by an erroneously high unit price. However, a stated unit price would not be binding where there is an error. Rather, the presumably correct extension price could be divided by the bid quantity to determine the correct unit price. The primary purpose of the policy which requires agreement of numbers and initialling of corrections is the prevention of conspiracy between bidders and State employees to alter bids. A further policy consideration, which is the stated basis for waiver of technical errors, is the furtherance of State interest. See Section 3-1, quoted above. In this regard, it should be noted that since Petitioner's original bid is the lowest, acceptance thereof would be in the interest of the State.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order rejecting existing bids and reissuing its bid proposal. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl R. Pennington, Jr., Esquire 325 John Knox Road, Suite L-101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mark A. Linsky, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire 863 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 32,000 square feet of office space to house some of its indigent social services for southern Escambia County. Since the desired office space is greater than 2,000 square feet HRS was required to competitively bid lease number 590:1984. Towards that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety one building to house all its units employee morale moving costs traffic flow within the building public access Many of the above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 17,000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. Employee morale was important because of high employee burn out due to rendering aid to so many people who have so little and supplying a pleasant environment conducive to the work of the employees. Moving costs were important should HRS be required to find other space to operate in while necessary remodeling took place in the selected building, or be required to incur the expense of moving to a new building. 1/ All of the above areas were covered by one of Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task, Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure a cross section of input from people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space under the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individual who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as a persons familiar with the bid process. Ms. Schembera assigned to serve on the committee Charles Bates, Deputy District Administrator; Jim Peters, to provide a fiscal and overall administrative perspective as well as bid expertise; two citizens from the District Advisory Council to assure objectivity and to look at the properties from the perspective of a private citizen; Mamun Rashied, a program manager; Darlene McFarland, a program manager; Cherie Neal, a unit supervisor and program worker; and Stacey Cassidy, a clerical employee. Ms. Schembera did not personally know Cherie Neal or Stacey Cassidy. These staff members were designated by the supervisors upon Ms. Schembera's direction that she wanted persons who were both intelligent and respected by their peers. One private citizen member of the committee did not participate. The committee as constituted showed a great deal of thought on Ms. Schembera's part to ensure the objectivity of the bid process she was engaging in and to ensure the maximum amount of input from persons who had experience relevant to the overall review of the proposed real estate and to the decision they were being asked to make. The selection of the bid evaluation committee members was neither an arbitrary nor capricious act on Ms. Schembera's part. In fact, the evidence demonstrated the merit in constituting the committee as she did for the input she sought. The bid evaluation committee members, minus Mr. Bates, were briefed on their duties by Joe Pastucha, Facilities Services Manager. Mr. Pastucha is part of the staff responsible for the bid process at HRS. He provided these committee members with the weighted bid evaluation criteria found at page 15 in the bid package. He also gave the committee members a copy of Chapter 5 of the HRS manual containing guidelines for the bid process. His verbal instructions on specific procedures to follow in the evaluation process were limited since he did not wish to improperly influence the committee members. On July 20, 1988, HRS received three bids responding to its invitation to bid on Lease Number 590:1984. Bid A was submitted by Phillips and Company, the apparent second lowest bidder and Intervenor in this case. Its property consisted of one multi-story building located at 1740 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida. Bid B was not responsive and therefore was not considered by HRS and is not a part of this litigation. Bid C was submitted by Petitioner Carmon S. Boone, and was the apparent low bid. Mr. Boone's property consisted of two buildings located at 401 and 411 North Baylen Street, Pensacola, Florida. The Boone property is the present location of Respondent's offices. Both Bid A and Bid C were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Once the bids were received the bid evaluation committee began its work. The committee members, minus Mr. Bates, visited the Phillips property. However, the members did not visit the Boone property. There was no need. Four of the members currently worked at the Boone property and the other members had previously visited the Boone property on various other occasions. Mr. Bates was likewise already familiar with both properties. All members were sufficiently familiar with the cogent aspects of each property to allow them to make a rational decision. The bid evaluation committee, minus Mr. Bates, met as a group to evaluate each property in accordance with the weighted bid evaluation criteria. Each individual scored their sheets separately and the general consensus was supportive of recommending the Phillips property. Five committee members scored Mr. Phillips' property higher than the Boone property. The one exception was Mr. Peters who felt that HRS could not support a bid awarded for other than monetary reasons, i.e., he felt the lowest bid had to be accepted. Mr. Bates later reviewed all the bid synopsis sheets of the committee members and discussed the bid award with Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha. Mr. Bates felt that the Phillips property was the lowest and best bid. At about the same time, the staff responsible for providing technical assistance to the committee and the District Administrator were made aware that the general consensus of the committee was leaning towards the second lowest bidder, Phillips and Company, as the lowest and best bid. The staff members, one of whom was a bid committee member, disagreed with the award of the bid to Phillips and Company because the Boone property was the lower bid. The staff members sought to head off the committee's intended recommendation. The staff personnel held a meeting with some of the committee members in order to get them to join in a recommendation to Ms. Schembera of the Boone property. Mr. Boone was invited and attended the meeting. He was allowed to improperly bolster his bid by agreeing to convert the two buildings to one and other lesser additions. /2 The potential decision was discussed, but no committee member changed his or her mind. However, through a total lack of communication, a run away staff somehow rationalized themselves into a position of being authorized to submit a letter for Ms. Schembera's signature which awarded the Boone property the lease. Ms. Schembera became aware of her staff's attempt to subvert the bid process she had established. She refused to sign the letter submitted by the staff. She removed the staff member of the committee as a voting member. The staff member had supported the Boone property. She also removed a committee member who supported the Phillips property as a voting member. Ms. Schembera feared that her staff had improperly influenced this member to such an extent that his objectivity had been affected. Both members could still participate in committee discussions. Ms. Schembera thereby reasonably ensured the ongoing objectivity of the bid evaluation committee. The committee was reconvened, minus one member. It recommended the Phillips and Company property. Every reason given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that the Phillips property was the better property for the money. The Phillips property allowed working units to be located in one area with each such unit having its own access. It provided flat safe parking areas and sidewalks, bigger and more elevators, wide halls and windows which presented a bright, happy and pleasant working environment. The Boone property was in two buildings which could not accommodate co-located working units with their own access no matter how much remodeling took place. Parking and sidewalks are on a hill which is slippery when wet. It had one small elevator and narrow halls which did not adequately accommodate more than one wheel chair, and one ground floor where no windows could ever be remodeled into the building leaving a dark, dingy and unpleasant environment. Importantly, every committee member except for the staff member came to the conclusion that the Phillips and Company property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a particular piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. After reviewing and considering information from the bid evaluation committee, the information on the bid synopsis sheet, and the oral recommendations of Mr. Bates, Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha, Ms. Schembera concluded that the Phillips property was vastly better, even considering costs. She found it to be materially superior in terms of construction, organization, client accessibility, handicap accessibility, repairability (in terms of walls), and maneuverability for clients and staff. She felt the Phillips' building's qualities would offer more "humanity" to the process of serving the Department's clients. Additional facts she considered when making her decision included the morale of the staff and their productivity; the ability of staff and clients to conduct their business in a reasonably pleasant, comfortable, safe, and easy to understand and comprehend environment; and the desire to provide a minimally adequate work space. In addition to other monetary costs, she considered energy costs and life cycle costs as reflected on the bid synopsis sheet. The bid synopsis sheet defined minimal energy and life cycle costs to be anything less than 55 BTU's per square feet per year. In this case, the Boone property reflected 39.5 BTU's per square feet and the Phillips property reflected 53.5 BTU's per square feet. Both properties were under the 55 BTU cutoff established by HRS. Translated into monetary figures (life cycle costs) the Boone property reflected a cost of $26,735.00 and the Phillips property reflected a cost of $41,160.00. It was the difference between the energy figures which caught Ms. Schembera's eye. In her layman's opinion, it was incomprehensible that the two buildings would have such a wide divergence of energy costs. /3 She learned from her staff that the information used to compute these costs was supplied by the bidders who had vested interests in the outcome. Ms. Schembera concluded the cost difference was minimal and not of overriding concern in relation to the physical characteristics of the two buildings and how they compared to each other. She quite correctly felt the two buildings were not comparable. In essence, the two buildings' differences in design location and construction rendered neither building comparable to the other building as a like facility under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. 4/ Based on that information she gave the energy figures relatively little weight. More importantly, however, before the final bid award was made by HRS, the Division of General Services within HRS in its failsafe role in reviewing bids considered the life cycle cost figures of the two bids. The minimal language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, has been interpreted by HRS to mean that anything under 55 BTU's is minimal and except in one instance not applicable here, numerical differences under 55 BTU's are immaterial. The Division, without getting into the issue of the likeness of the facilities, concluded that both bids met the Department's interpretation of the "minimal" language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, and the relative numerical difference in the energy costs was immaterial. Ms. Schembera is entitled to rely on other more expert HRS Division staff to ensure a proper analysis of highly technical bid specifications such as the energy cost analysis required under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. It does not matter that the review took place after Ms. Schembera had made her preliminary decision. What is important is that the review be made either personal or vicariously through staff before the final award is made. A proper review of energy costs was, therefore, made by Respondent before the final award was made. Likewise, Ms. Schembera's ultimate decision that the buildings were not comparable like facilities was a proper review of energy costs even though that conclusion was arrived at through a layman's unsophisticated, but more accurate intuition and common sense. To that extent, the energy cost data had no impact on the ultimate choice made by the District Administrator and were properly considered by the District Administrator. 5/ A letter for Ms. Schembera's signature adopting the committee's recommendation was drafted by Mr. Pastucha. The letter was signed and sent to the Department's Division of General Services for review. The District was requested to provide additional justification for its choice by the Department's Division of General Services. Mr. Rashied was directed to draft the response. He simply reorganized the original memorandum into a format more compatible with the Division's direction, clarified a few points and without significantly changing the content, submitted the response as directed. The Division acquiesced in Ms. Schembera's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing Case NO. 88-4900BID, and awarding lease number 590:1984 to Phillips and Company as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida (“SBBC”) improperly awarded a contract pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 21-244H for “Photo ID Card and Printing System Supplies” (“ITB”) to Intervenor, Identicard Systems, Inc. (“Identicard"). Petitioner Plasco, Inc. ("Plasco") contends that the recommended award to Identicard is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the specifications of the ITB. The resolution of the ultimate issue turns on whether the uninitialed corrected figures contained within Plasco’s bid response for both the unit price and the total cost of Item 1(N) were a material deviation from the bid specifications requiring rejection of the bid.
Findings Of Fact SBBC desired to procure photo identification card and printing systems supplies to prepare identification cards for school district employees, students in selected schools, and outside vendors. SBBC has adopted School Board Policy 3320 which governs its purchasing of goods and services. On or about April 30, 2001, SBBC released the ITB. General Condition 1(c) of the ITB stated in pertinent part: EXECUTION OF BID: . . . If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure or use an opaque correction fluid. All corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid even when using opaque correction fluid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. . . . General Condition 2 of the ITB stated in pertinent part: PRICES QUOTED: . . . Give both unit price and extended total. Prices must be stated in units to quantity specified in the bidding specification. In case of discrepancy in computing the amount of the bid, the Unit Price quoted will govern. . . . General Condition 7 of the ITB stated in pertinent part: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder. . . . All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Special Condition 3 of the ITB states as follows: AWARD: Bid shall be awarded by GROUP to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC may need to order an individual component within a group. All items within a group must have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item within a group will result in disqualification of the group. Bidder should carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. In the event that one item in the group does not meet the specifications, the entire group will be disqualified. On June 7, 2001, Plasco, Identicard, and seven other companies submitted responses to the ITB. After receiving the bid responses, SBBC’s Purchasing Department examined and computed the figures submitted by each bidder for each item listed in the Bid Summary Sheets. For each item, a quantity figure had been supplied by SBBC in the bid specifications. The bid was structured so that the specified quantity would be multiplied by a unit price furnished by the bidder on its Bid Summary Sheets. The bidder was also required to furnish a total cost for each individual item in its Bid Summary Sheets. The bids submitted by both Identicard and Plasco contained a number of uninitialed corrections. Although such uninitialed corrections violated General Condition 1(c), the SBBC properly deemed such errors to be immaterial in every instance where only one figure per specified Item was tainted by a violation of this General Condition. For example, where a particular component of the bid required the bidder to specify a unit cost and a total cost for the quantity of goods specified in that particular component, the SBBC was willing to perform the mathematical calculation necessary to confirm the correctness of the uninitialed figure. As applied to this particular type of uninitialed correction, SBBC staff would multiply or divide the quantity specified in the ITB by the "untainted" number provided by the bidder to confirm the correctness of the uninitialed corrected figure submitted in violation of General Condition 1(c). The Bid Summary Sheet submitted by Plasco for Item 1(N) contained a different violation of General Condition 1(c), to wit, it contained two uninitialed corrected figures. The corrections were accomplished through the use of correction fluid. Plasco's Bid Summary Sheet with respect to Item 1(N) stated in pertinent part as follows: UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST * * * FARGO ACCESSORIES N. 3 each 81524 Thermal Printhead $389.35 ea $1,168.05 for Cheetah/Cheetah II/ Pro/Pro-L/Presto! Quatro/ Presto! System The Unit Price of $389.35 as well as the Total Cost of $1,168.05 for Item 1(N) set forth in Plasco’s bid was a corrected price and was not initialed by the person signing the bid on behalf of Plasco. Notwithstanding this "double correction," it was possible within the four corners of Plasco's bid to verify the unit price of the Item and thus to confirm, mathematically, a total price. The Item in question, a printhead, was the subject of four additional bid items. In each instance, Plasco bid $389.35 per printhead, a number which matched Plasco's corrected figure in Item 1(N). SBBC was not misled by Plasco's failure to initial either or both corrections in Item 1(N). Correctly using Plasco's uninitialed corrections as set forth in Item 1(N), SBBC accurately performed the calculations necessary to verify Plasco's bid; therefore the Bid Summary prepared by SBBC staff accurately reflected that Plasco was the low bidder at $93,449.68. The responses to the ITB were reviewed by school district staff on or about June 7, 2001. The so-called "double correction" in Item 1(N) was SBBC's sole basis for its decision to reject Plasco's low bid, and to recommend that Identicard's next lowest bid of $100,720.12 be accepted. At no time relevant to this case did SBBC have a written policy which compels that any bid containing two uninitialed corrections be excluded from consideration. The evidence establishes that SBBC was able to and in fact did accurately account for the individual numbers contained in Item 1(N), as well as any and all other numbers affected by the numbers supplied by Plasco in response to Item 1(N). Under the facts of this case, Plasco's error in failing to initial the corrections in Item 1(N) was immaterial. SBBC maintains that it must enforce its unwritten policy of excluding bids containing two uninitialed corrections within a single item in order to protect the integrity of the bid process. There is no evidence that the integrity of the bid process in this case was compromised in any way. No good faith argument was made that there was any type of collusion or improper conduct in connection with this bid. Instead, the evidence establishes that Plasco's bid was responsive and responsible in all material respects, inasmuch as SBBC staff was able to accurately ascertain, to the penny, the amount of Plasco's low bid. Plasco timely filed its Notice of Protest with SBBC on June 18, 2001. Plasco timely filed a Formal Written Protest with SBBC on June 27, 2001. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and School Board Policy 3320, SBBC provided an opportunity for Plasco to meet with the agency’s Bid Protest Committee in an attempt to resolve the protest by mutual agreement. The Bid Protest Committee conducted a duly-noticed public meeting with Petitioner Plasco on July 9, 2001. Upon consideration, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest of Plasco and upheld the recommendation to award the bid to Identicard.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a Final Order awarding the ITB to Plasco, and, upon submission of documentation contemplated in the parties' stipulation regarding costs, assess costs of this action in Plasco's favor in its Final Order pursuant to School Board Policy 3320, VI (n). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell W. Berger, Esquire David L. Ferguson, Esquire Berger Singerman 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Steven H. Feldman, Esquire Broward County School Board K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, P.A. Bank of America Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Dr. Franklin Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
