The Issue Whether the intended award of a contract for title search and examination services by Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation, is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with coordinating a safe, viable, and balanced transportation system serving all regions of the state. § 334.044(1), Fla. Stat. The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill this duty. §§ 20.23(6), 334.044(1), and 335.02, Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement seeking a contract to provide title search and examination services (the "Title Services Contract"). The procurement's objective is to contract with a private vendor to provide title research services and reports to Department District 4. The solicitation at the center of this protest is Request for Proposal for Districtwide Title Search and Examination Services, DOT-RFP-21-4002-JR (the "RFP"). 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order is waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). The initial term of the Title Services Contract is 60 months (five years). The Title Services Contract offers a maximum award of $1,150,000.00 for the length of the contract. The contract may be extended for up to five years upon mutual agreement. The Department issued the RFP on August 7, 2020.3 The Department received proposals from three vendors, including Guaranteed, AGS, and Entrust Abstrax, LLC ("Entrust"). Joe Ricardo served as the Department's Procurement Agent for the RFP, as well as drafted and prepared the RFP documents and forms. Mr. Ricardo expressed that the RFP's goal is to award the Title Services Contract to "the responsive and responsible Proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department." See RFP, Sections 1 and 7. Upon the Department's receipt of the three proposals, Mr. Ricardo reviewed the responses to ensure that each complied with the solicitation documents and contained all the required information and mandatory materials. The RFP required each vendor to include with their submission both a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. After his review, Mr. Ricardo determined that all three proposals were "responsive" to the RFP, and each 3 No vendor challenged the specifications in the RFP within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation. vendor was qualified to perform the services for which the Department was seeking to contract.4 The Department opened the three Technical Proposals from Guaranteed, AGS, and Entrust on September 3, 2020. The Technical Proposals were to include responses explaining the vendor's "approach, capabilities, and means" to accomplish the tasks described in RFP, Exhibit "A," entitled "Scope of Services." See RFP, Sections 6 and 22.2. The Department awarded separate points for the Technical Proposals and the Price Proposals. To score the Technical Proposals, the Department appointed three individuals to serve on a Technical Review Committee (the "Review Committee"). The Review Committee consisted of District 4 employees Erika Ventura, Amelia Rodriguez-Alers, and Susanna Rowland. Ms. Ventura, who also served as the Project Manager for the Title Services Contract solicitation, selected the Review Committee members (including herself). After Mr. Ricardo opened the vendors' Technical Proposals, Ms. Ventura distributed them to the Review Committee members for their individual evaluation and scoring. The Review Committee members were to independently review the Technical Proposals and assess the vendors' capabilities, experience, and qualifications to provide both the desired services, as well as a quality product. 4 RFP, Section 21.1, stated that: A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. RFP, Section 21.1, further warned that: Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. Under the RFP's evaluation process, the vendors' Technical Proposals were awarded up to 100 points. The Review Committee graded the Technical Proposals on three criteria, with varying point values, as follows: Prior Relevant Experience and Qualification of Firm and Employees (40 total points). This criteria was subdivided into three parts, consisting of: Technical Staff Experience (25 points); Organization and Management Plan (5 points); Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points); Proposer's Technical Plan (Point Value – 40 total points); Quality Control Plan (Point Value – 20 total points). The Review Committee members scored the Technical Proposals of AGS and Guaranteed as follows: Ms. Ventura: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 24 points Guaranteed: 23 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 4 points Guaranteed: 4 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 9 points Guaranteed: 9 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 38 points Guaranteed: 35 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 17 points Guaranteed: 15 points Ms. Ventura's Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 92 points Guaranteed: 86 points Ms. Rodriguez-Alers: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 25 points Guaranteed: 25 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 5 points Guaranteed: 5 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 10 points Guaranteed: 8 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 38 points Guaranteed: 35 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 20 points Guaranteed: 18 points Ms. Rodriguez-Alers' Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 98 points Guaranteed: 91 points Ms. Rowland: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 25 points Guaranteed: 23 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 5 points Guaranteed: 4 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 10 points Guaranteed: 10 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 40 points Guaranteed: 39 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 20 points Guaranteed: 19 points Ms. Rowland's Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 100 points Guaranteed: 95 points All three Review Committee members testified at the final hearing. In describing how they approached the review process, the members uniformly stated that they did not receive any formal oral or written instructions or training on how to evaluate or score the vendors' Technical Proposals. Neither did they communicate or consult with each other after Ms. Ventura distributed the proposals. At the final hearing, each member described how they awarded points, as follows: Erika Ventura: Ms. Ventura works in the Survey and Mapping section for District 4. As Project Manager for the solicitation, Ms. Ventura assisted in drafting the RFP and the Scope of Services. She also helped coordinate the RFP timelines and how the solicitation was issued. Ms. Ventura explained that District 4 initiated the procurement to obtain outside support for when it acquires property for Department use. District 4 was looking for vendors who could: 1) identify property through legal descriptions and understanding the same, 2) use available programs and systems to conduct title searches, and 3) map property using legal descriptions. District 4 wanted to contract with a vendor who had the ability to search property records and provide abstract and title reports at the Department's request. In selecting the Review Committee members, Ms. Ventura chose Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland based on their experience with the services for which the Department was looking to contract. Ms. Ventura described Ms. Rodriguez-Alers as an "end user" who receives and uses title reports. Ms. Ventura conveyed that Ms. Rowland works in the District 4 document and title section and reviews documents produced using District 4's "eTitle" program. When awarding points to the Technical Proposals, Ms. Ventura testified that she used the same analysis and evaluation process for each proposal. She read each Technical Proposal independently, and determined whether she believed the vendor could provide the services District 4 might request. She then awarded points as appropriate. Ms. Ventura formulated her scores based on the services described in the Scope of Services. For additional guidance, she referred to RFP, Section 30.4, which listed the criteria she was to evaluate. Ms. Ventura stated that she reached her scores based only on the information contained in each proposal. She did not compare proposals. Neither did she rely upon any outside information or prior knowledge of the vendors. Ms. Ventura denied that she preferred one vendor over another or gave any vendor a scoring advantage. At the final hearing, Ms. Ventura relayed that she could not recall the exact reasons why she awarded more points to AGS's Technical Proposal versus Guaranteed's Technical Proposal. However, generally, she commented that AGS provided an excellent organizational chart that clearly set forth the names, experience, and qualifications of the staff members AGS selected to manage the Title Services Contract. Ms. Ventura also appreciated how AGS described how its "well balanced team" would "tackle" the title search and examination tasks, as well as AGS's "Work Flow" flowchart that presented a checklist for how AGS would approach its work. Summing up her score for AGS, Ms. Ventura voiced that AGS showed that it possessed the technical knowledge and "vast" experience to provide the services needed. Ms. Ventura added that AGS's Technical Proposal demonstrated that it could manage and perform all the services assigned sought through the RFP. Amelia Rodriguez-Alers: Ms. Rodriguez-Alers is a certified surveyor and mapper for District 4. She believed that she was selected for the Review Committee based on her familiarity with mapping services. Ms. Rodriguez- Alers explained that she will be an "end user" of the title reports and abstract services sought through the RFP. When scoring the proposals, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers stated that she independently evaluated each vendor's proposal. Further, to assess the vendors' abilities to perform the services requested, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers assigned the scores using only the information contained in the proposal. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers described her scoring process as "comparative." First, she read through the RFP and the Scope of Services to familiarize herself with the terms of the solicitation. Next, she read each proposal individually. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers then assigned the maximum points she believed appropriate based on the information contained within each proposal. Once she had completed that step, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers then compared all the proposals with each other, and adjust her scores accordingly. If she determined that one vendor's Technical Proposal was not as comprehensive as another's, or did not satisfactorily provide the requested information, she discounted points. Addressing why she awarded AGS a higher score after comparing it to Guaranteed's Technical Proposal, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers stated that both AGS and Guaranteed demonstrated that they were capable of performing the services requested. However, generally, she found that the manner in which AGS presented information was better, and more complete, than what Guaranteed provided. For instance, AGS's Technical Proposal clearly identified each "team member" who would support the Title Services Contract, as well as the specific service he or she would perform for the contract. AGS also laid out the percentage of available time each team member would dedicate to District 4 service requests. Guaranteed's Technical Proposal, on the other hand, did not sufficiently explain how much time each staff member would actually dedicate to District 4 projects and responsibilities. AGS's Technical Proposal also recorded much more experience for each team member as opposed to that described in Guaranteed's Technical Proposal. Further, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers commented that Guaranteed's Technical Proposal indicated that several of its employees were attorneys who also worked for Myron E. Siegel, P.A. Guaranteed, however, did not describe how each joint employee would divide their time between the two employers. Consequently, she reduced her score for Guaranteed's Technical Staff Experience. Finally, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers appreciated how AGS's Technical Proposal featured a chart tracking its "Work Flow," as well as included a more complete explanation of its Quality Control Plan and the innovative concepts AGS might employ to accomplish District 4 tasks. Susanna Rowland: Ms. Rowland works as a Title Examiner for District In her job, Ms. Rowland performs a variety of tasks including bookkeeping, researching properties and roadways, and general office support. To prepare to score the Technical Proposals, Ms. Rowland read through the RFP and the Scope of Services to understand the criteria she was to consider. When scoring, Ms. Rowland testified that she read each proposal independently, then reviewed whether she believed the vendor could meet and provide the services requested in the Scope of Services. She did not compare the Technical Proposals directly to each other, but relied solely on the information contained within each submission. Ms. Rowland further expressed that she used the same standards to evaluate every proposal, and scored all proposals using the same method. Ms. Rowland awarded AGS's Technical Proposal a perfect score (100 points). In describing why she assigned AGS this score, Ms. Rowland commented that she did not find AGS's Technical proposal "deficient in any way." She explained that AGS's Technical Proposal amply demonstrated its ability to provide all services sought through the RFP. Testifying why she awarded AGS a higher score than Guaranteed, Ms. Rowland expressed that, generally, AGS showed that it possessed more experience in the services District 4 needed. For instance, AGS's Technical Proposal revealed that AGS's staff had "long-term" experience working on government projects. In addition, AGS had worked on a number of other contracts for government agencies handling right-of-way property issues. Conversely, Guaranteed's Technical Proposal only generally described its staff members' experience, and reported that Guaranteed had worked on fewer government contracts. Similarly, AGS outlined a "comprehensive" management plan, whereas Guaranteed's management plan was basic and contained less detail. Further, Ms. Rowland found that AGS's Technical Proposal provided a very thorough description of its Quality Control Plan. She was particularly impressed that AGS intended to conduct periodic audits of its examinations. Conversely, Petitioner's Technical Proposal proposed a minimal amount of internal audits. Once the Review Committee members independently calculated the points they awarded to each Technical Proposal, they returned their scores to Mr. Ricardo in the Procurement Office. Mr. Ricardo then averaged the scores into one composite score for each vendor. AGS received the most points with an average score of 96.68. Guaranteed came in second with an average score of 90.66. On September 28, 2020, the Review Committee met at a public opening to announce their scores for the Technical Proposals. After scores for the Technical Proposals were read at the public meeting, the Price Proposals were opened. At that point, Mr. Ricardo, in his role as the Procurement Agent, calculated and assigned points for the Price Proposals. Mr. Ricardo used the price evaluation procedure set forth in RFP Section 30.4.b. Each Price Proposal could receive up to 43 points based on a comparison of the vendors' respective prices. Mr. Ricardo explained that the low bidder would be awarded the maximum points for price (43 points). Thereafter, the Department calculated each score based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) x Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. Mr. Ricardo recounted that the Department designed the price formula to establish a base line with which to compare all proposals. Based on the formula, AGS's proposed price ($7,143,250.00) was the second highest price submitted of the three bidders and received 39.48 points. Guarantee's price ($8,000,250.00) was the highest price submitted and, correspondingly, received the lowest points awarded (35.25 points). Regarding AGS's Price Proposal, at the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo testified that, while reviewing and verifying AGS's prices, he discovered a discrepancy in the number AGS wrote as its subtotal price to electronically process title information. However, as more fully discussed below, Mr. Ricardo determined that the figure was actually a transcription error by AGS when it transferred a price calculation from a previous page. Consequently, because AGS's oversight did not require Mr. Ricardo to change either AGS's total price or the final points awarded to AGS's Price Proposal, Mr. Ricardo deemed the mistake a "minor irregularity." Consequently, he did not disqualify AGS's proposal and allowed it to be considered for award of the Title Services Contract.5 At that point, Mr. Ricardo combined the total points for the Technical Proposals and the Price Proposals for each vendor. AGS received the highest 5 Mr. Ricardo testified that Guaranteed's Price Proposal did not contain any errors. However, Entrust's Price Proposal did include several calculation errors, which Mr. Ricardo also adjusted to determine its final price score. As with AGS's Price Proposal, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that changes he made to Entrust's prices provided Entrust's proposal a competitive advantage or were unfair. ranking with a total score of 136.16. Guaranteed received the second highest ranking with a score of 125.91. On October 12, 2020, the District 4 Selection Committee met to review the total scores and to make the final award of the Title Services Contract. AGS's proposal was determined to hold the highest combined score. Thereafter, the Selection Committee awarded the RFP to AGS. That same day, Mr. Ricardo posted the Proposal Tabulation which served as notice of the Department's intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS. He asserted that, in selecting AGS, the Department determined that AGS's proposal was the most advantageous to the Department and the State of Florida. Guaranteed's Protest: Guaranteed contends that the methodology, processes, and procedures the Department followed in accepting and evaluating AGS's proposal were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Guaranteed asserts that the Department should have rejected AGS's proposal as nonresponsive. Alternatively, Guaranteed contends that the Review Committee members awarded AGS's Technical Proposal points to which it was not entitled, and as a result, AGS improperly received the highest cumulative point total and was undeservedly awarded the Title Services Contract. Myron Siegel testified on behalf of Guaranteed. Mr. Siegel is Guaranteed's President and sole owner. He is also a licensed Florida attorney, as well as a licensed Florida real estate broker and title agent. Mr. Seigel oversaw his staff's preparation and submission of Guaranteed's response to the RFP. Mr. Siegel relayed that he started Guaranteed in 2013 in Hollywood, Florida. Guaranteed operates across the State of Florida offering "full services" in abstract, mapping, and title search and examination services. Mr. Siegel represented that Guaranteed currently provides these services to the state through contracts with Department District 4 and District 6. Guaranteed (through Mr. Siegel) presented a number of arguments contesting the Department's award to AGS. Each specific challenge, along with the Department's response, is discussed below. AGS's Price Proposal Included a Material Mathematical Error: Guaranteed asserts that the Department should have disqualified AGS's proposal based on a material mathematical error in AGS's Price Proposal. Specifically, Guaranteed argues that when Mr. Ricardo "reformed" AGS's Price Proposal to remedy a math error, he provided AGS an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, by correcting AGS's mistake, then proceeding to score its Price Proposal, the Department acted "contrary to competition." Department Response: As referenced above, Mr. Ricardo explained that, in its Price Proposal, AGS itemized its anticipated prices for twelve different title search and examination services. One of these services was "Electronic Processing of Title Information." On this price page, AGS recorded the unit price for eight "types of services" associated with this category.6 At the bottom of the price page, AGS calculated the subtotal for all the services related to Electronic Processing of Title Information as $39,125.00. Following the 12 price pages for the separate title search and examination services, AGS completed the final page entitled "Summary of Bid Totals." The Summary page listed the subtotal prices for each of the 12 categories, then calculated a "Grand Total/Proposer's Price Amount." According to AGS's Summary page, the Grand Total for all its services equaled $7,143,250.00. 6 Blank forms for the 12 price pages each vendor was to use to prepare its Price Proposal were provided as part of RFP Exhibit "C." On the Summary page, however, in the block reflecting the subtotal for Electronic Processing of Title Information services, AGS incorrectly wrote the figure "$11,725.00" instead of "$39,125.00."7 Despite this mistake, in calculated its Grand Total/Proposer's Price Amount, AGS correctly used the number $39,125.00 to reach the total sum of $7,143.250.00, which was the official price AGS proposed to perform the Title Services Contract. Mr. Ricardo, in reviewing and assigning the price score to AGS's Price Proposal, reached the conclusion that the "$11,725.00" subtotal AGS wrote on the Summary page for Electronic Processing of Title Information was a transcription error. To confirm his suspicion, Mr. Ricardo added all 12 subtotals together, including the correct amount for Electronic Processing of Title Information from the price page ($39,125.00), and confirmed that the Grand Total of AGS's Price Proposal equaled $7,143,250.00, just as AGS ascribed at the bottom of its Summary page. Therefore, in preparing AGS's proposal for reviewed by the Selection Committee, Mr. Ricardo amended AGS's Price Proposal to reflect the correct number ($39,125.00). Mr. Ricardo testified that, in correcting this error, he did not modify or recalculate AGS's Price Proposal. Instead, he simply replaced an incorrect number with the number that AGS "obviously" intended to use and did, in fact use in adding up the subtotal to reach the Grand Total. Mr. Ricardo called the mistake in AGS's proposal a "minor irregularity." Mr. Ricardo testified that a "minor irregularity" is any error or omission that does not affect competition or impact the outcome of the solicitation. Mr. Ricardo conveyed that the "math mistake" in AGS's proposal did not change its total price, or relieve AGS (as the winning vendor) from 7 In the Summary, the subtotals for the five services directly above "Electronic Processing of Title Information" are listed as "$11,725.00." It appears that the individual who transferred the subtotals from the 12 separate pricing spreadsheets to the Summary page in AGS's price proposal inadvertently inserted the number from the wrong category and overlooked the correct number ($39,125.00) from the previous page. any responsibilities under the Scope of Services. Neither did it adversely prejudice the other vendors. Therefore, because he was simply inserting the correct number that was previously listed in AGS's submission, his corrective action did not alter AGS's ultimate price to perform the Title Services Contract. Consequently, the modification did not provide AGS's proposal a competitive advantage, nor did it affect the overall outcome of the solicitation. AGS still received the highest total score for the RFP based on the proposal it submitted in response to the solicitation. Mr. Ricardo further testified that he did not consider the mistake in AGS's proposal "material." If he or the Department had determined that the discrepancy was "material," the Procurement Office would have disqualified AGS's proposal, and it would not have been eligible for award. In response to questioning, Mr. Ricardo conceded that the term "minor irregularity" is not defined in the solicitation documents. Neither is he aware of any Department written instructions or policies for handling math errors in proposals. However, for authority to exercise the option to waive AGS's "minor irregularity," Mr. Ricardo pointed to State of Florida purchasing form PUR 1001 entitled "General Instructions to Respondents," which the RFP references in Sections 35.2 and 36. (The RFP also contained a hyperlink which enabled vendors to directly access the PUR 1001 through the internet.) PUR 1001 states at paragraph 16: Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. (emphasis added). PUR 1001 defines "buyer" as "the entity that has released the solicitation," i.e., the Department in this procurement. The initial advertisement for the RFP also stated that, "The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids or accept minor irregularities in the best interest of the State of Florida." Based on the testimony at the final hearing, the Department witnesses credibly attested that the transcription mistake in AGS's Price Proposal was a "harmless error" that did not confer AGS a competitive advantage, either in competition or price. Neither was the mistake a "material" error that should have rendered AGS's proposal nonresponsive. Accordingly, the Department persuasively argued that it should not have disqualified AGS's proposal due to its transcription error. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Fails to Include or Reference a Real Estate Attorney: Guaranteed contends that certain services described in the RFP and the Scope of Services may only be performed by a licensed real estate attorney. AGS's Technical Proposal, however, does not identify a real estate attorney on its staff. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that the Department should have disqualified AGS's proposal because AGS cannot perform all the services required under the RFP. Supporting its position, Guaranteed pointed to RFP Sections 9.1.2 and 22.2, and Scope of Services, Section 2.1, which required each vendor to: Identify an active Florida licensed attorney practicing in real property or an active Florida licensed title (real property) agent. Guaranteed advanced that the document preparation services described in Scope of Services, Section 4.1.8, which specifically included "conveyances, releases, satisfactions or any other document(s)," can only be legally prepared by a licensed real estate attorney, not a title agent. Consequently, because AGS's Technical Proposal did not identify a licensed real estate attorney on its staff, AGS could not fulfill the Scope of Services. Department Response: In responding to this point, Mr. Ricardo, as well as every Review Committee member, commented that neither the RFP nor the Scope of Services required any vendor to identify a real estate attorney on its staff to perform any specific task as part of the Title Services Contract. Mr. Ricardo (and each Review Committee member) was quick to point out that the language found in RFP Sections 9.1.2 and 22.2 states that each vendor must employ a real property attorney "or" a licensed title agent. AGS's Technical Proposal lists three licensed title agents on its staff, which made it compliant with the RFP requirements. Consequently, Mr. Ricardo testified that no legal or procedural basis exists for the Department to find AGS's Technical Proposal ineligible for award due to its failure to include a real estate attorney. During her testimony, Ms. Ventura further explained that, as part of the Title Services Contract, District 4 might request the vendor's assistance to prepare title documents in the event District 4 is shorthanded. However, if District 4 should need document support, Ms. Ventura anticipated that the vendor would be provided templates of the pertinent forms, which it could complete. For her part, Ms. Rowland added that, while AGS may not have a real estate attorney on its staff, AGS's proposal indicated that it did have access to outside legal support, if necessary. Accordingly, based on the evidence testimony adduced at the final hearing, the Department persuasively countered Guaranteed's argument that AGS's Technical Proposal should have been deemed nonresponsive or its score reduced based on AGS's failure to identify a licensed real property attorney on its staff. AGS's decision to identify three Florida licensed title agents clearly meets the terms of the RFP. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Fails to Describe its eTitle capability: Guaranteed contends that AGS's Technical Proposal was deficient in that it did not address AGS's technological capability to use District 4's electronic title report database software known as "eTitle." Scope of Services Section 4.1.7 obliged each vendor to have the ability to utilize the "eTitle" software, stating: The Department has designed the electronic title report database software known as eTitle. … The Department requires that the Vendor have the appropriate staff and technological capability to process information and reports through said eTitle. Section 4.1.9.5 adds that services a vendor may provide included, "Scanning and indexing hard copy title reports into eTitle." Guaranteed complains that AGS's Technical Proposal is completely bereft of any information regarding its technological capability to use eTitle. Therefore, AGS's score should reflect this omission. Guaranteed alleges that the Review Committee members, however, did not deduct any points from AGS's proposal due to its failure to show its eTitle capability. Guaranteed further claims that two of the Review Committee members (Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland) went outside the four corners of the AGS's Technical Proposal and assumed critical capabilities that AGS did not state it had. Consequently, the Review Committee acted arbitrarily and/or gave AGS a competitive advantage on this factor. Department Response: Commenting on the RFP conditions regarding eTitle, Ms. Ventura explained that eTitle is a computer program that District 4 specifically developed to help process property title information. For the Title Services Contract, the vendor would be required to input a title report into the eTitle data base, which District 4 personnel could then access. Ms. Rowland added that eTitle is a program that captures information contained in a title report, such as encumbrances. Therefore, to comply with the Title Services Contract, each vender must be familiar with and have the ability to use eTitle. At the final hearing, Ms. Ventura could not recall how she scored AGS's eTitle capability. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, on the other hand, explained that AGS's Technical Proposal referenced eTitle in its "Work Flow" chart, which provided "a summary of the specific procedures outlined … and will be used in our quality control section to illustrate the comprehensive checkpoint process we have identified." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers specifically pointed to the sixth step of the Work Flow that stated that, "Completed research is input into eTitles database." In addition, AGS's "Quality Control" flowchart relayed that "FDOT Research Form allows for quick input into eTitle database." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers also observed that the biographical information AGS included for staff member Kimberly Haddix stated that Ms. Haddix had worked on a prior contract with District 4 as the "the lead abstractor for this contract since its inception in 2010." Therefore, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers surmised that Ms. Haddix was personally familiar with eTitle based on the fact that District 4 uses eTitle in all of its title report contracts. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers conceded that AGS's Technical Proposal did not describe, in detail, the actual technological resources it would rely upon to process eTitle reports. However, she remarked that Section 4.1.7 did not require vendors to describe the specific office equipment they had available. The Scope of Services only instructed each vendor to represent whether it had "the appropriate staff and technological capability" to produce eTitle reports, which she believed that AGS did. Consequently, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers did not deduct points from AGS's Technical Proposal for not detailing the specific technological resources AGS would use to process eTitle reports. Ms. Rowland, in awarding her (perfect) score, also acknowledged that AGS's Technical Proposal contained limited information discussing eTitle. However, she stated that she personally knew that AGS had eTitle experience based on her knowledge of a prior contract AGS worked on for District 4 from 2010 through 2017. Therefore, she assumed that AGS had the present technological capability and resources to use eTitle for the Title Services Contract. Ms. Rowland subsequently clarified her testimony attesting that, like Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, she remembered that "there was a mention of [eTitle] in [AGS's] proposal somewhere." The Department witnesses cogently testified that AGS presented sufficient information within its Technical Proposal regarding its eTitle staffing and technological capabilities to demonstrate that it could meet the performance requirements of the Scope of Services, as well as to be evaluated on the same. The Review Committee members satisfactorily established that the scores they awarded to AGS were based on information contained within the "four corners" of its Technical Proposal. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland effectively articulated that the RFP did not require a vendor to provide more information on eTitle other than to show that it was familiar with and had the ability to use the program. Further, regarding their testimony that they were familiar with AGS's work on a prior contract, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland identified provisions within AGS's Technical Proposal upon which they based their evaluation, and credibly relayed that they did not pull from extraneous information when formulating their scores. Significantly, they both pointed to the fact that AGS's Technical Proposal referenced eTitle in its "Work Flow" charts, as well as mentioned AGS's previous work with District 4, which sufficiently enabled them to evaluate AGS's eTitle aptitude when scoring its proposal. Accordingly, the Department persuasively negated Guaranteed's argument that the AGS's Technical Proposal lacked the requisite information regarding its eTitle capability in order to be effectively evaluated by the Review Committee. AGS's Proposal should be Disqualified Because AGS Did Not Return the "Questions and Answers No. 1" Form to the Department Prior to the Award of the RFP: On August 20, 2020, the Department issued a page entitled "Questions and Answers No. 1" (the "Q&A") to be added as part of the RFP. The Q&A notified vendors of a Department response to a question regarding the Scope of Services. The Q&A specifically announced that a prospective bidder inquired whether the Department would provide any waivers or flexibility in reporting Code Enforcement Liens filed against other property by industrial lenders. The Department answered: In accordance with item Exhibit A, page A-3, Section 4.1, the Department may allow flexibility to follow title industry standards regarding Code Enforcement Liens and those type of lenders, however, the Vendor will be required to conform to the accepted standards of care in the title industry in compliance with the Florida Statutes, Florida Bar, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Uniform Title Standards, Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Procedures Manual Land Title Section 7.15 …, the District Four Title Search and Examination Guidelines (dated November 2013 – see Exhibit D attached) and any applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. The Q&A then stated: Proposers must acknowledge receipt of this document by completing and returning to the Procurement Office with their proposal, by no later than the time and date of the proposal opening. Failure to do so may subject the bidder/proposer to disqualification. AGS did not return the Q&A to the Department. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that AGS's proposal should be disqualified. (Guaranteed timely returned a signed Q&A.) Department Response: At the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo explained that the Department issued the Q&A to ensure that vendors fully understood the Scope of Services. Mr. Ricardo testified that he was aware that AGS did not return the Q&A with its proposal. However, he did not disqualify AGS based on two reasons. First, Mr. Ricardo was quick to point out that, according to the language in the Q&A, failure to return the document only "may" subject the vendor to disqualification. No conditions or terms in the solicitation documents required the Department to reject an otherwise responsive proposal based on the vendor's failure to submit a signed Q&A. Second, Mr. Ricardo considered AGS's failure to return the Q&A form a "minor irregularity," which did not require him to disqualify its proposal. Mr. Ricardo explained that the Q&A's purpose was simply to have vendors acknowledge receipt of the Department's answer to a question about the Scope of Services. Whether they returned the Q&A or not, the vendors were not supplementing their Technical or Price Proposals or changing the services to be provided under the RFP. Neither did AGS's failure to return the Q&A relieve it of any requirements of the RFP or materially affect either the Review Committee's final scores or the Selection Committee's determination that AGS's proposal presented the most advantageous terms for the Department. Accordingly, because, in his judgment, AGS's failure to submit a signed Q&A did not modify any information that was to be evaluated or scored, the Department was not required to declare AGS's proposal nonresponsive or subject to disqualification. Mr. Ricardo's explanation of the Department's decision to treat AGS's failure to sign and return the Q&A as a "minor irregularity" was supported by the testimony of Jessica Rubio, the District 4 Procurement Officer. Ms. Rubio described the Q&A as a "clarifying question" that had no impact on either AGS's total score or the final ranking of the vendors' proposals. Based on this testimony, Mr. Ricardo's decision not to disqualify AGS's proposal for neglecting to submit the Q&A is credible and is credited. No evidence shows that the Department's decision to waive AGS's failure to return the Q&A conferred upon it any advantage over other vendors, either in competition or price. Neither did it render AGS's proposal nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. AGS's Proposal Should be Disqualified Because AGS Did Not Return Addendum No. 1 to the Department Prior to the Award of the RFP: On September 24, 2020, the Department issued Addendum No. 1 (the "Addendum") to the three vendors who submitted proposals. The Addendum notified the vendors of a change to the RFP, stating: Request for Proposal, page 4 (containing the Timeline) is hereby replaced with the attached, revised page 4 with a revised timeline. The changes are highlighted in yellow. The Addendum further directed that: Proposers must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by completing and returning to the Procurement Office with their Proposal via email at D4.Purch@dot.state.fl.us, by no later than the time and date of the proposal opening. Failure to do so may subject the Proposer to disqualification. AGS did not return the Addendum to the Department. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that AGS's proposal should be disqualified. (Guaranteed did timely return a signed Addendum.) Department Response: At the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo explained that the original Timeline included in the RFP recorded the "critical dates and actions" for the solicitation process. Mr. Ricardo relayed that, prior to issuing the RFP on August 7, 2020, the Procurement Office felt comfortable calendaring certain key dates, such as when proposals were due (September 3, 2020), when the Department would hold the public opening (September 28, 2020), and when the Department would post the intended award (October 12, 2020). For the two entries describing how vendors could attend the Public Selection Meetings on September 28, 2020, and October 12, 2020, however, the Procurement Office wrote on the Timeline "Location or GoToMeeting: TBD." Mr. Ricardo recounted that, at the time the RFP was publicized, he was still considering whether vendors would be allowed to attend in person, or should call in. Consequently, to clarify the "TBD" entries, the Department issued the Addendum informing vendors of the updated "Location or GoToMeeting" information. Attached to the Addendum was a "revised page 4," which modified (and highlighted in yellow) the two TBD entries to read, respectively, "GoToMeeting Call-in: 1 (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 163-488- 789," and "GoToMeeting Call-in: 1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 230-006-965." Mr. Ricardo explained that the sole purpose of the Addendum was to inform the vendors how to remotely access two public meetings on the procurement schedule. Mr. Ricardo testified that he was aware that AGS did not produce a signed Addendum to be included in its proposal. However, as with the Q&A form, he did not disqualify AGS based on two reasons. First, the Addendum contained the same qualifying language as the Q&A stating that the failure to return a signed Addendum only "may" subject the vendor to disqualification. No conditions or terms in the solicitation documents required the Department to automatically reject an otherwise responsive proposal if the vendor failed to submit the Addendum. Second, like the Q&A, Mr. Ricardo considered AGS's lapse to be a "minor irregularity." Mr. Ricardo explained that the Addendum's purpose was simply to have vendors acknowledge how they could access two procurement events. By returning the Addendum (or not), the vendors were not supplementing their Technical or Price Proposals. Neither did AGS's failure to return the Addendum impact the Review Committee's final scores or the Selection Committee's determination that AGS's proposal represented the most advantageous to the state. Mr. Ricardo characterized the Addendum as a "minor … informational posting." Accordingly, because (in his judgment) the Department had the ability to waive AGS's failure to submit a signed Addendum as a "minor irregularity," Mr. Ricardo believed that he was not required to disqualify AGS's proposal. Ms. Rubio also supported Mr. Ricardo's decision to treat AGS's failure to return the Addendum as a "minor irregularity." Ms. Rubio expressed that the Addendum's purpose was to notify vendors of two changes to the solicitation Timeline. The Addendum, however, did not affect the services the vendors would provide through the Title Services Contract or a proposal's final score. Based on this testimony, Mr. Ricardo's decision not to disqualify AGS's proposal for failure to submit the Addendum is credible and is credited. No evidence shows that the Department's decision to waive AGS's neglect to return the Addendum conferred upon it any advantage over other vendors, either in competition or price. Neither did it render AGS's proposal nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Failed to Include a Licensed Mapper: Guaranteed asserts that certain services identified in the RFP may only be accomplished by a licensed "mapper." Specifically, Scope of Services Section 3.2, states that "[t]he Vendor must have the ability to follow out and map/plot complex legal descriptions and determine whether an instrument of record impacts the property under search." Guaranteed contends that only someone licensed as a surveyor and mapper by the State of Florida may legally perform these tasks. AGS's Technical Proposal, however, does not identify a licensed surveyor and mapper on its staff. Consequently, AGS's staff does not include persons qualified to provide all the services required under the RFP, and its Technical Proposal should have been evaluated accordingly. Guaranteed further pointed to the fact that, in its Technical Proposal, AGS held out one of its employees, Kimberly Haddix, as a "mapping specialist." However, AGS's Technical Proposal did not contain any information showing that Ms. Haddix holds a license as a professional surveyor and mapper or is otherwise capable of providing mapping services. In awarding AGS points for its mapping services, Guaranteed argues that the Review Committee members made assumptions outside the four corners of AGS's proposal. Department Response: Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, calling on her familiarity with mapping services, described "mapping" as "sketching the property." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers explained that title reports contain the written description of property boundaries. A "mapper" puts property descriptions into a detailed, color-coded sketch or map. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers added that if the Department encounters a property dispute, mapping helps the Department verify its ownership rights to the property. Accordingly, District 4 desired the winning vendor to be able to prepare sketches of the property at issue. Mr. Ricardo testified that the RFP only required vendors to have someone on their staff who is proficient in mapping. The RFP did not require vendors to employ someone who actually holds a surveyor and mapper license. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers agreed that the RFP does not require the vendor's "mapper" to hold a state license. Instead, District 4 simply needs someone who is able to create a drawing of the property using the appropriate software. Further, in evaluating how AGS would provide mapping services requested through the Title Services Contract, every Review Committee member pointed to information within Ms. Haddix's resume that conveyed that AGS considered her to be its "mapping specialist." AGS's Technical Proposal further represented that Ms. Haddix is familiar with certain tools used to identify properties such as IcoMap and Deed Plotter. During her testimony, Ms. Ventura also commented that the RFP did not require the vendor to have a professional mapper or surveyor on its staff. When she evaluated AGS's Technical Proposal, Ms. Ventura believed that Ms. Haddix appeared fully capable of providing the mapping services necessary under the RFP's Scope of Services. Ms. Rowland agreed with Ms. Ventura's statement that AGS's Technical Proposal indicated that Ms. Haddix had mapping experience. Based on this testimony, the Department's witnesses persuasively refuted Guaranteed's argument that AGS's proposal should be disqualified due to the fact that AGS does not employ a "licensed" mapper on its staff. Guaranteed did not prove that AGS is unable to meet the terms of the Scope of Services with the staff members it identified in its Technical Proposal. The Review Committee members credibly testified that, based on representations within AGS's Technical Proposal, AGS (through Ms. Haddix) is capable of providing any necessary mapping services to support the Title Services Contract. AGS's Technical Proposal Failed to Identify Subcontractors: Guaranteed asserts that the Review Committee members should have deducted points from AGS's Technical Proposal based on AGS's failure to identify subcontractors. See RFP Section 22.2. Guaranteed argues that the personnel listed in AGS's Technical Proposal were not qualified to perform all the tasks set forth in the Scope of Services. Consequently, AGS would be compelled to hire outside help to support the Title Services Contract. Therefore, when scoring AGS's Technical Proposal, the Review Committee members should have taken into account the fact that AGS omitted subcontractors. Department Response: The Review Committee members uniformly rejected this challenge by pointing out that AGS's Technical Proposal clearly states that "AGS does not anticipate using subcontractors or sub-consultants to provide any services set forth herein." Instead, based on AGS's representations, all work required under the contract could and would be performed by the AGS employees identified in its Technical Proposal. The Department's witnesses convincingly confutes Guaranteed's argument on this point. The Review Committee members credibly testified that the information in AGS's Technical Proposal indicated that AGS could perform all the desired services without requiring support from subcontractors, and Guaranteed did not sufficiently show otherwise. Accordingly, the Department persuasively rejected Guaranteed's argument that the Department should devalue AGS's Technical Proposal based on AGS's failure to identify subcontractors. AGS's Technical Proposal Contains Misleading Statements on its "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" ("DBE") Participating Statement: At the final hearing, Guaranteed called attention to the fact that AGS submitted an Anticipated DBE Participation Statement (the "DBE Statement") with its Technical Proposal, which represented that it intended "to subcontract *100 % of the contract dollars to DBE(s)." As with the previous challenge, Guaranteed raised the point that the RFP required every vendor to identify services which the vendor anticipated to be subcontracted, as well as include resumes of all subcontractors. See RFP Section 22.2. Guaranteed argued that AGS's DBE Statement is either false or misleading because AGS also stated that it will not use any subcontractors for the Title Services Contract. Consequently, the Department should have either scored AGS's Technical Proposal accordingly or disqualified AGS's proposal as nonresponsive. Guaranteed's allegation on this point, however, is easily reconcilable and discounted. The DBE Statement, after instructing the vendor to record the percentage of work that would be subcontracted, asks the vendor to list its proposed subcontractors. AGS, after reporting its intent on its DBE Statement to subcontract "*100%," then lists itself stating, "*AGS is a certified DBE, so 100% of the work completed will be handled by a DBE." The logical conclusion is that AGS intended to report that 100% of the Title Services Contract will be performed by itself, as the "DBE." And, it does not anticipate using any other subcontractors who are DBEs. Accordingly, the Department's treatment of AGS's reference to subcontractors in its DBE Statement (i.e., not finding AGS's proposal nonresponsive) was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Guaranteed's assertion that AGS's DBE Statement contains false or misleading information or inappropriately refers to unidentified subcontractors is unsupported by the record. I. AGS Used an Improper Font Size in Its Technical Proposal: Guaranteed asserted that AGS used an improper font on some of its Technical Proposal entries. To support this challenge, Guaranteed referred to the explicit requirement in RFP Section 22.4 that "[t]ype size shall not be less than 11-point font." RFP Section 22.4 further restricted Technical Proposals to a maximum of 25 pages, excluding resumes, certificates, licenses, organization charts, and indexes. Guaranteed maintained that some of the passages in AGS's Technical Proposal appeared to be written in 10-point font. Guaranteed speculated that AGS used the smaller font in order to fit its Technical Proposal within the 25-page limit. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that the Department failed to provide a level playing field when it, either knowingly or negligently, allowed AGS's proposal to be scored despite the presence of less than 11-point font type in its Technical Proposal. Such action gave AGS an unfair competitive advantage. Department Response: During his testimony, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that the font size was a "material" deficiency that should disqualify AGS's proposal. Upon visual inspection of AGS's Technical Proposal, Mr. Ricardo observed that AGS apparently copied the questions/requests for information directly from the RFP document, then pasted the relevant verbiage onto its submission. AGS then inserted its response beneath each question. In preparing its submission, AGS appears to have used an appropriately sized font for its responses. Only the RFP sections that were copied/pasted were ascribed in font smaller than 11 point. Mr. Ricardo asserted that, as presented, AGS's Technical Proposal totaled 23 pages (excluding resumes, certificates, licenses, organization charts, and indexes). Consequently, he believed that even if AGS used 11-point font for all of its Technical Proposal passages, AGS's proposal would still have fit within the RFP's 25-page limit. Therefore, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that AGS's use of a smaller-than-authorized font type compelled the Department to disqualify its proposal. The Department persuasively refutes Guaranteed's complaint on this issue. Mr. Ricardo credibly testified that AGS did not receive a competitive advantage by inserting some language into its Technical Proposal that was written in smaller than 11-point font. To summarize the findings in this matter, Guaranteed did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department's decision to award the Title Services Contract to AGS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that AGS received a competitive advantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Guaranteed's Cone of Silence Violation: Notwithstanding the above findings, at the final hearing, the Department broached the issue of Guaranteed's violation of the "cone-of- silence" provision in section 287.057(23), which prohibits responding vendors in a bid solicitation from contacting government employees or officers within 72 hours following notice of the award. The implication is that, as a result of Guaranteed's actions, the Department may now dismiss Guaranteed's bid protest because Guaranteed lacks standing to initiate this action due to the fact that it cannot participate in a re-bid proceeding for the Title Services Contract. The undersigned has not included a recommendation on Guaranteed's "cone-of-silence" violation in this Recommended Order based on the conclusion that Guaranteed's protest fails on the merits. However, the undersigned observes that the facts found in this matter would support such action by the Department. See AHF MCO of Fla., Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 308 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Section 287.057(23) states: Each solicitation for the procurement of commodities or contractual services shall include the following provision: "Respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72-hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response." The Department included the required quoted language in Special Conditions, Section 3, of the RFP. The Department "released" this solicitation on August 7, 2020. The Department posted the notice of intended award on October 12, 2020. Accordingly, the 72-hour period following the posting of the intended award ended on October 15, 2020. However, on October 12, 2020, at 2:57 p.m., after the Department announced its intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS, but well within the 72-hour period following the posting, Mr. Siegel sent an email to Ms. Ventura with the subject line "DOR-RFP-21-4002-JR." The email stated: Erika, Now that the award on the DOT-RFP-21-4002-JR has been officially posted, I need to ask you some questions. I have consistently asked how we are doing and what we need to do to improve. I have also asked that you alert me to any performance issues. I have heard nothing. So, you can imagine I was quite surprised to see how you rated us for this RFP, and how we ended up scoring below America [sic] Government which I understood to be a source of substandard work product. I am concerned that if we are rated so low, it makes no sense for us to continue to bid on RFP's from FDOT4 because I am not sure what we can do to improve. Can you please explain the rating you gave us and what it was that you found to be less than perfect. Mr. Siegel sent an identical email, also dated October 12, 2020, at 2:57 p.m., to Ms. Rowland (addressed to "Susie"). Both emails were transmitted from Mr. Siegel's work email address (Myron.Siegel@gftitle.com) and were written over his signature block as President of Guaranteed. Consequently, the evidence clearly establishes that Guaranteed committed a cone-of-silence violation, to wit: Guaranteed (or a person acting on its behalf) contacted (via email) two employees of the Department; Guaranteed's emails were sent prior to the end of the 72-hour period following the Department's posting of the notice of its intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS; Guaranteed's emails concerned "any aspect of this solicitation" in that Mr. Seigel specifically commented about, 1) the ratings Ms. Ventura and Ms. Rowland gave to Guaranteed's Technical Proposal; 2) how AGS's Technical Proposal received a higher score; 3) how AGS received a higher score despite "substandard work product;" 4) that Guaranteed is considering not bidding on future District 4 contracts based on its rating in this RFP; and 5) what part of Guaranteed's proposal the evaluators found "to be less than perfect;" and Mr. Ricardo is the Procurement Officer for the RFP. The RFP does not set forth any additional representatives (such as Ms. Ventura or Ms. Rowland) to contact regarding "any aspect" of the solicitation. At the final hearing, Mr. Siegel argued that his emails did not concern "any aspect of this solicitation" for the Title Services Contract. Instead, he was only asking Ms. Ventura and Ms. Rowland, the two individuals with the Department with whom he regularly communicated, to comment on Guaranteed's performance in its current work for District 4. Mr. Siegel asserted that he used language regarding Guaranteed's rating in this RFP simply as a frame of reference for his question. Mr. Siegel's attestation that his two emails did not raise issues regarding the RFP or this solicitation for the Title Services Contract is not credited. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the facts establish a "cone-of- silence violation," under section 287.057(23), which would support a Department determination that Guaranteed is a non-responsive bidder. Thereafter, the Department, in its discretion, may issue a Final Order dismissing Guaranteed's formal bid protest for lack of standing because Guaranteed has no chance of obtaining the Title Services Contract in a re-bid proceeding. See AHF MCO, 308 So. 3d at 1139.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the protest of Guaranteed. It is further recommended that the Department of Transportation award Request for Proposal DOT-RFP-21- 4002-JR as set forth in the Proposal Tabulation issued on October 12, 2020. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John Ashley Peacock, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 606 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sean Gellis, General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Myron E. Siegel, Esquire Guaranteed Florida Title & Abstract, Inc. 1055 South Federal Highway Hollywood, Florida 33020 Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida. KE Realty Services, Inc. is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On February 26, 1993, the Department issued a RFP to solicit offers on the SR 7 contract. This RFP was identified as RFP-DOT-92-93-4008. Proposals submitted in response to the request were to be opened March 26, 1993, and the bid tabulations were to be posted on April 29, 1993. Four vendors submitted proposals in connection with the subject RFP: the Petitioners; Gulf Coast Property Acquisition, Inc. (Gulf Coast); The Urban Group; and Keith and Schnars, P.A. Each proposal was scored based upon four criteria: technical plan; price; certified DBE; and executive judgment. The points available for each were preset and known to all vendors. The technical plan could receive a maximum of 75 points, price could receive 20 points, and each of the other criteria could receive 5 points. Obviously, the technical plan portion was the more weighted criterion. The technical plan portion of each vendor's proposal was evaluated by a Technical Review Committee (TRC). This committee consisted of Claire Tronel, Kevin Szatmary, Steve Gonot, Lynda Parsons, Van Neilly, and Cheryl Balogh. The membership of the TRC was not kept secret and Petitioners knew, and perhaps other vendors as well, who would be evaluating the proposals. Each member of the TRC scored the proposals independently. The average of all of the independent scores for each proposal was then computed as the technical plan score. The vendors received the following technical plan scores: Petitioners a 67.42; Gulf Coast a 56.79; The Urban Group a 36.42; and Keith & Schnars a 29.71. To determine the price score, the lowest priced proposal received the maximum number of points (20). The other proposals received a fraction of the twenty points available based upon the relation of their price to the lowest price. According to the formula, Keith & Schnars received the highest price score (20), then The Urban Group (17.20), Gulf Coast (15.60), and finally, Petitioners (10.60). Petitioners received the lowest price score because it submitted the highest priced proposal. The ratio of its price with the lowest priced proposal multiplied by 20 resulted in the 10.60 score. The scores for the DBE criterion are not in dispute but were assigned as follows: Petitioners, 5.0; Gulf Coast, 5.0; The Urban Group, 0.0; and Keith & Schnars, 2.0. The TRC did not know the prices submitted with the proposals until it had completed the technical scores for each vendor. The final criterion, executive judgment, was determined by the Selection Committee which consisted of: Rick Chesser, James Wolfe, and Joseph Yesbeck. This committee considered two factors in assigning its five points. First, the vendor's ability to do the work; and second, the cost of the work. The scores for executive judgment were: 0 for The Urban Group and Keith & Schnars because their technical proposals were poor; 1 for Petitioners because, while their technical proposals were good, their price was high; and 5 for Gulf Coast. Following tabulation of all criteria scores, the vendors were ranked as follows: Petitioners with 84.02; Gulf Coast with 82.39; The Urban Group with 53.62; and Keith & Schnars with 51.71. On April 29, 1993, the Department posted the foregoing tabulation and its intent to award the SR 7 contract to Petitioners on May 3, 1993. Thereafter, allegations of impropriety and/or conflict of interest were raised by an unsuccessful vendor. The claims were: that members of the TRC had family members who were either employed by or under contract to Petitioners; that Petitioners had conversations with Department employees prior to the submission of the proposals regarding a revised Department budget for the SR 7 contract; and that an employee of the Department served as the registered agent for Petitioners. Gulf Coast met with the Department and alleged that improprieties had occurred or conflicts of interests existed that had affected the technical evaluation of the bids. Based upon the allegations, the Selection Committee decided to avoid the appearance of any impropriety and to rescind the intent to award to Petitioners and to reject all proposals submitted. The decision reached by the Selection Committee was hurried as the Department believed it was bound, by law, to reach such decision before 8:00 a.m., May 4, 1993. A complete investigation into the truthfulness of the charges was not finished prior to the imposed deadline. On May 5, 1993, the Department posted its formal notice of its intent to reject all proposals. The basis for such decision was "perceived improprieties in the selection process and possible conflict of interest." There were no actual conflicts of interest in the review of the subject proposals. Further, there were no actual improprieties in the proposal review or scoring. With regard to the allegations related to family members employed by Petitioners, no such conflict existed. Claire Tronel's husband has a contract with Petitioners unrelated to any of the issues of this case. Such contract is well-known in the industry and was known to the vendors prior to the assessment of these proposals. Further, the Department knew of such relationship prior to Ms. Tronel being selected for membership on the TRC. Mr. Tronel is not an officer, partner, director, or proprietor of either Petitioner. Nor does he have a direct or indirect ownership interest in more than a five percent of the total assets or capital stock of either company. Ms. Tronel had refrained from serving as a scoring member of earlier technical review committees because of her husband's contractual relationship. Ms. Tronel's supervisor was aware of the relationship Mr. Tronel had to Petitioners and did not consider his limited business relationship to be a conflict. Ms. Tronel was chosen to serve on the TRC because of her experience in right-of-way services, and the relative lack of experience of some of the other committee members. Before serving on the TRC, Ms. Tronel consulted with the district general counsel in order to determine whether her participation would violate Florida Statutes or the Department's ethical standards. After receiving advice and making same known to her supervisors, it was decided Ms. Tronel should serve as a committee member. The contractual relationship between Mr. Tronel and Petitioner did not effect Claire Tronel's evaluation of the proposals. In fact, if the scores assigned by Ms. Tronel to the technical plans of each proposal were subtracted from the average scores, the margin between Petitioners' technical score and the next highest score would widen. Ms. Tronel showed no favoritism or bias in favor of Petitioners. Gulf Coast did not complain about improper conflicts related to their proposal yet Michael Sheridan, the son of TRC member Linda Parsons, is employed by O.R. Colan, an appraisal firm which was listed as a subcontractor in Gulf Coast's proposal. Perhaps Gulf Coast did not complain about Ms. Parsons' membership on the TRC because Ms. Parsons' relationship to Michael Sheridan is also widely known in the vendor community. Petitioners knew of such relationship but did not dispute the accuracy or fairness of Ms. Parsons. If Ms. Parsons' score were deleted from the scoring, Gulf Coast would have received the highest score. Ms. Parsons, who is the chief review appraiser, generally serves on the technical review committee for projects which include appraisal services. Since her son became an employee of O.R. Colan, Ms. Parsons has served on technical review committees which evaluated proposals submitted by O.R. Colan and those submitted by vendors who listed O.R. Colan as a subcontractor. Michael Sheridan is not an officer, partner, director, or proprietor of either Gulf Coast or O.R. Colan and does not own, either directly or indirectly, more than five percent of the total assets or the capital stock of either company. While Ms. Parsons has been instructed not to serve on technical review committees in the future when her son is reflected as a participant in one of the proposals, she has not been instructed to refrain from participating whenever her son's employer participates in a proposal. Ms. Parsons showed no favoritism toward Gulf Coast in her evaluation of the proposals. The facts do not support even an appearance that Ms. Parsons showed any favoritism toward Gulf Coast. Ms. Tronel and Ms. Parsons did not disregard their public duties in favor of a private interest. Therefore, no impropriety by reason of their participation resulted. The Department's decision to rescind the award to Petitioners and to reject all bids was also premised, in part, on concerns regarding contacts between Petitioners and the Department employees before proposals were submitted. Petitioners contacted the Department to ask questions because during the course of preparing its proposal an issue of pricing became apparent. An inconsistency between the amounts that they were developing for the project and the amounts reflected in the Department's work program budget for the project became obvious. Because of the disparity between the Department's budget for the project and the prices that Petitioners developed, Mr. Thomas became concerned that he was misinterpreting the RFP. Mr. Thomas called the Department and spoke, first, to Van Neilly and, subsequently, to Claire Tronel about his concerns. Ms. Tronel confirmed that all services, including appraisal, were to be included in the proposals submitted. Ms. Tronel did not tell Mr. Thomas that the Department intended to revise its budget for the project, nor did Mr. Thomas tell Ms. Tronel or Mr. Neilly what Petitioners' price for the SR 7 proposal would be. Subsequently, the Department did revise its budget for the SR 7 contract by forty to fifty percent. The revised budget exceeds the price bid by Petitioners. The Department's work program budget is a public document which lists all of the projects planned by the Department for a five-year period and includes the Department's price estimate for each project. Petitioners submit bids for Department projects and normally submit proposal prices which exceed the Department's budget. Petitioners normally submit proposals which are highly ranked for their technical quality. It was not improper for Petitioners to ask the question regarding the inclusion of appraisal services and it was not improper for a Department employee to confirm that appraisal services were to be included in the project. It is common practice for vendors to call Department employees before the submittal of proposals. However, vendors are warned not to rely upon information which is not provided to them in writing. In addition, it would be improper for a Department employee to share information with one vendor, which could be advantageous to that vendor, without also providing the information to all other vendors. Petitioners received no information which gave them an advantage over the other vendors. Rick Conner is a Department employee who was, until recently, the resident agent for KE Realty Services, Inc. Mr. Conner served in this position without compensation. He was not involved in any way in the RFP or the evaluation of the subject proposals. His role as resident agent had no effect on the scoring of proposals, and was not a factor in the Department's decision to rescind the award to Petitioners. There was no evidence offered at the hearing to suggest that the relationship between Rick Conner and KE Realty gave the appearance of impropriety. Petitioners expended approximately $40,000 in the preparation of the proposal; and, if there is a rebid, will incur additional amounts to prepare a new proposal. Petitioners hired additional employees for the SR 7 contract, so that it could report in its proposal that it had the staff on hand to begin work immediately. If the SR/7 Contract is not rebid until late 1993 or early 1994, the opportunity to recoup the overhead expenses associated with these additional employees will be lost. In addition, Petitioners' ability to rebid is adversely affected by the Department's decision since Gulf Coast made a copy of the proposal and may now benefit from the technical ideas and suggestions developed by Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order awarding job no. 86100-3576/2508 for the SR 7 project to Petitioners. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3034 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioners: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 through 48, 50, 51, and 53 through 61 are accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as a statement of law, not fact. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 30 is accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or comment. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 17, 21, and 22 are accepted. While paragraphs 18 through 20 accurately state the rationale expressed by the selection committee (one member of which changed his opinion after a thorough review of the facts), the ultimate facts expressed by the paragraphs (for example, that there was an appearance of impropriety) are rejected as not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Not one person from the public or from the other vendors testified. The Department took the unfounded allegation of an unsuccessful bidder (not even corroborated at trial) as proof that an appearance of impropriety existed. Paragraph 23 is rejected as argument, conclusion of law, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 24 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 27 are accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are rejected as argument. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument and contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Martha Harrell Chumbler CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. First Florida Bank Building 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 10-DC-8200 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, and the specifications of the Request for Proposals.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida has, by legislative enactment, developed programs to electronically supervise offenders sentenced under a community control alternative to prison, and to supervise, register, and monitor designated sexual offenders and predators under the Jessica Lunsford Act. The Department of Corrections is the agency charged with the implementation of the electronic monitoring program, and to ensure that probation officers and other community supervision personnel have access to offender monitoring data. Pro Tech and BI are both well-recognized and established providers of electronic monitoring devices and monitoring and reporting services to federal, state, and local law enforcement and correctional agencies in Florida and across the United States. Pro-Tech is the incumbent vendor to the Department for electronic monitoring services. RFP 10-DC-8200 On August 30, 2010, the Department issued RFP 10-DC- 8200, the purpose of which was to select a contractor to provide active Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) electronic monitoring services for supervision of offenders sentenced under a community control alternative to prison, and to monitor designated sexual offenders and predators under the Jessica Lunsford Act. As of June 30, 2010, the Department was utilizing approximately 2,538 active GPS units to monitor offenders. The Department projected that within three years, as many as 3,015 offenders would be on active GPS monitoring. The scope of work for the contract was detailed in section 3 of the RFP. Briefly, the winning vendor is expected to ?provide active [GPS] services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which shall include a monitoring system that is capable of being accessed through a secure internet connection and fully supported by a secure database for transactional records.? Provisions of the RFP that are material to this proceeding include, by section number, the following (all emphasis is in the original): 1.13 Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the proposer to be responsive to this RFP. The responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet the responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a proposal. Any proposal rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be evaluated. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by Proposers. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation therefore is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this RFP's requirements, provides an advantage to one Proposer over other Proposers, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services proposed, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a response. Because this is an RFP, the Department will apply this definition liberally in reviewing responses in regard to service delivery. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the RFP terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or gives the proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 5.2.9 The Proposer shall provide for both the Contractor and Contractor‘s personnel, copies of any and all documents regarding complaints filed, investigations made, warning letters or inspection reports issued, or any disciplinary action imposed by Federal or State oversight agencies within the past five (5) years. Narrative/Record of Past Experience As indicated in Section 2.2 and Attachment 1, it is a mandatory responsiveness requirement that the Proposer has at least three (3) years of business/corporate experience within the last five (5) years relevant to providing electronic monitoring services and equipment similar to the services described in this RFP, to correctional, criminal justice or law enforcement agencies. Details of the Proposer‘s experience that meet this requirement shall be provided in narrative form and in sufficient detail so that the Department is able to judge its complexity and relevance. Specifically include: provide a description of past years‘ experience providing electronic monitoring equipment and services. provide a description of past experience and the specific length of time providing Active GPS services (as identified in this RFP). identify all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provision of electronic monitoring services, and the number of active GPS units utilized for each. provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above-identified contracts, including any major adverse findings. provide the name and telephone number and address for the specified federal, state, or government contract manager. provide a summary of any exemplary or qualitative findings, recommendations, or other validations, demonstrating operational experience. (i.e., specialized accreditation, grant awards, etc.). The proposer shall provide a detailed description of the General Equipment specifications that meets or exceeds all requirements in Section 3.7.2 and specifically: provide manufacturer‘s specifications and literature on all equipment proposed, including equipment which is acquired from any other source than the proposer; describe the process utilized to notify the Department and/or the offender when a low battery condition exists in any component of the equipment (transmitter or receiver dialer); describe and list the tools necessary for installation of any of the monitoring unit equipment; and provide copies of required licensing by the Federal Communications Commission for the equipment proposed. The proposer shall provide a detailed description of the Contractor‘s method and approach for meeting or exceeding all Monitoring Center requirements in Section 3.13, and specifically: provide a copy of the staffing plan for monitoring services twenty four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, including holidays; and provide a copy of the Disaster Recovery plan. The proposer shall provide a detailed description of the approach to meeting or exceeding all Training requirements in Section 3.16, and specifically: provide a description of the method(s) for securely sizing and installing the transmitter securely to offenders; provide a copy of the training curriculum; and provide a copy of proposed course/instructor evaluation form. Please note - final evaluation form to be approved by Contract Manager and/or designee. As part of the RFP process, each interested vendor was allowed to submit questions regarding the terms of the RFP, and the services being sought. The Department responded to each of the 72 questions submitted. On November 2, 2010, the responses, along with revised RFP pages resulting therefrom, were provided to each prospective vendor as RFP #10-DC-8200 Addendum #1. Among the questions for which the Department provided answers were the following: Question #11: Sections 5.3.2.3 & 5.3.2.4 on Page 38 requires that we: ?identify all current and/or past (or within (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provisions of electronic monitoring services, . . . .? And that we ?provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above identified contracts,. . .? In the case of Pro Tech, this would amount to more than a hundred contracts resulting in a voluminous response. Perhaps a more reasonable requirement would be to provide the information for our 10 largest or 10 most similar contracts. Answer #11: These requirements remain as stated in the RFP. Question #16:5.3.2. Narrative/Record of Past Experience identify all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provision of electronic monitoring services, and the number of active GPS units utilized for each. Question: Since it is feasible that Proposers could have several hundred current/past contracts, will Florida Department of Corrections consider revising the requirement to be “Provide the total number of current and/or past (or within 3 years) federal, state or government contracts?” Answer #16: This requirement remains as stated in the RFP. Question #17: provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above-identified contracts, including any major adverse findings. Question: Since it is feasible that Proposers could have several hundred current/past contracts, will Florida Department of Corrections consider revising the requirement to be “Provide a performance summary of all contracts past/present?” Answer #17: This requirement remains as stated in the RFP. Question #28: Should respondents view ?shall? and ?must? language as mandatory requirements? Answer #28: This question is confusing different terms. See Section 1.13 that defines ?Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements?. See Section 1.15 that defines ?Material Deviations? which explains the terms ?shall and must?, and should not be confused with Section 5.1 Mandatory Responsive Requirements/ Fatal Criteria. Each proposed vendor signed an Addendum Acknowledgement Form for RFP #10-DC-8200 Addendum #1, and included it as part of its proposal. By signing and submitting the Addendum Acknowledgement Form, the vendors understood that the changes reflected in the Addendum ?are applicable to the original specifications of the above-referenced RFP? and that ?this addendum now becomes a part of the original RFP.? No prospective vendor filed a protest of any of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the RFP or Addendum #1. Proposals in Response to the RFP Proposals were submitted on November 22, 2010, by Pro Tech and BI, as well as five other electronic monitoring vendors, G4S Justice Services, LLC, iSecureTrac Corporation, Satellite Tracking of People, LLC, SecureAlert, and SOS International. BI proposed using its ExacuTrack One monitoring device to monitor offenders in Florida. The ExacuTrack One is a single piece device that is affixed to the offender‘s ankle. The unit contains a GPS signal receiver, a transmitter, cellular capability to transmit data to the monitoring center, a speaker for transmitting warnings, a device for the offender to transmit acknowledgement signals, and a rechargeable battery. The ExacuTrack One device meets the specifications of the RFP. When offenders go into prohibited areas, or when tracking capabilities are interrupted, either through shielding of the GPS signal or unauthorized tampering with the device, an alert is transmitted to the monitoring center. Each customer has a time interval set by contract by which a notification is sent to the customer, which may vary based on the nature of the alert. For example, if an offender strays into a prohibited area, an alert is transmitted to the monitoring center. If the offender exits the area before the contractual time interval is exceeded, a violation report is not required. The ExacuTrack One device has the ability to transmit an audible alert to the offender when the offender enters into an exclusion zone or otherwise violates the terms of his or her release. When an audible alert is given, the offender is required to acknowledge receipt of the alert, and to exit the area. The ExacuTrack One units are fully capable of meeting the requirements of the RFP operating on their own. However, in order to provide an option to conserve battery life of the ankle device, BI proposed to use a radio frequency ?Beacon.? When an offender is in range of his or her Beacon, generally being within the perimeter of the offender‘s home, the GPS feature goes into a low power state, and data is transmitted through the Beacon, thus extending the battery charge. BI considered the Beacon to be an optional device that exceeded the requirements of the RFP, and that could be provided at no additional cost at the discretion of the Department. Monitoring of the ExacuTrack One device may be accomplished in one of two ways. The monitoring system and devices can be sold to an agency which then provides its own monitoring, referred to as a ?local host? facility. The more commonly used system and that proposed for Florida, is one in which the monitoring devices are provided to the agency, with the resulting data sent to the BI monitoring center. The data is then stored and made available through the TotalAccess case management system. Department staff, correctional and probation officers, and other authorized users can access the system to perform a number of tasks, and are notified according to contract when monitoring alerts are transmitted to the monitoring center. The BI monitoring center has fully redundant capabilities, with all data being replicated both at the primary monitoring center in Boulder, Colorado, and at the backup center in Anderson, Indiana. Review of the Proposals Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements Review The Department initially reviewed each of the proposals to determine if Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements were met. Pursuant to section 5.1 of the RFP, the only Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements/Fatal Criteria were: a) that the complete proposal be submitted on time; and b) that the certification and cover sheet be signed. No prospective vendor was determined to be non-responsive for either of the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements. Material Deviations/Minor Irregularities Review The procedure by which the Department was to begin the process of review of those proposals that survived the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements/Fatal Criteria review was for procurement staff to review the proposals ?for compliance with the items required in the . . . Proposal Submissions outlined in Section 5 of the RFP.? The purpose of the compliance review was to determine whether the proposals contained any deviations from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, and whether such deviations were material deviations requiring rejection of a response, or whether they were waivable minor irregularities. If a deviation was determined to be a minor irregularity, the Department reserved the right to require additional information prior to the contract award. Kelly Wright was the Department staff person who was directly, and almost exclusively, responsible for the RFP. Ms. Wright was, in consultation with the Department‘s subject matter experts, the primary drafter of the RFP. She was responsible for vendor questions and for preparing the Addendum #1 in which those questions were answered. She prepared the evaluation manual, trained the evaluators, and compiled their scores. She performed the review of the proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements/fatal criteria, and reviewed the executive summaries and transmittal letters. It was also Ms. Wright‘s responsibility to identify deviations from the RFP requirements and initiate the process by which such deviations were resolved. Gail Hillhouse, who is Ms. Wright‘s supervisor, and is an active participant in the decision-making process for other procurements, was not materially involved in Request for Proposals No. 10-DC-8200. She did not assist Ms. Wright in the review of responses, nor was she involved in the process of resolving deviations of the proposals from the terms of the RFP. Ms. Hillhouse never reviewed the BI proposal at any time prior to the posting of the award. If during the course of the pre-evaluation review of the proposals, or otherwise during the selection process, a deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications was discovered, Ms. Wright was to take it directly to her bureau chief, Robert Staney. Mr. Staney‘s practice was to consult with the Department‘s legal staff, and then make a determination as to whether the deviation was a non-waivable material deviation under section 1.15 of the RFP, or a waivable minor irregularity under section 1.16 of the RFP. The Department appointed an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the proposals. The evaluators were charged with scoring the proposals as they were provided to them. The evaluators were not asked to determine whether any provision of the responses constituted a material deviation from the terms, conditions, or specifications of the RFP, and none did so. The evaluators were provided with scoring sheets that established the factors, referred to as ?considers,? that were to go into each individual score by section. Most sections contained multiple ?considers? that were to be evaluated to determine the overall score for that section. In the event a proposal was ?completely utterly unresponsive? as to the ?considers? listed for a particular section, a score of zero could be assigned. A zero would generally be an indication that some item had been omitted, thus triggering a ?material deviation? review. The scoring was to be performed as a composite, and the ?considers? within a section were not to be scored individually. Therefore, even if an element of a section was omitted in its entirety, a score of greater than zero would be required as long as there was information provided regarding the other ?considers.? That was so even if the omitted ?consider? would -- standing alone -- constitute a material deviation from the terms, conditions and specifications of the RFP. Only if an evaluator assigned an overall section score of zero would a review be undertaken to determine whether that section of the proposal materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. Neither Pro Tech nor BI scored a zero for any section. Since there were no zeros, no ?material deviation? review was made. Ms. Wright did not review the BI proposal from beginning to end until the evaluation and scoring was completed, and the award to BI was ready to be posted. The evidence in this case demonstrates that, except as related to the financial documentation discussed herein, no one in the Department reviewed the proposals to determine if they contained deviations, material or not, from the terms, conditions or specifications of the RFP, nor was any such determination made prior to the posting of the intended award. Financial Documentation Review Each prospective vendor was required to submit financial documentation of its ability to perform the contract pursuant to section 5.4 of the RFP. The financial documentation was not a Mandatory Responsiveness Requirement/Fatal Criteria pursuant to section 1.13. Rather, section 5.4.4 provided that the ?proposer shall provide financial documentation that is sufficient to demonstrate its financial viability,? and listed the items to be included in the proposal. The RFP further provided that ?[f]ailure to provide any of the aforementioned financial information may result in proposal disqualification.? The financial documentation for each proposal was reviewed by an independent Certified Public Accountant, who determined its sufficiency under section 5.4 of the RFP. Three of the responses, those of iSecureTrac Corporation, SecureAlert, and SOS International, failed to pass the Financial Documentation review, and were disqualified from further review and consideration. The CPA determined that the G4S Justice Services, LLC financial statement had several deficiencies, including the omission of items required by section 5.4.1 of the RFP. The information was provided by the CPA to the Department‘s procurement office. After consultation with legal staff, the Department determined the deficiency to be a minor irregularity, and it was therefore waived. Evaluation Each member of the evaluation committee had experience in the field of electronic monitoring. There are no disputed issues of fact regarding the qualifications or training of the evaluation team, the procedures by which the RFP scoring was performed, or of any individual score. Therefore, further findings or conclusions regarding the evaluators or the scoring of the proposals are unnecessary. Proposed Award As a result of the process of evaluating and scoring the proposals, the Department determined that BI was the highest scoring proposer. Pro Tech was the second highest scoring responsive proposer. Satellite Tracking of People, LLC and G4S Justice Services, LLC were ranked third and fourth, respectively. The final scores were calculated, and the proposers were ranked as follows: Proposers Actual points received by Proposers (X) Highest points received by any Proposal (N) Awarded Points (Z) CATEGORY 1 - Business/Corporate Experience - Maximum 300 Points - (X/N x 300 = Z) BI 209.64 253.39 248.20 G4S 186.07 253.39 220.30 Pro Tech 253.39 253.39 300 STOP 196.43 253.39 232.56 CATEGORY 2 - Technical Specs & Service Delivery Approach - Maximum 400 Points - (X/N x 400 = Z) BI 241.96 285.54 338.95 G4S 246.96 285.54 345.96 Pro Tech 285.54 285.54 400 STOP 248.57 285.54 348.21 Proposers Proposed Per Diem Unit Price (X) Lowest Verified Per Diem Unit Price of All Proposals (N) Awarded Points (Z) CATEGORY 3 - Cost Proposal - Maximum 300 Points - (N/X x 300 = Z) BI $3.00 $3.00 300 G4S $6.88 $3.00 130.81 Pro Tech $5.20 $3.00 173.08 STOP $4.15 $3.00 216.87 Total Proposal Points and Ranking Proposers Total Proposal Points Ranking BI 887.15 1 G4S 697.07 2 Pro Tech 873.08 3 STOP 797.64 4 On December 17, 2010, the Department posted its intent to award the contract to BI. The ?October 5, 2010 Incident? BI has contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, several states, and numerous political subdivisions under which persons are monitored with BI-supplied equipment. The data from the monitoring devices is transmitted to a centralized monitoring location. All of the BI GPS devices, as well as a number of radio frequency and alcohol monitoring devices, were monitored through BI‘s ?TotalAccess? system. On October 5, 2010, at approximately 7:30 a.m. MDT, the number of records contained in the ?identity column? field in the TotalAccess database, which operated on a 32-bit platform, exceeded the capacity of that field. As a result, the monitoring center could no longer receive data from any of the 16,000 devices using the TotalAccess system, which included all of BI‘s almost 9,000 GPS devices. The ?outage? lasted approximately 12 hours. Although the monitoring devices continued to collect and store data on the whereabouts of the offenders during that period, the data could not be sent to the monitoring center or accessed by officers. Offenders had no direct way of knowing that the monitoring devices were not transmitting data. When the system came back on-line at approximately 7:25 p.m. MDT, the data was transmitted from the affected devices to the monitoring center. No data was permanently lost as a result of the outage. Officers were notified of any activities that would have triggered an alert during the period of the outage. If any questions arose as to the movements of an offender during the outage, that data could be retrieved and examined after the fact. During the outage, BI customers were alerted, either by e-mail or by telephone, and advised of the problem. The customers were updated throughout the outage period. The resolution of the issue was achieved by rewriting the ?identity column? data file from 32-bit, with a capacity of 2.1 billion records, to a 64-bit file, with a capacity of 9 quintillion records. In addition, a customized monitor was developed and installed so that a warning will be provided in the future if the system nears capacity. Thus, it is unlikely that this particular problem will recur. The October 5, 2010, incident was, by BI‘s own admission, the single worst event in BI‘s operational history. Protest Issues Petitioner, Pro Tech, timely filed a protest of the award of the contract to BI. The January 3, 2011, protest petition identified the issues that formed the basis for its protest of the award of the contract to BI.1/ The issues alleged by Petitioner are: Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.3.2 of the RFP by failing to: identify all of its federal, state or government contracts under which it provided electronic monitoring services and the number of active GPS units utilized for each; and provide a narrative summary of contract performance for each contract so identified, including major adverse findings; Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.2.9 of the RFP by failing to disclose ?complaints filed, investigations made, warning letters or inspection reports issued, or any disciplinary action? by governmental entities, specifically related to the outage of service that occurred on October 5, 2010; Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.5.13 of the RFP by refusing to provide a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan. Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.5.15 of the RFP by failing to provide a copy of its training curriculum; and Whether BI failed to comply with section 5.5.5 of the RFP by failing to provide a copy of the FCC Grant of Authorization for the ?Beacon? device identified in its proposal. Pro Tech alleged that each of the deficiencies identified in its protest petition constituted a Material Deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP that, pursuant to section 1.15 of the RFP, could not be waived and that warranted rejection of the BI response. On November 15, 2011, BI filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene, in which it raised, as a disputed issue of fact and law, ?[w]hether Pro Tech‘s RFP reply met all of the requirements of the RFP and/or was materially non-responsive.? The responsiveness of Pro Tech‘s proposal was not preserved as an issue remaining for disposition in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation.2/ Issue 1: Failure to comply with past experience requirements Section 5.3.2. requires that details of the proposed vendors‘ experience ?shall be provided in narrative form and in sufficient detail so that the Department is able to judge its complexity and relevance,? and as part of that directive, the proposed vendor was required, in part, to ?identify all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts for the provision of electronic monitoring services, and the number of active GPS units utilized for each,? and to ?provide a narrative summary of contract performance in the above-identified contracts, including any major adverse findings.? (emphasis added). The subsections directing the vendors to provide supportive information, including 5.3.2.3. and 5.3.2.4., can be reasonably read in no way other than to be inclusive of the requirement that such information ?shall be provided in narrative form and in sufficient detail . . .? As part of the scheduled process of refining and clarifying the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, potential responding vendors were allowed to submit questions to the Department. The requirement that prospective vendors provide information regarding all government contracts was worrisome to two vendors, including Pro Tech, due to the fact that such a requirement would involve at least a hundred, and up to ?several hundred? contracts. As a result of its concern with the extent of the work necessary to identify all of its electronic monitoring contracts, Pro Tech made the specific inquiry as to whether it would be allowed to ?provide the information for our 10 largest or 10 most similar contracts.? Similarly, another vendor sought to limit the scope of the specification by requesting to ?provide the total number of current and/or past (or within 3 years) federal, state or government contracts,? rather than identifying them individually, and to provide an aggregated, rather than an individual, narrative summary of contract performance. To each question, the Department responded that ?[t]hese requirements remain as stated in the RFP.? The answers were posted by the Department, and became part of the RFP‘s terms, conditions, and specifications. The only reasonable construction of the Department‘s response is that it remained ?a requirement or condition? of the RFP for vendors to identify all electronic monitoring contracts, specify the number of GPS units utilized in each contract, and provide a narrative summary of contract performance. While that requirement may appear to be burdensome, it nonetheless is the requirement. If a proposed vendor believed the requirement to be overly broad or unnecessary, it was obligated to challenge the specification. The specification was not challenged. Failure to identify all contracts In response to section 5.3.2.3, BI responded as follows: ?While BI currently has contracts for EM equipment and services with approximately 1,000 customers, as directed by the requirements in Section 5.3.2 we are providing contracts that are similar in size and scope to those specified in this RFP only.? BI thereupon listed seven contracts, the largest of which used approximately 3,500 ExacuTrack One GPS units, and the smallest of which used 100 ExacuTrack One GPS units. BI believed that listing all of its contracts was not necessary for it to show that it had the requisite experience to perform the Florida contract. Mr. Murnock testified that ?[i]t was clear we did not respond with all one thousand contracts,? and that BI‘s deficient response was made with ?[t]he risk of being scored lower, yes, is one of the risks.? The decision to limit the information to be provided in response to what is an objectively clear requirement was made with considerable forethought and calculation. With regard to the decision to identify seven of its approximately 1,000 customers, Mr. Murnock testified that ?there's certain things that we did not put in this response. We provided our answers to that because we knew, at the risk of getting a lower score, it was a risk-risk situation, you know, where do I expose contracts, do I expose my customer list that could -- while being protected by confidentiality we don't trust, we have seen that breached in other jurisdictions, we've seen that breached here in Florida, I was not going to expose information that we feel to be protected. I answered the specification as I defined it.? (emphasis added). Mr. Murnock stated that BI‘s decision to limit contract disclosure was, in part, the result of a desire to avoid the risk of exposing its customer list because ?[t]here are some customers that don‘t like their information being disseminated.? The suggestion that BI‘s decision was driven by an altruistic concern for the interests of its customers is unconvincing. The Department requested only ?federal, state or government contracts.? No explanation was offered as to why the existence of a government contract would be confidential, or a narrative of BI‘s performance under that contract would be a problem. Regardless of the purported reasons for non-compliance, the options when faced with a clear, direct, and unambiguous requirement of a public procurement to disclose ?sensitive? information are to: a) protest the specification; b) submit the information under the procurement‘s confidential information provisions; or c) choose not to submit a proposal. Picking and choosing what required information to provide, and what not to provide, is not among the acceptable or competitive options. Section 5.2.3 of the RFP is clear and unambiguous. BI‘s response was not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements. The suggestion that vendors are free to unreasonably ?define? terms so as to meet their subjective desires is contrary to a fair and even-handed procurement process. All vendors are expected to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications in the same way so as to present an equal playing field. BI‘s decision to provide only a tiny percentage of its government contracts tilted the field in its favor by allowing it to devote the time saved by not compiling the required information -- time spent by the other complying vendors -- to other sections of its proposal, a result that is contrary to competition. BI‘s representation that it provided contracts ?similar in size and scope? is itself questionable. The contract with the Wisconsin DOC was described as an Electronic Home Detention Program. Wisconsin uses the BI 9000, the HomeGuard 200, and the Sobrietor systems. Those systems were not described in the proposal. There was no indication of whether they are active GPS units or whether they are comparable to the ExacuTrack One system proposed for Florida. In short, the proposal failed to provide any information that would allow the reader to conclude that the Wisconsin DOC contract is similar in scope to the services being sought by the Florida DOC. The contract with the Delaware DOC does not include monitoring of the field units, as is called for in the Florida contract. The lack of a monitoring component makes the Delaware contract dissimilar in scope from the proposed Florida contract. The information provided with regard to the Broward County, Florida contract failed to indicate whether that contract utilizes BI monitoring services. Furthermore, the Broward County narrative indicated that the Broward Pretrial Services Division ?uses BI ExacuTrack AT, HomeGuard 200, GroupGuard Plus, and BI VoiceID,? but failed to describe those units or indicate their comparability to units proposed for the Florida contract. The undersigned will presume that the ?ExacuTrack AT? is a version of the ExacuTrack One. However, the narrative failed to list the ?number of active GPS units? as required by the specification, so it is unknown how many are in service. There was little information provided that would allow a determination that the Pennsylvania contract is ?similar in size and scope? to the proposed Florida contract. The RFP proposal states that ?the Pennsylvania Office of Probation and Parole Services have been operating its own offender monitoring center . . . .? Mr. Murnock confirmed that Pennsylvania was not affected by the October 5, 2010, incident because it used its own local host monitoring system. The lack of a monitoring component makes the Pennsylvania contract dissimilar in scope from the proposed Florida contract. The proposal also indicated that Pennsylvania ?has 450 HomeGuard units and 649 BI 9000‘s units, operating through a GuardServer 750 system.? None of those units, or the GuardServer 750 system, are described in the proposal, and they are not the devices or services proposed for the Florida contract. As such, the proposal fails to provide any information that would allow the reader to conclude that the Pennsylvania contract is similar in scope to the services being sought by Florida. In addition to the fact that Wisconsin, Delaware, Broward County, and Pennsylvania contracts are not, based on the information provided in the RFP, of the same scope as the Florida proposal, the Delaware DOC contract (175 ExacuTrack One units), the Broward County, Florida contract (an unknown number of ExacuTrack AT units), the Fayette County Adult Probation contract (120 ExacuTrack One units), and the City and County of Denver contract (100 ExacuTrack One units, along with 300 radio frequency and 70 alcohol monitoring units) do not approach the size of the Florida contract. As a result of BI‘s decision to forego its duty to identify all of its contracts, as required by the RFP, the Department was left with precious few contracts ?similar in size and scope? to that proposed for Florida with which to compare. BI was a party to other contracts that included BI monitoring and the use of the GPS device proposed for Florida that it elected not to disclose. BI has a contract with the state of Missouri that includes BI monitoring services and, in part, the ExacuTrack One field device. BI failed to list its contract with the state of Missouri in its response to section 5.3.2, purportedly because it consisted predominantly of alcohol and radio frequency monitoring, with ?a few GPS, but I couldn‘t tell you the count.? However, at section 5.5.19 of its proposal, BI noted that the Missouri Department of Corrections ?awarded BI with a contract for GPS, alcohol monitoring and radio frequency? that included the use of the same ExacuTrack One unit proposed for Florida. BI touted the Missouri contract as an example of its ability to rapidly implement the Florida contract. By tucking away information regarding the Missouri contract (along with contracts with agencies in California and Illinois) in section 5.5.19, BI was not obligated to provide a narrative summary of contract performance, or contact information that would allow the Department to follow up if it so chose. The reasoning for excluding the Missouri contract is disingenuous, considering that BI listed its contract with the City and County of Denver, in which GPS monitoring is a small percentage of the total monitoring devices in that contract. Because of BI‘s failure to disclose, it is not known how many other contracts among the 1,000 include features proposed for Florida, and which may have been of value to the evaluators. BI made a calculated decision not to disclose all of its contracts. Petitioner‘s allegations that BI ?cherry-picked? the contracts it chose to disclose is a harsh assessment, but it is an assessment that is supported by the evidence of this proceeding. BI made similar decisions to limit disclosure of its contracts in past procurements, with other agencies, without the consequence of disqualification. Therefore, BI decided to stay with its practice, in the words of Mr. Murnock, to ?disseminate it as we see fit? and chose not to disclose all government electronic monitoring contracts ?at the risk of being scored low.? The fact that BI was ?allowed?3/ to proceed, despite the fact that its response was not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements, provided a competitive advantage to BI over other proposers. The first advantage is the immeasurable advantage conferred by withholding information on its contracts, and possible problems related thereto. The more direct advantage is the time saved by BI as a result of its decision to forego the work necessary to compile the contracts, and provide a narrative summary of their performance. The competitive advantage conferred on BI was, in this case, significant. Petitioner‘s President, Mr. Chapin, testified that Pro Tech devoted two full- time employees for approximately two weeks to collect the data necessary to fully respond to section 5.2.3, in addition to the time devoted by contract account managers in verifying contract performance matters. That was time not expended by BI –- and was time that BI could use to bolster and enhance other sections of its proposal. In addition to the direct competitive advantage conferred on BI, the Department‘s failure to enforce the clear and unambiguous requirements, especially when its ?decision? was made after the preliminary results of the evaluation were known, and when the deviation benefitted the vendor proposing a lower price, fosters an appearance and opportunity for preferential treatment that compromises the integrity of the competitive process.4/ The response to section 5.2.3.3. of the RFP provided by BI is clearly deficient, is not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements, and is a material deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. The Department‘s failure to enforce the requirement in accordance with the terms of section 1.15 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, and capricious. Failure to provide a narrative summary of contract performance Section 5.3.2.4 of the RFP required proposed vendors to provide a narrative summary of their contract performance, including major adverse findings. The summaries were not limited to major adverse findings. Rather, contract performance goes beyond adverse findings, and includes the manner and efficiency in which the contract services are accomplished, whether good or bad. BI provided narrative summaries of the few contracts it chose to identify, but little information as to contract performance. The evidence in this case demonstrates that the October 5, 2010, incident was, without question, the worst single operational event in BI‘s history, and among the two or three most significant failures in the history of the electronic monitoring industry. It affected at least one of the contracts identified by BI, that being with the state of Wisconsin. It occurred while the RFP proposal was being prepared, and approximately six weeks prior to its submission. It is absurd to believe that the October 5, 2010, incident was not a significant element that should have been disclosed in any discussion of contract performance. It may well be, as asserted by BI, that its customers were satisfied with its response to the October 5, 2010, incident. If so, it would have been a simple matter to provide an assessment of the satisfaction of BI‘s customers with its response, and with a description of the remedial measures taken to ensure that it would never recur. BI did not. Although several customers, including the state of Wisconsin, expressed their concern with the situation in writing, and BI offered credits to its customers, there do not appear to have been any ?major adverse findings? as that term may be narrowly construed. As a measure of ?contract performance,? Mr. Murnock testified that the October 5, 2010, incident ?is certainly not a good incident to occur. But when you look at the specifications, we interpreted them exactly the way they were listed.? That is not the case. Rather, the decision to withhold any mention of the incident came about by a careful and measured parsing of words. BI witnesses testified that the October 5, 2011, incident was no secret, and that it had put out media coverage and press releases because it ?wanted to be an open book? regarding the incident. However, as to the ?threshold? of the items that would have to be disclosed as a significant issue of contract performance, Mr. Murnock testified that ?that would be a very long list of performance items, whether it be from a billing issue that may have been raised, to this October 5th issue.? The equation of a simple ?billing issue? with the October 5, 2010, incident -- the single worst event in BI‘s history -- serves to highlight the attitude that allowed BI to willingly avoid disclosure of a direct, material, and significant element of contract performance that affected the very goods and services being proposed for Florida. The incident was enough of a secret that no evaluator was aware of it. The evaluators acknowledged that the event was significant, and could have affected their scores on the performance section of the RFP, though none could state whether the effect would have been positive or negative. It may well be that the explanation of the prompt remedial measures would have been well received by the evaluators, and that no reduction in scores would have resulted. It may also be that the event, given its severity, would have negatively affected their scores.5/ The testimony of Department witnesses that the October 5, 2010, incident was not necessarily something that it would have wanted to know about rings hollow. There is absolutely no reason why that information would not be pertinent and material to this RFP. The suggestion that the October 5 incident was something the Department viewed with ambivalence goes more to its desire to support the contract award than it does to the sufficiency of the BI narrative of contract performance.6/ Despite what is clearly a designed and calculated effort on the part of BI to withhold information regarding the incident from the Department -- and the Department‘s inexplicable lack of concern regarding the withholding of material information regarding subject matter of the RFP -- the fact is that BI‘s proposal included ?narrative summaries,? thereby meeting the minimal requirement established in section 5.3.2.4. Despite a lack of candor on the part of BI that raises significant concern, the undersigned cannot conclude that the deficiencies in the narrative summaries constituted an issue of basic responsiveness. Therefore, the undersigned cannot find that BI‘s omission of information regarding the goods and services proposed for Florida is a material deviation from section 5.3.2.4. of the RFP. Issue 2: Failure to disclose ?complaints? related to the October 5, 2010 event Section 5.2.9. of the RFP requires proposed vendors to provide ?any and all documents regarding complaints filed, investigations made, warning letters or inspection reports issued, or any disciplinary action imposed by Federal or State oversight agencies within the past five (5) years.? Pro Tech asserts that an October 7, 2010, ?deficiency notice? from the Missouri Department of Corrections regarding the October 5, 2010, incident, and follow-up correspondence through December 23, 2010, fell within the class of governmental action that should have been disclosed, but was not. The October 7, 2011, letter from the Missouri DOC identifies itself as a ?letter of notification to BI of a deficiency notice,? and requested of BI ?a written response within 7 calendar days identifying the problem area(s) which led to the failure and what steps BI intends to initiate to ensure that the system failure is not repeated.? BI witnesses testified that a ?deficiency notice? was not one of the specific items listed in section 5.2.9 of the RFP, and that it was therefore not obligated to disclose the Missouri letter under its very narrow reading of the items requested. BI‘s candor with regard to the October 5, 2010, incident as expressed in its response to section 5.2.9. is roughly approximate to that evident from its response to section 5.3.2.4.7/ Section 5.2.9. uses very specific terms. It is doubtful that the Department intended potential vendors to disclose only those documents with the words ?complaint,? ?investigation,? ?warning letter,? ?inspection report,? or ?disciplinary action? splashed prominently across the document. Rather, a fair reading of the requirement, coupled with an interest in being open and forthright regarding performance -- an ?open book? as stated by Mr. Murnock -- would clearly include a ?deficiency notice? to be within the class of items being requested. However, since the specific RFP language listed specific items, without a more inclusive descriptor, such as ?including but not limited to,? or ?in the nature of,? the undersigned will not broaden the specific RFP requirement. Since the Missouri letter did not include the words ?complaint,? ?investigation,? ?warning letter,? ?inspection report,? or ?disciplinary action? within the body of the correspondence, despite its being plainly within the general class of those documents, the response provided by BI to section 5.2.9. was not a material deviation from that requirement of the RFP. Issue 3: Failure to provide a copy of the Disaster Recovery Plan The RFP, at section 5.5.13., provides that ?[t]he proposer shall provide a detailed description of the Contractor‘s method and approach for meeting or exceeding all Monitoring Center requirements in section 3.13, and specifically . . . provide a copy of the Disaster Recovery plan.? The requirement is clear, direct, and unambiguous. BI did not file a protest of the specification, nor did it question the submission of its Disaster Recovery Plan during the process that resulted in the issuance of Addendum #1. In response to section 5.5.13. of the RFP, BI responded as follows: ?Because of security reasons, the Disaster Recovery Plan is not included with this response. For an outline of the Disaster Recovery Plan, see „3.13.4? beginning on page 148.? BI‘s refusal to provide the Disaster Recovery Plan is reiterated in its response to section 3.13.10. There is no industry standard as to what constitutes a Disaster Recovery Plan. However, BI clearly understood what constituted its Disaster Recovery Plan, and made the calculated decision that it was not going to submit it. The response provided by BI is clearly deficient, and is not in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements. BI decided that it would not provide its Disaster Recovery Plan to the Department ?because it has always been a practice that we not provide that unless it is outside of the production of the RFP, upon request.? The decision to ignore the requirement was made with calculated and matter-of-fact intent, relying on the assumption that it would entail at most a scoring reduction. In lieu of providing the Disaster Recovery Plan as required, Ms. White testified that elements of the plan were ?listed within the RFP itself in several different sections, about 30 different pages.? Thus, according to BI, various elements of what one might expect to find in a Disaster Recovery Plan lay flung about in unrelated sections of its RFP proposal, awaiting the efforts of the intrepid evaluators to uncover their existence and significance. BI‘s assertion that it intended those far-flung elements to meet the RFP‘s requirement that it provide its Disaster Recovery Plan is belied by its express statement that, with knowledge of its action, it elected to omit the Disaster Recovery Plan. The evaluation of a procurement proposal is not akin to a game of hide-and-seek. It is unreasonable to expect evaluators to scour each proposal to glean information scattered throughout, when there is a clear, unmistakable, and mandatory direction to provide the Disaster Recovery Plan as a single, stand-alone document. Compliance with a mandatory item of a public procurement, particularly one designed to ensure that the proposing vendor can adequately reply to a disaster scenario when its services are arguably most needed, cannot be left to the chance that an evaluator might be able to sift through the proposal, and to thereby piece together an understanding of what disaster preparedness measures are proposed. The fact that the Disaster Recovery Plan contains confidential and proprietary information does not lessen the obligation to provide that information. Section 4.3.20. of the RFP provides the procedure by which confidential, proprietary, or trade secret material may be subject to protection under the Constitution and laws of Florida. If a proposed vendor believes the protections to be insufficient, it has a hard decision to make as to whether to submit or not submit a proposal. That decision does not include whether to ignore a mandatory requirement of the RFP on the chance that the consequence would be insignificant. It is clear that the Department never determined whether BI‘s admitted failure to disregard the Disaster Recovery Plan requirement was a material deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. When Ms. Wright finally reviewed the BI proposal immediately before the posting of the award of the contract, she noted that BI had not submitted a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan as required by the RFP. Ms. Wright did not follow the established procedure of discussing the issue with Mr. Staney, nor was legal staff consulted. Rather, Ms. Wright called Douglas Smith, who was an evaluator. Ms. Wright indicated that, despite BI‘s express statement that it was not submitting a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan as required, she wanted ?to check with Mr. Smith on if he felt comfortable with what they had shared about the Disaster Recovery Plan, and was it sufficient.? Mr. Smith recalled his conversation with Ms. Wright, and indicated that ?it wasn‘t so much the Disaster Recovery Plan specifically, she was asking about the elements we reviewed. Are you comfortable with the score that was given? Are they adequate, satisfactory to be able to perform the services based on the contract?? Based on her discussion with Mr. Jones, Ms. Wright unilaterally determined that she did not need to take the issue of the omission of the Disaster Recovery Plan to Mr. Staney or to legal staff. Notably, Ms. Wright admitted that she did not make a determination of whether BI‘s admitted failure to provide a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan, as required by the RFP, was a material deviation or a minor irregularity. Vendors with an interest in the Florida contract may have been discouraged from submitting proposals because of similar concerns with the security of their Disaster Recovery Plans, or because they did not have a stand-alone Disaster Recovery Plan. It generally cannot be known how many, if any, potential proposers may have been dissuaded from submitting a proposal because of one project specification or another. However, although the effect of an agency choosing to ignore a clear and unambiguous requirement for one proposer that is applicable to all other proposers confers a competitive advantage that is difficult to calculate, it is nonetheless real. Furthermore, withholding its Disaster Recovery Plan until after the posting of the award gave BI the opportunity to review the other proposals. If it then determined that its proposal was less than advantageous, it could effectively pull itself from the procurement by maintaining its refusal to submit its Disaster Recovery Plan when requested by the Department. Thus, the failure to submit the Disaster Recovery Plan when required was a material deviation that conferred a competitive advantage on BI that was not enjoyed by the other compliant proposers. In addition to the foregoing, the refusal to enforce the clear and unambiguous requirement that BI submit a copy of its Disaster Recovery Plan, particularly when such a waiver has occurred outside of the Department‘s normal practice of evaluating deviations from the requirements of the RFP, and after the preliminary outcome of the evaluation was known, raises the distinct appearance of favoritism and preferential treatment towards BI. BI‘s failure to provide a copy of its Disaster Recovery plan is not in substantial accord with the RFP‘s requirements, and is a material deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. The Department‘s failure to enforce the requirement in accordance with the terms of section 1.15 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, and capricious. Issue 4: Failure to provide a training curriculum The RFP, at section 5.5.13, provides that ?[t]he proposer shall provide a detailed description of the approach to meeting or exceeding all Training requirements in section 3.16, and specifically: . . . provide a copy of the training curriculum.? In response to section 5.5.15 of the RFP, BI provided a summary of the topics to be covered in its course for training officers and other employees in the use of the monitoring system. The summary described the outline for the training to be provided, but did not go into detail as to manner in which the training would be provided. The RFP does not define the term ?curriculum.? In general, a curriculum is defined as ?the courses offered by an educational institution? or ?a set of courses constituting an area of specialization.? MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY, at http://www.merriam-webster.com. In this case, there is a single training course. The information provided by BI described the basic course that it intended to provide. What appears to be the subject of Pro Tech‘s complaint is that BI did not provide a complete syllabus, or the complete set of materials, for the training course that was to be provided. A syllabus or training materials were not required. The RFP, at section 3.16, provided that: [t]he training curriculum . . . [is] hereby adopted as the approved curriculum . . . to be utilized for all training purposes under this Contract. Said curriculum . . . [is] incorporated herein as if fully stated. Any changes to these documents shall be approved in writing by the Department‘s Contract Manager. Based on that provision of the RFP, a credible argument can be made that the intent of the provision was for the proposer to submit a document far more comprehensive than provided by BI. The Department‘s proffered explanation that the ?curriculum? provided by BI was what was intended by the RFP is not convincing, and generally runs contrary to the requirements of section 3.16. However, the description of what was to constitute a curriculum was imprecise and ambiguous. The information provided by BI describes the training course offering, and may reasonably be construed -- in a broad sense of the term -- to be a curriculum. The response provided by BI to section 5.5.15 is in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements as stated, and was not a material deviation from those requirements. Issue 5: Failure to provide the FCC license for the ?Beacon? Section 5.5.5 of the RFP requires the proposed vendors to provide the Department with ?a detailed description of the General Equipment specifications that meets or exceeds all requirements in section 3.7.2,? and ?provide copies of required licensing by the Federal Communications Commission for the equipment proposed.? The equipment proposed by BI as responsive to the general equipment specifications of section 3.7.2 consists of the ExacuTrack One single piece GPS tracking unit. The ExacuTrack One meets or exceeds all requirements established in section 3.7.2. The FCC grant of equipment authorization was provided for the ExacuTrack One unit. The ?Beacon? was identified in section 5.5.21 of the RFP as a value-added service that was above and beyond the RFP‘s minimum service delivery requirements and specifications. The Beacon is not a necessary component of the equipment for tracking offenders as established in section 3.7.2, but serves as a home-base unit to transmit location and data, and conserve battery power. Section 5.5.5, is reasonably construed to require that the FCC ?license? be provided only for the general equipment proposed pursuant to section 3.7.2 of the RFP. BI complied with that requirement. Based on the terms, conditions and specifications of the RFP, the response provided by BI to section 5.5.5 is in substantial accord with the RFP's requirements, and was not a material deviation from those requirements. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based on the foregoing, the BI response to Request for Proposals, Solicitation Number 10-DC-8200, materially deviated from the mandatory terms, conditions, and specifications of sections 5.3.2.3. of the RFP, as supplemented by Addendum #1, and section 5.5.13 of the RFP. The items that rendered the BI proposal non-responsive, and that materially deviated from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, gave BI an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers, were not minor irregularities, and could not be waived under the terms of the RFP. Based on the foregoing, Pro Tech demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the award of the contract to BI was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, and capricious. The undersigned is not unmindful of the fact that BI proposed the lowest cost, and that the rejection of the BI proposal will result in a higher overall cost for offender monitoring services to the state. Perhaps the fact that Pro Tech proposed a system that was scored higher based on its business experience and technical merits will offset any concerns. Regardless, the decision as to whether BI met the clear and unambiguous requirements of RFP 10-DC-8200 cannot, in the interests of fair and open competition, be the result of preferential treatment afforded to BI based on one element of a multi-factored RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further recommended that the contract issued in response to Request for Proposals, Solicitation Number 10-DC-8200, entitled "Global Positioning Satellite Electronic Monitoring Services" be awarded to Petitioner, Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. as the highest scoring responsive vendor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2012. 1/ The protest petition initially alleged that the evaluation team members did not meet the experience and knowledge requirements of section 287.057(16)(a), and that the price proposed by BI was unrealistically low, thereby jeopardizing the ability of BI to provide service under the contract. Both of those issues were withdrawn prior to the final hearing. 2/ If the issue of the responsiveness of the Pro Tech proposal had not been waived, the undersigned would have found and concluded that BI failed to demonstrate that the Pro Tech proposal was not responsive to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. The responsiveness issue was related solely to whether Pro Tech identified its contracts, provided narrative summaries, and disclosed complaints related thereto, in violation of sections 5.3.2. and 5.2.9. of the RFP. The only evidence of such non-responsiveness was related to a contract between G4S Justice Services, LLC, and the state of Connecticut, for which Pro Tech was a subcontractor. The RFP contained no requirement that a proposer disclose or discuss its subcontracts with other vendors, but rather required only the disclosure of ?all current and/or past (or within three (3) years) federal, state or government contracts.? Therefore, Pro Tech‘s failure to disclose its subcontract with G4S -- despite its disclosure of a different subcontract to which it was a party in Missouri - - was not a deviation from the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP. 3/ The suggestion that the Department ?allowed? the BI proposal to pass through the review process, or that the Department made such a decision, is a bit inaccurate. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the Department made no decision as to whether BI‘s proposal contained material deviations until faced with the issue in the context of litigation. However, for ease of reference, the terms ?allowed? and ?decision? will be used when describing the effect of BI‘s decisions to submit less information than required under the terms, conditions, and specifications of the RFP, and the Department‘s after-the-fact litigation strategy to support its determination to award the contract to BI. 4/ In Syslogic Technology Servs., Inc. v. So. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., Case No. 01-4385BID, at 61, n.19, (Fla. DOAH Jan. 18, 2002; SFWMD Mar. 6, 2002), Judge Van Laningham was similarly faced with a situation in which the agency failed to make a determination as to whether a deviation from the procurement specifications was material until after the proposals were scored and ranked, and the preliminary outcome known. His analysis is instructive and well-written, and is adopted, with full attribution, by the undersigned. The reason for this should be clear: If the decision on materiality were made from a post facto perspective based on extrinsic factors, then the temptation would be great to base the determination on reasons that should not bear on the issue. In particular, the materiality of a deviation should not depend on whether the deficient proposal happens to be highest ranked. To see this point, imagine a close football game in which, at the start of the fourth quarter, one team scores a go-ahead touchdown -- if the receiver came down in bounds. Would anyone think it fair if the referees awarded the points provisionally and reserved ruling on whether the touchdown should count until after the end of the game? Of course not. In a contest, potentially determinative decisions involving a competitor's compliance with the rules need to be made when the outcome is in doubt, when the effect of the decision is yet unknown; otherwise, the outcome may be manipulated. 5/ The Department would treat the failure to disclose the October 5, 2010, incident as a minor irregularity, thus allowing it to be treated as a scoring issue. However, the October 5, 2010, incident cannot be treated as a scoring issue due to BI‘s failure to disclose. Captain Yossarian would have made an appropriate evaluator of Request for Proposals No. 10-DC-8200. 6/ Again, with a tip of the hat to Judge Van Laningham: When an agency asserts for the first time as a party litigant in a bid protest that an irregularity was immaterial, the contention must be treated, not with deference as a presumptively neutral finding of ultimate fact, but with fair impartiality as a legal argument; in other words, the agency is entitled to nothing more or less than to be heard on an equal footing with the protester. Phil‘s Expert Tree Service v. Broward Co. Sch. Bd., Case No. 06- 4499BID at 42, n.13, (Fla. DOAH Mar. 19, 2007; BCSB June 11, 2007). 7/ To BI‘s credit, it did disclose an investigation by the state of New Jersey into its billing practices which, not surprisingly, ?concluded that BI was not at fault,? and for which BI included 23 pages of supportive information. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, and Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 smenton@reuphlaw.com Christopher Ryan Maloney, Esquire Foley and Lardner Suite 1300 1 Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 cmaloney@foley.com Benjamin J. Grossman, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP Suite 900 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 bjgrossman@foley.com Jonathan P. Sanford, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 sanford.jonathan@mail.dc.state.fl.us Ken Tucker, Secretary Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a disappointed bidder, waived its right to pursue administrative remedies by failing timely to file a notice of intent to protest.
Findings Of Fact On November 26, 2002, Respondent Department of Transportation ("Department") issued a request for proposals on a contract for the development of a transportation facility, which was to be located adjacent to the Miami International Airport. On March 3, 2002, Petitioner MIC Development, LLC ("MIC") submitted the only proposal that the Department received in response to this solicitation. The next activity of relevance to this case occurred three years later, on May 20, 2005, when a selection committee decided to reject all proposals (as mentioned, there was just one) and discontinue the procurement. By two letters dated May 31, 2005, each of which was addressed to a principal of MIC and marked "certified mail," "return receipt requested," the Department notified MIC of its decision. It is undisputed that the Department did not post its decision on the internet. There is, however, a genuine and spirited dispute concerning the date on which MIC received the Department's decision-letters; as a result, the evidence is in conflict regarding whether MIC received the Department's notice of rejection on June 3, 2005, as the Department contends, or on June 10, 2005, as MIC maintains. It is not necessary to resolve this particular dispute because——for reasons that will soon become apparent——the contested fact is immaterial. On June 14, 2005, MIC filed a notice of intent to protest the Department's decision to reject its proposal. Nine days later, on June 23, MIC filed its formal written protest. The Department insists that MIC's initial protest- notice, having been filed more than 72 hours after MIC's receipt of the notice of rejection, was untimely, thereby constituting a waiver of the right to a hearing. The Department urges that this case be dismissed on that basis. MIC asserts that its notice was filed within 72 hours after receiving the Department's letters——which it claims were defective in any event and hence legally insufficient to trigger the 72-hour filing period——and that, even its protest-notice were untimely, equitable principles should be invoked to allow this case to go forward notwithstanding the filing delay.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department refer this matter to DOAH for a final hearing on the merits of MIC's protest of the rejection of its proposal. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of April, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Lee County School District (District) Invitation to Bid #4908 (ITB) was provided to the vendors on December 9, 1992. The ITB sought bids for 61 hardware and tool items to be used in the District Supply Department. The District maintains an inventory of hundreds of miscellaneous hardware items. Quantities of available materials are monitored through a computerized system which is used to generate a list of items which need to be replenished. The District has historically utilized ITB's to acquire hardware items in order to maintain appropriate inventory levels. Eight sealed bids were opened on January 6, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Bids were submitted by Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware, W.W. Grainger, Action Bolt & Tool, Biscayne Electric & Hardware Distributors, Bob Dean Supply, Scotty's, Shadbolt & Boyd, and the Petitioner. The ITB states that the School District of Lee County: reserves the right to waive minor variations to specifications, informalities, irregularities and technicalities in any bids; to reject any and all bids in whole or in part with or without cause, and/or to accept bids that in its judgement will be in the best interest of the District. The District further reserves the right to make awards on a multiple, lump sum, or individual item basis or combination as shall best serve the interest of the District unless otherwise stated. Three of the vendors bid on all 61 items. The remaining vendors bid on some but not all of the items. The bids were tabulated by personnel in the Purchasing Department. The information in the bids is set forth in tabulation sheets which facilitate comparison of buds. On January 7, 1993, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Respondent stating that there were only "two authentic submissions: Ace Hardware and S.W. Supply, Inc." The tabulation sheets and additional materials included in the bid responses were forwarded to the Supply Department where supply personnel reviewed the submissions and made recommendations to the Purchasing Department as to which vendors should receive awards. As part of the evaluation of the bid proposals, the District determined that the cost of the total bid award would be lower if the awards were made on an individual item basis. The District considered prompt payment discounts in making this determination. The total amount of the proposed awards to the eight vendors is $7,104.55. Were the Petitioner to receive awards for all items, the total amount of the award would be $7,965.00, accounting for the Petitioner's proposed prompt payment discount. The Purchasing Department posted a Notice of Intention to Award on January 15, 1993. The proposed awards were made on an individual item basis. All eight vendors received awards. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest. Subsequent to the January 15 posting, the Petitioner discovered several errors in determining the proposed awards. In the Petitioner's formal protest, four awards are identified as incorrect. Despite the Petitioner protest, the first item identified was correctly awarded because the Petitioner failed to account for the prompt payment discount offered by the winning vendor. A second item protest was based on clerical error and was withdrawn by the Petitioner. The two remaining items were resolved and were addressed in a corrected Notice of Intention to Award posted February 16, 1993. There is no evidence that the errors were other than mistakes made in calculation or transcription of bid data from the vendor's documents to the bid tabulation form. No further specifically challenged items were identified by the Petitioner prior to the hearing. General condition 1.d. of the ITB states as follows: For purposes of evaluation, the bidder must indicate any variances from specifications, terms and/or conditions regardless of how slight. If variations are not stated in the proposal, it will be assumed that the product or service fully complies with the specifications, terms and conditions herein. (emphasis supplied) General condition 6 of the ITB states as follows: Use of brand names, trade names, make, model, manufacturer, or vendor Catalog Number in the specifications is for the purpose of establishing a grade or quality of material only. It is not the District's intent to rule out other competition; therefore, the phrase OR APPROVED EQUAL is added. However, if a product other that specified is bid, it is the vendor's responsibility to submit with the bid brochures, samples and/or detailed specifications on item(s) bid. The District shall be the sole judge concerning the merits of bids submitted. If a bidder does not indicate what he is offering in the proper blank and if the bidder is successful in being awarded the item(s) then the bidder shall be obligated to furnish the specified item(s). If packing is different from that specified, the bidder must note manner and amounts in which packing is to be made. (emphasis supplied) Only one vendor, Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware, proposed to supply all items exactly as specified in the ITB. The remaining vendor proposals included at least some items which varied in some respects from the items identified in the ITB. Where a vendor fails to identify that a product bid is "not as specified", the proposal is evaluated as if all specifications have been met, in which event, price is the determining factor in determining the award. Where a vendor identifies a variance related to a specified item, the proposal is evaluated as if all specifications other than the identified variance are met. If the product is determined by the Supply Department to be the equivalent of the product identified in the ITB, price is again the determining factor in determining the award. Where the ITB specifies a brand name followed by the word "ONLY", the vendor may not bid another brand. Where the ITB does not qualify the brand name as "only", the vendor may propose an equivalent product. Where a vendor does not identify the brand name of the item to be supplied, the vendor presumed to be bidding an item which will meet the specifications. If the vendor delivers goods which are not as specified, the District rejects delivery and cancels the order. The evidence establishes that, where bid items were not as specified in the ITB, the District had access to sufficient information to permit a determination of equivalency and an award of bids. The evidence fails to establish that, except as stated herein, the Petitioner should have received an award other that as set forth in the February 16, 1993, Notice of Intent to Award. General condition 5 of the ITB states as follows: Cash discount for prompt payment of invoices will be considered in making awards. The District prefers cash discount items which allow at least twenty (20) days for approval and payment of invoices. Four vendors included proposals for prompt payment discounts in the responses. One vendor offered a 2 percent discount for payment within 20 days, one offered a 1 percent discount for payment within 15 days and one offered a 1 percent discount for payment within 10 days. The Petitioner offered a 12 per cent discount for payment within five days, but only if the Petitioner received the award for all items bid. The District preference for a 20 day payment period reflects the time needed to accept delivery, process invoices and make payment for goods received. The District has accepted a five day prompt payment discount when the purchase was for a single item and the delivery date was specified. Such payment is otherwise difficult and results in other vendor payments being delayed. There is no evidence that based on the costs of goods involved in this bid, the savings are of such event as to warrant such extraordinary treatment of deliveries and invoices. General condition 16 of the ITB states as follows: Any and all special conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Special condition 1 of the ITB states as follows: A SAMPLE OR COMPLETE SPECIFICATION SHEET MUST ACCOMPANY EACH BID ITEM THAT IS NOT "AS SPECIFIED." IF AN ITEM CANNOT BE EVALUATED, IT WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware submitted product brochures or other materials related to items bid. The Petitioner submitted an extensive selection of photocopies pages from a hardware product catalog. W.W. Grainger submitted an index of part numbers and identified where such parts could be located in the Grainger catalog, which was on file with the District. Action Bolt and Tool included product information by brand name and model number in the ITB response. The remaining four vendors (Biscayne Electric & Hardware Distributors, Bob Dean Supply, Scotty's, and Shadbolt & Boyd) attached no specification sheets or other descriptive materials for items bid. As stated previously, the ITB directed vendors to submit specification sheets for "not as specified" items. The request for such information was intended to facilitate the review of the bids by eliminating the need for District personnel to consult vendor product catalogs already in the District files. The ITB also provided for disqualification where an item could not be evaluated. The Petitioner asserts that the failure to submit such product information materials with the bids is a material defect which cannot be waived and which renders the bids nonresponsive. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Of the four vendors which included no specification sheets, all four had product catalogs on file in the Purchasing and/or Supply Departments of the Lee County School Board. The District had sufficient information to evaluate the bids submitted by the vendors with catalogs on file. The Petitioner asserts that it was disadvantaged by the District's decision to waive the failure to attach specification sheets where catalogs were on file, because it was allegedly not possible to compare his bid to those submitted by the other vendors. The evidence does not support the assertion. The relevant catalogs are on file in the Purchasing and Supply Departments of the District and are available for public inspection. There is no evidence that the Petitioner sought at any time to reference the materials on file. The fact that the omitted specification sheets made such a comparison less convenient than it would have been had such sheets been attached to the bids does not render the bid proposals nonresponsive. At hearing, the Petitioner challenged many of the individual intended awards announced by the District. Prior to the hearing, the Petitioner had not asserted that such items were inappropriately awarded. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would be entitled to an award of any of the additional items challenged at hearing. In the case of individual items, a bidder other than the Petitioner would be entitled to the award if the Petitioner's challenge succeeded. None of the other bidders challenged the proposed bid awards. No vendors intervened in this proceeding. Accordingly the Petitioner is not affected by such individual awards and is without standing to challenge the items first identified at hearing. The Petitioner asserted that if the low bidder for each identified product is disqualified, and the next lowest bid included in the total bid calculation, the Petitioner's total bid, including the prompt payment discount, would be lower than the total of individual bids, and that accordingly, he would be entitled to an award of all items. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The Petitioner identified one item at hearing for which the Petitioner should have received the award. The ITB sought bids to supply 24 galvanized one quart metal funnels, item #58115. One of the vendors proposed to supply a plastic funnel at a cost of .56 each. The next lowest bidder was the Petitioner which proposed to supply the metal funnel requested at a cost of $1.44 each. On a previous bid, a plastic funnel was proposed by a vendor and rejected by the District as not meeting the specifications. Although in the instant case, purchasing personnel were informed by supply personnel that a plastic funnel would serve the same purpose and was acceptable, the vendors were not provided the opportunity to bid on the provision of the plastic funnels. General condition 9.c. of the ITB states as follows: If the material and/or services supplied to the District is found to be defective or does not conform to specifications, the District reserves the right to cancel the order upon written notice to the seller and return the product to the seller at the seller's expense. In other words, the District has the right to reject delivery and cancel orders for items which are not as specified in the ITB and for which no variance was identified by the successful vendor. A vendor delivering goods which are not as specified in the vendor's proposal will not be invited to participate in the ITB process for an indeterminate period of time. At hearing, the Petitioner asserted that item #58800 (a plastic sheet of twelve garden hose washers) was mistakenly awarded to a vendor whose proposal was for individual washers rather than the sheet. The Respondent acknowledged that accordingly the proposed vendor's bid was not the lowest. The next two lowest bids (one of which is an "as specified" bid) were received from vendors other than the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore would not receive this award. The Petitioner asserts that some bidders did not complete "drug-free workplace" forms. Although correct, the assertion is irrelevant. Such forms are used to determine award winners where there are identical bids ("ties"). There were no tie bids related to this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The School Board of Lee County enter a Final Order directing that the District Purchasing Department refrain from purchasing item #58115 pending the next invitation to vendors to submit bids for miscellaneous hardware supplies and otherwise DISMISSING the Petitioner's Notice of Bid Protest. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-1260BID The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 7. Rejected, irrelevant. Item #58038 does not require that ONLY an Ace Hardware item may be bid. Based on the ITB, it is clear that the item bid by Action Bolt & Tool meets the specifications set forth in the proposal. 11-12. Rejected, irrelevant. 14. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner attempted to obtain the materials used by District personnel to evaluate the bids. 16-17. Rejected, irrelevant. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 9. Rejected, immaterial. 23. Rejected, irrelevant. 28. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Garey F. Butler, Esquire Humphrey & Knott 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
The Issue Whether the School Board of Seminole County's, notice of intent to award Bid No. 102589, for air filter maintenance, service, and replacement to Filter Service and Installation Corporation was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Seminole County School District is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, created by Article IX, Section 4, Florida Constitution. The powers and duties of the school board are enumerated in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The Superintendent of the Seminole County School District is a constitutional officer, whose office is created by Article IX, Section 5, Florida Constitution. The powers and duties of the Superintendent are enumerated in Chapter 230, Florida Statutes. The Seminole County School Board issued a call for bids for air filter maintenance service and replacement under Bid No. 102589 on September 14, 1998. Bids were submitted by Con-Air Industries, Inc., the protester, and Filter Service & Installation Corp., the apparent low bidder. The bids were opened on September 28, 1998, and were evaluated. Each bidder was determined to be a responsible bidder to the CFB. Intervenor submitted the lowest numerical bid. On October 1, 1998, Respondent's staff recommended that the CFB be awarded to Intervenor. The decision to recommend the award of the filter service Bid No. 102589 complies with the bid specifications. The instructions to bidders, as stated on the Proposal Form, direct a bidder to total lines A-C and to enter the total at line D. The instructions state that a bidder is not to include the cost as stated at lines E & F in the total. The proposal form then states that the total cost, as stated at line D shall be used to determine the apparent low bidder. The bid proposal document stated that the total of the prices stated at items A, B, and C would be used to determine the lowest numerical bid. The bid proposal document stated that the Respondent reserves the right to negotiate unit cost proposed for item E. The line D total submitted by the Petitioner is stated at $3.45. The line D total submitted by the apparent low bidder, is stated at $2.60. Intervenor submitted the lowest numerical bid. Intervenor does business under the fictitious name Filter Sales & Service. That fictitious name has been registered with the Secretary of State for the State of Florida. Filter Service & Installation Corp., and Filter Sales & Service are one and the same. The reference by Intervenor at line F to "Per Price Sheet" and the failure of Filter Service & Installation Corp. to attach a price sheet to its proposal form is not a material deviation from the requirements of the bid specifications. The total at line D is the total used to determine the lowest bidder. Filter Service & Installation Corp. is the lowest and best bid from a responsive and responsible bidder. The Petitioner followed the procedure set forth in the bid proposal document in making a determination that the Intervenor was the lowest numerical bidder. Petitioner reserved the right to reject all bids and to waive any informalities. Petitioner failed to prove that the notice of intent to award the bid to Intervenor was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent award the contract for filter maintenance, service, and replacement under Bid No. 102589 to the Intervenor, Filter Service and Installation Corp., as recommended by its staff. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hering, President Con-Air Industries, Inc. 3055 Pennington Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County Public Schools Legal Services Department 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Robert W. Smith, Esquire 430 North Mills Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32803 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County Public Schools 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
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
