Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1989, Respondent issued to prospective bidders an Invitation to Bid on an electronic mailing machine pursuant to the specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid. The specifications provided that the equipment was to include a postage meter with a "postage by phone" feature. The postage by phone feature allows postage for the electronic mailing machine to be secured by a telephone call to the post office. Bids from Pitney Bowes, Inc., Petitioner, and American Business Products, Inc. were received in response to the Invitation to Bid. The bid opening was held September 29, 1989. The bid from Pitney Bowes was selected by Respondent as being the responsive low bid. The bid from Petitioner and the bid from American Business Products, Inc. were rejected as being unresponsive. Acting on the recommendation from the Superintendent and his staff, Respondent voted at its regular meeting on November 1, 1989, to accept the bid from Pitney Bowes. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a timely, formal bid protest that was based on two grounds. First, Petitioner contends that the bid was single sourced because the bid specifications were drafted so that only Pitney Bowes could file a responsive bid. Second, Petitioner contends that the bid of Pitney Bowes was not responsive. The invitation for bid provides, in pertinent part, that the electronic mailing machine with power1 stacked and console: ... shall be capable of processing up to 210 envelopes per minute; ... shall be equipped with conveyor stacker able to hold up to 900 envelopes; ... The invitation for bid provides, in pertinent part, that the postage meter with postage by phone feature: ... shall have automatic accounting functions; ... shall be interchangeable with Pitney Bowes Model 5600, mailing machine. After the Invitation to Bid was issued, Respondent learned that only a postage meter manufactured by Pitney Bowes could meet the specification that the postage meter with the postage by phone feature be interchangeable with a Pitney Bowes Model 5600. Petitioner contends that the inclusion of this requirement results in a single source bid because only Pitney Bowes, Inc. is capable of submitting a responsive bid. The requirement that the postage meter with the postage by phone feature be interchangeable with the Pitney Bowes Model 5600 had no bearing on Petitioner's bid being rejected by Respondent. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner, or any other bidder, was prejudiced by this requirement being included in the bid specifications or that Pitney Bowes was given an unfair advantage in the bidding process. Although Respondent had a valid purpose in including this requirement among the bid specifications, it took no steps to enforce this requirement to the prejudice of the bidders. Petitioner also contends that the invitation to bid is a single source bid because the term "postage by phone" is a trademark of Pitney Bowes, Inc. There was no evidence that any bidder was prejudiced by the use of this term or that Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given an unfair advantage in the bidding process by the use of this term. The machine Petitioner's company offered did not have a postage meter with a postage by phone feature as required by the bid specifications. For that reason, Petitioner's bid was found to be not responsive. The machine Petitioner's company offered is scheduled to add a postage by phone feature in early 1990, but it did not offer this feature at the time Petitioner's response to the Invitation to Bid was submitted. Postage by phone is a feature offered by Pitney Bowes and other companies. Petitioner contends that the electronic mailing machine offered by Pitney Bowes, Inc. is not capable of processing 210 envelopes per minute and that it is not equipped with a conveyor stacker able to hold up to 900 envelopes. Petitioner further contends that the postage meter offered by Pitney Bowes, Inc. does not have automatic accounting functions. The evidence does not support these contentions. The bid submitted by Pitney Bowes, Inc. meets all specifications of the Invitation to Bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order which rejects the bid protest filed by Complete Business Systems and which accepts the bid of Pitney Bowes, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this day 12th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 89-63I4BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected, in part, as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being a conclusion of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert Papes Secretary and Treasurer Complete Business Systems, Inc. Post Office Box 24627 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4627 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School of Palm Beach County Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Palm Beaten County, Florida Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue Whether the Barton-Malow Southern, Inc., deviated from the bid requirements, and if so, whether such deviation consists of a minor deviation which may be waived by the respondent, or whether Ron A. Royal, Inc., should be awarded the elementary school "C" project as the lowest responsive bidder.
Findings Of Fact On April 20, April 27, and May 4, 1986, the Board advertised its Notice of Call for Sealed Bids, soliciting bids for the construction of Elementary School "C". The notice advised that the contract to be awarded would require approval of subcontractors by the Board and stated that the Board "reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and to waive any and all informalities in regard thereto." A pre-bid conference was held on May 15, 1986, at which time the potential bidders were advised that page 14 of the bid documents entitled "List of Subcontractors" would be deleted and addendum #1 would include a more specific list of subcontractors to be completed by the bidder. The original list of subcontractors stated: The undersigned, hereinafter called "Bidder", list below the names of all the subcontractors who will perform under the Bidder. Any work item (Trade) not included will be assumed by the owner as being performed by the Bidder's own forces." A space was provided for the bidder to state the work item and the name of the subcontractor who would perform the work. Addendum #1 instructed the bidders to delete the original page C.14 and insert the enclosed sheet C.14 (addendum #1) "List of Subcontractors" for submission with the sealed bids. The substituted list of subcontractors provided as follows: The undersigned, hereinafter called "Bidder", lists below the names of the subcontractors who will perform under the Bidder. In the event the general contractor will perform one of the phases listed with his own personnel, he shall state by "general contractor". The form listed 20 specific areas of work, such as site work, iron and steel work, roof decks, and electrical, and provided a space for the bidder to fill in the firm name and address of the subcontractor for each specific area. Bids were submitted to the Board by nine (9) general contractors. The lowest bid by $310,000, was submitted by Barton-Malow; the second lowest bid was submitted by Royal. On the list of contractors submitted with Barton Malow's bid, Barton- Malow listed "G.C". (General Contractor) for the work areas described as site work, concrete work, masonry work iron and steel work, and lathing and plastering. Barton-Malow listed a subcontractor and "G.C." for phases described as hard tile and electrical. For the work areas described as "roof decks" and "roofing and sheet metal" three (3) subcontractors were listed for each of the areas. The list submitted by Royal with its bid provided that the concrete work would be performed by the general contractor and listed a single subcontractor for each of the other 19 areas of work specified. Barton-Malow was the only bidder who listed multiple subcontractors for a specified work area. In the blanks provided for the subcontractors' addresses, Royal listed the city where each subcontractor was located; Barton-Malow did not provide any addresses bout stated at the top of the column "will be advised upon request." None of the bidders provided street addresses for the subcontractors, however, only one bidder other than Barton Malow failed to provide the city in which the subcontractor was located. Immediately after the bids were opened and read, 1/ the meeting was adjourned and Mr. Derryberry, Mr. Collins, and two other people reviewed the bids. Mr. Derryberry concluded that the Barton-Malow bid was not in compliance with the bid requirements due to the manner in which Barton-Malow had filled out the subcontractor list. Mr. Derryberry therefore recommended to the Board that the Barton-Malow bid be rejected because of the perceived irregularities and the bid of Royal be accepted. The recommendation of the architect was adopted as the recommendation of the school administration and presented to the Board at a public meeting on June 3, 1986. The Board received the report of the architect and the administration, heard from the attorneys and representatives of Barton- Malow and Royal, and then voted to waive any irregularities and accept the Barton-Malow bid. The original page C.14 was approved by the Board in about 1980 and used since that time. However, there had been some difficulty with that form on two different jobs within the last six months, and therefore it was decided to clarify the purpose of the form by specifically listing all the major subcontracting areas. The intent was to require all bidders to list the primary subcontractor in each of the major work areas, and thus prevent bid shopping after the bids were opened. The architect, Mr. Derryberry, prepared and included the amended form C.14 as part of Addendum #1 to the bid documents. Although the Board never formally approved the amended form, Mr. Derryberry had the authority to clarify any of the bid documents by addendum. Page C.14 (Addendum #1) lists 20 major subcontracting areas; however, in almost all of the areas it would be possible for more than one subcontractor to perform the designated work, and in several areas it would be unlikely that one subcontractor would perform all the required work. For example, site work includes paving, earth moving, culvert work, fencing, and irrigation, and one subcontractor would not normally do the work in all those areas. The amended page C.14 does not state that only one subcontractor should be listed for each specified work area. The bidders were not advised at the pre-bid conferences or subsequent thereto, that only one subcontractor should be listed in each category. The only information the bidders received regarding the list of subcontractors was the information contained on the revised page C.14. In other words, the bidders were simply directed to list "the names of the subcontractors who will perform under the Bidder", and to list general contractor when "the general contractor will perform one of the phases listed with his own personnel." In the subcontractor list submitted with their bid, Barton-Malow listed "Batten Electric Co./G.C." for the subcontract "Electrical", and listed "Bauer & Assoc./G.C." for the "Hard Tile" subcontract. The listing of a subcontractor and the general contractor in these areas is not a deviation from the bid requirements. There is no indication on the list submitted by Barton- Malow that the listing of a subcontractor and the general contractor in the hard tile and electrical categories meant anything other than both the subcontractor and the general contractor would perform the work required in those areas, and there was no evidence presented at the hearing that would require a different conclusion. 2/ Categories 5 and 6 on the subcontractor list are "roof decks" and "roofing and sheet metal." Although listed as two separate categories, the same subcontractor would have to perform both due to the bid requirements. Further only one subcontractor can perform the roofing work; it is not an area that is divisible into subcategories that can be performed by different subcontractors. For categories 5 and 6, Barton-Malow listed "H. H. Robertson/Architectural Exteriors/Commercial Roof Decks." As admitted by Barton-Malow, that all three subcontractors "will perform" the subcontract is an impossibility. 3/ From the list submitted by Barton-Malow it cannot be determined who will perform and be responsible for the roofing work. When asked at the hearing who was going to perform the roofing work for Barton Malow, the vice-president of operations for Barton-Malow responded, "One of those three would have done it." He indicated that a submission would have been made to the Board designating the subcontractor. By listing three subcontractors for the two roofing categories, Barton-Malow deviated from the bid requirements. The subcontractor list contained one basic requirement, that the subcontractors listed "will perform." By listing three subcontractors for the roofing, when only one subcontractor could performs Barton-Malow would be able to bid shop for subcontractors after the bid submission. This would give Barton Malow a definite advantage over the other bidders who complied with the bid requirements and listed only the one contractor who would perform the work. The other bidders would be bound to use the subcontractor listed and therefore, would be unable to negotiate for a better price after obtaining the contract. However, by listing multiple subcontractors, Barton-Malow would be able to negotiate for a better price because it had not committed itself to any one subcontractor. In five categories, site work, concrete work, masonry work, iron and steel work, and lathing and plastering, Barton Malow listed general contractor. About an hour after bid opening, Mr. Derryberry called Mr. Polso, the Vice- President of Operations for Barton-Malow, to inquire about the bid because it was so much lower than the other bids. Mr. Polso assured Mr. Derryberry that there had been no mistake in the amount bid. Mr. Derryberry then asked about the listing of general contractor for the iron and steel work because he had never known of a general contractor doing that type of work. Mr. Polso stated that he had not had time to determine the low bidder in that category and was still getting prices. He also said that Barton-Malow would not be doing the lathing and plastering. However, when Mr. Derryberry advised that he was recommending that the bid be disqualified due to the incompleteness of the subcontractors form and asked whether Barton-Malow wished to withdraw its bid, Mr. Polso stated that Barton-Malow had no intention of withdrawing its bid. Subsequently, Mr. Polso met with Mr. Derryberry and Mr. Collins at the school offices and advised them that Barton-Malow had every intention of performing the work where general contractor had been listed. Barton-Malow is a wholly owned subsidiary of Barton Malow Company and has the resources of Barton-Malow Company available when necessary. In 1985, Barton-Malow did between 60 and 70 million dollars of construction work; Barton- Malow Company had a dollar volume of 600 million dollars. Barton-Malow has the capacity to perform work in the areas where it listed general contractor. Barton-Malow prepares its bid by estimating the value of the total project and the value of the majority of the specific trades involved. If Barton-Malow does not receive a bid from a subcontractor that it feels is competitive in a particular trade area, it performs that work itself. The C.14 (Addendum #1) form permitted a bidder to list "general contractor" in any or all subcontract areas in which it would perform the work with its own personnel. Once the bids are opened, the bidder cannot unilaterally substitute a subcontractor for the general contractor. The general contractor would be required to do the work unless it received authorization to substitute a subcontractor based upon a showing of good cause. The evidence does not support a finding that Barton-Malow was incapable of performing the work in the areas in which it listed "general contractor." Therefore Barton- Malow did not deviate from the bid requirements by listing "general contractor" in five of the twenty specified areas. Although Baron-Malow deviated from the bid requirements by failing to list any addresses on its subcontractor list, this was a minor irregularity which did not give Barton-Malow any competitive advantage over the other bidders. In Division C, Article 5, Section 5.3.1., the bid documents provide: It is the intent of the owner to award a Contract to the lowest responsible Bidder provided the Bid has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Bidding Documents....The Owner shall have the right to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and accept the Bid or Bids which in his judgment, is in his own best interests.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 10, 1991, respondent, School Board of Collier County (Board), issued a written invitation to various contractors inviting them to submit proposals for certain construction work to be performed on Naples Park Elementary School in Collier County, Florida. The invitation in question is more specifically identified as Bid No. 120-5/91 Site Development/Naples Park Elementary School. The bidders were advised that their bids must be submitted no later than 2:00 p.m. on June 4, 1991. Bids were timely filed by five contracting firms, including petitioner, A2M2R Construction, Inc. (AMR), and Haas Construction, Inc. (Haas). On June 4, 1991, various school personnel, including Dallas Disney, Board architect, Vicki McKinney, Board assistant director of purchasing, and Pat Humphrey, a Board secretary, and the Board's engineering consultant, Glen Bridges, met for the purpose of opening the sealed bids. They agreed that the five bids would be opened in alphabetical order. This meant that AMR's bid was opened first while Haas' bid was opened fourth. Bridges was assigned the task of opening the bids and reading the dollar amount of each bid. In the case of AMR, it proposed a base bid in the amount of $174,815. When Bridges opened Haas' bid, he said words to the effect that he could not clearly make out the amount of the base bid. This was because the original number had been changed by Haas prior to the submission of its bid, and it could not be clearly read. Accordingly, Bridges handed the proposal to McKinney, who read the number as $146,500. She then handed the bid document to Disney who also concluded the bid was in that amount. At that point, the president of Haas, who was present at the bid opening, was asked if the amount was indeed $146,500. When he confirmed that it was, he was asked to place his initials next to the base bid number. He did so even though paragraph (6)(a) of the Bid Instructions provides that "(a)ny erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained or noted over the signature of bidders". According to AMR, this provision required that Haas initial the amount before it sealed and filed its bid. This interpretation of the Bid Instructions was confirmed by Board personnel. Thus, AMR contends that by Haas initialing its bid amount after the bids were opened, Haas violated the Bid Instructions and should have its bid proposal rejected. As it turned out, the bid amount submitted by Haas was the lowest dollar bid on the project, and the Board has proposed to award the contract to Haas. According to the Board's assistant superintendent for business affairs, Robert Wilson, who has supervised hundreds of bid lettings over the last several years, the circumstances in this case were "unusual" in that Haas initialed the bid amount after the bid documents were opened. However, Wilson considered this to be a minor irregularity which, by the terms of the Bid Instructions, could be waived by the Board. Further, he did not find such action to give Haas an undue advantage in the bidding process or place AMR and other bidders at a disadvantage. This was not contradicted. On the bid form used by the bidders, there is a line left blank before the space where the numerical amount of the bid is inserted. AMR contends that the purpose of this space was to be used by a bidder to spell out in words the amount of its bid, and because Haas did not spell out in words the dollar amount of its bid, the proposal should be rejected. However, there is no requirement in the Bid Instructions that the dollar amount be spelled out in words nor was there a school policy imposing such a requirement. Therefore, as to this contention, no irregularity in the bidding process occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent awarding the contract in question to Haas Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent: 1-2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 2. Adopted in finding of fact 4. 5-7. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Adopted in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James R. Powell, Jr. P. O. Box 150340 Cape Coral, FL 33915 Thomas W. Franchino, Esquire 700 Eleventh Street, South Suite 203 Naples, FL 33940-6777 Dr. Thomas L. Richey, Superintendent Collier County School Board 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, FL 33942
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed at the time of hearing, the parties agree that bids for contract No. E-4450, the contract in issue here, were opened by the Respondent in Fort Lauderdale on October 11, 1991. Bids were received from five bidders including the Petitioner, Power, and the low bidder, Certified. Based on its evaluation of the bids submitted, on October 18, 1991, Respondent posted an intent to award the contract to Power Sweeping Services, Inc., Petitioner herein. However, thereafter, on October 22, 1991, the Department received a formal protest from the low bidder, Certified, challenging the intent to award. After review of the substance of Certified's protest, Respondent notified all bidders that it would be reposting its intent to award on November 5, 1991, and on that date, did repost, indicating an intent to award the contract in question to Certified, the low bidder. Thereafter, on November 14, 1991, Petitioner timely filed its formal protest, having filed its initial intent to protest on November 6, 1991. The bid blank, which was issued to all prospective bidders at the pre- bid conference held in this matter for a contract to involve mechanical sweeping on Interstate Highway 595 from its eastern terminus to Southwest 136th Avenue, including interchange ramps at I-95, I-595, and State Road 84, contained as a part thereof a notice to contractors which, at page 1 of 4, (page 1 of the 36 page bid package), contained a notation that for contracts of $150,000.00 or less, the bidder would be required to submit, as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payments bond: a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or a copy of the contractor's certificate of qualification issued by the Department. This note specifically states that "failure to provide the following required evidence of bonding", as indicated above, with the bid proposal would result in rejection of the contractor's bid. Petitioner submitted a notarized "letter of commitment to issue bond" dated October 8, 1991, by Burton Harris, attorney in fact and resident agent for American Bonding Company. Certified submitted with its bid an un-notarized letter from Mark A. Latini, bond manager with Bonina - McCutchen - Bradshaw Insurance to the effect that "Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should CPM be low and awarded the referenced contract." Five bidders submitted bids. Certified was the low bidder with a bid price of $61,474.85. Florida Sweeping, Incorporated was second low bidder with a bid of $67,388.16, but that bid was rejected because an addendum was not noted. Petitioner was third lowest bidder with a bid of $72,290.65. Because Certified's bid as initially submitted did not contain the required notarized letter from the bonding company, its bid was initially rejected. Thereafter, however, Certified's president, Mr. Hanousek, who prepared Certified's bid, and who attended the pre-bid meeting, called the Department's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. As a result, he submitted a notice of protest and a subsequent protest to the denial of Certified's bid. A hearing on Certified's protest was not held. When Joseph Yesbeck, the District's director of planning and programs, who was at the time serving as acting district secretary in the absence of the appointed secretary, was contacted by Mr. Hanousek. He reviewed the file and met with Ms. Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts and the contracting staff to see what was happening. At that point Ms. Martin explained why Certified's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. When the District secretary came back, Mr. Yesbeck briefed him and recommended that based on the information he had received from the District and Department attorneys, the failure to submit the notarized letter should be considered a non-material deviation and the Certified bid be determined the low responsive bidder. The reasons for this were that the absence of the notary did not really give any competitive advantage to Certified and that ordinarily defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. When the District secretary, on the basis of the information provided by Mr. Yesbeck, decided to repost the contract, Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed Certified's disqualification and left it as the low bidder. None of the other rejected bidders, including Florida Sweeping and bidder Number 5, which was rejected because its bond proposal was not of a proper character, were advised that they could come in and correct the defects with their bond letters. According to Ms. Martin, the notice to contractors requiring a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the requirement to post a 5% bid guarantee was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants, so that the bidder does not actually have to post the bond in question. The notarization requirement was put in by the Department but neither Ms. Martin nor any other witness testifying on behalf of the Department was able to indicate why the bond certification had to be notarized. Historically, when the Department has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter it has been rejected, and in Ms. Martin's experience, she has never known of a protest based on such a denial since she began working with contracts in July, 1988. When she reviews the bids, she reviews the bonding letter for its content as well as seeing whether it is notarized. Here, her reason for initially rejecting certified's bid was solely that the bond commitment letter was not notarized. The decision to reject was not hers alone, however, since she also checked with the District General Counsel who initially advised her that Certified's bond commitment letter was no good. Apparently, counsel changed his position upon discussion of the matter with Mr. Yesbeck and the Department's General Counsel since, according to Mr. Yesbeck, both counsel recommended subsequently that the absence of the notarization not be a disqualification. Further, according to Ms. Martin the requirement for the notarization has been utilized by District 4 since 1987 with all bids requiring it notwithstanding Mr. Hanousek's testimony that he has never seen the requirement before in any of the 6 successful contract's he has had with the Department before. In that regard, however, he admits this is the only contract he has had with District 4. Ms. Martin does not know if the notarization requirement is used in other Districts and no evidence as presented by any party to clarify that issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered setting aside the determination that Certified Property Maintenance's bid on Contract No. E4450, Job No. 869069108 was the low responsive bid. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 28th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 28th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-7592BID The following constitute my ruling on all Proposed Findings of Fact pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes submitted by the parties hereto. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the finding that Certified's bid complied in every respect except the notarization. The assurance by the bonding company was not unqualified but conditioned upon Certified being awarded the contract. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for last sentence regarding which see 3., supra. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE INTERVENOR: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Cease, Esquire 2720 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ray Hanousek President Certified Property Maintenance 3203 Robbins Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid on Project No. RS-40.
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 1993, Respondent issued an invitation to bid (ITB) for Project No. RS-40 to develop the site for the future construction of a work camp in Holmes County. The work under Project No. RS-40 specifically included site preparation, grading, electrical work, sewage, utilities and fencing. The bids were due to be opened on June 29, 1993. Ten bids were submitted to the Department, including Petitioner, Panhandle Grading and Paving, Inc., and Intervenor's, Hewitt Contracting Co., Inc., bids. Panhandle's bid total was $815,734.00, and was the lowest monetary bid. Hewitt's bid total was $847,554.00, and was the third lowest monetary bid. Baxter Asphalt had the second lowest monetary bid. However, both Baxter and Panhandle's bids were disqualified as nonresponsive because neither company complied with the Department's prequalification requirements. Baxter did not protest the Department's bid award to Hewitt and Baxter is not a party to this action. On the other hand, Hewitt's bid was accepted since Hewitt had complied with the Department's prequalification requirements and was otherwise responsive to the ITB. Therefore, the Department awarded Hewitt the contract for Project No. RS-40 since in its opinion Hewitt was the lowest responsive bid on the project. The ITB clearly notified potential bidders that they must prequalify with the Department. The ITB stated, in pertinent part: All bidders must submit evidence that they are qualified to perform the work in accordance with Section B, paragraph B-2 of the specifications. Evidence of eligibility must be submitted to the owner (defined in article B-1) not later than five (5) calendar days prior to bid date. Additionally, the cover sheet for the bid documents admonished all bidders to submit evidence of their eligibility to bid to Respondent at least five (5) days before the bid letting. The cover sheet stated: All bidders on this project must prequalify according to the provisions of section B, "Instructions to Bidders", article B-2. Evidence of eligibility must be submitted to the owner (defined in article B-1) not later than five (5) calendar days prior to bid date. Section B-1 of the bid documents defines the owner of Project RS-40 as the Department of Corrections. Section B-2 of the bid documents instructed all bidders to prequalify with Respondent to participate in the bid process. Section B-2 states: Prequalification: Each bidder whose field is governed by Chapter 399, 489, and 633 of the Florida Statutes for licensure will be prequalified by the Department to participate in the bid process for a specific field or area of construction based on the bidder's area of license or certification. Bidder qualification requirements and procedures are established by the State of Florida, Department of General Services rule (Chapter 13D-11, Florida Administrative Code) and by the bidding conditions and specifications. Failure of the bidder to strictly meet and follow all such requirements and procedures may result in bid rejection or disqualification for contract award. For the bidder's convenience, the provisions of Rule 13D-11.004 Bidder's Qualifications Requirements and Procedures are set forth below. Requirements: Each potential bidder must present, or have presented within this current biennium (July 1 through June 30) odd number years, evidence that: He is authorized to perform the work required by these documents in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes governing contractors, as a general (Insert contractor designation) contractor. If the Bidder is a corporation, he must submit evidence that this corporation is properly registered with the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Corporations, and holds a current State Corporation Charter Number in accordance with the Florida Statutes. (*This sentence to be deleted by Architect- Engineer if not applicable.) All interested firms who have NOT qualified within the current biennium (July 1 thru June 30) odd number years must submit evidence of their eligibility during the bidding period, not later than five (5) calendar days (received date) prior to the bid date. The Owner may, for good cause, allow a firm to correct any deficiencies in evidence submitted. Notice of qualification will be mailed to each bidder, but a Bidder may not receive the written notification prior to a bid opening. He may learn his status prior to the bid opening time by calling the Owner (Department of Corrections), Bureau of Facilities Services at 904-487-1330). The Bidder shall submit the required evidence of eligibility to the Department of Corrections, Bureau of Facilities Services, 2601 Blairstone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500. (emphasis supplied) All information shall indicate the full name, address and telephone number of the individual, partnership, or corporation, and the name of the contact person. Include a self-addressed stamped envelope. The names of all bidders will be checked against the list of contractors who have prequalified in accordance with the requirements of Section B-2. Additionally, a careful reading of Rule 13D-11, Florida Administrative Code, reveals that the information required under the Rule should be submitted to the owner of the project involved in the bid process, i.e. the Department of Corrections in this case. A contractor is the person who is qualified and responsible for an entire project and includes the person who submits a bid for a given project. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes. A general contractor is a person who is unlimited as to the type of work they can do, unless a specific type of license is required by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Section 489.105(3)(a), Florida Statutes. See also Section 489.113, Florida Statutes. Under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, a contractor can be a certified general contractor or a registered general contractor. A certified general contractor can contract in any jurisdiction in the state without fulfilling the competency requirements of the local jurisdiction. Section 489.105(8), Florida Statutes. On the other hand, a registered general contractor is required by Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes, to comply with all local licensing requirements. Registration with the state is specific for a given local jurisdiction and cannot be used in another jurisdiction. Section 489.113(2), Florida Statutes. In fact, Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes, requires a contractor to be registered for a specific jurisdiction prior to engaging in the business of contracting. Additionally, a contractor must subcontract electrical, mechanical and plumbing work unless the contractor is state certified or holds the specific trade license required by the appropriate local authority if such a local license is required. Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes. Importantly, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, permits a person to act as a prime contractor, including submitting a bid on a project, where the bulk of the work under the contract is covered by the contractor's specific license, as long as the parts of the project for which he is not licensed are subcontracted to persons holding an appropriate license. Section 489.113(9), Florida Statutes. Respondent requires prequalification of contractors in advance of its bid lettings to ensure that everyone who bids is legally or financially qualified to do the work required in the bid. The five (5) day deadline prior to the bid letting gives Respondent's staff an opportunity to resolve any irregularities in a bidder's prequalification materials prior to the letting. Indeed, if a contractor is state registered, as opposed to state certified, Respondent's staff, prior to the bid, routinely contacts the local government with jurisdiction over the building site to determine if there are any local licensing requirements and if there are, to determine if the bidder/contractor is locally licensed in that jurisdiction. This process avoids the waste of time involved in reviewing a bid package from a bidder who cannot ultimately perform the work called for in the bid. More importantly, this process prevents a locally unlicensed registered contractor from having the ability to void a contract at its will after the bids are opened since it would be unlawful for the contractor to have either bid on a project located in a jurisdiction where the contractor was not licensed or enter into such a contract. The ability to refuse an award of a bid clearly constitutes an unfair advantage to the locally unlicensed registered contractor and could not be waived as immaterial by an agency. In this case, Hewitt is a certified general contractor and is therefore automatically qualified to work in Holmes County. Panhandle is a registered general contractor and can only bid on Project RS-40 if it has met the requirements for general contracting in Holmes County. The prequalification process requires a bidder who has not prequalified with Respondent during the current biennium to submit to Respondent his current state contractor license certification or registration, as well as his current corporate charter registration (if a corporation). When Respondent opened the bids for the Project, Petitioner had neither prequalified with Respondent nor obtained a license or certification of competency to engage in contracting work in Holmes County. Petitioner thought it was already prequalified under its prequalification with the Department of Management Services. However, prequalification with the Department of Management Services does not meet the requirements of the ITB which requires prequalification with the Department of Corrections. Panhandle did obtain the necessary licensure after submitting its bid and after the bids were opened. However, such belated licensure does not negate the unfair advantage created by Panhandle's failure to prequalify and be properly licensed prior to the bid opening as required by the bid documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order in this case dismissing Petitioner's formal protest and awarding the contract for the Project to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, The Middlesex Corporation and Affiliates (Middlesex) or Intevenor, J. B. Coxwell Contracting, Inc. (J. B. Coxwell), submitted the lowest and best responsive bid for State Project No. 55040-3521 let by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation issued an invitation to bid (ITB) for a contract to construct road improvements on State Road 363 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida; Project No. 55040-3521. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway improvements. The specifications stated in pertinent part: Article 1-3. . . . for the purpose of award, after the proposals are opened and read, the correct summation of the products of the approximate quantities shown in the proposal, by the unit prices, will be considered the bid. . . . . 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 in the best interest of the State. . . . .(emphasis supplied) Article 2-6. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable costs analysis values. In addition to the specifications, a part of the plans for the project required the successful bidder to perform substantial excavation work on the project site. The excavation work would more likely than not yield enough fill material to complete any fill or embankments required in the project. Therefore, the plans contemplated that the soils obtained from the excavation work would be used for the construction of an estimated 44,000 cubic yards of embankment in the project. In order to achieve this goal, page seven of the plans entitled "The Summary of Quantities" indicated that embankment was to be a "no-pay item". However, the bid proposal, the form which constitutes the actual bid of the contractor, contained a line item for a price quotation for embankment/fill, Item No. 120-6. By including such a line item in the bid proposal, bidders were required to submit some figure for this item or risk their bid being declared irregular under the specifications for this project. There was no timely objection filed by any bidder indicating that the bidder would be prejudiced by treatment of the embankment/fill item as a no-pay or as a pay item. Likewise, there was no timely challenge to the apparently conflicting plans and pay item sheet or that the conflicting plans and pay item sheet created a stiutaion which prohibited a bidder from submitting a responsive bid. Seven bids for the contract were submitted and opened on May 27, 1992. The three apparent lowest bids at the opening were: Anderson-Columbia at $4,251,147.89; J. B. Coxwell at $4,964,327.81; and Middlesex at $4,977,371.48. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by FDOT's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced, contained all appropriate signatures, contained all appropriate documents and otherwise met the technical requirements of the ITB. In essence, the TRC reviews each bid to determine whether it is responsive to the bid proposal and, if not responsive whether the bid's lack of responsiveness is immaterial and waivable by FDOT. After its review of all the bids, the TRC then makes a recommendation to FDOT's Contract Awards Committee on whether a bid should be rejected for material nonresponsiveness to the ITB. In this case, the TRC recommended to the Contract Awards Committee that Anderson-Columbia's bid be rejected as nonresponsive to the ITB. On June 16, 1992, FDOT's Contract Awards Committee adopted the recommendation of the Technical Review Committee and declared Anderson-Columbia's bid nonresponsive. The awards committee also voted to award the bid to J. B. Coxwell as the second responsive low bidder and on July 6, 1992, FDOT posted a notice of intent to award the contract to J. B. Coxwell. In making the award, FDOT looked at the impact of the conflict between the plans and the bid proposal sheet. FDOT's practice is to add all the unit prices listed on the bid proposal sheet to determine the total amount of the bid. FDOT has never deleted an item from the unit price list to determine the amount of a bid. Following these policies and Consistent with Article 3-1 of the specifications, FDOT determined that a bidder's price quote for the enbankment/fill item would be included as a pay item in the total bid despite the plan's indication that embankment/fill would be a no-pay item and despite the fact that the embankment item probably will not be paid as long as the fill required is less than the excavation. However, at the time of bidding, no bidder could be certain that FDOT would choose to pay or not pay item 120-6. In this case, a review of the bids demonstrates that bidders were not uniform in their application of the conflict between the plans and bid proposal sheet in developing their specific bids. Some bidder's, like J. B. Coxwell, bid very low prices for the embankment/fill in their bid. Some bidder's, like Middlesex, bid prices for the embankment/fill item closer to the average unit price for embankment/fill. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the conflicting designation of the embankment/fill item and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the conflict. In short, all bidders received the same plans and bid proposal, reacted to them in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. The evidence did not demonstrate that the conflict between the plans and bid proposal sheet or FDOT's handling of the conflict was so unfair or confusing that the conflict completely impeded or subverted the purpose or fairness of the competitive bidding process. J. B. Coxwell. Finally, as indicated, the TRC reviews bids to determine whether they are materially unbalanced. In general, unbalanced bids are discouraged by the Department because an unbalanced bid has the potential to allow the contractor to recoup or receive a larger portion of the contract price at the beginning of the contract term thereby making it less disadvantageous for the contractor to walk away from the contract and making agency control over the contractor more difficult. However, not all unbalanced bids will be rejected by FDOT because mathematically unbalanced bids often will have no material impact on the order of the bidders or the interests of the state in the timely and orderly performance of a given road project. Additionally, because of the nature of a given project, there may be a very good reason for a contractor to submit a mathematicallly unbalanced bid. In fact, approximately 80% of all the bids submitted to FDOT contain some form of mathematical unbalancing. Given these facts, FDOT will only reject an unbalanced bid if the unbalancing is material to the project and its award. In evaluating unbalanced bids, FDOT follows the guidance in a May, 1988, memorandum from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price (or mathematically unbalanced), the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is "materially unbalanced" such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, FDOT compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, FDOT's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by FDOT to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. FDOT also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in FDOT's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the State for the project. In this case, J. B. Coxwell and Middlesex submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. J. B. Coxwell's unit price for the embankment/fill item was $.10 per cubic yard of fill. FDOT's average price for the embankment/fill item was $3.20. The Middlesex quotation for embankment/fill was $2.25 per cubic yard of fill. FDOT's computer analysis of J. B. Coxwell's bid flagged the embankment/fill item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Middlesex for the embankment/fill item was not unbalanced and therefore was not flagged for furhter review by FDOT. However, the Middlesex bid was flagged as unbalanced for other line item quotations contained in its bid proposal. FDOT then made a more in-depth review of the bid of J. B. Coxwell and determined that although the bid was mathematically unbalanced, it was not materially unbalanced and did not result in a change in the bidding order. This determination was primarily based on the fact that the excavation portion of the project would yield enough fill to perform the embankment portion of the contract. Thus, a lower than average price in that item was not detrimental to the state, but, in fact, was in its best interest since a quote closer to FDOT's average would cause the state to be double billed for the fill FDOT's site would supply. There is no question that this was a reasonable analysis of the project in this case. Similarly, FDOT, utilizing the same analysis for unbalanced bids, also determined that the mathematically unbalanced unit prices submitted in the Middlesex bid were not materially unbalanced. Given the fact that Middlesex also had a mathematically unbalanced bid, which received the same analysis, Petitioner's argument that Coxwell's mathematically unbalanced bid should be rejected for such imbalance is rejected. Therefore, Middlesex has failed to demonstrate that it submitted the best responsive bid for State Project No. 55040-3521 and its protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the bid to J. B. Coxwell and dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE 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 thes 8th day of December, 1992
The Issue The issues to be considered in the course of this Recommended Order concern the question of whether Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. or White Construction Company, Inc. should be accepted as a successful bidder on State Project No. 53050-3514, Jackson County, Florida, as advertised by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, (DOT), advertised for bids on State Project No. 53050-3514, Jackson County, Florida. This was a project in which DOT had determined that 10 percent of the funding within the State Department of Transportation Trust Fund, as allotted for the project, would be devoted to economically disadvantaged individuals, also referred to as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). This decision was in keeping with Section 339.081, Florida Statutes. Consequently, interested bidders were called upon to submit bids reflecting a DBE participation of a minimum of 10 percent of the bid submitted. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. (Baxter) and White Construction Company, Inc. (White) responded to the bid opportunity. The bids were opened on July 25, 1984, and Baxter's bid was the apparent low bid. The bid amount was $882,641.25. White was the second low bidder offering a bid of $928,353. Both bids were within the DOT estimate of construction costs. When the bids were reviewed, Baxter's bid was rejected by DOT based upon the belief that the bid failed to meet the DBE 10 percent requirement or to offer explanation of good faith attempts by Baxter to comply with the DBE contract requirement amount. See Section 14-78.03(2)(b)4., Florida Administrative Code. No other claim of error was made by DOT on the subject of the acceptability of the Baxter bid. The White bid is conforming. In preparing the bid, bidders are required to use DBE Utilization Form No. 1 to reflect the amount of DBE participation as a percentage of the overall bid estimate. In submitting its form as part of its bid blank, Baxter indicated that the total project cost was $884,000, and indicated that Ozark Striping, a DBE subcontractor, would be given $20,000 of that work or 3 percent, and that Glenn Powell, DBE subcontractor, would be afforded 7 percent of the total contract in the amount of $55,000. The total percentage according to Baxter is 10 percent, thus meeting the required DBE participation. This form is found as part of the joint Exhibit No. 1 offered by the parties. In fact, the Ozark Striping participation was 2.26 percent, and the Glenn Powell participation was 6.22 percent, for a total of 8.48 percent of the estimate reflected in the Form No. 1. Contrasted against the actual estimate of $882,641.25, these projections constitute 8.49 percent of that estimate. Thus, they are less than the 10 percent required. Given the fact that this DBE projection is less than the 10 percent, and in the absence of any attempt to offer a good faith explanation why Baxter failed to comply with the requirement, the bid was rejected for this irregularity. The Contract Awards Committee of DOT, when confronted with the irregularity of the Baxter bid, then determined to recommend the rejection of all bids. This was in keeping with the fact that the difference between the unsuccessful apparent low bid, with irregularities, and the second low bid exceeded 1 percent of the contract amount. At the time of this decision to reject all bids, DOT felt that the difference would justify re-advertising the bids. That policy position had been abandoned at the point of final hearing in this cause, wherein DOT expressed the opinion that it would be better served to accept the bid of White, and not re-advertise, again for cost reasons. In the face of the initial action to reject all bids and in accordance with Section 120.53, Florida Statutes, Baxter and White appealed that decision and by that appeal requested recognition as a successful bidder. This led to the present Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Baxter has never attempted to offer a good faith explanation of its non-compliance. It chooses to proceed on the theory that the mistake in computation can be rectified by allowing Baxter to submit a supplemental Form No. 1, bringing its total above the DBE requirement. In its contention, Baxter indicates that Glenn Powell could have provided $126,000 of the DBE goal, which is in excess of the 10 percent requirement. Baxter also alludes to the fact that it had contacted other DBE enterprises, such as Oglesby and Hogg, Michael Grassing, and J.E. Hill. All told, Baxter indicates that if given the opportunity, it would allow $146,000 of DBE participation to include $126,000 by Glenn Powell, and $20,000 by Ozark. This comment is suspect, given the lack of compliance in the initial bid response, and the realization that within that bid response on the item related to Glenn Powell, the original amount of work attributed to Glenn Powell was $100,000, and was struck through in favor of the $55,000, leaving a fair inference that Baxter was attempting to meet the DBE goal with a projection as close to the 10 percent as could be achieved. They fell short because in adding the $20,000 for Ozark, and the $55,000 for Glenn Powell, the addition in the Form No. 1 showed $85,000, which is more than 10 percent of the $884,000 shown on the form, when in fact the two amounts were $75,000, and less than the 10 percent required. Baxter characterizes its mistake in computation as a technical error, which can be remedied without harm to the bid process. The Baxter position must be examined in the context of action by DOT relating to compliance with DBE requirements. Prior to June 1984, a time before the subject July 25, 1984 bid opening, bidders had been allowed to amend the Form No. 1 to show compliance with the DBE requirements or demonstrate good faith efforts of compliance. That amendment as to compliance through listing of the DBE subcontractors or submission of good faith effort documentation had to be offered within 10 days per former Section 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code. Beginning with the June 1984 bid-lettings, all documentation had to be submitted with the bid, reflecting compliance or describing good faith efforts at compliance per Section 14-78.03(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 1984. This change was brought about to prevent the apparent low bidder, as indicated at the point of bid-letting, from shopping the quotations by the DBE's found in its original quote against other quotes from DBE's not listed in the bid documents initially submitted, and by amendment to the DBE statement prejudicing the former DBE group. The change was also made to avoid the possibility that the apparent low bidder could evade his bid by rendering it non-conforming, in the sense of refusing to submit the required documentation of compliance with DBE requirements or to the offer of a good faith explanation of non-compliance after the bid-letting. The change of May 1984, removed the possibility of bid shopping and bid avoidance. Both versions of Section 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code, pre and post May 1984, indicate that failure to satisfy the DBE requirements or offer a showing of a good faith attempt at compliance, would result in the contractor's bid being deemed non-responsive, and cause its rejection. Baxter has been able to comply with the DBE goals of DOT in its bidding prior to the present controversy.
