The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent should award a contract for a new telecommunications system to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of NEC, Inc., a Delaware corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Florida. Respondent is a political subdivision and agency of the state. Intervenor is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business and doing business in Florida. The System Respondent's telecommunications system lacks the capacity to meet current and future needs. Respondent seeks a new telecommunications system to serve a minimum of seven high schools, 10 middle schools, 29 elementary schools, and 12 support offices (the "system"). 1/ The Expert Respondent contracted with Omnicom, Inc. ("Omnicom") to assist Respondent in obtaining a new system that is in Respondent's best interest. Omnicom is an expert in telecommunications. The contract requires Omnicom to perform several functions. Omnicom must prepare an RFP, administer the solicitation and receipt of proposals, evaluate the proposals on a point system, issue a report of its evaluation, and recommend a selection that is in Respondent's best interest. Subjectivity There are two primary means of public procurement. One is an invitation to bid ("ITB"). The other is an RFP. The consulting contract refers to a "Request for Bid." The contract indicates that the document will establish an award to the "low fixed price bid meeting specifications." An ITB is significantly different from an RFP. An RFP is inherently more subjective than an ITB. An ITB requires bids to comply closely with the specifications prescribed in the ITB. An ITB prescribes specifications and a solution sought by the issuer. A bidder estimates the cost that the issuer will pay for the solution prescribed in the ITB. An RFP is more subjective. An RFP generally asks proposers to propose a solution to the issuer's stated needs and to estimate the cost of the proposed solution. Proposals generally describe the proposer's sense of the best solution and its cost. The criteria and procedures prescribed in an RFP are intended to minimize, but not eliminate, the subjectivity inherent in the RFP process. The procurement document Omnicom prepared is an RFP. The consulting contract does not require Omnicom to design and implement a new system for Respondent and then obtain bids for the cost of such a system. The RFP solicits solutions to Respondent's telecommunication needs. It prescribes criteria important to Respondent, and Respondent then evaluates proposals on the basis of those criteria. Those criteria include service. Intent Respondent paid Omnicom to recommend a proposal that is in Respondent's best interest. However, neither Omnicom nor Respondent intended the recommendation to usurp Respondent's authority to exercise discretion in taking final agency action. The RFP makes it clear that the proposal selected will be the system that Respondent determines to be in its best interest. The RFP states: The proposal selected will be the . . . system that meets the present and future needs of [Respondent] and is in the best interest of [Respondent]. * * * The objective of [Respondent] in soliciting and evaluating proposals . . . is to obtain a system that best meets the present and future needs of [Respondent] at a cost that is consistent with the features and services provided. * * * It should be understood that the information provided in this RFP is not to be construed as defining specific system equipment, features, or solutions, but rather is intended to present [Respondent's] needs and objectives in terms of system services and control. * * * The submission and acceptance of proposals does not obligate [Respondent] in any way. . . . [Respondent] reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. [Respondent] makes no representation, implied or expressed, that it will accept and approve any proposal submitted. * * * Proposals submitted may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of [Respondent]. * * * In submitting a proposal, the proposer understands . . . [Respondent] will determine at [its] discre- tion, which proposal, if any, is accepted. RFP at 1-2, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, and 2-11. The RFP The evaluation criteria and procedures established in the RFP are consistent with Respondent's intent in contracting with Omnicom. The RFP establishes a fixed rule or standard by which Respondent selects the proposal that is in Respondent's best interest. Respondent paid Omnicom with public funds to formulate that fixed rule or standard. Final Decision The RFP requires the proposal with the greatest total awarded points to be selected for a contract award. The RFP does not require the proposal with the greatest total awarded points to be recommended for selection. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points. . . . The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. (emphasis supplied) RFP, Appendix E, E-2. Alleged ambiguities within the RFP are resolved by the clear and unambiguous meaning of the underscored words in the quoted language. The proposal with the greatest total awarded points is to be selected by Respondent for a contract award. The clear and unambiguous words in the RFP are reasonable. Respondent hired a recognized expert in telecommunications to oversee the acquisition and implementation of a new system. The evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP reflect Respondent's intent to rely on the expertise it purchased with public funds unless Respondent: rejects all proposals; rejects Omnicom's evaluation and recommendation and asks Omnicom to re-evaluate the proposals; or conducts an independent evaluation of the proposals and substitutes Respondent's own independent judgment. The underscored language in the RFP is specific. It is consistent with general language in the RFP. For example, selection of the proposal with the most points awarded by Omnicom is consistent with the following general provision: Proposals submitted may be reviewed and evaluated by any person at the discretion of [Respondent]. * * * In submitting a proposal, the proposer understands . . . [Respondent] will determine at [its] discre- tion, which proposal, if any, is accepted. RFP at 2-7, and 2-11. Other general language in the RFP authorizes Respondent to reject all proposals and either develop a new RFP, seek a system through the ITB process, or seek a system through a process that is exempt from public procurement requirements if the system or Respondent qualify for such an exemption. The RFP states: The submission and acceptance of proposals does not obligate [Respondent] in any way . . . [Respondent] reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. [Respondent] makes no representation, implied or expressed, that it will accept and approve any proposal submitted. RFP at 2-6. Such language is "boiler plate" in public procurement documents. Nothing in the RFP is intended to, or has the effect of, exempting Respondent from the law applicable to public procurement. The RFP states: [Respondent] reserves the right to . . . negotiate separately with any source whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve its best interest. RFP at 2-6. Respondent can not solicit proposals and then negotiate separately with a select proposer or a third party in violation of the body of law applicable to public procurement. The language quoted in the preceding paragraph does not authorize Respondent to take final agency action in a manner that is not governed by fixed rule or standard. The fixed rule or standard that governs Respondent's determination of its best interest is prescribed in the RFP and sanctioned by Respondent. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points. . . . The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. (emphasis supplied) RFP, Appendix E, E-2. The quoted language is specific, clear, and unambiguous. To the extent it is inconsistent with general provisions in the RFP, the plain meaning of the specific language controls any general provisions that may be contrary to either the specific language or the law applicable to public procurement. Scope Of Review The RFP limits the scope of review to information contained in the proposals submitted by the proposers. The RFP states: . . . Only the information contained in the proposal and references verifications will be used in the evaluation. RFP at E-2. Respondent fixes the scope of review by limiting it to the information contained in the proposals. Review And Approval Respondent reviewed the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent approved the RFP on July 11, 1995. On July 12, 1995, Omnicom issued the RFP. Omnicom's Evaluation And Recommendation The RFP solicits base proposals and alternate proposals that achieve Respondent's objectives for a new system. No alternate proposal is authorized without a base proposal that complies with the basic configuration prescribed in the RFP. Seven proposals were submitted to Omnicom. Omnicom determined that one proposal did not satisfy mandatory requirements. Omnicom evaluated the six proposals that satisfied mandatory requirements. They are: Petitioner's base proposal; Petitioner's alternate proposal; Intervenor's proposal; a base proposal from Bell South Business Systems, Inc. ("Bell South"); a base proposal from Orlando Business Telephone Systems ("OBTS"); and a base proposal from WilTel Communications, Inc. ("WilTel"). Omnicom awarded the following technical, cost, and total points. PROPOSAL TECHNICAL COST TOTAL NEC (Alternate) 699 200 899.0 Siemens ROLM 715.5 179 894.5 Bell South 719.5 161.1 880.6 NEC (Base) 700 172.8 872.8 WilTel(Base) 617 157.2 774.2 OBTS 595.5 158.4 753.9 Omnicom ranked Petitioner's alternate proposal highest in total points and points awarded for cost. Omnicom ranked Intervenor's proposal highest in technical merit. Omnicom conditioned its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal on resolution of several concerns Omnicom expressed in its evaluation report. Those concerns are included in the discussion in paragraphs 108-124, infra. Omnicom recommended Petitioner's alternate proposal for selection if Respondent could resolve the concerns Omnicom had with Petitioner's alternate proposal and if Respondent deemed it to be in Respondent's best interest. Omnicom recommended Intervenor's proposal if Respondent either could not resolve Omnicom's concerns or if Respondent did not deem Petitioner's alternate proposal to be in Respondent's best interest. Arbitrary Selection Respondent selected Intervenor's proposal over Petitioner's alternate proposal. Respondent's selection of Intervenor's proposal was within the scope of the recommendation made by Omnicom. However, the manner in which Respondent exercised its agency discretion is arbitrary. The manner in which Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is in Respondent's best interest is not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent did not conduct an independent evaluation and substitute Respondent's own judgment. Respondent did not apply the rule or standard fixed in the RFP to the information included in the proposals and substitute its judgment for that of Omnicom. Respondent did not substitute a fixed rule or standard different from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent substituted a rule or standard that is not fixed but is invisible and known only to Respondent. Respondent expanded the evaluation procedure and scope of review fixed in the RFP. Respondent improperly applied criteria fixed in the RFP and applied improper criteria not established in the RFP. 6.1 Scope Of Review The RFP assignes a maximum of 800 points to criteria prescribed in six technical categories. It assigns a maximum of 200 points to cost. The maximum total score for technical and cost criteria is 1,000 points. The points Respondent fixed for the criteria in the RFP indicate the relative importance of the criteria. The RFP states: Proposals will be ranked in accordance with the technical and administrative awarded points and a short list of proposals established for further evaluation. The short listed proposals will then be evaluated on a cost basis and points awarded accordingly. Awarded cost points will then be summed with the awarded technical and administrative points. The proposal with the greatest total awarded points will be selected for a contract award. RFP, Appendix E, at E-2. 38. Omnicom evaluated the six proposals that met mandatory requirements and submitted an evaluation report in accordance with the evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP. The report recommends that the contract be awarded to Petitioner. In accordance with the evaluation procedure established in the RFP, Omnicom's evaluation report was submitted to a review committee on September 8, 1995. The committee consisted of knowledgeable representatives from the community and select employees of Respondent. The committee reviewed the evaluation report for accuracy and objectivity. The committee took no exception to any portion of the evaluation report and recommendation. In accordance with the evaluation procedure established in the RFP, the Superintendent of the Seminole County School District (the "Superintendent") recommended that Respondent award the contract to Petitioner for its alternate proposal. Respondent did not take issue with the recommendations of Omnicom, the committee, or the Superintendent. Respondent issued a notice of intent to award the contract to Petitioner on September 8, 1995. Respondent scheduled a work session for September 12, 1995, to consider the evaluation report from Omnicom and to vote on Omnicom's recommendation. 6.1(a) Intervenor's Expanded Proposal On September 11, 1995, Intervenor sent a letter to each of Respondent's members. Separately, each member obtained a report on user ratings of telecommunications equipment. The letter urged Respondent to consider Intervenor's local presence, including the local presence of Siemens Stromberg Carlson, Intervenor's corporate sibling. The letter asserted that Petitioner has no significant local presence. It claims that Intervenor is a "Tier 1" telecommunications vendor and that Petitioner is not. None of these matters were included in Intervenor's proposal even though service was one of the criteria for evaluation. Intervenor's solicitation provided Respondent with information not included in Intervenor's proposal. The additional information exceeded the scope of review and evaluation procedure fixed in the RFP. 6.2(b) Altered Procedure At the work session conducted on September 12, 1995, Respondent accepted comments from the public and from proposers. Intervenor emphasized its status as a Tier 1 vendor. One of Respondent's members expressed concern that Petitioner had only one local representative and that he worked out of his home. Petitioner has four technicians and stated in its alternate proposal that two additional technicians would be added. No member read any of the proposals. A second member stated that cost is an insignificant matter. The second member opined that cost should not be an issue considered in making the final decision. The second member is a senior management employee for Bell South. Bell South was ranked third in total points by Omnicom. The second member seconded a motion to postpone the contract award. In considering postponement of their vote, the members relied on information contained in Intervenor's expanded proposal. The members voted to postpone the award of the contract until September 20, 1995. At that meeting, each proposer was to make a twenty minute presentation to Respondent. 6.2(c) Improper Consideration Of Fixed Criteria And Consideration Of Improper Criteria The background statement in the agenda to the meeting scheduled for September 20, 1995, stated that Omnicom's point scores could not be used as the determining factor in awarding the contract because all but one of the proposals "did not meet all mandatory requirements." This was the first instance in which either Respondent or Omnicom indicated that any proposal except the alternate proposal submitted by WilTel failed to satisfy mandatory requirements in the RFP. 2/ None of Respondent's individual members read any portion of the proposals submitted to Omnicom. The members did not make independent determinations of whether the proposals submitted by Petitioner or Intervenor in fact satisfied mandatory requirements established in the RFP. On September 18, 1995, Petitioner notified Respondent that Petitioner protested the meeting scheduled for September 20, 1995. Petitioner stated that it would participate in the meeting under protest; without waiving any right it had to protest Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria, procedure, and scope of review fixed in the RFP. In the Notice of Public Meeting issued for the September 20 meeting, Respondent stated it may add up to 200 points to the total points awarded by Omnicom. The additional points were to be based upon the information the proposers submitted at the meeting. This was the first time Respondent disclosed the availability of points other than the 1,000 points fixed in the RFP. The Notice of Public Meeting stated no criteria upon which the additional points would be awarded. Respondent did not formulate any criteria upon which to award the additional points. 6.2(d) Final Decision: Expanded Scope, Altered Procedure, Improper Consideration Of Fixed Criteria And Consideration Of Improper Criteria At the meeting conducted on September 20, 1995, the proposers gave presentations to Respondent and Omnicom. The proposers answered questions posed orally by Respondent's individual members. Omnicom responded to comments made by the proposers. Each proposer was then allowed two minutes for "surrebuttal." The majority of comments related to reasons why specific points were deducted during Omnicom's evaluation. The proposers did not have access to a specific point award matrix to which the members may have referred during the meeting. The subject matter of the inquiry included criteria established in the RFP, including service capability. The inquiry did not focus on conditions Omnicom attached to its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal. See, paragraphs 108-124, infra. Intervenor repeated its representation that it is a Tier 1 vendor. Intervenor asserted that it is the number one PBX supplier in the world and the number two vendor in annual expenditures for research and development. Intervenor submitted documents substantiating its claims. None of this information was included in Intervenor's proposal. After the presentations, the Superintendent suggested the members write down three of the five proposers. The Superintended stated that the additional points would not be written down because they were for the use of the individual members. The first round of voting produced a new short list that deleted Petitioner and consisted of Intervenor and Bell South. The members then discussed the two proposals on the new short list. During the discussion, one member stated that she felt the RFP assigned too many points for cost. The members voted to award the contract to Intervenor. The member who is an employee of Bell South recused himself from the final vote. The voting members did not disclose the criteria they relied on for their vote, the weight assigned to the criteria relied on, the additional points assigned, or the fixed rule or standard which governed Respondent's determination of which proposal was in Respondent's best interest. On September 21, 1995, Petitioner received Respondent's formal notice to award the contract to Intervenor. The notice states only that Respondent's decision is based on the evaluations by Omnicom and the presentations on September 20, 1995. 3/ The manner in which Respondent determined that Intervenor's proposal is in Respondent's best interest was not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent selected Intervenor's proposal in a manner contrary to the rule or standard fixed in the RFP and on the basis of criteria and procedures that are not fixed in the RFP. Major Variation Respondent's deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP is a major variation. The deviation affects the price of the contract selected. It gives Intervenor a benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. It adversely impacts the interests of Respondent. 4/ Contract Price Respondent's deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the RFP affected the contract price in two ways. First, it affected the stated cost of the contract. Second, it added costs that are inherent, but not stated, in Intervenor's proposal. 7.1(a) Stated Cost The complete system is to be installed in all 58 facilities over five years. The useful life of the system is between 7 and 10 years. Omnicom valued the system included in each proposal over its 10 year life expectancy. Omnicom placed the cost for each facility on a spread sheet correlating to the anticipated time of installation. The cost of each facility was discounted to its net present value at the time of evaluation. The evaluation report rates costs through 10 years because that is the reasonable life expectancy of the system. The cost of Intervenor's system was less in years 1-5. For the total life expectancy of the system, however, the cost of Petitioner's alternate proposal was less. During the 10 year useful life of the new system, the cost of Petitioner's alternate proposal would save Respondent $1,547,726 over the cost of Intervenor's proposal. The net present value of that savings is $1,212,528. Omnicom awarded the following technical, cost, and total points for the seventh year of operation. PROPOSAL TECHNICAL COST TOTAL NEC (Alternate) 699 200 899.0 Siemens ROLM 715.5 179 894.5 Bell South 719.5 161.1 880.6 NEC (Base) 700 172.8 872.8 WilTel(Base) 617 157.2 774.2 OBTS 595.5 158.4 753.9 The total point differential between Petitioner and Intervenor widened for years 8-10. The points awarded for the cost of Intervenor's proposal dropped to 178.4, 177.8, and 177.3, respectively, in years 8-10. The corresponding total scores for Intervenor's proposal dropped to 893.9, 893.3, and 892.8. 7.1(b) Unstated Cost The RFP requires five out of eight categories of work station devices to be two-way speaker phones. Two-way speaker phones eliminate the need for ancillary intercom equipment. Two of the five categories required to be two-way speaker phones are noncompliant in Intervenor's proposal. Compliant telephones are more expensive than the telephones used by Intervenor to calculate the cost Omnicom evaluated. Compliant telephones would cost approximately $736,901 more than the cost evaluated by Omnicom; based on information available in Intervenor's proposal. 5/ Respondent will either incur additional costs to acquire compliant telephones or incur the cost of ancillary intercom equipment. Benefit Not Enjoyed By Others Intervenor enjoyed a benefit not enjoyed by others. Intervenor obtained a competitive advantage and a palpable economic benefit. 7.2(a) Expanded Scope Respondent's reliance on a rule or standard not fixed in the RFP resulted in a benefit to Intervenor. Other proposers did not enjoy a similar benefit. 6/ The proposers relied upon the point distribution, evaluation procedure, and criteria fixed in the RFP. Any of the proposers could have solicited Respondent to consider information not included in the proposals, to follow procedures not established in the RFP, to assign an undisclosed weight to criteria fixed in the RFP, and to consider undisclosed criteria. However, only Intervenor successfully solicited Respondent to do so and then enjoyed the benefit of being selected for the contract. Respondent made concessions that favored Intervenor. No other proposer enjoyed the benefit of Respondent's concessions in a manner that changed the outcome of the contract award. 7.2(b) Alternate Proposal The base proposal required in the RFP included a configuration using analog tie lines. Intervenor prepared only one proposal. It included only digital tie lines. Intervenor's proposal is an alternate proposal. It does not include the analog tie lines required in the basic configuration prescribed in the RFP. Omnicom deducted points for Intervenor's failure to include analog tie lines. However, Omnicom evaluated Intervenor's alternate proposal in the absence of a base proposal. 7/ All other proposers complied with the provision in the RFP that prohibited alternate proposals in the absence of a base proposal. The prohibition, in effect, required Petitioner to submit two proposals. Petitioner prepared a base proposal and an alternate proposal. Petitioner prepared two quotes for each of the 58 facilities contemplated in the new system. Intervenor prepared only one quote for each of the facilities contemplated in the new system. Intervenor did not invest the time, energy, and expense invested by Petitioner in its two proposals. 7.2(c) Cost By using noncompliant telephones in its proposal, Intervenor lowered the cost evaluated by Omnicom. If other proposers had proposed noncompliant telephones, they would have been able to affect their evaluation scores in a positive manner. Intervenor received a palpable economic benefit from its omission. A cost difference of $50,000 to $100,000 translates to approximately two points in the evaluation process. An increased cost of $736,901 would have lowered Intervenor's cost score between 7.36 and 14.7 points. 8/ Omnicom did deduct points from Intervenor's technical score for the failure to include compliant telephones in its proposal. However, Omnicom did not deduct points for Intervenor's failure to include unit prices for compliant telephones. 9/ Unit prices are necessary for Omnicom to accurately calculate the increased cost of compliant telephones. Omnicom could not calculate the increased cost of compliant telephones based on the information available in Intervenor's proposal. Omnicom evaluated the cost of Intervenor's proposal based on the cost stated in the proposal. Adverse Impact On Respondent Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria and procedures fixed in the RFP has an adverse impact on the financial interests of Respondent. The award of the contract to Intervenor will cost Respondent approximately $1,212,528 in present value. Respondent may need to purchase compliant telephones at an additional cost of up to $736,901. Alternatively, Respondent may need to purchase ancillary intercom equipment at an unknown cost. Respondent's deviation from the evaluation criteria and procedures established in the RFP has an adverse impact on the Respondent's technical needs. The award of the contract to Intervenor may result in the use of noncompliant telephones, ancillary intercom equipment, or, in the event of an unforseen budget shortfall at the time, none of the technical capabilities needed by Respondent. Public Policy There is a "strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical deficiencies. . . ." 10/ Although an RFP inherently demands more subjectivity than an ITB, Respondent disqualified the low proposer for reasons that are not governed by any fixed rule or standard. Respondent could have rejected all six proposals and sought to obtain its system through a new RFP, the ITB process, or a process exempt from public procurement requirements; if the system or Respondent qualifies for such an exemption. 11/ However, Respondent did not reject all proposals and start over or seek to obtain its system through an exempt process. Respondent paid public funds for Omnicom's expert advice. Respondent paid Omnicom to evaluate Respondent's technical needs, formulate criteria, develop an evaluation procedure, prepare an RFP, evaluate proposals, and recommend the proposal that was in Respondent's best interest. Respondent approved the RFP prepared by Omnicom, including the rule or standard fixed in the RFP. Respondent then deviated from the fixed rule or standard. Respondent added points to change the relative importance of the technical and cost criteria fixed in the RFP. Respondent awarded up to 200 points in addition to the 1,000 points fixed in the RFP. The members neither disclosed the criteria they used to award additional points nor disclosed the number of points awarded. The members did not reveal, explain, or define either the weight assigned to each fixed criteria or any other fixed rule or standard used to evaluate the oral presentations made by the proposers. Respondent did not conduct an independent evaluation of the proposals and substitute its own judgment for that of Omnicom. None of Respondent's members read any of the proposals. Omnicom evaluated the proposals fairly, objectively, and reasonably. Omnicom's evaluation and recommendation was an honest exercise of agency discretion by the agency's own expert. 12/ Respondent neither rejected Omnicom's evaluation of the proposals nor rejected the proposals. Respondent did not request that Omnicom re-evaluate the proposals and did not request that Omnicom start over with a new RFP, an ITB, or pursue a system through an exempt process. Respondent neither explained its exercise of agency discretion on the record in this proceeding nor disclosed a fixed rule or standard Respondent used to govern its action. Respondent made an arbitrary decision. Illegal Respondent made an emergency award of a portion of the contract to Intervenor during the pendency of this proceeding. The award is limited to a purchase order for one switch out of 52 switches that will comprise the complete system. The single switch is necessary for Respondent to occupy its new administrative offices. Occupancy of the new administrative offices has always been a critical element in procurement of the entire system. Respondent is currently engaged in accomplishing this critical element. Respondent's award of part of the contract is not required by an immediate and serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondent awarded part of the contract to Intervenor for public convenience. Installation of the system at the new administrative offices is necessary to occupy the new building. Occupancy is necessary so that various administrative offices of the School District can be consolidated. The School District has incurred costs since October, 1995, for utilities and maintenance associated with the unoccupied building. The reasons evidenced by Respondent constitute neither an immediate nor serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. It is not necessary to award any portion of the contract prior to final agency action in this proceeding. Minor Irregularities Omnicom conditioned its recommendation of Petitioner's alternate proposal on resolution of four concerns. Petitioner's alternate proposal failed to include detailed price information for one of the elementary schools in the new system ("Elementary School D"). Petitioner failed to separate its installation price from the price for hardware and software. Petitioner conditioned the mandatory commitment to discounted pricing beyond July, 1997, on a requirement that Respondent accept Petitioner's full contract. Finally, Petitioner failed to base its cost on required response times. Elementary School D Petitioner failed to include information for Elementary School D on the individual system detail price sheet. Petitioner's failure does not affect the contract price, does not result in a palpable economic benefit to Petitioner, and does not adversely affect Respondent's interest. Omnicom sent out approximately six addenda to the RFP before completing its evaluation. One of the addenda failed to include Elementary School D. Omnicom discovered the error and evaluated the cost of all proposals with Elementary School D excluded. The omission of Elementary School D was an honest exercise of agency discretion by Omnicom and did not result in disqualification of the low proposal for technical reasons. Combined Pricing The detailed price sheets for each school and support office includes a space for the price of hardware and software. A separate space is provided for the price of installation. Petitioner did not provide separate prices but provided one price for hardware, software, and installation. The purpose of the separate pricing requirement is twofold. Separate pricing allows Omnicom to determine if individual prices are out of line with industry standards. It also provides information needed for additional purchases of separate items. Petitioner's deviation from separate pricing requirement did not violate the strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical reasons. Omnicom awarded Petitioner the highest number of points and recommended Petitioner for the contract. Petitioner's deviation did not result in a competitive advantage for Petitioner. The purpose of the separate pricing requirements was informational. Petitioner's deviation did not adversely impact the interests of Respondent. It did not impact the lowest price posed or the technical capability of the proposal. Discounted Pricing The RFP instructs proposers to base their pricing on the assumption that the proposer would install the entire system. Petitioner's conditional commitment to discount pricing through July, 1997, merely restates the assumption mandated in the RFP. The RFP instructs all proposers to assume they will be awarded the contract for the entire system in preparing their proposals. Even if Petitioner's conditional commitment were a deviation from the RFP, it would not be a major variation. It does not violate the strong public policy against disqualifying the low bidder for technical reasons. It does not result in a competitive advantage for Petitioner. It does not adversely impact the interests of Respondent. Response Time The RFP requires an emergency service response time of two hours. It mandates damages for violation of the response time of $250 per hour up to $2,500 a month. Petitioner's alternate proposal does not conform with this requirement. It proposes a four hour response time. Petitioner took exception to the liquidated damages provision and proposed a maximum damage of $500. Petitioner's deviation is a minor irregularity. Omnicom adequately addressed the deviation in the evaluation report so that the deviation will not affect contract price, afford Petitioner a palpable economic benefit, or adversely impact Respondent's interest. Honest Exercise Of Agency Discretion Omnicom's response to the deviation's in Petitioner's proposal is an honest exercise of agency discretion by Omnicom. Omnicom applied the same methodology in a consistent manner for all of the proposals. Omnicom's decision is a reasonable exercise of its expertise in telecommunications based on independent knowledge and experience. Respondent did not reject Omnicom's evaluation of the proposals or reject the proposals. Respondent did not request that Omnicom re-evaluate the proposals. Respondent stated in its notice of intent to award the contract to Intervenor that its decision is based on the presentations at the September 20 meeting and on Omnicom's evaluation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's protest of the selection of Intervenor. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 29th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent's intended award of Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 13/14-01 was contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies; contrary to the solicitation specifications; and was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Department is designated by section 409.2257, Florida Statutes (2014), as the Title IV-D agency for the State of Florida. As such, it is responsible for the administration of the Child Support Enforcement program that is required in all states by the Federal Social Security Act. See § 409.2577, Fla. Stat. As part of its duties under chapter 409, the Department is authorized to solicit proposals from, and to contract with, private contractors to develop, operate, and maintain a state disbursement unit (SDU). The SDU is responsible for processing, collecting and disbursing payments for most child support cases in Florida. The current contractor for the SDU is Xerox whose contract will expire on February 28, 2015. In general, Florida procurement law provides a continuum of competitive procurement processes running from invitations to bid, through requests for proposals, to invitations to negotiate. Invitations to bid are used where specifications can be stated with certainty with the primary issue being price. Invitations to negotiate, on the other end of the procurement spectrum, are used to purchase services when state agencies need to "determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem." § 287.057(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014). In essence, an ITN contains the process a state agency follows in awarding a contract and the criteria to which a vendor should reply in order to be considered responsive to the ITN. Under an invitation to negotiate and even though a reply must be responsive to the invitation, specifications generally are more fluid and less mandatory. Price, while important, is negotiable. Indeed, an agency may "reply shop" the terms, including price, of one vendor's reply against a competitor's reply in seeking revisions to that vendor's reply. As such, contract price is a more fluid concept under an ITN and is not the primary consideration in an ITN. In this case, the Department was seeking a solution for processing, collecting and paying child support payments based on a negotiated per transaction rate resulting from such SDU services plus negotiated service costs associated with the operation of the SDU. In fact, contracting for a transaction- rate-based price was one of the prime considerations under this ITN because the Department felt it could gain significant contract savings by utilizing a transaction-rate-based pricing scheme in its negotiations. Towards that end, the Department issued Invitation to Negotiate 13/14-01 on August 27, 2013, soliciting service solutions for the operation of the SDU. Prior to receiving replies to the ITN, the Department issued seven addenda to the ITN, provided several replacement pages to the ITN and answered numerous vendor questions regarding the ITN. After the release of the ITN and the seven addenda, there was no protest filed pursuant to section 120.57, Florida Statutes, regarding the ITN's specifications. As such, any objection to those specifications was waived by Petitioner and Intervenor. In this case, the ITN required a vendor's reply to be in a particular format. Specifically, the ITN required that a vendor's reply consist of two components presented in two multiple-tabbed binders: the Administrative/Technical Reply (Technical Reply) and the Cost Data Reply (Cost Reply). Technical Replies were to contain non-cost information such as corporate capability, proposed solution technical components, quality assurance and monitoring, and a variety of attachments. Cost Replies were to contain a vendor's Transaction Rate, Baseline Compensation, Reimbursable Costs, and other cost-related information as specified by the ITN. Vendors were not permitted to disclose any cost information in the Technical Reply. Additionally, the ITN required that a 15-page "Requirements Response Location Form" be completed and provided by the vendor in its ITN reply. The form listed the section numbers of the essential criteria of the ITN and the pages of the ITN on which each criterion could be found. The form also contained blank spaces adjacent to each referenced criteria where the vendor was to list the sections and pages of the vendor's reply that responded to each of the referenced criteria in the requirements response form. Relevant to this case, Section 1 of ITN 13/14-01 contained general definitions of terms used in the ITN. Under Section 1, a "Responsive Reply" was defined as "[a] Reply submitted by a responsible Vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation." A "Minor Irregularity" was defined as "[v]ariations of terms and conditions from the Invitation to Negotiate which do not affect the price of the Reply or give the Vendor an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other Vendors or do not adversely impact the interests of the State." Additionally, the Department reserved the right to waive minor irregularities in a vendor's reply. ITN Section 2.4 provided: "The FDOR intends to negotiate with one or more Vendors who are compliant with the mandatory compliance items identified throughout this document." ITN Section 2.5 addressed Desired vs. Mandatory Requirements and Actions: Within the ITN the use of "shall" or "must" indicates a mandatory requirement or mandatory action. The FDOR may consider failure to meet a mandatory requirement to be a material deficiency, in which case the FDOR may reject the Reply and not consider it further, or FDOR may have the option to score that requirement with a zero (0). (emphasis added). The use of "should" or "may" indicates a desired requirement. The FDOR will not reject a Reply just because it fails to meet a desired requirement and may result in a lower score for that requirement. Clearly under the ITN, the mandatory nature of a requirement did not result in the criteria also being material since the Department could consider failure to meet a mandatory requirement to be a material deficiency or allow the vendor to move to the evaluation phase with the materiality of such criteria to be addressed by the evaluators during scoring. ITN Section 3.1.9, titled "Material Requirements Compliance Review," addressed the ITN's pro-forma review for responsiveness and provided: Each Vendor shall submit a Reply that conforms in all material respects to this solicitation. Material requirements of the ITN are those set forth as mandatory or those that affect the competitiveness of Replies. All Replies will be reviewed to determine if they are responsive. The FDOR will conduct a Material Requirements Compliance Review of all Replies submitted in response to this ITN. This review does not assign scores, but is simply a pass/fail review. Replies that do not meet all material requirements of this ITN; fail any of the mandatory requirements in this ITN; fail to timely respond to Reply Qualification Requests (see Section 3.1.10); fail to provide the required/requested information, documents, or materials in the Reply and/or during the Reply Qualification Process; or include language that is conditional, or takes exception to terms, conditions and requirements, shall be rejected as non-responsive and not considered further. The FDOR reserves the right to determine whether a Reply meets the material requirements of the ITN. Additionally, Section 3.1.10 of the ITN provided that the Department was to initially review each reply "to determine a Vendor's compliance with the requirements of the ITN not directly related to the Technical Specifications and Cost Data of the ITN." (emphasis added). A checklist titled "Material Requirements Compliance Review" was used to determine the responsiveness of a reply. The checklist items are not at issue here. Importantly, per the ITN criteria, the material responsiveness review was a review of the form of a reply and not a review of the substance of the same. Indeed, deficient replies could be cured as part of the "Reply Qualification Process." After the responsiveness review, an Evaluation Committee chosen by the Department would score the Administrative/Technical Volume for each vendor in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the ITN. Towards that review, the vendor was required to complete and submit the "Requirements Response Location Form" as part of its reply. As indicated earlier, the response location form listed the section numbers of the essential criteria of the ITN and the pages of the ITN on which each criterion could be found. The form's criteria references matched the criteria references in the score sheets to be used by the individual evaluators to score a vendor's reply. Further, the evaluation committee used the location form to locate information within a vendor's reply. In evaluating replies, the committee members were not expected to hunt down information in a vendor's reply outside what was provided by a vendor on its response location form. Thus, the form is a very good indication of the materiality or importance of a particular ITN criteria since those criteria were the ones on which a vendor's reply was to be evaluated. Relevant to this case, Section 7.13.1.1 of the ITN required that a letter of commitment for a surety bond be submitted with a vendor's cost reply. There was no prescribed format or wording for this letter. Additionally, Section 12 of the ITN contained a table titled "Attachments and Submittals." According to Section 12, the table listed a variety of documents "to be completed and included in Volume One: Administrative/Technical as indicated[.]" However, the table clearly listed documents that the ITN, in other sections, required to be in Volume Two, the Cost Data Reply. In fact, the table itself only indicated who should complete a document. It did not indicate whether a document was required, for responsiveness purposes, to be submitted with a reply. The "as indicated" language, referenced above, referred to other sections within the ITN to determine if such documents should be submitted and in what volume they should be submitted. Other than referral to other sections of the ITN, Section 12 did not require that any document listed in its table be attached to the ITN. Two of the documents listed in Section 12 of the ITN were "Incident Control Policy and Procedures" and "Change Management Policy and Procedures." In the column of the table titled "Attachment" these two documents were listed as "Vendor's Documents." However, unlike the other documents listed in the Section 12 table, these two documents had no attendant requirement in other sections of the ITN stating that the two documents should be provided or where in a vendor's reply the two documents should be placed. The Department's responses to October 24, 2014, vendor questions 18 and 19 regarding these documents were that the two documents referred to the vendor's corporate documents and that a copy of such documents were required to be submitted with a vendor's "proposal." Except for the Department's responses, there were no written addenda amendments to the ITN document making such submission mandatory or indicating in what section of the vendor's multi-tabbed response the documents should be included. Further, no addenda amendments were made to the response location form to cover these documents. Similarly, no addenda amendments were made to the evaluator's score sheets to cover or evaluate these documents. Thus, despite the use of the word "required" in the Department's response to questions 18 and 19 and in view of the lack of any amendments to the ITN in relation to these responses, the evidence demonstrated that submission of these two documents with a vendor's reply was only desired by the Department and was not mandatorily required under the ITN for purposes of responsiveness. Section 12 of the ITN also listed Attachment G, "Individual Contractor Security and Agreement Form." The form was to be "completed" by the vendor and subcontractors. As discussed above, inclusion in the Section 12 table did not indicate whether a document was required for responsiveness purposes to be submitted with a reply. Those criteria were found elsewhere in the ITN. Notably, the provision of the standard contract which would emerge from this ITN required the security form be executed by subcontractors within five days of signing the contract. More importantly, Section 6.6 of the ITN stated that Attachment G "should" be executed and submitted with a vendor's reply. As such, the document's attachment was not mandatorily required for responsiveness purposes, but was only desired by the Department at this point in the ITN process since the winning vendor and its subcontractor's must provide the document within five days of signing the contract. The ITN further provided in Section 10.3.2 that upon completion of the Administrative/Technical evaluation, the Cost Data Volume would be publicly opened and scored. Relevant to this case, the ITN addressed renewal cost and renewal of any future contract in Section 7.4 of the ITN. Section 7.4 stated, in pertinent part: RENEWALS The FDOR reserves the right to renew any Contract resulting from this ITN. Renewals shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the original Contract and subsequent amendments, . . . Vendors shall include the cost of any contemplated renewals in their Reply, . . . In substance the section tracked the language of section 287.057(13), Florida Statutes, making any renewal subject to the same terms and conditions, including price, as the original contract. The statute also requires that the "price" of any "services to be renewed" be provided in a vendor's reply. However, if a separate renewal price was not provided in a vendor's reply, any renewals would be at the price of the original contract since under the ITN the original price would be the renewal price for section 287.057(13) purposes. On the other hand, Section 7.4 of the ITN deviated from the statute's language and required that the "cost" of any "contemplated renewals" be included in the vendor's reply. Such cost information was not part of the criteria requirements listed for the ITN on the "Requirements Response Location Form" and was not part of the requirements to be evaluated by the evaluation committee. Question 39 posited by SMI on September 18, 2013, asked about the handling of renewal cost information in the vendor replies to the ITN. The Department's response to question 39 was that "renewal rate information" "should" "please" be provided in summary form in the cost volume of the vendor's reply to the ITN. Additionally, the Department's response stated that renewal cost information was not to be "scored" as part of the transaction rate. Clearly, the Department in its response viewed this "rate information" as related to the transaction rate, which was one of several costs used to calculate total compensation under the ITN. The Department's explanation or interpretation of Section 7.4 has a reasonable basis since renewal of the contract was statutorily restricted to the same terms and conditions of the original contract, making such renewal cost information immaterial. Additionally, the renewal information was not part of the scoring criteria that permitted a vendor to move through the negotiation process under the ITN and was not required in order for a vendor to be responsive to the ITN. In essence, the Department's response made the provision of renewal cost information a non- essential criteria of the ITN. Non-compliance with such criteria can be waived by the Department as a minor irregularity.2/ ITN Section 10.3.2.1.4 provided: Only cost submitted in the prescribed format will be considered. Alternate cost models will not be considered for scoring purposes. Vendors selected for negotiations will be provided the opportunity to present alternate costing structures. "Alternate cost models" referred to models that did not use a transaction-based rate such as a fixed price model or did not use the format for calculating compensation required by the ITN. Part of the format for vendor cost replies included Attachments K (Transaction Rate Cost Form), L (Baseline Compensation Form), M (Reimbursable Cost Form), N (Unknown, Unanticipated, and Unspecified Tasks Cost Form), and O (Total Compensation Form). Additionally, after questions posed by the vendors, the Department supplied an estimate of the number of transactions it predicted might be processed by the SDU under the contract. The estimate provided by the Department was 69,425,110 transactions and was based in part on an assumed percentage increase in actual transactions that occurred under the current contract in 2012. Attachment K was the form used by a vendor to explain and report the per-transaction rate that the vendor would charge the Department for each transaction it processed through the SDU. The form required disclosure of the costs the vendor included in determining its transaction rate. The form was required to be signed by a representative who could bind the vendor. Relative to Attachment K under the ITN, neither the method used nor the costs included by a vendor to calculate its transaction rate was prescribed by the ITN criteria. There was no requirement that the Department's estimated number of transactions of 69,425,110 be used in calculating the vendor's transaction rate. The Department only supplied such estimates as information to the vendor. In fact, a vendor was free to use its own assumptions regarding the estimated number of transactions that might be processed through the SDU in its calculation of its transaction rate. The method of rate calculation did have to be explained. However, once calculated, the vendor's transaction rate was carried over to line "B" on Attachment L which, as discussed below, ultimately filtered through to a contract price and commensurate price of services that might be renewed in Attachment O. Attachment L was the form used to calculate the baseline compensation cost for the vendor. The initial form did not require that the Department's estimate of 69,425,110 transactions be used in the calculation of the baseline compensation cost. After questions from the vendors and internal discussions within the Department, Attachment L was revised to require that the Department's estimated number of transactions be used on that form. Notably, the Department did not revise Attachment K to require the use of the estimate when it revised Attachment L. The formula used to calculate Projected Baseline Compensation on Attachment L required the vendor to multiply its transaction rate from Attachment K by the Department's estimated transactions of 69,425,110. The requirement to use the Department's estimated number of transactions on Attachment L normalized the vendors' baseline compensation calculation so that an apples-to-apples comparison of baseline compensation could be made between vendors. Once calculated, the projected baseline compensation cost calculation was carried over to a line item in Attachment O, which form calculated the total projected SDU compensation, the cost factor used in awarding points to evaluate a vendor's reply. Attachment M was the form on which a vendor was to submit estimates of actual costs the vendor anticipated it would expend for performing the contract. Although not specified, presumably the costs listed by the vendor on Attachment M would be those not used in the vendor's Attachment K transaction rate calculation. Additionally, ITN specifications Sections 7.10.4.3 and 10.3.2.3 provided that all vendors "shall execute and submit Attachment M: Reimbursable Costs." The term "execute" simply means to complete. Within Attachment M, a list of several anticipated cost categories (facilities rent/lease, postage, e-disbursement, post office box fees, etc.) were provided by the Department. There were also several blank fields for additional cost categories contained on the form. The specifically-listed cost categories were those categories the Department, in its experience, anticipated a vendor might incur and for which it would reimburse a vendor. The use of the phrase "will reimburse" in relation to these anticipated cost categories did not make the reporting of such costs mandatory given the format of Attachment M and the instructions later provided on the form discussed below. Such anticipation only indicated interest by the Department in those expense categories but did not create a requirement that those specific expenses were required to be estimated by a vendor for purposes of responsiveness to the ITN in order to move forward in the evaluation and negotiation process.3/ Indeed, such costs or expenses were intentionally negotiable under the ITN. Following this list, a box to provide the amount of each reimbursable cost and ultimate total was provided at the end of Attachment M. Notably, except for two of the anticipated cost categories, the box did not include any of the anticipated costs listed earlier in Attachment M. The two cost categories that were listed in the reimbursable cost box were "Facilities Rent/Lease" and "CSR Salary Expenses." Both these cost categories had blank fields where the vendor was required to fill in an amount in the reimbursable cost box at the end of Attachment M. Additionally, the instructions for executing the box clearly stated that amounts for these two categories must be provided. As indicated, the other anticipated costs contained on Attachment M were not specifically listed in the reimbursable cost box. Only blanks, labeled as "(other)," where amounts for vendor "proposed" costs could be reported were contained within the box. Given the format of this form and the instructions at the top of the reimbursable cost box, amounts for anticipated cost categories listed in Attachment M, other than the two required cost categories in the box, were not required to be proposed by the vendor in completing Attachment M and, as indicated earlier, such amounts were not required in order for a reply to be responsive to the ITN. As with the other forms, the total from the reimbursable cost box was carried over to a line item in Attachment O. Attachment O was the form used to calculate the total projected SDU compensation that constituted the vendor's proposed contract price. The proposed price was also the price for services which may be renewed since, unless the vendor proposed a different renewal price, this was the original price proposed as a term of the initial contract. Section 10.3.2 sets forth the formula for scoring the Cost Data Volume of a vendor. The formula was: Total Available Cost Points x Amount of Lowest Response Cost/Vendor's Reply Cost (emphasis in original). The ITN further stated: "Each Vendor's Cost Data points will be added to their Administrative/Technical score to obtain the Vendor's Total Reply Score. The Vendor's Total Reply Score will be used to determine which Vendors the FDOR will Negotiate with." Thus, the vendor with the lowest cost would receive the maximum points available for its Cost Data Volume with all other vendors receiving a portion of the total available Cost Data points proportionate to the difference between their proposed cost and that of the vendor with the lowest cost. Notably, lower cost points did not disqualify a vendor from selection for negotiation. Similarly, a lower Total Reply Score did not disqualify a vendor from selection for negotiation because the goal in an ITN procurement is to develop a range of vendor replies for negotiation. The ITN, in Section 11.3, provided broad discretion to the Department regarding the manner in which negotiations would be conducted, including obtaining revised offers from vendors. The section reserved to the Department the right to: negotiate with one or more, all, or none of the vendors; eliminate any vendor from consideration during negotiations as deemed to be in the best interest of the State; and conduct negotiations sequentially, concurrently, or not at all. Sections 3.1.19.1 and 11.5 of the ITN provided that at the "conclusion" of negotiations, the Department would post a Notice of Intended Agency Decision, as determined to be in the best interest of the State. However, this language must be read in conjunction with Section 11.4 of the ITN that authorized the Department's negotiation team to request a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from one or more vendors with which the Department concluded negotiations. The section reserved to the Department the right to "request additional BAFO; reject submitted BAFO; and/or move to the next vendor" after a BAFO had been submitted and negotiations concluded. Additionally, Section 2.6.9 contemplates that discussions, i.e. negotiations, regarding the form and language of the final contract would continue after the Notice of Intent to Award was posted. Section 2.6.9 states: The FDOR anticipates initially addressing any contract terms and conditions or concerns during the Negotiation process and then continue discussions post award. Given this language, the Department, in its judgment and acting in the best interest of the state, may post an intended award prior to the complete conclusion of negotiations and finalization of the contract with a vendor. In this case, SMI and Xerox both timely submitted a reply to the ITN. Each reply contained a Volume I: Administrative/Technical; and a Volume II: Cost Data. Both vendors submitted a completed Requirements Location Response Form and had information contained in their reply relative to the references contained in that form. As indicated earlier, under the ITN's pro forma responsiveness review, the substance of each vendor's reply was not a determining factor in whether a vendor's reply was responsive to the ITN for purposes of being accepted and moving forward in the ITN process. John Kinneer was a purchasing analyst with the Department. He served as the procurement officer and as a negotiator with respect to the ITN. Mr. Kinneer reviewed the technical replies submitted by Xerox and SMI for pro-forma responsiveness to the ITN sufficient to move forward in the ITN process. In compliance with the ITN, he checked the Material Requirements form for both vendors and checked that each vendor had some information in its technical reply relative to the response form. Per the ITN, he did not check the substance of that information. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that both replies met the preliminary responsiveness requirements of the ITN and properly moved forward in the ITN process to the evaluation phase. The Department appointed an evaluation team of seven persons to evaluate and score the Technical Replies. The Committee consisted of Shannon Herold, Barbara Johnson, Connie Beach, Stan Eatman, Beth Doredant, Mark Huff, and Craig Curry. Under the ITN, the evaluation team was tasked with analyzing the substance of each reply and scoring them accordingly with any issues regarding the quality or responsiveness of a vendor's reply to be addressed in that evaluator's scoring. Each evaluator reviewed and independently scored each vendor's reply according to the criteria listed in the "Requirements Response Location Form." In this case, both replies contained a surety letter of commitment as required by Section 7.13.1.1 of the ITN. SMI's letter was from OneBeacon, the apparent bonding agent in the letter. Indeed, there was no evidence that OneBeacon was not a bonding company. The letter indicated that OneBeacon intended to provide a bond to SMI and that SMI qualified for such a bond in an amount sufficient to meet the requirements of the ITN. Xerox's letter of commitment was also from an apparent bonding company and stated only that the bonding company was "prepared to write the required performance bond" in an unspecified amount and "subject to standard underwriting conditions." While one may quibble about the language used in both Xerox's and SMI's letters, the evidence showed that both letters were not simply letters of reference from a bonding company but were letters of commitment from such companies and were intended as such by those bonding agents. Moreover, the language of both letters was acceptable to the Department as meeting the requirements of the ITN. As such, both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the surety commitment requirements of the ITN. Xerox's reply also attached a copy of its Corporate Change Control Policy and Procedures and a copy of its Corporate Incident Control Policy. These documents were developed by Xerox over several years of being in the business of providing SDU services. They were not developed in relation to this ITN and the evidence did not show that Xerox was disadvantaged either monetarily or otherwise by producing these documents for the ITN. On the other hand, SMI did not attach such documents. Instead, SMI summarized the substance of its policy and procedures in Tabs 3, 10 and 13 of its Technical Reply and included a copy of SMI's corporate Security Plan encompassing the incident and control policies of SMI. The quality of SMI's reply was evaluated by the evaluation committee members and scored according to the criteria relevant to the ITN. Further, the evidence demonstrated that failure to attach these two documents would not adversely affect any vendor or impair the procurement process since a vendor ultimately was required to agree to adopt the Department's incident control and change management policies and procedures. Moreover, as indicated earlier, the documents were not part of the responsiveness requirements under the ITN. Therefore, SMI's reply was responsive without the attachment of these two documents. However, assuming such documents were required, the evidence demonstrated that the lack of copies of specific documents titled in a certain way was a minor irregularity which the Department reasonably waived since SMI summarized the information relevant to these documents in its reply. Such waiver was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additionally, Xerox submitted with its reply an executed Attachment G, Individual Contractor Security Agreement Form, for both itself and its proposed subcontractors. SMI submitted an executed Attachment G for itself but did not submit the attachment for its proposed subcontractors. The form was not submitted for SMI's proposed subcontractors because its subcontractors could not access the Department's online procurement library to determine what they would be agreeing to by signing the form. The inaccessibility of the procurement library was not the fault of SMI or its subcontractors but was due to the Department's failure to provide the policies referenced. Additionally, the Department's Standard Contract required Attachment G to be provided within five business days of contract execution. The evidence did not demonstrate that SMI's failure to include an executed Attachment G for its subcontractors constituted a material deviation from the ITN. Further, as indicated above, Attachment G was not a mandatory provision of the ITN for responsiveness purposes. As such, SMI's reply was responsive on this criterion. However, even assuming Attachment G was required under the ITN, the quality of SMI's reply was evaluated by the evaluation committee members under the relevant criteria. The evidence did not demonstrate that SMI obtained an unfair competitive advantage by not including this form in its reply since any subcontractor would have to submit the executed form after contract execution as required by the Department's Standard Contract. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate that the procurement process was undermined by the lack of a subcontractor Attachment G in SMI's reply. Therefore, the lack of such a document in SMI's reply was reasonably waived by the Department as a minor irregularity and such waiver was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evaluation team completed scoring of the vendor's technical replies around January 17, 2014. Xerox scored 969 points and SMI scored 943 points. The difference of 26 points was not shown by the evidence to be significant since both vendors were experienced and well qualified to perform the services required to operate the child support State Disbursement Unit. After the technical replies were evaluated and scored, the initial Cost Data replies of each vendor were opened and the total costs read aloud at a public meeting. The initial cost replies were reviewed by Mr. Kinneer to ensure the replies were mathematically accurate and that the cost forms were used. He did not review or consider the substance of the cost numbers included on those forms or the narratives in the cost replies. The substance of the cost replies was left for consideration by the negotiation team. Xerox's proposed total compensation for years 1 through 5 of the contract was $84,920,072.00. SMI's proposed total compensation for the same period was $47,996,387.00, approximately $36 million less than Xerox's proposed compensation. Neither vendor submitted a separate price for renewal of the SDU services contract. Therefore, for purposes of section 287.057(13), Florida Statutes, the "price" for the "services to be renewed" was the amount stated above for that vendor. Both Xerox and SMI were responsive for purposes of the statutory requirement of section 287.057(13). Xerox also submitted a brief summary of renewal cost in its introductory letter to its cost reply. In essence, Xerox did not anticipate any renewal cost associated with future renewal of the contract. SMI, also, did not anticipate any renewal cost associated with future renewal of the contract, but did not submit a statement to that effect. However, as discussed above, such cost information was not part of the criteria requirements listed for the ITN on the "Requirements Response Location Form" and was not part of the requirements to be scored by the Department for purposes of the cost reply. The evidence demonstrated that the information was immaterial to the Department in evaluating these replies. Further, the evidence did not demonstrate that failure to summarize such renewal cost information would adversely affect any vendor or impair the procurement process. Under this ITN and the facts of this case, the failure to provide such non-essential cost information constituted a minor irregularity and was appropriately waived by the Department. The Department's action in that regard was not unreasonable and was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence showed that both vendors filled out Attachments K, L, M, N, and O. Relative to Attachment K, Transaction Rate, both vendors completed the form based on their unique assumptions regarding the appropriate transaction rate. Neither vendor used the Department's estimated transaction amount of 69,425,110 transactions. Xerox claimed that its assumptions took into consideration the Department's estimate and that such consideration was buried in its ultimate calculation. However, Xerox's mathematical explanation of its transaction rate calculation on its Attachment K does not reflect that it used the Department's estimate in its calculation. In general, the explanation of its transaction rate contained in its reply reflects that Xerox based its transaction rate on the current contract price minus the annualized costs contained in its Attachment M, divided by the actual number of transactions Xerox processed in 2012 and discounted by 12% to produce a transaction rate of 1.150 for the ITN. Clearly, Xerox did not use the Department's estimate in its calculation and, instead, based its transaction rate on the current contract price, a method the Department warned vendors against using. Similarly, SMI did not use the Department's estimated transaction number in its calculation of its transaction rate on Attachment K. SMI based its proposed rate of .497 on its own historical transaction volumes from other states. The estimated number of transactions used by SMI was 45,066,694 transactions. For unknown reasons, the detailed explanation of the amount of transactions used by SMI was placed on Attachment L. However, the explanation was not used on Attachment L and did not impact the calculation contained on Attachment L. Such misplacement was immaterial to the ITN and had no impact on the ultimate result in Attachment O. As such, the misplaced explanation did not render SMI's Attachment K non-responsive to the ITN and both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the ITN regarding Attachment K. Likewise, the misplaced explanation of SMI's transaction volume did not render SMI's Attachment L non- responsive to the ITN since it was immaterial to that Attachment. Further, the evidence demonstrated that both Xerox and SMI used the Department's estimated transaction volume on Attachment L as required by the ITN. Therefore, both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the ITN regarding Attachment L. Relative to Attachment M, Reimbursable Costs, both vendors supplied cost amounts for rent and CSR salaries as required by Attachment M. However, neither vendor supplied all of the cost amounts listed in Attachment M's list of anticipated costs. SMI did not supply amounts for postage associated with certain services, post office box fees, foreign bank fees, and hand-signed paper check stock costs. Xerox did not supply amounts associated with SDU mass mailings as listed in cost category two for postage-related items on Attachment M and did not submit an amount for telecommunications cost. As discussed earlier, except for two of the anticipated cost categories of rent and CSR salaries, the ITN did not require that amounts be supplied for those categories in order for a reply to be responsive to the ITN. Therefore, both Xerox and SMI were responsive to the ITN regarding Attachment M. Both Xerox and SMI submitted a responsive Attachment O which included line items from Attachments K through N. Attachment O formed the basis for awarding points based on the lowest cost. As indicated earlier, Xerox's proposed total compensation for years 1 through 5 of the contract was $84,920,072.00. SMI's proposed total compensation for the same period was $47,996,387.00. Under the ITN, the cost replies were scored according to the ITN specifications in Section 10.3.2 and the formula contained therein. SMI received a total of 660 points as the low cost reply. As the second lowest cost reply, Xerox received 376 points as a proportion of the total 660 points received by SMI. Both vendors' scores were added to their technical scores. SMI received a combined Total Reply score of 1603 points for its reply. Xerox received a combined Total Reply Score of 1346 points for its reply. As responsible and responsive vendors, both Xerox and SMI were selected to participate in the negotiation phase of the ITN, where, under the ITN, the criteria and terms of the ITN became negotiable. Further, the evidence did not demonstrate that either the evaluation scores or the Total Reply Scores impacted the ITN process beyond qualifying the vendors to participate in the negotiation process. The Department formed a Negotiation Team consisting of Thomas Mato, Clark Rogers, Nancy Luja, Max Smart, Steve Updike, John Kinneer, and Bo Scearce. Several meetings of the Negotiation Team were held during which the team evaluated Xerox's and SMI's replies, posed written questions to the vendors and discussed technical issues with technical experts. Face to face negotiating sessions between the team and the vendors were also held, as well as meetings to discuss technical issues with the parties. Additionally, two rounds of separate demonstrations of a vendor's proposed system and solution were given to the Negotiation Team by Xerox and SMI. The Negotiation Team only observed the demonstration of each vendor in the first such meeting. During the second demonstration by each vendor, the Negotiation Team observed the demonstration and asked questions of the vendor. Based on these demonstrations and meetings, the team elected to request revised replies from both vendors. At some point prior to submission of the revised offers and per the ITN, the team communicated to Xerox that, if it wished to stay competitive in the ITN process, it should bring its price closer to that of SMI. The team also communicated its desire to SMI that costs from the anticipated cost list on Attachment M that SMI had not included in its initial reply should be included on that form. With that information from the Negotiation Team, Xerox and SMI submitted revised cost replies. Xerox's Total Projected SDU Compensation dropped from $84,920,072.00 to $48,200,000.00. Its transaction rate was reduced from $1.150 to $.525. Its Attachment M cost estimate increased from $5,081,195.50 to $9,926,119.00. SMI's Total Projected SDU Compensation increased from $47,996,387.00 to $49,500,000.00. Importantly, its transaction rate remained the same at $.497. Its Attachment M cost decreased from $13,492,107.00 to $12,433,125.00. After reviewing the revised replies, the Negotiation Team elected to continue to conduct negotiations with SMI first. Such vendor selection was appropriate under the ITN since its transaction rate remained lower than Xerox's transaction rate and the team preferred SMI's solution for a variety of legitimate reasons to Xerox's solution. Additional negotiations were conducted with SMI, resulting in additional terms and conditions. After several such negotiation meetings, the evidence showed that the substantive part of the negotiations, including price and scope of work, had concluded with only final contractual language remaining. As such, the Negotiation Team requested a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) from SMI. On May 14, 2014, SMI submitted its BAFO. SMI's Total Projected SDU Compensation increased from $49,500,000.00 to $50,700,000.00. Its transaction rate dropped slightly to $.495 and its Attachment M cost increased from $12,433,125.00 to $13,740,152.09. The BAFO was acceptable to the negotiation team and would, along with SMI's technical reply, become part of the Department's standard contract under the ITN. The team reasonably concluded SMI's management team was superior, and its solution was more customer friendly, intuitive, efficient, and innovative. The Negotiation Team documented its reasons for selecting SMI in a memorandum to the procurement file. On May 19, 2014, the Department posted its Notice of Intended Award to SMI. The evidence did not demonstrate that the award violated section 287.057, Florida Statutes, since that section only requires that negotiations be "conducted" prior to an intended award of a contract. Notably, the award is only intended and is not final since the Department under Sections 3.1.19.2 and 7.3 is not required to enter into a contract if such a document cannot be finalized. Indeed, the statutory language of section 287.057(4) and the ITN in Section 2.6.9 permit continued negotiation and finalization of a contract after the Notice of Intended Award. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that the negotiations between the negotiation team and SMI resulted in a meeting of the minds regarding the services that SMI would be performing and the price for those services. Further, the evidence showed that the negotiations had concluded in all substantial respects prior to posting of the Notice of Intent to Award the contract to SMI. What remained for the Department and SMI to accomplish was the finalization of the contract assembly by inserting the BAFO, Technical Reply, and price into the contract language; insertion of a start date; and work on implementation issues such as invoices and background screening of employees. Given these facts, the evidence demonstrated that the point at which the Department elected to post its Notice of Intended Award was reasonable since the substantive parts of the negotiations were complete. Ultimately, the evidence in this case did not demonstrate that the ITN process followed by the Department was fundamentally flawed or gave an advantage to one vendor over another. Further, the actions of the Department in this procurement were not contrary to the Department's statutes; contrary to the Department's rules or policies; or contrary to a reasoned interpretation of the ITN specifications. Finally, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Department's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Given these facts, the protest filed by Petitioner should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, enter a final order dismissing the protest of Petitioner, Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., and approving the award of the contract to Intervenor, Systems and Methods, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should award a contract to Intervenor to provide physical and occupational therapy services to approximately 1,300 exceptional education students who qualify for such services in 77 public schools in Brevard County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor is the incumbent contractor for physical and occupational therapy services provided to Respondent. Intervenor has provided such services to Respondent for approximately six years. On February 24, 1999, Respondent issued its request for proposals ("RFP") for occupational and physical therapy services. The RFP consists of eight unnumbered pages. Ten companies responded to the RFP. However, only the proposals of Petitioner and Intervenor are at issue in this proceeding. A four-member evaluation committee ranked each proposal on the basis of six categories. The six categories were: experience; qualification; recruiting ability; location of office; and responsiveness. The evaluation committee also considered the hourly rate and mileage to be charged by each proposer. The evaluation committee met as a body. Each member of the committee then returned to his or her respective office to complete a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet listed each proposer's name in a column down the left side of the sheet and the six categories for evaluation from left to right across the top of the sheet. A column down the right side of each sheet listed the hourly rate to be charged by the proposer identified in the column down the left side of the sheet. The RFP does not prescribe a scoring formula to be used in completing the scoring sheets. In relevant part, the RFP merely states: . . . The Selection Committee shall rank the firms in order of preference and will submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. All four members of the evaluation committee ranked Intervenor's proposal first and Petitioner's proposal second. However, the hourly rate in Petitioner's proposal was the lowest of all proposers, at $34.75, and $4.25 less than the $39 hourly rate quoted in the proposal submitted by Intervenor. The proposal submitted by Intervenor charged mileage in addition to the hourly rate while the hourly rate quoted by Petitioner included mileage. Before May 11, 1999, when the Board selected Intervenor as the proposer, the evaluation committee met. The committee asked Respondent's buyer assigned to the contract if the committee was required to recommend the proposal with the lowest price. The buyer advised the committee that the contract was for professional services and did not require the committee to recommend the lowest-priced proposal. The committee determined that Ms. Eva Lewis, one of its members and the Director of Program Support for Exceptional Student Education in Brevard County, should telephone Intervenor and ask if Intervenor would match Petitioner's price. Ms. Lewis telephoned Mr. Rick McCrary, the manager for Intervenor, and asked if Intervenor would accept the contract price of $34.75. After consultation with his superiors, Mr. McCrary agreed to the straight-rate price of $34.75. On May 11, 1999, Ms. Lewis presented the recommendation of the evaluation committee to the Board. The Board asked Ms. Lewis if Intervenor's price was the lowest price. Ms. Lewis disclosed that the evaluation committee preferred the proposal submitted by Intervenor, asked Intervenor to lower its price to meet that of Petitioner, and that Intervenor agreed to do so. The Board voted unanimously to select Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. The parties directed most of their efforts in this proceeding to the issues of whether competitive bidding requirements apply to the proposed agency action and whether the scoring formula used to rank the proposers complied with those requirements. Petitioner asserts that the selection of Intervenor by the Board violates the competitive bidding provisions in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated). Intervenor and Respondent contend that Section 120.57(1), rather than Section 120.57(3), controls the Board's selection of Intervenor for the contract. Although the document used by Respondent to obtain proposals from vendors describes itself as an RFP and describes the responses as either proposals or bids, Respondent and Intervenor suggest that the document is not an RFP but merely a "solicitation." Respondent and Intervenor further argue: . . . that the . . . Board . . . did not attempt to comply with the requirements for competitive procurement under Section 120.57(3) or Chapter 287. . . . And . . . that the . . . Board was never required to comply with those statutes. . . . these are contracts for professional, educational and health services, contracts uniquely and specifically exempted from [the] competitive bid procurement process. Transcript ("TR") at 40. It is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Section 120.57(1) or the competitive procurement provisions in Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 control Respondent's selection of Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. In either event, the proposed agency action is contrary to the specifications in the RFP. Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 do not apply to the contract at issue in this proceeding, Respondent failed to comply with RFP specifications. As Intervenor and Respondent point out in their joint PRO, Section F.8. of the RFP states: The . . . Board . . . and the selected proposer will negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions for submission to the . . . Board for consideration and approval. In the event an agreement cannot be reached with the selected proposer in a timely manner, then the . . . Board reserves the right to select an alternative proposer. (emphasis supplied) Intervenor and Respondent are also correct that the phrase "negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions" includes terms and conditions such as the contract price. Contrary to the provisions of Section F.8., the Board did not first select a proposer at its meeting on May 11, 1999, and then negotiate a contract price with the selected proposer. Rather, the evaluation committee negotiated a contract price with Intervenor before May 11, 1999, and the Board then selected Intervenor as the successful proposer. The evaluation committee is not the Board and does not have authority to act on behalf of the Board. As the RFP states, the evaluation committee has authority only to: . . . rank the firms in order of preference and . . . submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. The last sentence in Section F.8. makes clear that the right to select a proposer is the sole province of the Board and not the evaluation committee. Even if one were to ignore the legal distinctions between the evaluation committee and the Board and the authority of each, the RFP specifications fail to provide adequate notice to potential proposers of the true purpose for the RFP. As Respondent and Intervenor state in their joint PRO: . . . the . . . Board used the proposals it received to test the market for physical and occupational therapy services in Brevard County. The . . . Board then used the information it developed from the proposals as negotiating leverage to obtain a price concession from its incumbent contractor. The . . . Board's negotiation tactics permitted it to secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor. PRO at 33. The RFP fails to disclose that Respondent intended to use potential proposers to obtain negotiating leverage with the incumbent contractor. The failure of the RFP to disclose its purpose violates fundamental principles of due process, adequate notice, and fairness to potential proposers. It creates a gap between what agency staff knew of the Respondent's intent for the RFP and what potential proposers could know from reading the specifications in the RFP. The failure of the RFP to disclose its true purpose suggests that its authors recognized the chilling effect such a disclosure would have had on the response of potential proposers. The lack of responses from potential proposers, in turn, would have frustrated Respondent's intent to "secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor." Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) controls the contract award at issue in this proceeding, Respondent's proposed agency action violates relevant provisions in Section 120.57(3)(f). In relevant part, Section 120.57(3)(f) provides: In a competitive procurement contest, other than a rejection of all bids, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. . . . (emphasis supplied) As previously found, the proposed award of the contract to Intervenor is contrary to the RFP specifications, including specifications for the evaluation and selection process described in paragraphs 7 and 17, supra. The proposed agency action is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). It violates fundamental notions of due process, adequate notice, and a level playing field for all proposers. All of the proposers who were induced by the terms of the RFP to expend the time, energy, and expense required to prepare and submit proposals were entitled to rely in good faith on the specifications in the RFP and to require Respondent to adhere to its own specifications. The proposed agency action is also contrary to competition within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). The economic incentive to respond to an RFP would likely diminish over time if the proposed agency action were to persist. Potential proposers would eventually recognize the RFP process as a device intended to reduce the contract price of the incumbent provider rather than as a bona fide business opportunity for potential proposers to gain new market share. Such an economic environment would not likely induce potential proposers to incur the time and expense necessary to prepare and submit proposals. The pool of potential proposers would shrink, and Respondent would lose negotiating leverage with the incumbent vendor. The likely result would be an erosion of negotiating leverage and an accretion in costs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the selection of Intervenor for the contract award is contrary to the RFP specifications and contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Sawyer, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699 Harold Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier, Miniclier and Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Cocoa, Florida 32922 Jonathan Sjostram, Esquire Steel Hector and Davis, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward J. Kinberg, Esquire Edward J. Kinberg, P.A. 2101 South Waverly Place Suite 200E Melbourne, Florida 32901
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On the evidence, it is found and determined that: I. The RFP and Stage I, II and III Evaluation Respondent issued the RFP on August 19, 2004, seeking competitive proposals for a contract for administration of the FCAT. Respondent's intent in this procurement is to contract with a qualified vendor who will be capable of performing the contract at the lowest possible cost to the State. This contract impacts all Florida public schools. The RFP included the following provisions regarding the general scope of the requirements and bidder responsibilities. 1.0 . . . A contract, if awarded, will be awarded by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the state, while taking into consideration price and other criteria specified by the RFP. 1.3 . . . This RFP defines the requirements for implementing the FCAT assessment program. The RFP and the selected contractor's proposal, together with clarifying documents, define the work to be conducted under contract. These documents will be incorporated into the contracts resulting from the FCAT project award. Because the FCAT assessment program is technical and complex, it is possible that a responsive proposal may not totally or clearly reflect RFP requirements in all details. If the proposal of a contractor selected as a result of the bidding process is inconsistent with the RFP, the requirements of the RFP prevail; the selected contractor will be expected to perform all RFP requirements without an increase in cost above the proposed cost. * * * 5.18 Acceptance of a Proposal The Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in a proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the RFP that does not affect the price of the proposal, or give one bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impact the interest of the Department. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the bidder from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the bidder is awarded the contract. Rejection of Proposals Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of this RFP may be rejected by the Department. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal contains unauthorized amendments, either additions or deletions, to the requirements of the RFP. The proposal is conditional or contains irregularities that make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous. The proposal is received late. The proposal is not signed by an authorized representative of the bidder. The bidder is not authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida or has not included a statement that such authorization will be secured prior to the award of a contract. A bid bond is not submitted with the proposal. The proposal contains false or misleading statements or provides references that do not support an attribute, capability, assertion, or condition claimed by the bidder. The proposal does not offer to provide all services required by this RFP. Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received. 5.22 . . . In the event of conflict between the language of a proposal and the language of the RFP, the language of the RFP shall prevail. * * * 7.1 Stage I: Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements (Part I) During the Stage I evaluation, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will determine if a proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will evaluate each proposal according to the process described in this section. The RFP required prospective vendors to submit sealed proposals in two parts, a technical proposal and a price proposal. The technical proposals were reviewed and scored by an evaluation committee prior to opening of the sealed cost proposals. Failure of a bidder to meet every item on the Stage I list would not necessarily result in elimination of the proposal from consideration. A proposal would be eliminated only if it contained a material irregularity. "Stage I" of the process was identified in the RFP and is basically a check list of documents and commitments that are to be included with proposals. In accordance with Section 7.1, the purpose of the Stage I review is to determine whether the proposals are sufficiently responsive to be considered by the evaluation committee. Two of Respondent's employees opened the technical proposals and checked the proposals against the Stage I list to make certain "Mandatory Documents and Statements" required by Section 7.1 of the RFP were present. They did not make any substantive judgments about the extent of compliance. In performing this Stage I review, Respondent's employees followed the department's standard operating procedures. No scoring points were associated with the Stage I check list review. The technical portions of the RFP were categorized into two parts: Part II titled, "Bidder Qualification and Experience"; and Part III titled, "Technical Proposal for Administration." Bidders could receive a maximum of 50 points for Part II and a maximum of 50 points for Part III, a total maximum possible points of 100 for the technical proposals. The RFP is designed to ensure that only qualified, responsible bidders will be eligible for award of the contract. In order to be considered eligible, a bidder was required to receive a minimum of 70 cumulative points for the technical proposals. Each of the two parts of the technical proposals was broken down into ten categories or criteria. The RFP provided that an evaluation committee would assign scores from one to five, with five being the highest possible score, for each of the criteria. The RFP consists of approximately 200 pages of technical specifications, instructions, and guidelines including appendices and addenda issued after the original release date. Each of the bidders submitted technical proposals in excess of 400 pages. The RFP provided that evaluation of proposals would be based on a holistic approach so that the proposals could be scored based on consideration of the whole package proposed by the bidders without artificial limitations on the evaluators' ability to evaluate the entire proposal and score it accordingly. The evaluation process was designed to be as objective as possible, but a degree of subjective judgment is involved in the scoring of the proposals. The 20 scoring criteria for Parts II and III were designed to cover broad categories of qualifications against which the proposals were judged. Because of the holistic evaluation approach, there was no intent to evaluate proposals on the basis of an item-by-item determination. The committee evaluating the proposals was selected to include representatives familiar with various aspects of the FCAT, which were covered in the proposals. It also included a person not employed by Respondent as required by new procurement guidelines and also included a parent representative. The evaluation committee was selected so that each member brought a different expertise or perspective to the process. The evaluation committee was instructed on how the evaluation process was to be accomplished. The evaluators took their responsibility seriously and did a thorough job. For Part II, the rating scale ranged from five (excellent) to one (unsatisfactory). A score of five means the evaluator found that the bidder demonstrated superior qualifications and experience to perform the required tasks. A score of one meant the bidder demonstrated insufficient experience and capability to perform the required tasks or did not establish its qualifications and experience. The RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of Overall Bidder Qualifications and Experience will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix M." The "holistic" approach referenced in the RFP means that Respondent looks at the proposal as a whole. The RFP and the administration of the FCAT is very complex and the evaluators are not required to look at each component of the proposal, but are to judge the whole proposal. For Part III, the rating scale also ranged from five to one. The criteria for what merited a five or a one changed, however, from Part II. A score of five means that the bidder proposed superior solutions to the requirement of the RFP and has proposed products and services that are desirable for use in the FCAT administration program and are likely to create a high quality assessment program that meets sound psychometric standards that are clearly feasible to implement. A score of one under Part III means that the bidder proposed inferior or incomplete solutions to the requirements of the RFP or has proposed products and services that would be technically indefensible, would create a flawed assessment program not meeting psychometric standards, or would not be feasible to implement. Again, the RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix N." The proposals were scored independently based upon the proposal's compliance with applicable RFP criteria; the proposals were not scored based upon how they compared to each other. Indeed, the evaluators were instructed not to discuss their scores so that each evaluator would establish their own internal criteria that was consistent across proposals. Although none of the proposals were deemed non- responsive in this stage, there are indications that failure to meet certain RFP requirements were noticed by the evaluation committed and scored accordingly. Stages II and III of the evaluation process took four days. Representatives of the bidders, including its attorney, attended all of the Stage II and III evaluation sessions. Documentation of Subcontractor Information. The RFP included the following specifications relating to documentation of subcontractors and printers. 4.6.1 Subcontractors The test administration contractor may choose to employ subcontractors for the completion of one or more tasks. If the bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor(s), the qualifications and experience of the subcontractor(s) will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as those of the bidder. A separate chart in the proposal will identify all of the subcontractors proposed to be involved in the project and the services they are expected to provide. All subcontractors must be approved by the Department. It is assumed that the contractor will use outside printers for some materials. Printers will be documented as subcontractors, and the management plan will identify the proportion of materials to be printed by the contractor and by outside vendors. Procedures for quality control and security during printing are to be described. Destruction of secure materials is addressed in Section 3.7.4. The contractor will assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they are performed or produced by the contractor or by subcontractors. The Department will consider the selected contractor to be the sole point of contact for contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. Other specifications in the RFP contained similar or identical language. The RFP also provided the following in Section 5.31 with respect to subcontractors: Any change of subcontractors must be approved in advance by the Department. In the event of poor performance by a subcontractor, the Department reserves the right to direct the contractor to replace that subcontractor. While Item 10 on Page 77 of the RFP required a representation from the vendors that they had identified all subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed directly by each subcontractor, the only investigation that Respondent undertook to confirm the accuracy of these statements was the Stage I evaluation. The Stage II and Stage III evaluators did not check to ensure that all of the subcontractors had been documented as required by the RFP. The RFP specifically required that all printers be identified and documented as subcontractors. Section 6.3 of the RFP requires the management plan to specifically identify the proportion of materials to be printed by outside vendors. Section 4.6.1 of the RFP on Page 53 states that if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the qualifications and experience of the subcontractors will be documented in their proposal at the same level of detail as the bidder. That section also provides that "printers will be documented as subcontractors." The timeliness, accuracy, and security of the printing operations are very important to the FCAT program; and the qualifications and experience of the printers, who would actually print the materials, is an important component of this procurement. As it relates to the "back-end" printing of the student and parent reports, there are privacy concerns that are particularly sensitive. The RFP provisions were included to ensure that, if a vendor was going to use outside printers for some of the activities, Respondent would be able to tell from the response who all of those printers were and what services they were going to perform. The RFP was drafted to ensure that Respondent was dealing with vendors who were qualified and experienced and able to deliver the products requested in the RFP. There were specific requirements in the RFP as to how the bidders were supposed to identify prior contracts, provide contact information, and document the printers who were going to do any of the actual printing. Section 6.2 on Page 74 of the RFP required that all vendors were to document contracted services for previous assessment projects similar to the one described in the RFP. For each of those projects, the documentation was supposed to include a description of the services and products delivered, the contract period, the name, address, and telephone of the contract person for each of the contracting agencies. This provision was applicable to all of the printers who were involved in this contract. The printers were also supposed to document how they were going to monitor security and provide quality control during the printing process itself. The intent of the RFP was to have bidders document who was going to do the printing, whether it was subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, or sub-sub-subcontractors. Section 5.27 on Page 65 of the RFP states that "if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the subcontractor's qualifications and experience will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as that of the bidder. Procedures for quality control and security of the work tasks performed by the subcontractors are to be described." These provisions are not discretionary. They are mandatory and require all vendors to provide a description of the quality control and security measures to be employed by all subcontractors, including the printers who must be documented as subcontractors. CTB's proposal identified The Grow Network as the entity that would be responsible for printing requirements. The Grow Network is an affiliate of CTB. CTB's proposal included documentation regarding The Grow Network's qualifications to perform the printing. In its response to the RFP, CTB provided extensive documentation and met all of the requirements of the RFP with respect to its front-end printers. Indeed each of those printers was identified in paragraph 10 of the transmittal letter that accompanied the CTB proposal. The Grow Network was also responsible for providing the back-end printing for the reports to be sent to the parents and students. The Grow Network was identified as doing 20 percent of the printing. However, the Grow Network does not actually do any printing themselves. At the hearing, the Grow Network claimed that it was the "print publisher" of the back-end reports. It stated that the Grow Network utilizes a "distributed printing approach." This, in fact, meant that the printing was going to be subcontracted out. The services that would be subcontracted out by the Grow Network include digital printing, collating, packing, distribution, and tracking. CTB's proposal states that GDS, a digital imaging company, will be the print facility utilized by the Grow Network to perform these aspects of the FCAT report printing requirements. CTB's proposal describes the corporate capabilities and experience of GDS, including descriptions of the California and New Jersey projects where GDS was utilized by the Grow Network as its print facility. The RFP also required bidders to provide examples of materials to demonstrate the quality of the work done on similar projects. Accordingly, CTB included sample reports printed by the Grow Network in conjunction with GDS, for the California and New Jersey projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing detailed documentation of both the Grow Network and GDS, Petitioner asserts that CTB failed to comply with the RFP because the CTB proposal indicates that much of the printing work will be out-sourced without disclosing who is actually going to be providing these services. However, CTB's proposal identifies only one printing facility, GDS, that will be utilized as the print facility under its distributed printing approach. CTB's proposal specifically states that "Grow currently uses GDS to support their California and New Jersey projects, and they will employ GDS' services for the Florida reporting project." CTB's proposal identifies other printing facilities, Delzer, R.R. Donnelley, and Bowne, that Grow could utilize on the FCAT with Respondent's approval. These other companies were potential "backup" printers, which were identified in case Respondent preferred using another printing facility. Otherwise, the Grow Network intended to utilize GDS as the sole printing facility on the FCAT and has a commitment from GDS to perform the tasks required. The RFP does not require commitment letters from subcontractors. The RFP required only the identification of the proposed printers, which could be changed with Respondent's approval. CTB has also indicated in its response that it will utilize 180 employees of Kelly Services, at three different locations, to supervise approximately 3,000 scorers. However, nowhere in the proposal has CTB documented Kelly Services as a subcontractor, nor provided information regarding their experience and qualifications to perform this work. CTB uses Kelly Services as a recruiting service provider. CTB is responsible for the hiring, training, and directing of the Kelly Services personnel and ultimately for the deliverables received from those employees. Kelly Services is not a subcontractor as contemplated in the RFP, because they are not held accountable for their deliverables. Accordingly, CTB's proposal is not deficient for failing to document Kelly Services as a subcontractor. Even if the failure to so document Kelly Services were a deficiency in CTB's proposal, the lack of detail would only lower CTB's score, not make it non-responsive. The Post-submittal Clarification Process. The RFP provided at Section 7.0 that each bidder would be required to make a presentation to the evaluation committee after the technical proposals were opened and that information presented or issues clarified during the presentation might affect the number of points an evaluation committee member assigned to a given proposal. On the first day of the evaluation process, the bidders were required to make separate oral presentations to the evaluation committee. Following those oral presentations, the evaluation committee was to begin the process of scoring the proposals based on the various RFP criteria. This was to be a "closed session" during which the vendors were not permitted to interact with the evaluation committee members; likewise, the evaluation committee members were not permitted to direct any questions to the vendors. RFP Section 7.0 spells out the rules and processes for conducting the oral presentations of the vendors. This includes the imposition of time limits on the presentations and questions from evaluators, which were to be strictly followed. Section 7.0 states, in pertinent part: The purpose of the presentation will be for the bidder to describe its offering of products and services and make any statements that will enhance understanding of its offering. The proposal evaluation committee will NOT evaluate the presentations or otherwise award points for the quality of the of the presentation. Information presented or issues clarified during the presentation MAY affect the number of points a proposal evaluation committee member assigns to a given proposal. . . . The presentation shall not exceed 30 minutes with an additional 15 minutes reserved for proposal evaluation committee member questions. These meetings will be open to the public; however, only members of the proposal evaluation committee may ask questions of the bidder. The above-quoted language in the RFP does not contemplate written submissions by vendors following the oral presentations. Nothing else in the RFP specifically authorizes vendors to clarify information in their proposals after the presentations have concluded. Thus, the oral presentation part of the evaluation process is the only RFP-authorized mechanism available to evaluators for seeking clarification of the proposals. Because clarifications are permissible during the vendor presentations, the RFP expressly states that such clarifications may affect scoring of the proposals. By contrast, nothing in the RFP authorizes the evaluators to seek or consider in scoring the proposals any vendor clarification made in any other form or at any other point, whether before or after the oral presentations. In fact, considering any information received from the vendors outside of the oral presentations would be inconsistent with RFP Section 5.3, which restricts communications by bidders with Respondent's staff. In short, to the extent a clarification of a proposal was needed, under the RFP, it should have been provided orally during the vendor presentations. Each of the bidders made a presentation to the evaluation committee. During the presentations, members of the evaluation committee asked bidders various questions relating to their respective responses to the RFP. One of the members sought clarification regarding the total number of full time equivalent ("FTE") hours for the persons identified in the proposals. Although the evaluation team was not given any specific standards or base lines to utilize in scoring the staffing and personnel commitments submitted by the parties, a bidders' commitment of personnel resources was an important factor for several of the criteria in the RFP. The bidder representatives for CTB and Petitioner were not able to provide the requested FTE information at the time of the presentation. Harcourt's representatives, who had had the benefit of hearing the presentations made by Petitioner and CTB, were able to answer the FTE question at the presentation. Because the evaluators had lingering questions on staffing, Respondent made a decision to send out questions to two of the three vendors following completion of the oral presentations. No scoring was done on any of the proposals prior to the time Petitioner's and CTB's responses were presented to the evaluators. At least some of the evaluation committee members felt that the staffing information was critical. The questions were not based on the presentations by the vendors, but were based on the evaluation committee members' concerns that had not been resolved by the oral presentations. The questions reflected areas that the evaluators were not able to understand from the initial proposals submitted. After the presentations, Respondent delivered letters dated August 30, 2004, to Petitioner and CTB, but not to Harcourt, asking them to provide the requested FTE information by the following day. CTB and Petitioner both promptly provided the information requested. CTB's August 31, 2004, written response to the FTE question included a chart that identified all personnel and the associated FTEs that would be assigned to the project. This FTE chart was prepared by Diane Driessen, CTB's senior program manager who was one of two CTB employees primarily responsible for preparing CTB's response to the RFP. As a format for its written response, CTB utilized the existing chart for Professional Personnel Responsible for Major Contract Activity (Figure 9), which was in its proposal. CTB added to this chart the additional personnel to reflect the total FTEs for the project as a whole. CTB took the material in the proposal and presented it in a consolidated format. CTB combined the monthly activities by program chart, which was Table 9, with the key personnel chart, which was Figure 9, and handscoring resources presented in the proposal. The additional named personnel in its response were not named in the original figure of key personnel because they were not considered responsible for major contract activities. It was an oversight that the chart still retained the heading, "Time Task Chart for Key Project Personnel" when it actually reflected the 330 total FTEs for the whole project team as requested by Respondent. The cover letter to Respondent explained that CTB was listing all personnel, not just "key personnel." All of the unnamed persons added to the chart are identified by position in the original proposal. As part of its written response to Respondent's written requests for additional information, CTB also included a written recap of the questions and answers from its oral presentation. The evidence demonstrated that the information provided by CTB after receiving Respondent's staff's questions included corrections of errors contained in CTB's initial response to the RFP. This information was presented to the evaluators for them to review and consider in the scoring process. No one from Respondent made an analysis to determine whether the information in the supplement was contained in the original proposal before it was presented to the evaluators. The RFP also required the vendors to provide all required information by the deadline that the proposals were to be received. Respondent was obligated to follow these provisions and not accept any information in a manner inconsistent with them. In addition, bidders were required to commit to complying with all requirements of the RFP if awarded the contract: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal including but not limited to, certification requirements. . . . The supplemental information submitted by CTB should have been included in CTB's initial submittal. The fifth bullet point of Section 4.6.2 of the RFP on Page 54 required bidders to indicate by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities with an estimation of the amount of time and full-time equivalencies each person was going to devote to the tasks under the contract. The proposal was also supposed to include a vitae for all such professional personnel. This bullet point was not limited to only those who had a supervisory role. It was the intention of the bullet point that the individuals should be identified by name, including software development staff. Much of CTB's software development staff was not identified by name in its initial response, but they were identified in the supplement. The RFP required vendors to provide the total time commitment for key personnel in the initial submission and required that the bidders identify by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities. The time commitment for some of the key project personnel that CTB identified in its initial proposal were significantly "revised" in its supplement. These "revisions" purportedly correct "errors" in the initial response and include changes to the time commitment for "key project personnel," including the project manager for manufacturing, senior research scientists and the scoring director for one of the major scoring sites. There are six new names that appear in CTB's supplement, as well as numerous revisions to the time commitment of key personnel. In its written questions to the vendors, Respondent did not request any revisions or corrections of error with respect to any of these key personnel. The evidence is clear that there are "revisions," corrections of errors and significant reformatting that were tailored to address lingering concerns of the evaluators. CTB's supplemental proposal also included a new chart broken down with many different allocations of days that did not appear anywhere in the original proposal. This submittal also included a number of different "to be assigned" categories that were not specifically included on the chart in the initial submittal and a re-categorization of some of the positions. The evaluation committee members would not have had enough time to make an assessment as to whether that information was in the original proposal. Had CTB not provided its supplemental information, the evaluation team would have had a significantly different view point on CTB's staffing. After the oral presentations, Petitioner also received a written question regarding staffing from Respondent. Petitioner's response was a listing of the FTEs taken from the charts already contained in the original proposal. Petitioner was concerned with the procedure that was being implemented, but after seeking advice of counsel, submitted the response nonetheless. Harcourt was not given this opportunity. RFP Section 5.16 does not address proposal clarifications, but it does impose limitations on the consideration of proposal "amendments." Section 5.16 states that, absent a specific request by Respondent, any "amendments, revisions, or alterations to proposals will not be accepted after the deadline for the receipt of proposals." In addition, Section 5.16 does not address when, during the evaluation process, Respondent may request a vendor to amend a proposal. This timing issue is only addressed by statute in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that "no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered." However, the timing of when Respondent could request a proposal amendment under Section 5.16 is not at issue in this case. Respondent acknowledges that it made no such request in this case. Absent a specific request, Section 5.16 precluded Respondent from considering any amendment to a proposal offered by any vendor. CTB's written responses to Respondent's written questions amount to a clarification of their bid proposal, since then were submitted only after Respondent requested the information. The responses do not constitute an amendment or supplement to the proposal. The Evaluation Process Immediately following the bidders' oral presentations and receipt of the bidders' responses to the evaluators' questions, the evaluation committee met as a body and reviewed each of the proposals. Dr. Orr and Dr. Melvin were co-chairpersons of the committee and facilitated the evaluation committee review of the technical proposals. They did not participate in the actual scoring of proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the three proposals consecutively, evaluating them against the criteria in the RFP. Open discussion about the criteria and the locations within the proposals where criteria were addressed was encouraged and took place. Whether one bidder was slightly better than another bidder was not the basis for determining the contract award. The RFP provided a balanced formula that sought to ensure the competency of the awarded by requiring a minimum technical score of 70 while rewarding the competent bidder that submitted the lowest price. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation committee assigned holistic ratings to the technical proposals, judging them based on the quality of the proposals as a whole. Each evaluator independently scored the proposals by assigning a score from one to five for each of the 20 criterion in the RFP. The evaluation committee did not compare the proposals to each other. The evaluation committee completed the evaluation of the first proposal before considering the second proposal and completed the evaluation of the second proposal before completing the evaluation of the third proposal. Alternative Proposals. The RFP permitted bidders to propose alternative approaches for meeting Respondent's objectives, but provided that no cost savings or increases for alternative proposals could be referenced in the technical proposal. Any cost savings or increases for alternative proposals were required to be submitted in a separately sealed package and clearly labeled. None of the bidders included any reference to cost savings or increases in their technical proposals. Petitioner's proposal clearly marked its alternatives. CTB sometimes identified its alternatives with a special marker and sometimes simply described them within the text of the RFP. Harcourt generally did not clearly designate its alternatives. During the Stage II and III evaluation process, a committee member raised a question regarding assigning points for alternative proposals. Because the RFP did not provide a mechanism for evaluating the alternatives, an internal decision was made by Respondent not to consider the alternatives at all in connection with scoring the proposals. The members of the evaluation team were told to disregard the references to alternative proposals submitted by each of the bidders. There was no provision in the RFP that was relied upon in making that determination. The evaluators were given no guidance as to which provisions of the various proposals should not be considered. This led to inconsistencies in what was treated as an alternative and not scored, versus what was treated as part of the base proposal and scored. It is clear that the decision not to consider alternatives resulted in confusion and inconsistency in the evaluation process. For example, one evaluator, Clarence Reed, indicated that if a proposal went beyond the requirements of the RFP and offered something that was not required, but was an enhancement, he viewed that as an alternative and would not have considered it. Similarly, the chairperson of the evaluation committee and one of the facilitators for the evaluation process, Dr. Orr, testified that "enhancements" should not have been considered. By contrast, most of the evaluators viewed offerings by vendors that went beyond the requirements of the RFP and did not include a cost to Respondent as "enhancements" that could be considered in their evaluation of the proposals. Likewise, Dr. Melvin, one of Respondent's facilitators for the evaluation team, believed that an "augmentation" was not the same as an "alternative." Thus, in many instances, when a vendor offered something beyond the requirements of the RFP, at no cost to Respondent, and did not identify it as an "option" or "alternative," it was considered in the scoring by at least some of the evaluators. The evidence is clear that there are portions of the proposals submitted by Harcourt and CTB that was essentially the equivalent of no cost "alternatives" that were considered by the evaluators while Petitioner's clearly identified "alternatives" were not. In sum, whether a particular proposal was an "augmentation," "option," "alternative" or an additional clarification created confusion among the evaluators. As a result, there was no consistency in terms of what the evaluators could consider in the proposals and what they could not consider. While it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of the decision not to consider alternatives, it is clear that Petitioner's bid received a disproportionate negative impact because many of its important enhancements, which were being offered to Respondent at no cost were listed as "alternatives" and never factored into the evaluation process. There were several alternatives proposed by Petitioner that would have been enhancements to the current program and would have been made available at no cost to Respondent. Thus, Petitioner's score was artificially influenced in a negative way. By contrast, the evidence is clear that CTB and Harcourt, in many instances presented different ways to accomplish tasks without specifically utilizing the term "alternative" or "option" and such matters were factored into the evaluation. The claim by Respondent and CTB that the decision not to consider alternatives was applied even-handedly is not supported by the evidence. Because there was not a consistent manner in which the various companies presented their "enhancements," "augmentations," "options" or "alternatives," Respondent's determination to exclude consideration of "alternatives" precluded the evaluators from fairly determining what each of the vendors could actually provide to the program. It also meant that the vendors were not evaluated on an equal footing. Thus, the decision was contrary to the bid specifications. In spite of these concerns, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent's instruction to evaluators not to consider alternatives rendered the proposed agency action clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and/or arbitrary and capricious because Respondent was not obligated to accept any of the alternatives offered by a bidder. The Price Proposals. Respondent's evaluation of the three bidders' proposals established that each of the bidders was capable and qualified to perform the work under the contract. The bidders' price proposals remained sealed until after the evaluation committee completed its scoring of the technical proposals. The price proposals were evaluated based on a formula that awarded 50 points to the bidder with the lowest price. The remaining bidders received points based on a proportion or ratio that compared their price to the low bidder's price. The RFP provided at Section 7.4, Page 82, in pertinent part: A total of 50 points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Cost Proposal. Proposals with higher costs will receive the fraction of 50 points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposal cost to the higher cost proposal. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to one decimal place. For example, if the lowest responsive cost were $50,000.00, the bid would receive 50 points. If the next lowest responsive cost proposal were $75,000.00, it would receive 33.3 points. If the highest responsive cost proposal were $100,000.00, it would receive 25 points. Upon opening the three bidders price proposals, it was determined that Petitioner's bid for the base and renewal period was $224,969,699; Harcourt's bid was $167,055,970; and CTB's bid was $140,107,439. On September 23, 2004, Respondent posted a Notice of Intent to Award the contract for the FCAT administration to CTB. The posting showed the final scores of the three vendors as follows: Proposers Mandatory Bidders Technical Total Cost Total Requirement Qualifications/ Quality Points Proposal Points Met Experience Stage III (Stages Stage IV Stage Stage II II&III) V Pearson Yes Educational Assessment 44.6 44.3 88.9 31.4 120.3 Harcourt Yes 42.7 42.2 84.9 42.4 127.3 CTB/McGraw Yes Hill 43.8 44.9 88.8 50 138.8 CTB's price for performing the contract over a five-year period is approximately $85 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $27 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt. Over a three year contract period, CTB's price for performing is approximately $53 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $14 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of the Department of Education adopt this Recommended Order and enter an final order awarding the contract for RFP No. 2005-01 to the low bidder, CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Donna E. Blanton, Esquire Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A. 313 North Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10967 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jason K. Fudge, Esquire Florida Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 a contract to Intervenor Xerox Corporation pursuant to Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. 07-015- 040-RFP.
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: On December 15, 2006, PCS issued the 2007 RFP, entitled "Copier Program--Request for Proposals." The 2007 RFP was intended to provide a comprehensive copier program for the entire Pinellas County School District from the award date of the bid, then anticipated to be February 20, 2007, through June 30, 2012. The purpose of the 2007 RFP was stated as follows in Section 3.1 of the General Information section: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. PCS wishes to partner with a qualified vendor who will continue to improve information sharing, right size number of assets, and reduce the number of device types while lowering the district's cost. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid. . . . (Emphasis added) A statement of the 2007 RFP's "scope" set forth in the Special Conditions similarly provided: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets these needs and a district evaluation committee made up of participants from the focus groups will evaluate proposals and make the selection it feels best meets these needs based upon a set of criteria published in this document. . . . [Emphasis added] The 2007 RFP provided for proposals to be received no later than January 18, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. The 2007 RFP contained General Terms and Conditions, setting forth the standard boilerplate terms common to all PCS procurements, and Section 1 of "Special Conditions" particular to this contract.1 These were followed by: Section 2, "Personnel Matrix"; Section 3, "General Information"; Section 4, "Program Specifications"; Section 5, "Equipment Specifications"; Section 6, "Cost Proposal"; and Section 7, "Contractor Response." PCS has adopted the General Terms and Conditions as rules, codified in Part A of the PCS Purchasing Handbook. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions, "Freight Terms," provided: All items are to be bid FOB destination with all transportation charges prepaid and included in the bid prices and title transferring to the district at the time of delivery, unless otherwise stated in bid invitation. Any exceptions to these freight terms taken by the bidder must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal. The purchasing department will evaluate any such exceptions and determine if the exception constitutes grounds for rejection of the bidder's proposal. [Emphasis added] Paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Acceptance and Withdrawal of Bids," provided: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. By written request to the purchasing department, the bidder may withdraw from the bid process and ask to have their sealed bid proposal returned at any time prior to the closing date and time for the receipt of bid proposals. Paragraph 14 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Variance to Bid Documents," provided: For the purpose of bid evaluation, bidders must clearly stipulate any or all variances to the bid documents or specifications, no matter how slight. If variations are not stated in the bidder's proposal, it shall be construed that the bid proposal submitted fully complies in every respect with our bid documents. Paragraph 30 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Errors and Omissions," provided: In the event an error or obvious omission is discovered in a bidder's proposal, either by the purchasing department or the bidder, the bidder may have the opportunity of withdrawing their bid, provided they can produce sufficient evidence to document that the error or omission was clerical in nature and unintentional . . . This privilege shall not extend to allowing a bidder to change any information contained in their bid proposal; however, in the event of a minor omission or oversight on the part of the bidder, the purchasing department (or designee) may request written clarification from a bidder in order to confirm the evaluator's interpretation of the bidder's response and to preclude the rejection of their bid, either in part or in whole. The purchasing department will have the authority to weigh the severity of the infraction and determine its acceptability. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Basis of Award of Bids," provides: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." The standard form cover sheet to both the 2006 and 2007 RFPs contained a "Note to Bidder" that stated: "A signed bid submitted to the School Board obligates the bidder to all terms, conditions and specifications stated in this bid document, unless exceptions are taken and clearly stated in the bidder's proposal." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP included a provision titled "Acceptance of Vendor Responses," which stated: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested. Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP also included a provision entitled "Integrity of Bid Documents," which stated: Bidders shall use the original Bid Proposal Forms provided by the Purchasing Department and enter information only in the spaces where a response is requested. Bidders may use an attachment as an addendum to the Bid Proposal form if sufficient space is not available on the original form for the bidder to enter a complete response. Any modifications or alterations to the original bid documents by the bidder, whether intentional or otherwise, will constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. Any such modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal response and presented in the form of an addendum to the original bid documents. Both Xerox and IKON timely submitted proposals in response to the 2007 RFP. Evaluations of the responses to the RFP were based on a two-step procedure. First, a focus group of individuals from the Pinellas County School District would analyze the bids and award points based on the specifications and the Proposal Evaluation Form set forth in the RFP. The maximum award was 100 points, with 80 points constituting the threshold for further consideration. Second, those vendors which met the 80-point threshold would compete solely on price. Those bidders who did not score 80 points in the first stage would not have their price bids opened. By January 24, 2007, the focus group had finalized its evaluations, and the cost proposals were to be opened on January 26, 2007. Both IKON and Xerox scored above the 80 point level. IKON received a score of 87 points from the focus group and Xerox received a score of 81 points. Xerox's proposal included, among 15 unnumbered appendices, an appendix titled "Xerox Clarification Addendum to the RFP." This Addendum contained four "clarifications" of portions of the General Terms and Conditions, seven "clarifications" regarding the Program Specifications portion of the Special Conditions, and 12 items under the heading "Other Xerox Service Terms" that purported to set forth contractual provisions regarding service, personnel, risk of loss, limitations on liability, payment schedules, and other standard contract terms. PCS's purchasing department conducted a responsiveness review of the proposals prior to sending them to the focus group for substantive evaluation, but did not notice the Xerox Addendum. Mark Lindemann, the director of purchasing for PCS, testified that it is not customary for bidders to submit such an addendum, and, therefore, his staff was not looking for it when conducting their responsiveness review. On January 30, 2007, after the focus group had performed its evaluation of all the bids, and the cost proposals had been opened and the bid tabulations had been posted on the PCS website, Colin Castle of IKON brought to the attention of the PCS purchasing department the presence of the Xerox Addendum. Geri Pomerantz is the Xerox employee responsible for public sector solicitations in the Southeast United States. She is responsible for understanding the terms and conditions of a solicitation, for pricing the solution based on the customer's requirements, and for ensuring that Xerox submits a responsive proposal. Ms. Pomerantz signed and submitted Xerox's proposal in response to the 2007 RFP. Ms. Pomerantz believed that the Xerox Addendum complied with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision of the Special Conditions, quoted above. By submitting the Addendum, Xerox sought to clarify areas of the RFP, to explain how Xerox was meeting the requirements of the RFP, and to propose new items where Ms. Pomerantz believed the RFP was silent on important terms. Ms. Pomerantz testified that, to comply with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision, Xerox included the proposed clarifications in the body of its proposal, where that was possible, then further called them to the attention of PCS by placing them in the Addendum. Though unnumbered, the Xerox Addendum is clearly identified in the Table of Contents at the front of the Xerox proposal and on a separate tab on the side of the proposal. Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor, i.e., Section 4, the Program Specifications portion and Section 5, the Equipment Specifications portion. Xerox incorporated clarifications to the following Program and Equipment Specifications: Section 4.3.1-–Equipment Build Status; Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2 and 5.3.13 –-Price Offering; Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5-–Inspection and Acceptance; Section 4.10.2-–Response Time; Section 4.10.3-– Uptime; Section 4.10.4--Electronic Meter Reads; and Section 4.17–-Insurance Specifications for Contractors. The General Terms and Conditions did not call for a vendor response, and Xerox's clarifications or proposed modifications to those were made only in the Addendum. The introduction to the Xerox Addendum provides as follows: We have reviewed your Invitation to Bid ("Bid")[2] for a Copier Program, and have prepared a proposal that we believe addresses your requirements. However, some of the Board's requirements require that we make some limited clarifications to the terms and conditions included in your Bid. These clarifications are set forth below and are part of our Proposal. In addition, we have included some additional terms and conditions, which are also included as part of our Proposal. Should there be a conflict between the terms and conditions of the various documents the order of precedence will be this Addendum, followed by your Bid. Please note that if any of the terms or clarifications are inconsistent with Florida law or otherwise unacceptable to you, Xerox agrees to negotiate a reasonable alternative that is acceptable to both parties. Our team is also prepared to discuss the Xerox Proposal in greater detail and, if required, adjust our offering based on your final requirements, which may include a modification to our proposed equipment, support services, terms and conditions, and/or price offering. The Xerox Addendum expressly proposed clarifications or modifications to four provisions of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 1(g), set forth in full above, contains PCS's standard freight terms and describes the process by which a vendor may take exception to those terms: exceptions must be clearly stated in the proposal, and the purchasing department will determine whether the exceptions constitute grounds for rejecting the vendor's proposal. The Xerox Addendum proposed to transfer to PCS the cost of any "non-standard delivery or removal expenses, such as additional costs where additional time or resources are required to disassemble equipment due to lack of adequate facility access, or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to deliver equipment to upper floors of buildings.3 Ms. Pomerantz justified this variance by asserting that the 2007 RFP was silent regarding the issue of "non- standard delivery", and that Xerox was merely offering a clarifying solution to this problem. Mr. Lindemann believed this clarification to be salutary, based on disputes PCS has had with its current vendor, IKON, regarding unusual delivery issues. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions specifically allowed the vendor to propose exceptions to the standard freight terms, provided those exceptions were clearly stated and the vendor understood that its exceptions could be grounds for rejection of its proposal. Thus, it is found that the Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum also proposed modification of paragraph 11 of the General Terms and Conditions, which states that PCS has "sole and exclusive property" rights to any discovery, invention or work product produced under the contract. Xerox proposed that any work developed under this contract would be of a generic nature and would remain the sole property of Xerox. Mr. Lindemann reasonably opined that this was not a material deviation because there was no intellectual property involved in this RFP. The Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 41 of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 41 provided that unless otherwise specified in the Special Conditions, all items requested "must be new, the latest model manufactured, first quality, carry the manufacturer's standard warranty and be equal to or exceed the specifications" listed in the RFP. In this instance, the Special Conditions did provide otherwise. Section 4.3.1 of the Program Specifications provided, in relevant part, that vendors "may propose all used, all new or a combination of new and used equipment, but all equipment must meet the minimum standards outlined later in this section. To assure ease of operation for end users, if used equipment is proposed it should all be of the same brand and model within any given Group of copiers, within any given facility." The Xerox Addendum simply provided clarification regarding the company's terminology for its equipment. The equipment provided by Xerox would be either "Newly Manufactured," "Factory Produced New Models," or "Remanufactured," internal Xerox distinctions regarding the use of new, reconditioned or recycled components, and Xerox disclaimed any intent to use reconditioned, recycled, refurbished or used equipment as defined by industry standard. In this instance, Xerox submitted a clarification that did not deviate from or attempt to modify the Program Specifications. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions, the limitation of liability provision, which provided: The bidder guarantees to save [PCS], its agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind for use of any copyrighted or non-copyrighted materials, secret process, patented or unpatented inventions, articles or appliances, furnished or used in performance of the contract for which the contractor is not the patentee, assignee or licensee. The Xerox Addendum to paragraph 44 provided as follows: Xerox agrees that it will indemnify the Board from all copyright and patent information that is included in Xerox- branded equipment/software. However, Xerox will not indemnify the Board, its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, and agent [sic] for any patent infringement caused by complying with the Board's requirement to use, or the Board's use of, the Xerox- branded/supplied equipment with equipment or software not provided by Xerox. Mr. Lindemann testified that this modification of the limitation of liability provision would most likely require PCS to purchase additional contingent liability insurance, which would be a cost essentially passed on from Xerox to PCS. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed a second limitation of liability provision in the section titled "Other Xerox Service Terms," which was essentially a list of standard terms and conditions that Xerox proposed to take precedence over similar provisions in the 2007 RFP. This second limitation of liability proposal provided as follows: Excluding personal injury (including death), property damage, and intellectual property indemnification on Xerox branded equipment, Xerox will not be liable to you for any direct damages in excess of $100,000 or the amounts you've paid to Xerox, whichever is greater. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to this Agreement, whether the claim alleges tortious conduct (including negligence) or any other legal theory. Any action you take against Xerox must be commenced within two (2) years after the event that caused it. Ms. Pomerantz testified that when she read the RFP she focused on the indemnification language in paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions regarding copyright and patent issues. She thought the RFP was silent on broader indemnification issues, and she sought to clarify it with this proposed language. Mr. Lindemann testified that the $100,000 limitation of liability could result in costs to PCS in the event of a judgment against PCS and might require the purchase of additional liability insurance. Mr. Lindemann believed this proposed limitation on liability was a material deviation and formed the basis for his request to Xerox to withdraw the Addendum. Paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions states: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." (Emphasis added) It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. 34. Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program/Equipment Specifications related to the vendors' cost proposals provide: 4.3.4 Whatever type of pricing methodology is proposed, it shall include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to: all imaging devices, any peripheral equipment (file servers, etc.), delivery, removal, installation, training, dedicated technician(s), all supplies needed to operate the imaging devices except paper, delivery of supplies and removal of the equipment upon termination of this contract. * * * 5.3.2 Pricing should include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all imaging devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technicians and all supplies except paper needed to operate the imaging devices. * * * 5.3.13 Pricing must include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all copier devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technician(s), all supplies except paper, end-user training and semi-annual customer satisfaction surveys. The three quoted provisions state that price proposals must include all costs associated with the administration of the service in question, except for paper, delivery of supplies, removal of equipment upon contract termination, end user training, and customer satisfaction surveys. The Xerox Addendum sets forth a monthly minimum and cost-per-copy charge that would cover standard equipment, supplies, maintenance, delivery and removal, installation and user training, but would require PCS to pay for "optional accessories," "non-standard operating supplies," "excess rigging" needed due to inadequate site access or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to install or remove equipment,4 overtime service coverage, and expenses associated with site preparation. The Xerox Addendum attempted to vary the quoted Special Conditions that require the vendor's price to include all costs associated with delivery, removal, and installation and, thus, materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP. Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 of the Program Specifications required the vendor to "provide and pay for all material, labor, tools, transportation and handling, and other facilities necessary for the furnishing, delivery, assembly plus inspection before, during and after installation of all items specified herein." The Xerox Addendum to Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.17.1 of the Program Specifications required acceptance testing for each imaging device and accessory, including a period of four consecutive business days, each containing seven hours of operational use time, in which the equipment maintains a 95 percent level of performance. The Xerox Addendum to Section 4.17.1 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.10.2 of the Program Specifications provided requirements regarding service calls and response times. This condition defines "response time" as the interim between the user's call to the repair office and the appearance of a certified technician on-site who is prepared to effect repairs. Section 4.10.2 provides that the response time cannot exceed four hours. PCS would have the option of charging the contractor $50.00 per failure to meet this four-hour response time requirement. The Xerox Addendum proposed that service response times be averaged quarterly according to a formula by which "target response time" would be divided by "average service response time," which is measured by dividing the sum of all service call response times during the quarter by the total number of service calls. Xerox proposed that the $50.00 charge be imposed based upon Xerox's failure to meet "the 90-day 4 hour average unit response time commitment." IKON also proposed to calculate the response time using a quarterly average, providing for an average response time "of 2 to 6 hours for all customer service calls located within 30 miles of an IKON service center, and 4 to 8 hours for all customer service calls located 30 miles or more from an IKON service center." IKON's proposal did not clearly state how far IKON's nearest service center is located from any Pinellas County school site. Another section of IKON's proposal discusses the company's recent consolidation of its "customer care centers," which "provide direct customer support" and house "the field service call center and inside sales function for a geographical region," into four central locations, the closest to Pinellas County being in Atlanta, Georgia. In this instance, both Xerox and IKON have proposed material deviations from the RFP requirement. Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions set forth a simple response time requirement that PCS itself could monitor and enforce without input from the vendor. Both Xerox and IKON attempted to substitute complex formulas arriving at quarterly averages for response time. IKON's proposal further attempted to make its compliance with the four hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers. Section 4.10.3 of the Special Conditions requires a guaranteed uptime of 95 percent per machine for any 90-day period, and further requires that machines failing to maintain 95 percent uptime must be removed and replaced with an identical or comparable model at no cost to PCS. The Xerox Addendum announced an uptime objective of maintaining an average 95 percent equipment uptime performance based on a three-month rolling average, a variation in the wording of Section 4.10.3 that does not materially change the RFP requirement. Xerox also offered slight variations in the definition of "downtime" that are in the nature of clarifications rather than amendments to Section 4.10.3. The Xerox Addendum also contained 12 "Other Xerox Service Terms," essentially Xerox's standard terms and conditions dealing with service guarantees, personnel, substitution of equipment or software, risk of loss for equipment, treatment of confidential information, compliance with laws, vendor liability for customer-supplied items, the limitation of liability provision discussed above, force majeure, payment upon 45 days of invoice, breach of contract and remedies thereto, and a procedure for amendment of the contract. The 2007 RFP's General Terms and Conditions contain requirements for breach of contract, limitation of liability, standards of conduct for vendor personnel, and equipment substitution. Thus, the Xerox Addendum violated the following language in paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." In summary, the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the requirements of the 2007 RFP in the following ways: it varied from the limitation of liability requirements of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions; it offered a cost proposal that was not all-inclusive, in contravention of Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program Specifications; it attempted to limit inspections after installation and acceptance testing, in contravention of Sections 4.7.4, 4.7.5, and 4.17.1 of the Special Conditions; it varied from the response time requirements of Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions; and it attempted to substitute several of Xerox's standard terms and conditions for those of PCS, in violation of paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions. After learning of the Xerox Addendum from Mr. Castle on January 30, 2007, PCS reviewed the Addendum and concluded that it included material deviations to the terms and conditions of the RFP solicitation and that either the Addendum or Xerox's bid must be withdrawn. Negotiations commenced between PCS and Xerox. On February 2, 2007, Xerox offered PCS a revised Addendum. PCS rejected the revised Addendum and informed Xerox that the Addendum must be withdrawn in its entirety. On February 5, 2007, Xerox notified PCS by letter that it was withdrawing the Addendum from its proposal. Also on February 5, 2007, PCS posted its notice of intent to award the contract to Xerox. IKON's protest complained that Xerox's letter did not accomplish a complete withdrawal of the deviations included in the Xerox Addendum, because many of those deviations remained in the main body of the Xerox proposal. As noted above, Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the main body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor. These clarifications were included in Section 7.1.4 of the Xerox proposal, "Proposed Work Plan, Transition Plan." When Xerox withdrew its Addendum, it did not also submit a revised proposal that deleted the Addendum provisions from those places where they had been incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Nevertheless, both Xerox and PCS understood that withdrawal of the Addendum accomplished the complete withdrawal of the materials included in the Addendum, including where they were incorporated into the main body of the Xerox proposal. This understanding was reasonable under the circumstances. However, IKON raises a related objection that is more pertinent. Xerox was allowed to withdraw its Addendum, and then was awarded the contract. Thus, the winning proposal is different than the proposal that was reviewed and scored by the PCS focus group. IKON argues that it is very likely that Xerox would not have passed the 80-point threshold without the Addendum provisions that were incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Mr. Lindemann of PCS believed that Xerox's score would probably have been higher without the Addendum provisions. The salient point is that both sides are free to speculate about what the score of the winning bid might have been, because PCS proposes to award a contract on a proposal that was never reviewed or scored in the manner prescribed by the 2007 RFP. PCS argues that the withdrawal of the Xerox Addendum was entirely in keeping with the RFP, citing paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, quoted in full above and relevant portion of which provides: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. [Emphasis added] PCS contends that the emphasized language grants the purchasing department authority to allow a bidder to withdraw a portion of its bid after the bids have been opened. This is correct, if the portion in question is a timely submitted amendment to the original bid.5 In their arguments, both PCS and Xerox equate the terms "amendment" and "addendum," and assume that the Xerox Addendum could be withdrawn as an "amendment" to the Xerox proposal. However, the Xerox Addendum was not an amendment to the Xerox proposal; it was an integral part of that proposal. The Addendum did not amend anything contained in the Xerox proposal; rather, it attempted to "amend" the terms of the RFP. The underscored portion of paragraph 3 anticipates the late withdrawal of an entire bid or an amendment to a bid, not a wholesale grant of authority to the purchasing department to allow a bidder to save a nonresponsive proposal by withdrawing the objectionable provisions. PCS argues that Xerox was given no economic or competitive advantage in being allowed to submit and then withdraw its Addendum. Ms. Pomerantz testified that none of the items in the Addendum would have affected the price bid by Xerox, because they were essentially items of overhead that Xerox cannot "cost out" to include in a price proposal. However, the testimony by Mr. Lindemann convincingly made the point that some of the variations from RFP terms offered by Xerox would affect PCS's costs regardless of their impact on Xerox's price proposal. Passing on costs to the agency that have been absorbed by IKON and the other vendors in their proposals works to Xerox's economic advantage and to the detriment of PCS. Xerox had an obvious competitive advantage in being granted the opportunity to amend its proposal after the substantive proposals were opened and evaluated and the price proposals had been opened and posted. Xerox was also granted the option, afforded to no other bidder, of simply declining to withdraw its Addendum and thereby walking away from the procurement after submitting a proposal that, under the terms of the RFP, is supposed to bind the vendor for a period of 90 days. Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: In a protest to an invitation to bid or request for proposals procurement, no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. . . . The PCS rules and RFP provisions, correctly understood, do not contravene this statutory requirement. They grant the purchasing department the flexibility to allow a bidder, under special circumstances, to withdraw from a given procurement after submitting a bid, and they allow PCS to waive slight variations or minor irregularities in a bid. To the extent that PCS interprets its rules and RFP to allow Xerox to substantially amend its proposal after the opening,6 as occurred in this procurement, then PCS has violated its governing statutes in a fashion that is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. PCS argues that even if the Xerox Addendum contained material deviations, the RFP and PCS's rule permitted bidders to submit addenda with material deviations. PCS based this argument on that portion of Section 3.1 of the Special Conditions stating that bidders "may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid." When read within the context of the Special Conditions in their entirety, this language clearly contemplates allowing the vendors to offer creative solutions within their field of substantive expertise, i.e., the establishment of a comprehensive copier program countywide. It was rational for the drafters of the RFP to assume that a company such as Xerox enters the process in possession of more knowledge and experience in the field of copier installation, service, and repair than the school district possesses. PCS conducted focus groups to determine the top priorities of the school personnel who use the copiers and presented the bidders with specifications broad enough to allow maximum flexibility in crafting proposals responsive to the listed priorities. However, there are rarely "creative solutions" to boilerplate RFP terms such as shipping, limitation of liability, the requirement that cost proposals be all-inclusive, inspection of equipment prior to acceptance, and response time for repairs. These are areas in which the purchasing department of PCS may be presumed to have at least as much expertise as Xerox or IKON. Variations from the RFP's requirements proposed by a bidder regarding these items are likely to be self-serving efforts to protect the bidder's interests or pass on costs to the agency. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions recognizes this reality by stating that a bidder that substitutes its standard terms and conditions for those of PCS will be considered nonresponsive.7 PCS is correct that the "Integrity of Bid Documents" paragraph of Section 1 of the Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP allows bidders to submit addenda that clearly state "modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose." However, contrary to PCS's treatment of Xerox in this procurement, the RFP does not state that the bidder may propose modifications of the RFP terms without risk.8 The cited paragraph clearly warns bidders that proposed modifications or alterations constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. The paragraph does not, and under Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), could not, state that bidders will be given the opportunity to withdraw those portions of their proposals deemed nonresponsive after bid opening. PCS also emphasizes the first sentence of the "Acceptance of Vendor Responses" paragraph of the Special Conditions: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested." However, the next sentence of that paragraph states that the remedy is not after-the-fact withdrawal of the rejected portion of the proposal, but rejection of the proposal: "Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." Both PCS and Xerox raised the issue of the 2006 RFP in an effort to show that IKON was now attacking a process from which it earlier benefited. In the 2006 procurement, IKON was allowed to withdraw portions of an addendum after a competitor filed a protest. PCS ultimately rejected all of the 2006 Proposals because of confusion on the part of the bidders, partly related to the fact that IKON was allowed to withdraw its addendum but a competitor was not given the same opportunity. PCS then issued the 2007 RFP in December 2006 to procure the same copy services sought by the 2006 RFP. The 2006 RFP is relevant only to show that PCS has allowed the withdrawal of amendments in at least one previous procurement, a moot point because PCS has freely stated its position that it has the authority to reject an addendum without rejecting the entire proposal. Xerox's original proposal, including the Addendum, was nonresponsive for the reasons set forth above. PCS's effort to save Xerox's low bid by allowing it to withdraw the Addendum violated Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), as well as the terms of the RFP. The remaining question is whether IKON's proposal was responsive and may therefore be awarded the contract. As already found above, IKON's proposal materially deviated from Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions by substituting a complex formula for the simple response time requirement of the RFP and by making compliance with the four- hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers.9 Section 7.1.3 of the Contractor Response portion of the 2007 RFP, "Proposed Models and Equipment Configurations," provides the following: The respondent must provide a comprehensive description of its proposed standard models and equipment configurations for each of the various grade levels (elementary, middle, high school). Consideration should be given to the stated needs of the focus groups (Section 3), particularly "ease of operation", "accessibility" to machines and "reliability". Vendors should provide detailed, technical product literature for each piece of equipment proposed including all options. The respondent should also describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment as program needs change and how that will effect the amount billed according to the cost proposal plan proposed. [Emphasis added] Section 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, "Cost Proposal," provides the following: Respondent must include a complete, detailed cost proposal which encompasses all costs associated with the proposed program. The cost proposal must allow for flexibility to add or delete equipment as program needs change. The district will not entertain any proposals to purchase or lease any equipment. [Emphasis added] IKON's proposal contained the following paragraph within its response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions: As requested by PCS in Section 7.1.7 of the Invitation to Bid, IKON's cost proposal allows for flexibility. IKON will permit PCS to add or delete equipment as PCS' needs change by permitting PCS to upgrade or downgrade equipment at the beginning or at the end of its fiscal year. Under this program, PCS may replace upgraded or downgraded equipment with additional equipment that addresses PCS' needs. Specifically, IKON will permit PCS to identify up to [three] percent of the overall equipment fleet value procured by PCS from IKON, including models and specifications that are representative of the entire fleet population, as flexible equipment that may be upgraded or downgraded at the beginning or at the end of the fiscal year, while all other equipment may be canceled only in the event of a non- appropriation or termination for cause. The flexible equipment may also be relocated or otherwise used to facilitate a rightsizing program, as directed by PCS. PCS may utilize this flexibility program in its own discretion. In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages. Xerox contends that by limiting PCS to a three percent change in the overall equipment fleet value, IKON's proposal materially deviates from Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, which required that PCS have the flexibility to increase or decrease the size of the copier fleet to meet its needs. However, Section 7.1.3 did not prescribe the amount of "flexibility" required in the vendors' bids; rather, it expressly requested the vendors to "describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment." IKON's bid described the allowed flexibility as three percent of the overall equipment fleet value and was thus responsive on its face. The evidence presented at hearing was insufficient to determine whether a three percent limit would be so restrictive of PCS's needs to add or delete equipment as to render IKON's proposal nonresponsive. More problematic is the last sentence of the quoted paragraph: "In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages." Xerox cogently argues that if its own proposed limitation of liability is a material deviation, then this similar limitation of liability included in the IKON bid must also be found a material deviation. IKON responds that it is clear from the context that this limitation of liability provision, unlike that in Xerox's proposal, applies only to Section 7.1.3. For this reason, IKON contends, PCS determined that IKON's bid was responsive. IKON argues that its own limitation of liability provision is implicated only in the event that PCS requires additional equipment and that it does not limit any direct liability of IKON to PCS and concerns only a distinct class of damages: indirect, special or consequential damages. The position of the quoted sentence, at the end of the final paragraph of IKON's response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions, supports IKON's contention that the limitation of liability applies only to that section. However, the wording of the sentence ("In no event . . .") indicates a broader intended application. IKON also failed to explain why the requirement of additional equipment, and only the requirement of additional equipment, raised concerns within IKON that indirect, special or consequential damages might be claimed by either party to the contract. At best, this provision is ambiguous in the scope of its application and, in any event, seeks to limit the liability of IKON beyond the limits provided by the RFP. If Xerox's limitations of liability constitute material deviations, then so must IKON's. IKON's proposal thus contains two material deviations from the RFP, one regarding response time and one regarding limitations of liability. IKON's proposal is nonresponsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that PCS enter a final order that (a) declares Xerox's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rescinds the proposed award to Xerox; and (b) declares IKON's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rejects the same. Because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation as to whether PCS should award the contract to the next-lowest responsive bidder or reject all bids and start over. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2007, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are delineated with particularity in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation executed by all parties; however, the issues generally are as follows: Whether Experior has standing to challenge the RFP Process. Whether Promissor was a qualified or responsive proposer. Whether Experior's cost proposal was entitled to the maximum points if Promissor's proposal is determined to be unqualified or non-responsive. Whether the scoring of the proposals by Evaluator three was affected by his bias or was so aberrant as to be unsupportable or illogical or in violation of the RFP. Whether DBPR's award of MBE/WBE preference points to Experior and PSI was inappropriate and should be eliminated. Whether Experior suffered an unfair competitive disadvantage.
Findings Of Fact The Department first decided to seek proposals for computer-based testing (CBT) services on March 29, 2002, when it issued RFP 01-02-001. General Condition Number Seventeen of that RFP stated that any material submitted in response to the Request for Proposal will become a public document pursuant to Section 119.07, including any material which a responding proposer might consider confidential or a trade secret. Any claim of confidentiality was waived upon submission. Experior never protested that General Condition Number Seventeen in that first RFP. The cost proposals submitted by all proposers in response to that first RFP became public record after the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Experior on September 17, 2002. Promissor and PSI filed notices of intent to protest and formal written protests. In response to those protests, however, the Department decided to reject all proposals. Experior then challenged the rejection of all proposals by filing a notice of intent to protest on October 24, 2002, but ultimately withdrew that protest on October 31, 2002. Thereafter on January 13, 2003, the Department issued requests for proposal RFP 02-03-005 (the RFP), seeking proposals for the provision of computer-based testing services for several professions regulated by the Department. That is the RFP with which this case is concerned. Questions arose by potential vendors at a Pre-Proposal Conference, which was held on January 21, 2003. Representatives of the Department, Experior, Promissor, and PSI attended. Amendment One to the RFP grew out of that conference and was issued on February 3, 2003. This amendment contained the written questions and the Department's answers and the minutes of the Pre-Proposal Conference. The Department appointed certain employees to serve on the evaluation committee. The employees who were appointed were Karen Campbell-Everett; Steven Allen; Mollie Shepard; Alan Lewis; Milan Chepko (alternate) and Joe Muffoletto (alternate). Additionally, Department employee Valerie Highsmith was appointed to evaluate proposer references. Ultimately, alternate evaluator Joe Muffoletto replaced evaluator Steven Allen due to the death of Mr. Allen's father. Amendment One to the RFP then identified the evaluators and informed all proposers that the educational and professional background of each evaluator could be obtained by making a public records request. The protest filed by Experior alleges that evaluator Joe Muffoletto was not appropriately qualified. Experior did not file a challenge to the evaluators within 72 hours after they were identified in RFP Amendment One. Realistically this would have been difficult to do unless they already knew what the objections to qualifications might be, since Amendment One, in identifying the evaluators, informed the proposers that they would need to make a public records request to obtain the educational and professional background of each evaluator. In any event, preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Muffoletto's experience is sufficient to constitute "experience and knowledge in program areas and service requirements" for the CBT contract within the meaning of Section 287.057(17)(a) (which only requires that evaluators "collectively" have such experience). Mr. Muffoletto has a bachelor's degree, with a major in English and a minor in psychology. He holds a master of science degree in education and master of arts degree in multi- disciplinary studies and has completed the graduate level course called "assessment of learning outcomes" at Florida State University. Before working for DBPR, in 1996, he was a junior high and high school English teacher for 30 years. He has worked as a computer trainer for students taking the New York State Regents Competency Exam. In 1996-1997 he was an OPS test editor with DBPR and from 1997 to 1999 worked for the Florida Department of Education as a coordinator of test development, where he trained consultants on how to write test items, review test items, and amend test content outlines and blue prints. While in that position, he also wrote an RFP and developed a set of exams. Since 1999 he has been a psychometrician with DBPR and currently develops computed-based examinations for landscape architects and auctioneers and regular examinations for electrical contractors. Promissor, Experior and PSI each submitted responses to the second RFP. The technical proposals were distributed to members of the evaluation committee for review sometime after a standardization session for evaluators was conducted on February 11, 2003. The members of the evaluation committee separately conducted an analysis of each proposal and awarded points based on their review. Each evaluator submitted his or her completed technical evaluation guides or score sheets to Lyra Erath, who then forwarded the score sheets to the lead evaluator, Molly Shepard. The evaluation of the proposer references was completed by Valerie Highsmith and her score sheets for such evaluations were submitted to Bobby Paulk. On February 27, 2003, the Department opened the cost proposals, which reflected the following prices proposed per hour: Promissor: $9.00; Experior: $10.50; PSI: $11.35; and NCS Pearson: $14.75. The score for each cost proposal was calculated in accordance with a mathematical formula set out in the RFP. Promissor proposed the lowest cost and thus received the maximum cost score of 175 points. Experior received 150 points, PSI 138.77 points, and NCS Pearson 106.79 points. Upon concluding the evaluation process established by the RFP, Promissor's proposal was ranked first with 490.08 points out of a maximum available 555 points. PSI was second place, being awarded 461.40; Experior was awarded 440.03 points and NCS Pearson, 305.16 points. The bid/proposal tabulation was posted by the Department on March 12, 2003. Therein it indicated its intent to award the contract for CBT Services to Promissor. On March 17, 2003, Experior and PSI filed notices of intent to protest the intended award to Promissor. Experior thereafter timely filed a formal written protest, although PSI did not. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The Time Period for Contract Implementation Experior's protest alleges that the time period for contract implementation was allegedly "too aggressive" (short). The RFP however, repeatedly notified all proposers that they would waive any protest of the terms and specifications of the RFP unless they filed such protest within 72 hours of receiving notice of the specifications, as provided in Section 120.57(3). Similarly, RFP Amendment One informed the proposers that the RFP was amended to include "changes and additions" and that failure to file a protest within the time specified in Section 120.57(3) would constitute a wavier of Chapter 120 proceedings. RFP Section V, states "A. DBPR estimates that the contract for the RFP will be effective on or about March 17, 2003, and the testing services begin May 19, 2003." The 30- day periods the protest claims were "too aggressive" (i.e. too short) were specifically disclosed in RFP Section X concerning "scope of services." The time period of which Experior now complains was apparent on the face of the RFP. Indeed, when Experior's personnel first read the RFP, they had a concern that the time period might give Promissor a competitive advantage. At the Pre-Proposal Conference on January 21, 2003, Mark Caulfield of Experior even expressed concern that the 60 days allowed for implementation was a very aggressive schedule and asked the Department to reconsider that time period. The concern over the implementation schedule was documented in written questions which DBPR answered in Amendment One, telling all proposers that the implementation schedule was fair, in its view, and would not be changed. Experior did not protest the RFP's implementation time period within 72 hours of first reading the RFP and never filed a protest to any term, condition or specification of RFP Amendment One, including the Department's notice that it felt that the implementation schedule was fair and that it would not be amended. Thus, any challenge to the implementation schedule was waived. Even had Experior not waived its challenge to the implementation schedule, there is no persuasive evidence that the schedule would give Promissor an unfair competitive advantage over Experior and PSI. The DBPR tests are already finalized and would simply have been transferred to a new vendor if a new vendor had been awarded the CBT Services Contract. Experior failed to adduce persuasive evidence to show that any proposer was advantaged or disadvantaged by the implementation schedule which applied to all proposers. Evaluation of the MWBE Submittals RFP Section XIV.Q. encouraged minority and women-owned businesses (MWBE) to provide work goods, or services associated with services contemplated by the RFP. Proposers were to be awarded additional points for committing to use MWBEs, based on the percentage of the business under the contract the MWBE would perform. Experior, Promissor and PSI each proposed to use MWBEs to supply goods or services needed to perform the CBT contract. Promissor indicated that it would use one MWBE for 30 percent of the contract value. Resultingly, the Department awarded Promissor 16.5 MWBE preference points (30 percent x 55 maximum points). Experior presented no persuasive evidence showing how the Department interpreted and applied the MWBE provisions of the RFP or showing that the Department acted in excess of its authority in determining the award of MWBE points, as described in Amendment One. Experior offered no evidence concerning whether the Department considered or applied the "two subcontractor" limitation in RFP Section VI.5 ("no more than two subcontractors may be used") when it evaluated the Experior and PSI MWBE proposals, nor how it applied that limitation. Experior and PSI both indicated they would use three MWBE vendors. Experior proposed to use JR Printers (Printing Services); Colamco, Inc. (computer equipment for testing centers); and Workplace Solutions, Inc. (furniture for testing centers). (Furniture is a commodity, not a service.) PSI proposed to use Victoria and Associates (staffing services); Franklin's Printing (printing/mailing services); and National Relocation Services, Inc. (furniture, computers, delivery and installation [commodities, not services]). Based on the proposals, the Department awarded Experior 7.15 points and awarded PSI 17.48 points. Although Experior claims that it and PSI each exceeded the two subcontractor limitation by proposing to use three MWBEs, RFP Section XIV.Q. did not specifically require that proposed MWBEs be subcontractors, but rather only required that MWBEs be utilized by the primary vendor (contractor) to provide work, goods or services. Thus a vendor of goods or a supplier of services could qualify as an MWBE (and, implicitly, not necessarily be a subcontractor). Experior did not prove that any of the MWBEs proposed by PSI or Experior were actually subcontractors on an ongoing basis. The parties stipulated that the companies that each proposed to use were vendors. Moreover, when questioned about the provisions of Section VI regarding sub- contracting of services under the RFP, Jerome Andrews, chief of purchasing and human resources, differentiated the purchase of services from the purchase of commodities as being defined by statute. (See Sections 287.012(4) and 287.012(7).) Experior did not explain or offer persuasive evidence relating to its allegation that PSI's proposal for MWBE services was misleading. Experior did not show that PSI's MWBE proposal did not conform to the RFP requirements or, if there were a defect, how many points, if any, should be subtracted from PSI's total. Moreover, to the extent that Experior claims that the proposal was defective because PSI's proposed suppliers would not provide services over the course of the entire contract, Experior's proposal suffers the same defect, as Experior's proposal admits that "[c]omputer equipment and furniture services will be performed during the implementation phase of the contract." Thus, if PSI's MWBE point award had to be reduced, so would Experior's. Experior fail to carry its burden to show any error in the scoring of the PSI MWBE proposal. It did not establish that these vendors were subcontractors and thus did not establish that the relevant vendors were of a number to exceed the subcontractor limitation in the RFP. It did not persuasively establish that such would have been a material defect, if it had been exceeded. Completion of Evaluation Sheets Some of the RFP's evaluation criteria identified the number of points available and state that such points would be "awarded as a whole and not broken down by sub-sections." In contrast, the remainder of the evaluation criteria simply stated that a specific number of points was available for each specified criterion. In each instance where the evaluation criteria stated that points are "awarded as a whole and not broken down by subsections," the corresponding section of the RFP was broken down into two or more subsections. In each instance where the evaluation criteria simply listed the number of points available, the corresponding section of the RFP was not broken down into subsections. Experior alleged that the evaluators did not properly score Experior's proposal in instances where the evaluation sheet indicated "points are to be awarded as a whole and not broken down by subsections." Experior offered no proof regarding how the Department interpreted that provision or the manner in which the scoring was actually conducted, however. The score sheets reflect that the evaluators actually did award points "as a whole," not broken down by subsections, for those evaluation criteria where that was required. The record does not support any finding that the Department or its evaluators violated the requirements of the RFP, Department policy or controlling law and rules in this regard. Issue of Bias on the Part of Evaluator Three Experior contends that Evaluator Three, Mr. Muffoletto, was biased against Experior. The persuasive evidence does not support that allegation. During his employment with the Department, Mr. Muffoletto interacted with Experior on one occasion regarding reciprocity of an out-of-state examination. This experience left him with the impression that Experior was "proprietary" because it was protective of the content of its examinations. The evidence did not show he had any other impressions, positive or negative, concerning Experior or misgivings about Experior being selected in the first RFP. The mere fact that his total score for Experior was lower than those awarded by other evaluators does not establish bias or irrationality in scoring. The evidence shows that Mr. Muffoletto scored the proposals in a rational manner. He appeared to evaluate criteria comparatively and gave a proposer more points if that proposer was more convincing than another on a particular criteria or point of evaluation. He gave lower scores when the proposer simply copied the text of the RFP and then stated that the proposer would meet or exceed the criteria; in accordance with instructions that evaluators could give lower scores in such cases, so long as the scoring was consistent between proposals. Mr. Muffoletto gave higher scores when the proposers gave more individualized responses, provided more thorough statistics and ways to interpret those statistics, gave numerous specific examples and had a more attractive presentation. Even if Mr. Muffoletto had been biased, it has not been persuasively shown that such would have a material impact on the outcome of the evaluation. If the scores of Evaluator Three were completely eliminated for both PSI and Experior, which is not justified, PSI's point total would be 459.12 and Experior's point total would be 453.54. If Evaluator Three were deemed to give Experior scores equivalent to the highest scores awarded to Experior by any other evaluator, PSI's total would be 461.42 and Experior's point total would be 458.87. Even if Evaluator Three had given Experior the maximum points for each criterion, PSI's point total would have been 461.42 and Experior's point total would have 461.12. Issue of Prior Knowledge of Experior's Prior Cost Proposal Experior contends that Promissor's knowledge of Experior's cost proposal submitted in response to the first RFP in 2002 gave Promissor an unfair competitive advantage. Experior waived that challenge, however, when it withdrew its protest to the rejection of all bids submitted in response to the first RFP. Experior knew when it filed and withdrew its protest to the first RFP decision that all cost proposals had become public record and so it was incumbent on Experior to have challenged the issuance of a second RFP, if it had a legal and factual basis to do so. At the latest, Experior should have challenged the second RFP specifications when issued (within 72 hours) as Experior had already obtained the other proposers' cost proposals and so it knew then that the prior cost proposals were available to all for review. Even if Experior had not waived that challenge, the evidence does not support a finding that Promissor gained any competitive advantage. Although Experior attempted to show, through the testimony of Mark Caulfield, that Promissor could not perform the CBT Services Contract at a profit at the $9.00 per hour price it proposed, Mr. Caulfield actually testified that it would be possible for a company to perform the services for $9.00 per hour, and he did not know what Promissor's actual costs were. Moreover, there is no persuasive evidence that Experior's prior cost proposal played any role in Promissor's determination of its bid for the second RFP or, if it did, that such consideration would have violated any provision of the RFP, governing statutes or rules or Department policies, under the prevailing circumstances, if it had occurred. Alleged Improper Scoring of Experior's Proposal with Respect to Criterion VII.A. Experior alleged that Evaluator One should have awarded 15 points instead 11 points for Experior's proposal format, criterion VII.A., but Experior did not offer the testimony of Evaluator One or any other evidence supporting that allegation. Experior failed to carry its burden of showing that the award of 11 points to Experior for criterion VII.A., was irrational or violated the requirements of the RFP or controlling policies, law or rules of the Department. Even if Evaluator One had awarded 15 points for that criterion, Experior admitted it would have no material impact on the outcome of the procurement, given the more than 21 point advantage PSI enjoyed over Experior. Responsiveness and Qualification The preponderant evidence does not establish that Experior was entitled to but did not receive the additional 21.38 points that it would have to earn to score higher than PSI and move into second place. Experior did not establish error in the evaluation or scoring of its proposal or PSI's proposal that alone, or collectively, would be sufficient for Experior to overtake PSI. As a result, Experior could only prove its standing ahead of PSI by having the Promissor proposal disqualified, which would move it to the first-ranked position because of accession of the full 175 points for having what, in that event, would be the lowest cost proposal. Experior's objection to the Promissor proposal is not meritorious. Its protest alleges that "because Promissor will [allegedly] subcontract for services representing more than 33 percent of contract value, Promissor is disqualified from submitting its proposal and its proposal must be stricken from consideration." Experior did not allege any error in the scoring of Promissor's proposal and so Promissor's highest score cannot be changed. Indeed, even if Experior were awarded the maximum technical score of 325 points, Experior's score would be 482.15 points, still less than Promissor's score of 490.08 points. Experior, as a practical matter, cannot earn enough points because of the disparity in final cost proposal scores to overtake Promissor, unless it can prove Promissor should be disqualified. Experior's proof did not amount to preponderant, persuasive evidence that the Department erred in determining that Promissor's proposal was responsive and that Promissor was a qualified proposer. The Department did an initial review of the proposals to determine if they were responsive to all mandatory requirements, and any proposer determined non-responsive would have been excluded at that point. Promissor's proposal contained all required information in the required format and was deemed responsive. The preponderant evidence shows that the Department's determination that Promissor was responsive and qualified comported with the requirements of the RFP and controlling policy, rules and law. Promissor expressly stated that it would comply with the RFP's subcontracting guidelines upon performing the contract wherein it stated "Promissor agrees and commits to meet the requirement of the RFP." Promissor's proposal stated its intent to subcontract less than 33 percent of the contract value, and that was all that was required for the proposal to be responsive. There is nothing in the Promissor proposal that indicated that Promissor would not comply with the subcontracting guidelines. Experior's entire challenge to the Promissor proposal is based on the contention that Promissor intended to use a subcontractor to provide call center services under the Florida contract but did not say so in its proposal. The Promissor proposal actually stated that Promissor would use its "proprietary scheduling system" or "proprietary reservation system" to service the Department's contract as it was currently doing, not that it would use any particular call center. These representations appear to be true, as Promissor's "scheduling system" or "reservation system" (the proprietary software Promissor uses to take reservations) that it said it would use for the new Florida contract is the same system used under the prior contact with the Department. Ordinarily, whether or not Promissor would actually comply with the subcontractor guidelines could not be determined until Promissor actually performs the contract. It is an issue of contract compliance and not responsiveness or qualification. Here the evidence shows that Promissor was in compliance with the 33 percent maximum subcontracting requirement before the originally scheduled contract implementation date. Since Promissor wished to obtain the maximum points for minority participation, Promissor decided to subcontract to the maximum possible extent with an MWBE. In doing so, Promissor wanted to assure that the use of Thompson Direct, Inc., for call center services did not make it exceed the 33 percent subcontractor standard. Thus, Promissor decided, before it submitted its proposal, to perform the call center services from one of its three regional centers and this decision was communicated internally before Promissor prepared its proposal. Promissor initially intended to perform the call center services from its regional offices in Atlanta, Georgia. In order to implement that decision, senior executives of Promissor, including its president, toured that office in early March, before the Department posted its notice of intent to award to Promissor. After the notice of award was posted on March 12, 2003, Promissor promptly posted an employment advertisement on its website seeking persons to act as call center representatives to service the Florida contract from the Atlanta office. That advertisement was posted on March 14, 2003, a day before Experior filed its notice of intent to protest. In early to mid-April, the manager of the Georgia regional office prepared a project plan that revealed that the Georgia regional office might not be ready to perform call center services by the May 20th contract implementation date. Promissor then decided to use its Maryland regional office to perform the call center services. Regardless of the location of the call center, the scheduling system used by Promissor would be the same as under the prior contract and the same as Promissor promised in its proposal. The Scranton call center and the three regional offices use the same proprietary scheduling system provided by Promissor and run from servers located at Promissor's headquarters in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Even at the Scranton call center that was previously used, Promissor trained all of the employees, who handle calls only for Promissor, wrote the scripts for their use and provided the proprietary scheduling software. The Maryland call center was actually accepting all calls for the Florida programs to be serviced pursuant to the RFP by May 19th, before the May 20th contract implementation date. Since the call center services were actually being provided by Promissor's Maryland regional office before the contract implementation date, Experior's claim that Promissor would provide those services through a subcontractor is not supported by preponderant evidence. Allegations that Promissor Made Misrepresentations Regarding Subcontractors In light of Promissor's actual provision of call center services from its regional office before the contract implementation date, Experior's contention that alleged misrepresentations occurred in the Promissor proposal are without merit. Even if Promissor had not actually performed, however, Experior failed to prove that Promissor made any misrepresentations or was unqualified. In support of its claim that Promissor was unqualified, Experior introduced into evidence three proposals that Promissor or ASI (a corporate predecessor to Promissor) had submitted to agencies in other states in the past three years. Experior argues that Promissor/ASI made misrepresentations in the other proposals and, therefore, Promissor made misrepresentations in the proposal at issue in this proceeding. Its basis for alleging that Promissor made misrepresentations in the Florida proposal at issue is its contention that Promissor/ASI made misrepresentations in other proposals to other states. No evidence was offered that Promissor had made a misrepresentation to the Department as to this RFP, however. In light of Promissor's actual performance in accordance with its proposal and the RFP requirements, the proposals from the other states have little relevance. Experior did not prove that Promissor made misrepresentations in the other proposals, particularly when considering the timing of those proposals and Promissor's corporate history. Promissor's corporate history must be considered in evaluating the claim of misrepresentation to the other state agencies in other states. In 1995, Assessment Systems, Inc., or "ASI," was acquired by Harcourt Brace Publishers. In June of 2001, ASI was sold with a number of other Harcourt companies, including a company called Harcourt Learning Direct, to the Thompson corporation. Harcourt Learning Direct was re-named Thompson Education Direct. Soon after, the federal government required, for anti-trust reasons, that Thompson divest itself of ASI. Accordingly, ASI was acquired by Houghton Mifflin Publishers in December 2001, and its name was later changed to Promissor. Up until December 2001, the entity now known as Promissor and the entity now known as Thompson Education Direct were corporate affiliates under the same corporate umbrella. The Kansas Proposal Experior's Exhibit five was ASI's Proposal for Agent Licensing Examination Services for the Kansas Insurance Department dated May 8, 2000. A letter that accompanied the proposal stated that ASI would not engage a subcontractor for examination development or administration services. Mark Caulfield testified that he did not know whether or not what was said in this letter was true on the date it was written. He testified that he did not know if ASI was using any subcontractors or any outside contractors for any purpose in May of 2000. In fact, as of May 2000, ASI did not subcontract for any call center services; at the time that the letter was written, all of the representations in the letter were true. ASI was awarded the Kansas contract and Experior did not protest. Experior did not offer any evidence related to the requirements in the Kansas RFP and is not aware of any issues between Kansas and Promissor regarding the contract. There is no evidence that the Kansas request for proposals had any subcontracting limitations in it. The proposal that ASI submitted to Kansas in May 2000 listed a phone number for ASI's call center. In preparation for the hearing, witness Mark Caulfield called that phone number and claimed that a person answered the phone "Promissor," and said she was located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Experior did not show that the person that answered the phone was an employee of Promissor. Whether or not the person who answered the phone in that example was or was not an employee of Promissor and could or could not bind Promissor with any statement as a party admission, is beside the point that it has not been shown who would have answered the phone in May 2000, or where they would have been located, as to whether or not that person was the employee of Promissor or its immediate corporate predecessor in interest or whether that person was employed by some subcontractor. That is immaterial, however, in the face of the fact that it has not been proven that the Kansas request for proposals had any subcontracting limitations in the first place and, therefore, no misrepresentation in the Kansas situation has been proven on the part of Promissor. The Maine Proposal Experior's Exhibit seven is ASI's proposal to provide real estate examination administration and related services for the Maine Department of Professional Regulation and is dated August 1, 2001. As of August 1, 2001, ASI did not subcontract for call center services. On pages 2-10 of the Maine proposal, there is a reference to ASI having an extensive network of program-specific, toll-free telephone lines and program-dedicated customer care representatives. This statement was shown to be accurate and was an accurate statement when made on August 1, 2001. The statement refers to the monitoring of the reservation process done by ASI management. Experior admitted that it had no reason to believe that in August of 2001, ASI did not have an extensive network or program-specific toll-free telephone lines and program-dedicated customer care representatives, and Experior did not prove that to be currently untrue. Experior's Exhibit eight is Promissor's Real Estate Candidate handbook regarding the Maine procurement dated April 2003. As of April 2003, the statements made in the handbook were accurate and correct. The handbook listed on page 11 a customer care phone number of 877-543-5220. Experior provided no evidence as to the location where that phone number rang in April of 2003. Experior did not show persuasive evidence regarding the requirements in the Maine RFP and there is no evidence that the Maine RFP had any subcontracting limitations as are in question in the instant case. The Oklahoma Proposal Experior's Exhibit nine was Promissor's response to Bid No. N031354 for License Testing Services for the Oklahoma Insurance Department. It is dated December 18, 2002. Promissor did not state in the proposal that it would not use subcontractors. There is no need to reference subcontractors in the Oklahoma proposal as the Oklahoma RFP did not contain subcontracting limitations. Oklahoma has approved the manner in which Promissor is performing under that contract and Experior did not establish that the statements in Promissor's proposal were false when made or now. The Texas Proposal Experior's Exhibit twelve is Promissor's press release titled "Texas Selects Promissor as Exclusive Provider for Insurance License Testing," dated October 1, 2002, in which Promissor referred to "the Promissor Call Center." Experior did not establish that Texas was not served by a Promissor call center or that Promissor was not performing in the manner its Texas proposal promised. In fact, Texas has approved Promissor's performance under the Texas contract. Even if the proposals Promissor offered had stated that Promissor would provide call center services through a specified entity (which they did not do), and then Promissor later performed such services through another entity, such evidence would be insufficient to prove that Promissor would not comply with the Florida RFP's subcontracting guidelines, especially given Promissor's actual performance in accordance with its proposal. Experior did not establish with preponderant evidence a "routine business practice" of Promissor to make misleading or false promises in proposals to evade subcontracting guidelines. There is no evidence in any of the four states concerning which Experior provided evidence, that they had any subcontracting limitation in their RFPs. The evidence showed that the statements in each of these proposals were undoubtedly accurate at the time they were made; to the extent that the provision of call center services differs from what was promised (although the evidence does not establish that), such difference is explained by the changes in corporate structures that have occurred since the proposals were submitted. Additionally, the evidence established that Promissor has submitted between 70 and 120 proposals since the beginning of 2000 across the nation. The documents relating only to other proposals to other states that were not even proved to have requirements similar to Florida's are insufficient to establish that Promissor had a "routine" practice of making misleading promises about its call center services. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not offered preponderant, persuasive evidence that Promissor is unqualified as a proposer.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation denying the Petition and approving the intended award of the contract to Promissor, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy Russell Weiner, Esquire Mang Law Firm, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman & Bryant, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Law Firm 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Admitted Facts Per Pre-Hearing Stipulation Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a state-certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. CBC 039025. Respondent was the licensed primary qualifying agent for Thom Colan Construction, Inc., from June 10, 2004, to September 4, 2008. On January 10, 2006, Thom Colan Construction, Inc., entered into a contract with Kathleen and Robert Masten to construct a house and pool on property located at 547 Bradenton Road, Venice, Florida (the project). The contract price for the project was $260,000.00. The project was completed with the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Additional Findings of Fact Based on the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence presented, the following additional facts are found: The contract between Respondent and the Mastens was a fixed-price contract. Although the contract price was $260,000.00, the Mastens paid a total of $320.394.19 for the project. The payments were made by the following methods: $49,968.58 was paid by check from the Mastens directly to Respondent; Respondent obtained an additional $222,320.71 in total bank draws, pursuant to a construction loan that authorized Respondent to draw funds directly from the bank for the project; and the remaining $48,104.90 was paid by check or credit card by the Mastens directly to subcontractors for labor and materials provided for the project. Thus, the Mastens paid $60,394.19 more than the contract price. At issue, and the subject of much dispute at the final hearing, was why the project exceeded the contract price by over $60,000.00. Respondent asserted that the entire amount by which the contract price was exceeded was attributable either to changes to the contract terms required by the Mastens or to circumstances beyond Respondent's control, such as price increases by subcontractors.2/ It was difficult to establish the causes for the price increases, in part, because the parties to the contract did not adhere to the formalities called for by the contract. For example, while both witnesses acknowledged that the Mastens requested changes as the project progressed, there was substantial disagreement about the extent of these changes and the cost differential. Unfortunately, there were no written change orders as required by the contract. Written change orders would have documented exactly what was changed and what cost was attributable to the change. Another problematic area in attempting to pinpoint why the contract price was exceeded was that there was no clear proof of the contract specifications detailing the design features of the house and pool. The written contract described a process of developing "plans" with "specifications" as to design elements. Initially, the plans would be preliminary, with items designated for buyer selections. The contract contemplated that the buyer would make these selections, which would become part of the plans, and the plans would then be considered final. Thus, certain buyer selections would be part of the contract. Thereafter, if the buyer wanted to change the final plans and specifications, the buyer would be responsible for the increased costs. No evidence was presented as to what the plans provided with respect to design features and which of those design features provided for buyer selections. Neither the preliminary plans and specifications for the Masten contract, nor the final plans and specifications after buyer selections, were offered into evidence, and it is unclear whether the process contemplated by the written contract was even followed. Nonetheless, Mrs. Masten admitted that she requested certain changes, which she acknowledged were not contemplated by the contract and were more costly than what the contract contemplated. For example, Mrs. Masten acknowledged that she requested an upgrade in kitchen appliances, increasing the cost by $2,703.55. She also acknowledged that she requested an upgrade in bathroom fixtures, but she was unsure of the cost attributable to the upgrade. Respondent testified that the total cost increase for upgrades requested by Mrs. Masten to plumbing and fixtures was $4,745.42. Mrs. Masten thought that amount was too high; it included changes claimed by Respondent, but disputed by Mrs. Masten, such as an upgrade to a hot tub that Mrs. Masten said she did not want but, apparently, was installed. The circumstances surrounding other apparent changes were in dispute. For example, an expedition, including Mrs. Masten and Respondent, trekked to a tile outlet store in Fort Meyers to pick out tile to use in the shower stall and floors. For the shower stall, Respondent testified that he "insisted" on travertine; Mrs. Masten apparently agreed, but said that she felt pressured to do so. The purchase was made, and Respondent returned to haul the travertine and other tile for the flooring on a trailer back to Venice. At some point, Mrs. Masten changed her mind about the travertine after being told by a competitor that travertine was a high-maintenance bad choice. Respondent claimed it was too late to return the tile, which he valued at $750.00, and so he testified that he threw it away. Mrs. Masten then selected different tile from the competitor at a price that was $1,292.16 higher than the travertine. The circumstances surrounding the selection of cabinetry were also in dispute. Respondent testified that he planned to use Enrique Benitez, a subcontractor who was doing other work in the house, to make the cabinets. Respondent claimed that he had Enrique prepare wood samples with different stains and that Mrs. Masten approved the samples and picked out the stain. At that point, Respondent said he paid Enrique $2,970.00 to begin constructing the cabinets. Mrs. Masten claimed that she never approved any samples, was shown only a rough, long plank of splintered wood that she said was awful and would not approve, and that she did not like any of the work this particular subcontractor was doing throughout the house. At some point, Mrs. Masten impressed upon Respondent that she would not accept these cabinets, and she selected different cabinets at an increased cost of $6,886.00. If Enrique ever built cabinets for the Mastens, he kept them. Another outing was made to select countertops. Mrs. Masten did not like the granite pieces that Respondent had intended to use, and the result was that the cost of the granite countertops selected by Mrs. Masten was $5,000.00 higher. Respondent and Mrs. Masten also could not agree on the extent of requested changes to the plans for flooring or the cost of those changes. Respondent testified that Mrs. Masten changed the mix of tile and carpeting, but Mrs. Masten disagreed. Respondent testified that Mrs. Masten required an upgraded carpet style, and although Mrs. Masten acknowledged that she selected a different carpet style, there was no evidence pinpointing the cost difference of the carpet upgrade. Additionally, Respondent acknowledged that one reason why the total cost for flooring was higher than expected was that Enrique Benitez increased the price to install the tiles from $3,000.00 to $7,500.00. Respondent sought to blame Mrs. Masten for the increased installation price, claiming that Mrs. Masten "fired" Enrique over the cabinet debacle, but Respondent had to rehire Enrique to install the floors and had to pay the increased price to overcome Enrique's hurt feelings. Mrs. Masten denied the claim that she "fired" Enrique, though she acknowledged that she was not happy with his work and that she refused to approve the cabinets Enrique was supposed to build, because the sample was unacceptable. Respondent testified that an additional $3,079.90 was spent for upgraded lighting and fans requested by the Mastens and for other electrical upgrades to accommodate other changes, such as the pool heater and spa tub. The cost to construct the pool increased by $3,700.00. According to Respondent, this increase was due to the cost of adding a pool heater that was not part of the original plans, at the request of the Mastens. Mrs. Masten disputed that this was a change. Respondent testified that there was a $323.00 cost increase because of the Mastens' request for an upgraded water softener. Post-contract changes made by the engineer to relocate the septic tank system necessary to obtain the requisite permits, altered the elevation and slope of certain parts of the property, including the space where the air conditioner would sit. Those changes resulted in the need to add a concrete slab and platform for the air conditioner. This additional cost was $419.25. Also because of the septic system design change, the county imposed additional landscaping requirements in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. This resulted in an additional $979.05 spent to purchase trees. Respondent testified that permitting fees imposed by the county exceeded the estimated cost by $2,365.63. Respondent attributed the increase to the higher impact fee charged by the county as a condition to obtain a certificate of occupancy because the post-construction value of the house was higher than estimated. In other words, the combination of cost increases and upgrades led to imposition of a higher impact fee. The rest of the difference between the contract price and the total paid by the Mastens was attributable to increases in costs because of the delay in completing the project or increases in prices charged by subcontractors for their labor and materials. These included increases in the price of concrete, plumbing work, framing, insulation, roofing, drywall, hauling trash, installation of flooring, electrical work, equipment rental, and electricity charges. Respondent explained that he obtained "bids" for various components of the project in September 2005, although he did not sign the contract with the Mastens until January 10, 2006. Respondent anticipated that he would start the project that month, but the start was delayed by more than two months because of the septic system permitting difficulties encountered by the project engineer who had been retained by the Mastens. Mr. Colan utilized the estimates he received from others to develop his overall cost estimates for the project, which he used to establish the contract price. There was no allowance built into the cost estimations for inflation, price increases, or contingency reserves. Although Respondent characterized the price estimates he obtained from subcontractors as "bids," they were not bids in the sense of being firm offers to do work or supply material at a specific cost; they were essentially price estimates subject to change. Respondent testified that at least in some cases, he could count on a bid price being "good" for six months and, in some cases, for as long as seven months. However, Respondent did not lock in any of the bid prices by contracting with the subcontractors in September 2005 or in January 2006 when the Masten contract was executed. Thus, Respondent's reliance on the price estimates given to him in September 2005 was not shown to be reasonable. These estimates would have been four months old before Respondent anticipated starting the project and closer to seven months old before the project actually began. Since many of the price estimates were for items that would not be needed for months after the project began (such as bathroom fixtures, appliances, cabinetry, flooring, and lighting), even under the best-case scenario without any delays, Respondent was plainly taking a risk by using September 2005 cost estimates as if they were guaranteed prices in determining the contract price for the Mastens' project. Not surprisingly, many subcontractors were not willing to honor the stale price estimates when Respondent sought to contract with them many months later. Respondent suggested that he should not bear the risk of others' price increases, because they were not within his control. But Respondent controlled how he went about estimating his costs for the project and how he established the fixed price he agreed to in the contract. No credible evidence was presented to establish that the price increases by Respondent's subcontractors were due to such extraordinary market conditions or delays that they could not have been reasonably anticipated and addressed sufficiently through inflation allowances or contingency reserves built into the cost estimations. While Respondent attempted to characterize certain price increases, such as the rise in the price of cement and copper or the increased cost of dirt, as attributable to a "heated up" construction market, which caused unanticipated demand, Respondent's testimony was not credible and was not supported by any independent non-hearsay evidence. Indeed, Respondent admitted that in most cases, he did not shop around before accepting the price increases demanded by his subcontractors. In some cases, he had checked on prices within the two-county area when obtaining the cost estimates in September 2005, and then he assumed that by identifying the lowest price or best supplier in September 2005, there was no need to check around when that supplier demanded a price increase later. In no instance did Respondent check prices outside of his local area. Respondent acknowledged that the total amount spent for engineering and surveying fees exceeded his estimate by $4,177.12. Respondent argued that these fees were beyond his control, because the Mastens had retained the engineer and surveyor before Respondent entered into a contract with the Mastens. However, Respondent included the engineer and surveyor fee expenses in his cost estimates and assumed the responsibility for covering these fees as part of the overall construction of the house and pool within the fixed contract price. No credible evidence established that the fees were unusually high and could not have been anticipated or addressed by appropriate contingency reserves. Respondent attempted to blame many of the price increases on the two-plus month delay in starting the project because of the engineer's need to relocate the septic system to resolve permitting issues. As pointed out above, this delay did not in and of itself cause the problem of price increases by subcontractors unwilling to honor price estimates quoted in September 2005. In any event, Respondent did not testify that the delays were extraordinary and not reasonably anticipated, even if the exact reason for the delays may not have been known. Instead, various delays for various reasons are to be expected, and, indeed, are expressly contemplated throughout the written contract. Notably, in a section called "Price Guarantee," the contract form allowed the parties to specify a month by which construction had to begin or else the builder would have a qualified right to adjust the contract price. Respondent waived that right by specifying "N/A" in the blank where a start-by month could have been named: This Contract price is guaranteed to Buyer only if it is possible for Builder to start construction on or before the month of N/A. If start of construction is delayed beyond this time by Buyer, or due to any ruling or regulation of any governmental authority, or due to any other cause which is not the fault of the Builder, the Contract price may be adjusted to the current list price or to cover any cost increases incurred by Builder. A plausible explanation for Respondent's lack of care in developing reasonable, achievable cost estimates is that Respondent did not consider the fixed-price contract to be a fixed-price contract. Respondent testified that even though the contract on its face is a fixed-price contract, he believed that he had an understanding with the Mastens that the contract was really a "cost-plus" contract. Respondent testified that despite what the contract said, the Mastens had agreed that they would pay whatever the ultimate costs were, even if the prices went up from his estimates, plus an additional $37,000 for Respondent's profit. Respondent testified that the only reason that the contract was written up as a fixed-price contract was to secure the bank loan. That suggestion would be troubling, if true, because the implication is that Respondent was a party to fraud or deception to induce the construction loan. However, there was no credible evidence to support Respondent's attempt to justify recovering full costs, plus full profit, when the fixed price he contracted for proved inadequate. Notwithstanding Mr. Colan's apparent view that there was a secret deal standing behind the written contract, he signed the written contract, is bound by the fixed-price term, and must bear the consequences of his inadequate cost estimations. At some point when the Mastens became concerned about the extent to which they were apparently exceeding the contract price while Respondent was still drawing bank funds from the Mastens' construction loan, Mrs. Masten testified that she told Respondent not to draw any more bank funds. The evidence did not clearly establish whether Respondent violated Mrs. Masten's instructions by withdrawing more bank funds after the instructions were given. The Administrative Complaint had alleged that the Mastens contacted the bank and ordered the bank to make no further disbursements, and that the next day, Respondent attempted to withdraw all remaining funds in the construction loan account. No evidence was presented to substantiate this allegation. Petitioner incurred total costs of $299.36 in the investigation of this matter, excluding costs associated with attorney time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, finding that Respondent, Thomas Colan, d/b/a Thom Colan Construction, Inc.: Violated section 489.129(1)(g)3. and (1)(m), as charged in Counts Two and Three, and for those violations, imposing a total fine of $3,000.00; Requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Mastens in the total amount of $30,083.04; Requiring Respondent to pay costs of $299.36; and further Dismissing Count One (based on Petitioner's voluntary dismissal) and Count Four (based on an absence of proof). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 14th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Florida Department of Transportation’s (the Department or FDOT) determination that Intervenor Miller Electric Company (Miller) is a responsive design-build proposer was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact This protest arises out of FDOT's April 19, 2010, request for a design-build proposal (RFP) relating to the Project referenced above. The RFP requires the services performed by the Proposer to be in compliance with all applicable manuals and guidelines. FDOT issued three addenda to the RFP, the last of which (Addendum #3) was issued two days prior to the advertised proposal submission deadline. The specific services were outlined as follows in the RFP: The ITS Project (Project) consists of the installation of ten (10) arterial dynamic message signs (ADMS), interconnection with the existing FDOT District 2 and City of Jacksonville fiber optic networks (FON), installation of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera subsystem with eighteen (18) CCTV cameras, and the upgrade of eighteen (18) existing signal cabinets for central command and communication. The Project shall also include all ancillary components and device configuration adjustments needed to connect and operate a complete ITS. The RFP is a low bid design-build technically acceptable procurement. The RFP states that after the public bid opening: The FDOT shall open all bids received at a public bid opening on the date found in Section II of this document. The FDOT Technical Review Committee will review the Technical Proposal of the lowest bidder. The Technical Review Committee will then establish if the Technical Proposal is responsive or non-responsive based on the criteria described in the document. If the proposal is responsive, that Proposer will be awarded the project. If the proposal is found to be non-responsive, the FDOT Technical Review Committee will review the Technical Proposal of the next lowest bidder and establish if the Technical Proposal is responsive or non-responsive based on the criteria described in this RFP and so on. In a low bid design-build procurement, price is particularly important because bidders are eliminated solely on price. In this RFP, bidders were to base their technical and price proposals on the RFP package as well as the addenda and question and answers issued by FDOT. In Section III, Subsection H, the RFP states as follows in relevant part: The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposals by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. Any design submittals that are part of a proposal shall be deemed preliminary only. Preliminary design submittals may vary from the requirements of the Design and Construction Criteria. The Department, at their discretion, may elect to consider those variations in awarding points to the proposal rather than rejecting the entire proposal. In no event will any such elections by the Department be deemed to be a waiver of the Design and Constructions Criteria. The Proposer who is selected for the project will be required to fully comply with the Design and Construction Criteria for the price bid, regardless that the proposal may have been based on a variation from the Design and Construction Criteria. In Section III, Subsection I, the RFP addressed modification of proposals. Proposers could modify previously submitted proposals at any time prior to the proposal due date. The Department opened eight proposals on June 9, 2010. Miller was the low bidder with a total price of $1,549,875.00. ALS was the second lowest bid with a total price of $1,564,189.00, a difference of $14,314.00. Miller’s proposal was submitted to the Department's Technical Review Committee (TRC) for a determination whether its Technical Proposal was responsive or non-responsive. The TRC was comprised of the following members of FDOT's staff: (a) John Kell, ITS Project Manager; (b) Jerry Ausher, P.E., Traffic Operation Engineer; and (c) Amy Williams, P.E., Senior Project Manager. Kathy Thomas, P.E., District Two Consultant Design Engineer, was not a member of the TRC but provided guidance to it. The Department has adopted Design Build Guidelines (the guidelines) that address the role of the TRC in low bid design- build procurements. In Section 4.13, the guidelines state that the "TRC shall review the design concepts and preliminary designs of the lowest bidder proposed in order to assess the responsiveness of the lowest bidder’s technical proposal compared to the Design and Construction Criteria Package." The guidelines also state as follows in pertinent part: In the event the lowest bidder's technical proposal is found to be non-responsive, the TRC will then review the next lowest bidder's technical proposal to determine its responsiveness . . . A Bid Proposal is considered non-responsive if it does not contain all of the required information and level of detail, or is non-compliant with the design and construction criteria defined in the RFP. It may be appropriate for the Department to contact the non-responsive firm to discuss/clarify its concerns prior to moving on to the next lowest bidder. However, once determined that the low bidder is non-responsive, the process shall continue until the lowest bidder having a responsive proposal is found. The Department has also adopted a Design-Build Procurement and Administration Policy (the policy) which specifically references the guidelines and contains language similar to the guidelines with respect to the role of the TRC. The policy authorizes the Department to contact a firm to discuss or clarify its concerns before moving on to the next lowest bidder. Sometime before the Department issued the RFP, it had a meeting with some of its staff, including Ms. Thomas. During the meeting, the Department's staff was advised that they were scrutinizing technical proposals submitted by low bidders too thoroughly. The new philosophy was for TRCs to ask clarifying questions of the low bidder if they had concerns and if those questions were not answered correctly, to find the low bidder non-responsive. The TRC in this case met for the first time on June 15, 2010. During that meeting, the TRC developed a list of concerns they had with Miller’s proposal and submitted those to the Department’s procurement staff. The Department forwarded three questions to Miller. First, the TRC questioned whether Miller intended to reference "mast arm" structures or cantilever sign structures in a section of the proposal. Second, the TRC questioned whether Miller’s bid included the installation of new conduit at Shad Road as opposed to using the less expensive existing conduit. Third, the TRC questioned whether Miller’s proposal included the deletion of the wireless assembly at Shad Road. On or about June 16, 2010, Kirk Townsend, Miller’s Senior Project Manager, responded to all three questions. The next day, the TRC met and voted unanimously to recommend the award to Miller. The TRC did not look at each requirement in the RFP. Instead, the TRC looked at the overall intent of Miller’s technical proposal. Mr. Kell, a member of the TRC, stated at hearing that the procurement process for this RFP was different from any other procurement that he has participated in and that he did not make a specific responsiveness determination. Mr. Kell also stated that Miller's proposal did not contain all of the information required by the RFP and that under the guidelines and policy manuals, the proposal would have been deemed non-responsive. However, under the terms of the RFP, Mr. Kell found that there was sufficient information in Miller’s preliminary plans to understand how Miller would prosecute the work to his satisfaction. Mr. Ausher, another member of the TRC, testified at the hearing. According to Mr. Ausher, the essential items in the RFP were included in Miller’s technical proposal. Mr. Ausher was of the opinion that the role of the TRC was to review the requirements of the RFP, review the proposal, and verify that the proposal met the intent of the RFP. Ms. Williams was the third member of the TRC. She evaluated Miller’s proposal and found it to be responsive. She did not believe that any additional clarification was needed, but heard Miller’s response to the three clarifying questions and found the response satisfactory. On June 22, 2010, the Department posted its notice of intent to award the contract to Miller. When ALS learned of the Department’s intended contract award to Miller, ALS requested a copy of Miller’s technical proposal from the Department. ALS then reviewed the proposal and identified a number of issues that ALS believed would render the Miller proposal non-responsive. James Hardiman is Vice President of ALS. Mr. Hardiman contacted Jane Jones, FDOT’s Purchasing Director, and asked if she would meet with him to discuss issues that ALS had with the intended contract. Ms. Jones met with Mr. Hardiman after June 22, 2010, but prior to the protest period running on June 25, 2010. Ms. Jones made a list of ALS’ concerns and provided the list to Ms. Thomas by e-mail. Ms. Thomas provided a revised list of issues to Ms. Jones with instructions to question Miller regarding the revised issue list. Ms. Thomas’ revised list reflected only those questions that she felt needed to be asked of Miller. Ms. Jones sent an e-mail to Mr. Townsend, Miller’s Senior Project Manager on June 24, 2010. The e-mail stated that the Department would like to clarify certain contract requirements. The e-mail asked Miller to verify that it would complete the scope in the RFP for the price bid and within the contract duration. The e-mail requested Miller to provide the required listing of categories for the Schedule of Values. On the evening of June 24, 2010, Mr. Townsend responded by e-mail, stating that Miller would complete the scope required by the RFP within the 360-day contract duration. The following morning, Mr. Townsend sent an e-mail to Ms. Jones, providing the "preliminary schedule of values as required by the RFP." The clarifications from Miller, as a result of the allegations by Mr. Hardiman, were not received or considered by the TRC. The TRC did not meet again following the posting of the intended award to Miller. There is nothing in the RFP, the guidelines or the policy that authorizes the Department to ask clarifying questions of a bidder or to ask the bidder to provide additional information not included in the technical proposal after the intended award has been posted and prior to the protest period running. It concerned Ms. Jones that the Department was asking Miller questions about its proposal during this time period. On July 2, 2010, ALS filed its formal written protest with the Department. The protest alleges in relevant part that Miller’s technical proposal was non-responsive for the following reasons: (a) Miller’s preliminary schedule failed to provide 45 days for Department shop drawing review; (b) Miller failed to provide splice boxes at all fiber optic splice field locations; (c) Miller failed to include a preliminary listing of categories for the Schedule of Values; (d) Miller failed to comply with the requirements for guardails; and (e) Miller did not show a 60- month warranty period for the Ethernet Field Switches. To support its protest at hearing, ALS relied heavily on a strict interpretation of RFP language requiring a technical proposal to contain all required information and level of detail in order to be responsive. However, if that language was strictly enforced, the Department could never award a contract. With a design-build project there is more than one way to build something. The technical proposals submissions are preliminary in nature. The RFP would be the controlling document if there is an unacceptable variance in the proposal. Schedule of Values ALS has complained that Miller failed to provide the "preliminary listing of categories for the Schedule of Values" with its technical proposal. Typically, the Department does not request a Schedule of Values in a design-build proposal. It is true that Miller’s original proposal did not include the Schedule of Values. In Section V, Subsection P, the RFP states the "[t]he Proposer shall submit a preliminary listing of categories for the Schedule of Values with the Technical Proposal. No price information shall be provided in the Technical Proposal." A Schedule of Values usually is the way a contractor breaks down items for payment. It is a tool that the Department uses to make sure that a contractor does not front load payments on a job. In this case, the Department wanted to see a preliminary listing of the categories of the Schedule of Values so that it would know what the pay items would be and that they would cover the contract. Mr. Kell, as a member of the TRC, testified on direct examination that the use of the word "shall" in the RFP made the requirement for a Schedule of Values a mandatory requirement. Mr. Kell also testified that under the terms of the guidelines and policy manuals, the failure to include the Schedule of Values would mean that Miller’s proposal was non-responsive. Mr. Kell testified that he helped develop the RFP but did not know why the Department used the word "shall" in requiring a Schedule of Values. His testimony that the word "shall" was included in the RFP only because the Department used a generic form to write the RFP is not persuasive. Dale Cody is Senior Vice President over production for Metric Engineering. Mr. Cody served as Miller’s proposal designer. At the hearing, Mr. Cody admitted that the plans included in Miller’s proposal were not designed to show all of the required parts of the RFP. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the TRC overlooked the missing Schedule of Values in Miller’s proposal. Allowing Miller to provide the schedule after announcing the contract award permitted Miller to supplement its proposal. In this case, the omission of the Schedule of Values had no affect on the pricing of the project. During the hearing, Phil Karaganis, Supervisor for ALS, admitted that the failure to timely submit a Schedule of Values had no price impact on the bid. However, the absence of the mandatory schedule deprived the Department of having knowledge of the proposed pay items and knowledge that they would cover the contract. Cantilevered Sign Supports ALS contends that Miller’s technical proposal is non- responsive based on a typographical error in one place of Miller’s proposal that references mast arm structures instead of tricord cantilever structures. Miller’s proposal clearly included tricord cantilever sign supports. Several areas of the technical proposal demonstrated Miller’s understanding that cantilevered sign supports were required. This issue was resolved pursuant to the clarifying questions asked by the Department before making the award. Preliminary Schedule ALS asserts that Miller’s proposal is non-responsive based on alleged omission in the preliminary schedule submitted with Miller’s technical proposal. The schedule provided with the technical proposal is preliminary and simply shows that the proposer possesses a basic understanding of the requirements of the RFP. The RFP required a construction schedule to be included in a bidder’s technical proposal with a maximum contract duration of no more than 360 calendar days. Failure to complete the project in 360 days would negatively impact the Department’s interest and increase the cost of the project. In Section VI, Subsection I, the RFP initially stated as follows: The Proposer must account for a 10 working day shop drawing review time by the Department in its schedule. On June 7, 2010, the Department issued Addendum #3, which changed the time to 45 working days for the Department’s shop drawing review time. The addendum did not extend the maximum contract duration of 360 days. Miller’s proposal provides for only 14 calendar days for review of shop drawings. Miller’s proposal identifies review and approval of shop drawing as a critical item by showing a red "critical bar" next to this item on the schedule. Despite showing only 14 days for the Department’s review and approval of shop drawings, Miller’s schedule would not have to be significantly revised in order to complete the project in 360 days. Miller can adjust its activities during the 90 percent design phase by overlapping the shop drawing review with the plans development period. The scheduling can be accomplished by sliding certain activities and using "negative lag" to allow for shop drawing review during the plans development period. Mr. Ausher, as a member of the TRC, testified that he reviewed Miller's preliminary schedule and was satisfied that Miller could meet the 45-day shop drawing review and approval requirement. Ms. Ausher made this determination by noting the 50-day float in Miller’s schedule with respect to shop drawing submittal. In contrast, ALS’ proposal expressly provided for a 45- day period as required by Addendum #3. After receiving the addendum, ALS adjusted its schedule to account for the 31 additional days. ALS also adjusted its price to add additional dollars for overtime, equipment costs, and possible night work that it believed would be needed to accommodate the additional review and approval time. If ALS had not been required to include 45 days for Department review of shop drawings in its schedule, ALS’ price would have been approximately $20,000 less. On the other hand, there is no persuasive evidence that Miller’s accommodation of additional time for shop drawing review and approval in the design phase would modify the price of Miller’s proposal or impact the bid price. New Conduit at Shad Road ALS complained that Miller’s proposal did not account for new conduit at Shad Road as provided in Addendum #1 to the RFP. However, upon receipt of the addendum, Miller adjusted its price proposal to account for new conduit at Shad Road. Miller also confirmed its intent to install the new conduit in response to the Department's clarifying questions prior to the award of the contract. Splice Boxes ALS complained that Miller’s technical proposal included pay item references to pull boxes instead of splice boxes. The RFP required a proposer to "furnish and install splice boxes at all fiber optic field locations as shown on the plans and at other locations as required." The plans that were part of the RFP specifications require splice boxes at four locations. A splice box is different from a pull box. A splice box is larger, deeper, and more expensive than a pull box. Miller’s plans include references to Pay Item No. 783- 5-1 at locations where the RFP calls for splice boxes. That pay item is for a pull box. Pay Item No. 783-6-1 is the pay item for a splice box. However, the plan sheets submitted by Miller clearly identify the utilization of splice boxes. Miller’s failure to use specific language referencing splice boxes was due to a technician oversight. Most importantly, Miller’s Price Proposal included the use of splice boxes. The typographical error in omitting specific references to splice boxes in the technical proposal had no impact on the method used to arrive at Miller’s Price Proposal. Guardrails ALS complained that Miller failed to provide guardrails at locations required by the RFP. The RFP states that guardrails will only be permitted upon the written approval of the Department. Chapter 2 of the Department's Plans Preparations Manual (PPM) provides that if a sign has to be placed in the clear zone, it must be protected with a barrier. Based on the plans included in the RFP, two of the Arterial Dynamic Messaging Sign (ADMS) structures for the Project have to be placed in the clear zone due to overhead power lines in the area. Chapter 4 of the PPM addresses roadside safety. This chapter of the PPM provided that a non-breakaway sign, such as the ADMS signs required by the Project, are normally considered more hazardous than a roadside barrier, such as a guardrails. Miller’s proposal did not include any guardrails and was priced accordingly. Including the guardrails added approximately $18,000.00 to ALS’ price proposal. Miller’s decision not to include guardrails was an engineering determination based on the application of the Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) criteria in Chapter 25 of the PPM. The RRR criteria provide for more relaxed clear zone requirements and would eliminate the requirement for a guardrails in this case. Chapter 2 of the PPM states that “design criteria for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation are presented in Chapter 25 of this volume and are applicable only on programmed RRR projects.” The Project here has not been programmed as and is not an RRR project. Further, Chapter 25 of the PPM states that it does not apply to strategic intermodal systems (SIS) or to new construction. The instant Project is both. In this case, Miller presented persuasive evidence that the PPM is an engineering guide to design. Miller’s design engineer, Mr. Cody, pointed out that sections of the PPM establish that RRR criteria can be used on projects not specifically designated as RRR. In determining that guardrails were not required, Mr. Cody considered Chapters 2, 7, and 25 of the PPM. Based on the only engineering testimony provided, the Design-Build Criteria Requirements do not require the installation of guardrails. Warranty A table in Miller’s technical proposal relating to warranties included a typographical error referencing a 36-month warranty period instead of the specified 60-month period for Ethernet Switches. That same page of Miller’s proposal included language clarifying and demonstrating Miller’s knowledge that a 60-month warranty was required for the switches. The error had no price impact on the bid. ALS’ Proposal ALS alleged in its formal protest that its proposal was fully compliant with the RFP. At hearing, Miller introduced evidence in an attempt to show that ALS’ proposal was not responsive, and therefore, that ALS had no standing. FDOT has never reviewed ALS’ proposal. ALS’ construction schedule does not use the words "operational test." However, the 14-day operational test is included in the portion of the ALS schedule entitled Systems Integration. Thus, ALS would not have to revise its construction schedule to include the 14-day operational test. ALS’ construction schedule has no task that specifically accounts for preparation of shop drawings. Even so, there is no persuasive evidence that the failure to include time for preparation of shop drawings would make ALS’ proposal non- responsive. Similarly, although ALS did not specifically identify environmental permit acquisition in its proposed schedule, this was included under the heading of "Permitting" in ALS’ construction schedule included in its technical proposal. ALS’ proposal does not include pay items for a fiber jumper or Gbic. There is no such pay item because the Gbic is part of the Ethernet Switch included in ALS’ proposal. Additionally, jumpers are covered based on a plan note in the ALS proposal. ALS’ proposal shows a directional bore for the fiber optic conduit and cable, and uses the pay item 555-1-1 for the directional bore. The proposal also uses a pay item for underground conduit where there is a median. Language in the RFP refers to CCTV cameras in MPEG2 format. The ALS proposal includes a cut sheet for a CCTV camera that uses MPEG4 encoding, which is a better camera and cost about the same as the camera required in the RFP. The evidence relative to ALS’ proposal shows that it has standing to challenge the contract award to Miller. The evidence presented regarding ALS’ proposal does not speak to the responsiveness of ALS’ proposal as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the Foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order rescinding its intended award to Miller, finding Miller’s proposal non-responsive, and providing for review of ALS’ proposal by FDOT’s TRC. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 1st day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony B. Zebouni, Esquire Regan Zebouni & Walker, P.A. 9905 Old St. Augustine Road, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32257 Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Stephanie C. Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue This is a bid protest proceeding pursuant to Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's bid was responsive.
Findings Of Fact 1 . By Request For Proposal Number RFP-DOT-Ps-89-6000, the Department solicited proposals for the performance of work related to the identification and assessment of hazardous waste. The subject request for proposal document was available from December 4, 1989, until the closing date of January 4, 1990. The Petitioner requested a copy of the subject request for proposal and it was duly sent by the Department via certified bail addressed as follows: Enviro-Haz of Florida, Inc., 825 Parkway Street, Suite 14, Jupiter, Florida. The U.S. Postal Service receipt for that delivery was signed by Ms. Kerry Brougham. Ms. Brougham is employed by Force Equipment, located at 825 Parkway Street, Suite 13, Jupiter, Florida. The copy of the subject request for proposal received by Ms. Brougham was ultimately delivered to the Petitioner in time for the Petitioner to file a timely proposal. Ms. Brougham has a friendly relationship with the people at the Petitioner's office and routinely accepts mail addressed to the Petitioner when the mail arrives at a time when the Petitioner's office is closed. Ms. Brougham's regular practice is to place the Petitioner's mail on a separate place on her desk and to then carry the mail to the Petitioner's office when someone returns to that office. When delivering mail to the Petitioner's office, Ms. Brougham either hands it to the receptionist or places it on the receptionist's desk in the Petitioner's office. The subject request for proposal includes the following language under the caption "Responsiveness of Proposals:" All proposals must be in writing. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform, without condition or exception, the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal. Non-responsive proposals shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, improper or undated signatures. (Emphasis added). The subject request for proposal contains several forms each potential vendor was required to use in the submission of its bid. Among these forms was "Form A," consisting of six pages on which each potential vendor was asked to provide extensive pricing information. It is also clear from the subject request for proposal that the Department sought both a technical proposal and a price proposal, the two to be separately submitted. For purposes of evaluation, 90 potential points were assigned to the technical proposals and 10 potential points were assigned to the price proposals. On December 20, 1989, a pre-bid conference was held. Mr. Coleman attended the pre-bid conference on behalf of the Petitioner. All potential vendors at the pre-bid conference were given a copy of Addendum No. 1 to the subject request for proposal. (There is no dispute in this case regarding Addendum No. 1.) Following the pre-bid conference, the Department distributed Addendum No. 2 to all potential vendors. The distribution was accomplished by certified mail. A copy of Addendum No. 2 was mailed to the Petitioner. The envelope containing Addendum No. 2 was received by Ms. Brougham at the office next door to the Petitioner's office. As with the earlier mail sent to the Petitioner by the Department, Ms. Brougham signed the U.S. Postal Service receipt for the mail containing Addendum No. 2 addressed to the Petitioner. Ms. Brougham delivered the mail containing Addendum No. 2 to the Petitioner's office. 1/ Addendum No. 2 instructed potential vendors to remove the six pages comprising "Form A" in the original request for proposal and to insert a new "Form A" consisting of six revised pages. The new "Form A" requested additional pricing information that was not requested on the original "Form A." Specifically, the new "Form A" requested pricing information for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, while the original "Form A" requested pricing information for only the first year. When the Petitioner submitted its proposal, it used the original "Form A," rather than the revised "Form A" that was part of Addendum No. 2. The Petitioner's proposal did not include the pricing information for the years 1991 and 1992 required by the revised "Form A." The Department received five proposals in response to the subject request for proposal. When Department personnel evaluated the five technical proposals, the Petitioner's proposal was ranked fifth. When Department personnel evaluated the five price proposals, the Petitioner's proposal was deemed to be non- responsive due to the Petitioner's failure to provide pricing information for the years 1991 and 1992 as required by revised "Form A."
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner's proposal is non-responsive and dismissing the Petitioner's formal written protest. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1990.
The Issue Whether Department of Transportation acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally, or dishonestly in issuing its intent to award RFP-DOT- 91/92-9012 bid to Trauner Consulting Services.
Findings Of Fact Public notice that DOT was seeking competitive bids was given, and DOT prepared a document entitled: Request for Proposal, which set forth in detail all of DOT's requirements. The purpose of the RFP was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent were as follows: All proposals were to be submitted in two parts; the Technical Proposal and the Cost Proposal. The Technical Proposal was to be divided into an Executive Summary, Proposer's Management Plan and Proposer's Technical Plan. The price proposal was to be filed separately. The RFP requested written proposals from qualified firms to develop and provide training on highway and bridge construction scheduling use as it pertains to Department of Transportation Construction Engineers. Proposals for RFP-DOT-91/92-9012 (hereinafter "RFP"), were received and opened by FDOT on or about December 14, 1992. Eleven companies submitted proposals. The technical portions of the proposals were evaluated by a three (3) person committee comprised of Gordon Burleson, Keith Davis and John Shriner, all FDOT employees. Gordon Burleson is the Engineer of Construction Training for FDOT. He administers the training for FDOT engineers and engineer technicians who work in FDOT's Construction Bureau. John Shriner is the State Construction Scheduling Engineer for FDOT. Keith Davis is the District 7, Construction Scheduling Engineer and Construction Training Engineer for FDOT. The Committee members evaluated the proposals individually then met as a group. The Committee established no formal, uniform evaluation criteria to be used by all committee members. The price proposals were not revealed to the Committee members until after the proposals were technically evaluated and scored. The price proposals were reviewed separately by Charles Johnson of the Contractual Services Office, Department of Transportation. The Committee evaluated the proposals based on the general criteria contained in the RFP. The RFP listed the criteria for evaluation to include: Technical Proposal Technical evaluation is the process of reviewing the Proposer's Executive Summary, Management Plan and Technical Plan for understanding of project qualifications, technical approach and capabilities, to assure a quality project. Price Proposal Price analysis is conducted by comparison of price quotations submitted. The RFP established a point system for scoring proposals. Proposer's management and technical plans were allotted up to 40 points each, 80 percent of the total score. The price proposed was worth up to 20 points, or 20 percent of the total score. Petitioner's proposal was given a total score of 90 points out of a possible 100. Trauner's proposal was given a total score of 92.04 points out of a possible 100. Petitioner's was ranked highest for price proposal, and received a total of 20 points for its proposed price of $18,060. Trauner's proposed price was $24,500, the next lowest after Petitioner and received 14.74 points. The technical portion of Trauner's proposal was given a total of 77.3 points, 38 for its Management Plan and 39.3 for its Technical Plan. The technical portion of Petitioner's proposal was given a total of 70 points, 36.7 for its Management Plan and 33.3 for its Technical Plan. Each plan was reviewed separately by the three Committee members, The individual, pre-averaged scores vary with committee member, Keith Davis' score varying the most from the others. The Committee members did not discuss the proposals until after they had individually reviewed and scored them. The Committee members had discussed the criteria prior to receiving and evaluating the proposals. There was insufficient evidence to show that Committee members scores were determined by fraud, or were arbitrary, capricious, illegal, or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed herein by Petitioner, Systems/Software/Solutions and awarding RFP-DOT-91/92-9012 to Trauner Consulting Services. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1,5,11(in part) Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of evidence or irrelevant: paragraphs 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11(in part),12 COPIES FURNISHED: Donald F. Louser, Qualified Representative Systems/Software/Solutions 657 Sabal Lake Dr, #101 Longwood, Florida 32779 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS-58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
