Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 1980, Timberland Utilities (hereinafter "Petitioner") filed a petition for permanent rate relief and immediate interim rate relief with the State of Florida, Public Service Commission (hereinafter "Commission") seeking authority to increase its authorized rates to realize an increase in authorized revenues from the provision and sale of natural gas to its customers within its service area pursuant to chapter 366, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a public utility as that term is defined within Section 366.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner provides and sells natural gas to its subscribing customers within its service area which comprises Cantonment, Florida, and the immediately surrounding rural and unincorporated territory in Escambia County, Florida. Petitioner was last granted permanent rate relief by the Commission on or about June 25, 1975, pursuant to Commission Order No. 6746, Docket No. 74768- GU. For purposes of this proceeding the Commission authorized Petitioner to use the twelve months beginning January 1, 1979 through and including December 3, 1979 as the test year period for this proceeding. During the test period, at its existing rate structure Petitioner experienced a loss in net operating income of $24,680.00. On or about September 4, 1980, the Commission authorized an interim rate increase under bond for Petitioner of $34,644.00, before taxes, pursuant to the Commission's Order No. 9520, Docket No. 800200-GU. Petitioner and the Commission have agreed on the following salient points: Capital Structure and Rate of Return The capital structure as of December 31, 1979, is: WEIGHTED AMOUNT RATIO COST COST Partner's Equity $137,465 55.18 12.34 6.81 Short Term Debt 96,280 38.65 13.46 5.20 Customer Deposits 15,381 6.17 8.00 .49 $249,126 100.00 12.50 The Commission has agreed to accept Petitioner's proposed overall return of 12.50 percent based on the year end 1979 capital structure. Rate Base The Petitioner and Commission agree on the following rate base as proposed by the Petitioner and adjusted by the Commission. Utility's adjusted year end Rate Base: $359,485.00 Commission adjustments (explained below): $ 79,007.00 Rate Base (December 31, 1979): $280,478.00 Calculation of 13 Months Average Plant in Service: Petitioner used a year end rate base in determining its requested rate relief whereas a 13-month average rate base is more appropriate. A 13-month rate base has been calculated which has the effect of increasing the Petitioner's rate base by $24,584.00. Extraordinary Property Loss: During the last month of the test year, Petitioner abandoned certain cathodic protection plant which was not used and useful. This was the result of a show-cause proceeding in Docket No. 79-650-GU, regarding the noncompliance with certain rules and regulations related to the cathodic protection of its distribution system. Since this plant was retired during the last month of the test year, it was not included in Petitioner's rate base but is included in the 13-month average rate base. This plant was not used and useful during the test year, therefore, it would be appropriate to remove it from plant in service together with the related reserve for depreciation which results in a net reduction to rate base in the amount of $19,268.00. Pro Forma Plant Adjustment - 1981 and 1982 Construction Labor: Petitioner included in its pro forma plant adjustment $23,380.00 and $14,476.00 for estimated 1981 and 1982 labor for constructing its replacement of abandoned plant in service related to its cathodic protection system. Since this adjustment relates to estimated expenditures, so far removed from the test year, it should be disallowed from Petitioner's constructed rate base. Meter and Regulator Change Out: Petitioner included in its pro forma plant adjustment $33,523.00 and $9,900.00 for changing out 683 meters and regulators, or virtually all of its meters and regulators. Petitioner is only required by Commission rules and regulations to change out 10 percent of its meters and regulators each year or a complete change out over a 10-year period. Because of the plant replacement program being undertaken currently, Petitioner has deferred this change out. However, in order to make the test period as normal as possible, it would be appropriate to allow at least a 10 percent change out, or approximately 70 meters and regulators, which would require a reduction in Petitioner's constructed rate base of $38,453.00. Plant In Service - Credit Memo Subsequent to its test year, Petitioner received a credit memo from Sherrod and Associates for work performed during the test year and recorded in plant. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce test year plant in service by $600.00. Plant In Service - Misclassified Expenses: During the test year, Petitioner classified certain expenditures totalling $1,213.00 which more appropriately should have been expensed. This adjustment also affects the Company's Pro Forma Expense Adjustment No. (f), related to annual surveys and is discussed under Net Operating Income Adjustment No. (f). Plant In Service - Radio Tower: Petitioner recorded on its books a radio tower which was owned by a previous partner and not used by the utility. Petitioner and the Commission agreed to reduce Petitioner's rate base by the net cost of $124.00. and Working Capital - 1/8 Operating and Maintenance and Tax Lag: Because of certain adjustments to operating and maintenance expenses together with two items involving taxes other than income taxes, which were improperly classified as operating expenses, it is appropriate to reduce the allowance by $804.00. Also, since adjustments were made to income taxes, it is also appropriate to reduce rate base for the related tax lag in the amount of $273.00. Net Operating Income The Petitioner shows a net operating loss of $24,680.00 for the test year. The commission has made adjustments of $38,616.00 as described below to show an adjusted net operating income of $19,936.00. The utility has accepted these adjustments which are: Interim Increase in Revenues: Petitioner was authorized by Order No. 9520, issued September 4, 1980, to increase its rates on an interim basis, which would generate $34,644.00 in additional annual revenues. N.O.I. was increased by this amount less related revenue taxes of $34,081.00. Insurance Expense: Subsequent to the test year, Petitioner changed insurance agents resulting in lower insurance rates in the amount of $2,453.00. N.O.I. was adjusted by this amount which is proper to reflect known changes. Non-Utility and Out-of-Period Expenses: During the test year, Petitioner recorded as operating expenses $1,118.00 which related to a prior period and non-utility expenses. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce expenses by this amount. Depreciation Expense: During the test year, Petitioner depreciated certain plant that was abandoned subsequent to the test year. The abandoned plant was removed from plant as a pro forma adjustment but the related depreciation expense was not adjusted. Depreciation expense was accordingly reduced by $1,698.00, since it is nonrecurring in nature. Amortization Expense: Petitioner originally included certain items in its extraordinary property loss account, which more appropriately should have received normal retirement treatment. Since these items were improperly included in the amortization of these property losses, Petitioner and the Commission have agreed to reduce same by $298.00. Pro Forma Survey & Consultant Fees: Petitioner made a pro forma adjustment to this expense to reflect a normal recurring cost of performing annual surveys. Petitioner stated that the annual recurring amount was $1,952.00 but it recorded only $950.00 for the test year, because of $1,213.00 in expenses misclassified as plant in service during the test year. After adjusting the Company's pro forma adjustment, the effect is to reduce this expense by $211.00. State and Federal Income Taxes: Petitioner was originally organized as a partnership and has not been subject to state and federal income taxes. However, effective January 1, 1981, Petitioner plans to incorporate and will be subject to these taxes. Net operating income, therefore, has been adjusted to recognize income taxes as a proper expense in the amount of $1,243.00. Rate Design (a) Petitioner and the Commission have agreed to the use of flat rates for residential and commercial rate schedules. Petitioner and the Commission have agreed to eliminate the net gross billing feature for residential and commercial rate schedules. Petitioner has agreed that its tariff should be revised to comply with current Commission rules, practices and procedures. Petitioner has agreed that revised pages 75, 76, 86, 88, 89 in the "R" section of the MFR's will be filed consistent with discussion with Commission staff at Petitioner-Staff conference. Petitioner has agreed with the Commission to increase the connection and reconnection charges for village and rural service areas to $10.00 and $15.00, respectively. Petitioner and the Commission have agreed that the N.O.I. deficiency, expansion factor and revenue requirements are as follows: Timberland Utilities Revenue Requirements Calculation Staff Adjusted Rate Base: $ 280,478.00 Rate of Return (Requested by Petitioner): 12.5 percent Required N.O.I.: $ 35,060.00 Staff Adjusted N.O.I.: 13,936.00 N.O.I. Deficiency $ 21,124.00 N.O.I. Deficiency at 17 percent Rate: $ 17,570.00 Expansion Factor at 17 percent F.I.T. Rate: :- 78.0888 percent Revenue Requirements: $ 22,500.00 N.O.I. Deficiency at 20 percent Rate: $ 3,554.00 Expansion Factor at 20 percent F.I.T. Rate: :- 75,3553 percent Revenue Requirements $ 4,716.00 TOTAL ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS: $ 27,216.00
Findings Of Fact The Authority is an agency of the State of Florida which, pursuant to memorandum of agreement with the State of Florida, DOT, has the authority to acquire right-of-way services and other contractual services relating to the development of that part of the Florida Turnpike known as Northwest Hillsborough Expressway (the Expressway). Kaiser is an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Florida and has its principal place of business in Oakland, California. Colan is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On December 4, 1990, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of right-of-way acquisition services for development of the Expressway. The request for proposals is titled "Request For Proposal, RFP- THCEA-R/W-90-001, Right-of-Way Negotiation, Relocation Assistance, Property Management and Asbestos Related Activities" (the RFP). Responses to the RFP were due on January 8, 1991. Timely responses to the RFP were filed by both Kaiser and Colan. Proposals were also submitted by Moreland Altobella, ROW Consultants, TransAmerica Energy, and Universal Field Services. The RFP stated that the proposals would be evaluated both on technical merit and on price, with the final ranking of the proposals to be determined based on the separate scoring of eleven separate technical and substantive areas added to a single score for price. On January 29, 1991, Kaiser received notice of the Authority's decision to award to Colan the contract for right-of- way acquisition services for the Expressway. Kaiser's proposal was ranked second by the Authority's evaluation committee, which consisted of William McLean, Dale Patten, Norris Smith, David May, and Ray Speer. The Expressway will come under the Turnpike Authority of the Florida Department of Transportation who is funding the project with state issued bonds. The Respondent is acting as the agent for the Florida Department of Transportation in carrying out this project. In submitting its Technical Proposal (exhibit 2) Colan listed Byron Cherkas as a CPA subcontrator to do Business Damage Reports. Colan also listed two additional CPAs from the firm of Dwight Darby & Co. in Tampa, one listed to do Business Damage Reports and one to do Business Damage Reviews. Although Colan had used Cherkas on previous right-of-way acquisitions to do Business Damage Reports, Colan had no agreement with Cherkas to perform this service when this proposal was submitted. Although Petitioner contends this made Colan's proposal nonresponsive, the Authority took the position that Cherkas was only a backup CPA and the proposal was responsive. There was no need to list additional CPAs and listing Cherkas did not make the proposal nonresponsive any more than it would have been nonresponsive had Cherkas' name had not been added. Petitioner further contends that Colan's proposal was nonresponsive because Colan would not be able to complete this contract in the fifteen months allotted based upon the scheduled contained in the proposal. The schedule [exhibit 2 (D.2)] showing the time for submission of the condemnation packages to the Authority in the tenth month of the project is clearly too late for the land acquisitions involved to be completed by the contract expiration date. This, however, does not make the bid nonresponsive. Colan, upon receiving the contract and agreeing to complete the project in the time allotted, is required to do so under the terms of the contract. The RFP provides for frequent meetings and reports from the successful bidder regarding the progress of the acquisition and modifications of schedules as needed. Furthermore, the Authority is not bound by the schedule contained in exhibit 2 and has no intention of allowing Colan to wait until the tenth month of the contract period to commence the preparation of the litigation documents. Colan acknowledges that waiting until the tenth month to commence suit preparation is unreasonable if the project is to be completed on time, and contends that a clerical error was made in preparing this schedule. Colan's president testified that Colan will comply with any reasonable schedule1 suggested by the Authority, and suit preparation will commence much earlier than the tenth month into the contract period. Petitioner's witness opined that the other companies submitting proposals did not fully understand the scope of the work involved, nor did the persons preparing the RFP. Petitioner's bid of nearly $5 million for this project is nearly $3 million higher than the lowest bid, and approximately $2.4 million higher than Colan's bid, and $1.5 million above the second highest bid. A more reasonable interpretation of the six proposals submitted would be that Petitioner grossly overestimated the scope of the work or overpriced its proposal. The RFP clearly established the scoring system to be used in evaluating the proposals. Five evaluators scored each proposal and the scores awarded are contained in exhibit 7. It is significant that Kaiser's average score in every category except price is higher than Colan's score. Colan received a total averaged score of 83.1 while Kaiser received an average score of 82. All five of the members of the Technical Review Committee who were involved in this RFP testified in these proceedings. All read the pleadings filed in this case and heard most of the testimony presented by Kaiser's witnesses. All testified that, after having heard the testimony and read the pleadings, if they rescored all of the proposals as of the date of the hearing their scores would be substantially tie same as the scores originally given to these proposals. Some of these scorers reduced the score given to Colan in the categories of production control, property management and/or past performance because of the schedule in Colan's proposal which indicated suit preparation would begin in the tenth or eleventh month of the project. The man hours required to accomplish the suit preparation aspects of this RFP are basically the same regardless of when this task is commenced. Accordingly, scheduling these tasks in the latter part of the contract period gave Colan no price advantage in the proposal submission.
The Issue Did Respondent Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department) properly reject the response submitted to the Department's Request For Proposal No. RFP 96-033-VA, For Computer Hardware and Related Equipment Maintenance Including Operating Software (RFP) by Petitioner Knaus Systems, Inc. (Knaus)? Did the Department provide Knaus with a clear point of entry to challenge the Department's decision, and, if so, did Knaus timely file its notice of protest or formal written protest?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On January 29, 1996, the Department issued an RFP which requested a Vendor Technical Proposal (technical proposal) and a Vendor Cost Proposal (cost proposal). Knaus was on the Department's bidder's list and received a copy of the RFP around the end of January, 1996. Knaus is engaged in the business of selling and servicing computer hardware, and currently has nine contracts with the State of Florida in response to requests for proposals. As required by Rule 60A-1.002(9)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the original RFP contained the Department of Management Services' Form PUR 7033, revised 1/9/95, (cover sheet), which in pertinent part provides: PROPOSALS WILL BE OPENED 3:00 P.M., MARCH 19. 1996 and may not be withdrawn within 30 days after such date and time. POSTING OF PROPOSAL TABULATIONS Proposal tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the location where proposals were opened and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest with- in the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Posting will be on or about MARCH 21, 1996 In pertinent part, Sections 2 and 5 of the RFP provide: 2.1 RFP Submission Date Vendors shall submit their proposals on or before the date and time indicated in Section 5.9 and to the location indicated in Section 5.12 of this Request For Proposal. * * * 2.5 Addenda All addenda to this Request For Proposal will be in writing, with content and number of pages described, and sent to all Vendors known to be in receipt of this Request For Proposal. The Vendor must acknowledge receipt of all addenda in in writing and submit with the Proposal. * * * 5.1 Bid Evaluation and Award Proposals which do not meet the requirements specified in this Request for Proposal will not be considered for award. Please return your sealed bid response in the enclosed self-addressed envelope labeled: BID: RFP 96-033-VA TIME: 3:00 p.m. DATE: March 19, 1996 The Proposal number must be clearly marked on the outside of the vendors submittal. Failure to identify a Proposal in the above prescribed manner shall result in automatic disqualification of the Proposal. * * * 5.9 Calendar of Events Listed below are the important date and times by which actions noted must be taken or completed. If the Department finds it necessary to change any of these dates or times, the change will be accomplished by addendum. Date/Time Event February 13, 1996 Written Vendors Inquiries Due February 22, 1996 Pre-proposal Conference (Vendor attendance is mandatory) February 28, 1996 Addenda issued by Department March 19, 1996 Opening of Vendor 3:00 p.m Technical Proposals April 2, 1996 Opening of Vendor 10:30 a.m. Cost Proposals April 4, 1996 Posting of RFP Award * * * Responsiveness and Rejection of Proposals All proposals must be in writing. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in the Request For Proposal. A Proposal may be rejected if it fails to meet the general requirements and mandatory specifications as stated in this Request for Proposal. . . . Submission of Proposals Sealed proposals must be received by the Department of Labor and Employment Security at the address noted below, on or before the date and time shown in Section 5.9 "Calendar of Events". . . . * * * The vendor must submit both a technical proposal for evaluation and a cost proposal. Both proposals must be in a separate sealed envelope and clearly marked on the outside stating technical proposal or cost proposal Both proposals must be delivered as stated above. * * * Proposals, including amendments, may be mailed or hand-delivered, but in either case must be received no later than 3:00 P. M. on March 19, 1996. . . . NUMBER OF COPIES: 1 original and 5 copies for each category bid SUBMIT TO: Vonnie Allen -- DLES Computer Maintenance, Department of Labor and Employment Security, 2012 Capitol Circle S.E. 104 Hartman Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2169 DEADLINE: March 19, 1996 at 3:00 p.m * * * 5.16 Posting of Recommended Award Proposal tabulation with recommended award will be posted for review by interested parties at the Department's Office of Purchasing on or about the date noted on the cover sheet of this RFP, and will remain posted for a period of seventy-two (72) hours, not including weekends or holidays. [Emphasis supplied] In accordance with the initial RFP, the technical and cost proposals were to be submitted in separate sealed envelopes within a single envelope to the Department on or before 3:00 p.m. on March 19, 1996, which was also the date for opening the technical proposals. All vendors, including Knaus, understood that for their response to the RFP to be timely both the technical proposal and the cost proposal had be received by the Department on or before 3:00 p.m. on March 19, 1996, the time and date scheduled for opening the technical proposals set out in Section 5.9. The date (March 21, 1996) shown on the cover sheet of the RFP for posting proposal tabulations with recommended awards is different from the date (April 4, 1996) shown in Section 5.9 of the RFP for posting RFP award. It is unclear whether these are two separate events requiring separate dates or a conflict as to the posting date. In accordance with the terms of the RFP, the Department conducted a mandatory Pre-proposal Conference on February 22, 1996. Knaus was represented at this conference. Questions raised by Knaus and other vendors at this conference necessitated an amendment to the RFP. On March 13, 1996, the Department issued Addendum [No.] 1 to the RFP, a copy of which was received by Knaus. In pertinent part, Addendum [No.] 1 provides: March 13, 1996 Addendum: [No.] 1 Bid: [No.] 96-033-VA Opening Date/time: March 19, 1996, changed (Technical) to April 2, 1996 April 2, 1996 changed to April 16, 1996 (Cost) Dear Sir or Madam: The subject Request for Proposal is hereby amended as follows: * * * 5.1, 5.9, 5.12 RFP Technical Opening is to be changed from 3:00 p.m. on March 19, 1996 to 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 1996. The Cost Opening is to be changed from 10:30 a.m. April 2, 1996 to 10:30 a.m. April l6, 1996. Addendum [No.] 1 did not amend or delete the requirement of the RFP that the technical and cost proposals be sealed in separate envelopes and both envelopes to be placed in the self-addressed envelope furnished with the RFP and submitted to the Department. All vendors, other than Knaus, relying only on the RFP and Addendum [No.] 1 concluded that both the technical and cost proposal were to be submitted on or before the opening of the technical proposal and therefore, submitted their technical and cost proposals on or before 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 1996. None of the vendors, including Knaus, submitted their response to the RFP on or before March 19, 1996, the original submittal date for responses and the original opening date for technical proposals. The Department received Knaus' technical proposal on April 1, 1996, and Knaus' cost proposal on April 5, 1996. On April 11, 1996, Vonnie Allen, the Department's Purchasing Specialist, telephoned Anthony J. Knaus, President and Chief Executive Officer for Knaus, to advise him that the Knaus proposal was non-responsive because the Department had not received both the technical and cost proposal before the opening of the technical proposals at 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 1996. During this telephone conversation, Anthony Knaus expressed his understanding of Addendum [No.] 1 as not requiring receipt of the cost proposal by the Department before the opening of the technical proposal at 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 1996. After his conversation with Vonnie Allen on April 11, 1996, Anthony Knaus wrote Allen a letter advising her that based on Addendum [No.] 1 that Knaus intended to file a protest in regards to the RFP. On April 15, 1996, Anthony Knaus again wrote Allen a letter in regards to the April 11, 1996, telephone conversation advising Allen that he had not received written notification from the Department of Knaus' noncompliance with the RFP but that Knaus would proceed with the protest. The letter further advised Allen that Knaus intended to file a formal protest. On April 19, 1996, Barbara Chance, Purchasing Director for the Department, wrote Knaus a letter advising Knaus that its response to the RFP was non-responsive due to the cost proposal not being submitted as stated in the RFP, and returning Knaus' certified check that had been submitted with its proposal. No further explanation of the basis for this determination was included in the letter. Likewise, there was no notice of Knaus' right to challenge the Department's determination as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 60A-1.001(7) and (8), Florida Administrative Code. On April 23, 1996, the Department issued what is titled "NOTIFICATION [No.] 2" concerning Cost Opening Date which advised Responsive Vendors that the cost opening had been moved to 9:00 a.m. on April 24, 1996, and such opening was to be held at the Hartman Building, 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast. The letter further advised the Responsive Vendors that posting of the intended award would be "approximately Thursday, April 25, 1996 at 9:00 a.m.". Since the Department did not consider Knaus a responsive vendor, Knaus did not receive a copy of "NOTIFICATION [No.] 2". Knaus was never advised by the Department of the change in dates for the posting of intended award prior to or during the time of posting. On April 25, 1996, Dennis H. McVeen, General Manager for Knaus, wrote the Department's General Counsel concerning Barbara Chance's letter of April 19, 1996, and requested that Knaus be advised of the exact deadline for filing its protest. The Department never responded to this letter. The Department did not respond to any of Knaus' letters, and has yet to advise Knaus of its right to contest the Department's determination that because Knaus' cost proposal was not received by the Department on or before the opening of the technical proposal at 3:00 p.m. on April 2, 1996, Knaus' response to the RFP was non-responsive . On April 25, 1996, the Department posted the bid tabulations for the RFP, which, in pertinent part, states: "FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 120.53(5). FLORIDA STATUTES, SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES." The Bid Tabulation indicated a Posting Time/Date from 8:00, 4/25 until 8:00, 4/30. The Bid Tabulation does not indicate whether 8:00 was a.m. or p.m. However, Allen testified that it was intended to be a.m. Knaus was listed on the Bid Tabulation as to "Technical only" and was shown as NR or non-responsive. The Department has not fully evaluated Knaus' response to the RFP. Knaus obtained a copy of the Bid Tabulation sometime after 8:00 a.m. on April 30, 1996, which was after the time for posting. Obtaining a copy of the Bid Tabulation was the result of Knaus' own efforts and cannot be attributed to any efforts on the part of the Department. Knaus filed its Petition For Administrative Proceedings, Notice of Protest and Formal Written Protest on May 13, 1996, with the Department. Knaus did not file a Notice of Intent to Protest or Formal Protest addressed to the specifications contained in the RFP or Addendum [No.] 1. There was no evidence that Knaus gained any advantage by submitting the cost proposal after the technical proposals were opened. There is sufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Knaus knew or should have known that the RFP as amended by Addendum [No.] 1 required that both the technical and cost proposal be submitted together on or before April 2, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order that Knaus' failure to timely submit its cost proposal was a minor irregularity and is waived, and directing staff to reevaluate all responses, including Knaus', under the RFP, as amended. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-2365BID The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Knaus' Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 37, 44, 45 and 47 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. Proposed findings of fact 38 through 43 go to the weight of the testimony of witness and are not considered as proposed findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 46 is neither material nor relevant. Proposed finding of fact 48 is covered in the Preliminary Statement. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1 Proposed findings of fact 1 through 14 and 16 through 21 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. 2. Proposed finding of fact 15 is neither material nor relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger and Davis, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination are whether petitioner, Department of Community Affairs, has standing to maintain this action, and whether the respondent's, Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council's, proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency under the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, [the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" (LGCPA)]. As the state land planning agency for the LGCPA, the Department is charged by law with the duty to provide technical assistance to local governments in preparing comprehensive plans and with the duty to ascertain whether local comprehensive plans are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Inherent in the Department's determination of compliance is a finding that the local government comprehensive plan elements are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan. Where, as here, a comprehensive regional policy plan is inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan, the performance of the Department's mandated duty is stymied absent the ability to challenge the offensive parts of the regional policy plan, and thereby bring the planning process into harmony. Accordingly, as the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of implementing the LGCPA, the Department has a real and immediate interest in assuring consistency between the state comprehensive plan and the various regional policy plans. Respondent, Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council (Council), is a regional planning council established pursuant to Section 186.504, Florida Statutes, and consists of the Counties of Citrus, Hernando, Levy, Marion, and Sumter. Rule 29E-1.001, Florida Administrative Code. As a regional planning council, the Council is charged by law with the duty to develop a comprehensive regional policy plan that is consistent with, and which furthers, the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan. Section 186.507(1), Florida Statutes. The existent comprehensive regional policy plan and the proposed amendments The Council has, consistent with the requirement of Section 186.507(1), Florida Statutes, adopted its comprehensive regional policy plan by rule. That rule, codified as Rule 29E- 11.001, Florida Administrative Code, adopts and incorporates by reference the Council's comprehensive regional policy plan, with an effective date of April 13, 1989. On June 9, 1989, the Council duly noticed its intent to amend Rule 29E- 11.001, Florida Administrative Code, and published notice thereof in volume 15, number 23, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Pertinent to this case, the proposed amendments would alter the policies of the Council's comprehensive plan as they relate to resource extraction (mining) in environmentally sensitive areas. On June 30, 1989, the Department filed a timely petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, contending that the proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, were an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The gravamen of the Department's challenge to the validity of the proposed rule amendments is its contention that the amendments are not consistent with the state comprehensive plan policies as they relate to mining in environmentally sensitive areas, and that the amendments fail to establish adequate standards for the Commission's decisions or vest unbridled discretion in the Commission. The policies of the state comprehensive plan pertinent to this case, as set forth in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, are as follows: (10) NATURAL SYSTEMS AND RECREATIONAL LANDS * * * (b) Policies - 1. Conserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values. * * * 3. Prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats. * * * 7. Protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. * * * (14) Mining - (b) Policies - * * * 5. Prohibit resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas of the state which cannot be restored. (Emphasis added) The Council's proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.001, Florida Administrative Code (the comprehensive regional policy plan), are hereinafter set forth, with the proposed amendments in clear text and the existing language of the rule that is to be amended lined through. In such format, the proposed amendments to the existing rule that are under challenge in this proceeding provide as follows: 14.3.1.1. Regional Policy: Resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas that cannot be reclaimed or restored to beneficial use shall be prohibited. Examples of such environmentally sensitive areas are: wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, coastal floodplains, endangered species habitat, prime agricultural lands, prime groundwater recharge areas, and historically significant sites. (Emphasis added) Wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, coastal, floodplains, endangered species' habitat, prime agricultural lands, prime groundwater recharge areas, and historically significant sites shall be identified and protected by a prohibition on mining activities within those areas and the establishment of buffer zones around them. Additionally, the Council proposes to amend its implementation strategy as to Regional Policies 14.3.1.1, 14.3.1.2, and 14.3.1.3, as follows: GROWTH MANAGEMENT Local governments with assistance from other agencies should inventory their wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, springs, coastal floodplains, endangered species' habitat, prime agricultural lands, prime groundwater recharge areas, historically significant sites, and important mineral reserves. Local governments should adopt comprehensive plan amendments and ordinances that 1) prohibit mining activities in environmentally sensitive areas if they cannot be reclaimed or restored to beneficial use; define buffer zones around the areas and resources identified above and restrict mining activities to land outside those buffers, 2) require identification and protection of archaeological properties on sites proposed for mining; 3) restrict the use of land that contains economically recoverable mineral deposits and lies outside environmentally sensitive areas to activities that will not preclude later extraction of those minerals. (Emphases added) INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION (1) DNR, GFC, FWS, SCS, DER and WMDs, within their respective areas of expertise, should help local governments to identify and map the above areas and resources and to define appropriate buffer widths. Contrary to the provisions of the state comprehensive plan which prohibit resource extraction that will adversely effect environmentally sensitive areas unless they can be "restored," the proposed amendments would only prohibit such activities if the environmentally sensitive areas could not be "reclaimed or restored to beneficial use." The terms "restored" and "reclaimed," although not defined by the proposed amendments, have commonly accepted meanings. To restore a site means to put back the same thing that had previously existed, i.e.: restore the type, nature, and function of the ecosystem to the condition in existence prior to mining. To reclaim a site is to alter its character such that beneficial use can be made of it, even though the character or function of the site may be entirely different from that which previously existed. To "restore to beneficial use" is a phrase consistent with the definition of "reclamation," and not consistent with the definition of "restoration" as that term is commonly defined. Accordingly, it is found that the proposed amendments to Rule 29E-11.011, Florida Administrative Code, are patently inconsistent with the policies of the state comprehensive plan that relate to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and, more particularly, the policy of the state comprehensive plan that prohibits resource extraction in such areas unless they can be restored. Notwithstanding the patent inconsistency between the proposed amendments and the state comprehensive plan, the Council argued that it "intends" to interpret the proposed amendment consistent with the state plan. To this end, the Council offered the testimony of its chairman, Nick Bryant, who testified that he would interpret the proposed amendment to require that the post-mining beneficial use be the same beneficial use that existed prior to mining. The Council's vice chairman, Ralph Shepard, testified, however, that he would not interpret the proposed amendment to require that the property be returned to the same character it enjoyed prior to mining, but only that it be reclaimed to the extent necessary to provide a beneficial use. Under such interpretation, the proposed amendment would allow, for example, the total destruction of a wetland by mining even if the net result would be a borrow pit in which people could swim and water ski. The Council's contention that it would interpret the proposed amendment consistent with the state plan is not only irrelevant in view of the patent inconsistency which exists between the proposed amendments and the state plan, but is also not credible. Rather, the clear impact of the rule and the Council's "intent" may be readily gleamed from its notice of proposed rulemaking, federal comparison statement, and economic impact statement. As stated in the Council's notice of proposed rule making: PURPOSE AND EFFECT: The rule is being amended for the purpose of replacing the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (CRPP) previously adopted by reference, with a new version in which a policy in the mining chapter and its associated implementation strategies have been changed. The effect of the amendment will be to remove a prohibition on mining in areas that are environmentally sensitive or historically significant. * * * SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT: Opportunities for economic benefit from resource extraction will be afforded land owners and the mining industry in environmentally sensitive areas... Costs will be borne by the general public as a result of lost environmental functions and values.... (Emphasis added) As stated in the Council's federal comparison statement: The revised policy is less restrictive than the current federal wetlands policy of avoiding impacts where there are alternatives, and requiring that unavoidable impacts be fully offset in order to achieve a goal of no net loss as defined by acreage and function. And, as stated in the council's economic impact statement: A potential for economic benefit from resource extract ions will be created in environmentally sensitive areas where the CRPP restricts other development activities. Costs will occur in the form of lower water quality and the loss of wildlife habitat and other functions presently provided by the sites where mining will be allowed. * * * Expectation of benefits and costs to affected parties is based on the assumption that at least some local governments in the region will choose not to be more stringent than the CRPP, and will therefore permit mining where consistency with the Regional Plan would previously have required its prohibition. While not conceding that any inconsistency exists between the proposed amendments and the state comprehensive plan, the Council suggests that, if any inconsistency exists, other existing policies within its plan obviate any inconsistency. In support of its argument, the Council points primarily to policies 14.1.1.1, 14.1.1.3, and 14.3.1.6. An examination of such policies, as well as the Council's entire comprehensive plan, demonstrates, however, that no other policy or policies cure the inconsistency that exists between the proposed amendments and the state comprehensive plan.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the single state agency in Florida authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). In order to participate in the federal Medicaid program, AHCA is required to maintain a state plan for Medicaid in compliance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. AHCA is required to operate the Florida Medicaid program in compliance with the state plan. AHCA is apparently concerned by costs associated with the Florida Medicaid program's hemophilia population. Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries constitute a relatively small, but costly population to serve. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous "clotting factors," which normally causes a persons' blood to coagulate. Hemophilia is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to the person with the disorder. AHCA seeks to control the cost of providing hemophilia-related services to this population through a combination of case management and medication discounts known as the Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management (MCHM) program. AHCA believes that a single vendor responsible for operation of the MCHM program can provide managed care to the population while achieving significant drug-cost savings. Through a federal requirement referred to as "freedom of choice," Florida's Medicaid program state plan must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service and who undertakes to provide such services. The freedom of choice requirement is subject to being waived in accordance with applicable federal law. Such waiver requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). AHCA began seeking approval from CMS for an amendment to an existing "Managed Care Waiver" to implement the MCHM program in October 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2003, CMS approved AHCA's request to amend the existing waiver to permit implementation of the MCHM program. Subsequent correspondence between the agencies has further established AHCA's authority to implement the MCHM program. AHCA issued the RFP ("RFP AHCA 0403") on October 1, 2003. The RFP seeks to implement the MCHM program. There were no timely challenges filed to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2003), requires that an agency must make a written determination that an invitation to bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or contractual services prior to issuance of an RFP. AHCA did not make such a written determination prior to issuance of the RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA will contract with a single provider for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. RFP Section 10.2 sets out an extensive list of vendor requirements designed to provide care to Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries and better management of related costs. The RFP provides that the successful vendor will be paid only on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement for factor product costs. No additional payment beyond payment of factor product costs will be provided. The RFP stated that the successful vendor would be reimbursed for factor product cost based on the average wholesale price (AWP) of the factor product minus a minimum discount of 39 percent. The RFP provided that vendors may offer a greater discount than 39 percent. An Addendum to the RFP indicated that if a vendor proposed a discount greater than 39 percent, the increased discount must apply to all factor products and that vendors could not propose varying discounts for individual factor products. The RFP contains language in the background section referencing budget "proviso" language adopted by the Legislature and referring to the MCHM program as a "revenue enhancement program." HHS asserts that because this RFP does not create a revenue enhancement program, AHCA had no authority to proceed with the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that this program will enhance revenue. The evidence fails to establish that based on the "proviso" language, AHCA is without authority to issue the RFP. RFP Section 20.11 sets forth the "proposal submission requirements." The section included a number of requirements set in capital letters and highlighted in boldface. The terms of each requirement indicated that failure to comply with the requirement was "fatal" and would result in rejection of the proposal submitted. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. RFP Section 20.16 provides that AHCA may waive "minor irregularities," which are defined as variations "from the RFP terms and conditions, that [do] not affect the price of the proposal or give one applicant an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others or adversely affect the state's interest." RFP Section 20.17 provides as follows: Rejection of proposals Proposals that do not conform to all mandatory requirements of this RFP shall be rejected by the Agency. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal was received after the submission deadline; The proposal was not signed by an authorized representative of the vendor; The proposal was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.11 of this RFP; The vendor failed to submit a proposal guarantee in an acceptable form in accordance with the terms identified in Section 20.12 of this RFP or the guarantee was not submitted with the original cost proposal; The proposal contained unauthorized amendments, deletions, or contingencies to the requirements of the RFP; The vendor submitted more than one proposal; and/or The proposal is not deemed to be in the best interest of the state. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. RFP Section 30.1 provides that the "total cost of the contract will not exceed $36,000,000 annually." RFP Section 30.2 provides in part that the "total cost for the contract under any renewal will not exceed $36,000,000 per year." The RFP's contract amount apparently was based on historical information and assumed that some level of cost control would occur through case management. The contract amount cannot operate as a "cap" because Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries are an "entitled" group and services must be provided. If the amount of the contract is exceeded, AHCA is obliged to pay for necessary factor products provided to the beneficiaries; however, in an Addendum to the RFP, AHCA stated that if the contract fails to contain costs "there would be no justification to renew or extend the contract." The RFP required vendors to submit a performance bond based on 20 percent of the $36 million contract amount. The RFP stated that proposals could receive a maximum possible score of 2000 points. The proposal with the highest technical evaluation would receive 1340 weighted points. The proposal with the lowest cost proposal would receive 660 weighted points. The combined technical and cost proposal scores for each vendor determined the ranking for the proposals. The RFP set forth formulas to be used to determine the weighted final score based on raw scores received after evaluation. AHCA conducted a bidder's conference related to the RFP on October 8, 2003. All parties to this proceeding attended the conference. At the conference, AHCA distributed a copy of a spreadsheet chart that listed all factor products provided to Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries during the second quarter of 2003. The chart identified the amount of each factor product used and the amount paid by AHCA to vendors for the factor product during the quarter. The chart also showed the amount that would have been paid by AHCA per factor product unit had the vendors been paid at the rate of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA received six proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were received from Caremark, HHS, Lynnfield, PDI Pharmacy Services, Inc., Advance PCS/Accordant, and Coram. RFP Section 60 contained the instructions to vendors for preparing their responses to the solicitation. As set forth in RFP Section 60.1, the technical response was identified as "the most important section of the proposal with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." The section requires vendors to include "evidence of the vendor's capability through a detailed response describing its organizational background and experience," which would establish that the vendor was qualified to operate the MCHM program. Vendors were also directed to describe the proposed project staffing and the proposed "technical approach" to accomplish the work required by the RFP. Vendors were encouraged to propose "innovative approaches to the tasks described in the RFP" and to present a detailed implementation plan with a start date of January 10, 2003. The technical responses were opened on October 29, 2003. AHCA deemed all six proposals to be responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP and each technical proposal was evaluated. For purposes of evaluation, AHCA divided the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria. AHCA assembled the technical evaluators at an orientation meeting at which time an instruction sheet was issued and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals were delivered. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. The five AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposal were Maresa Corder (Scorer "A"), Bob Brown-Barrios (Scorer "B"), Kay Newman (Scorer "C"), Jerry Wells (Scorer "D"), and Laura Rutledge (Scorer "E"). AHCA employees Dan Gabric and Lawanda Williams performed reference reviews separate from the technical evaluations. Reference review scores were combined with technical evaluation scores resulting in a total technical evaluation score. Reference review scores are not at issue in this proceeding. Kay Newman's review was limited to reviewing the financial audit information provided by the vendors. Technical evaluators reviewed each technical response to the RFP and completed evaluation sheets based on the 50 evaluation criteria. Other than Mr. Wells, evaluators included comments on the score sheets. Mr. Wells did not include comments on his score sheet. The technical proposal scoring scale set forth in the RFP provided as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each evaluator worked independently, and they did not confer with each other or with anyone else regarding their evaluations of the responses to the RFP. Janis Williamson was the AHCA employee responsible for distribution of the technical proposals to the evaluators. She received the completed score sheets and evaluation forms from each of the technical evaluators. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to technical proposals as follows: The total final point scores for proposals will be compared to the maximum achievable score of 1340 points, and the technical proposal with the highest total technical points will be assigned the maximum achievable point score. All other proposals will be assigned a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when a proposal's total technical points are divided by the highest total technical points awarded. S = P X 1340 N Where: N = highest number of final points awarded to t technical proposal P = number of final points awarded to a proposal S = final technical score for a proposal According to the "Summary Report and Recommendation" memorandum dated December 4, 2003, after application of the formula, Caremark received the highest number of technical points (1340 points). Of the parties to this proceeding, HHS was ranked second on the technical proposal evaluation (1132.30 points), and Lynnfield was ranked third (1101.48 points). Lynnfield and HHS assert that the scoring of the technical proposals was arbitrary based on the range of scores between the highest scorer and the lowest scorer of the proposals. Review of the score sheets indicates that Scorer "A" graded "harder" than the other evaluators. The scores she assigned to vendor proposals were substantially lower on many of the criteria than the scores assigned by other evaluators. The range between her scores and the highest scores assigned by other evaluators was greater relative to the Lynnfield and the HHS proposals than they were to the Caremark proposal, indicating that she apparently believed the Caremark technical proposal to be substantially better than others she reviewed. There is no evidence that Scorer "A" was biased either for or against any particular vendor. The evidence fails to establish that her evaluation of the proposals was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to establish that AHCA's evaluation of the technical proposals was inappropriate. After the technical evaluation was completed, cost proposals were opened on November 21, 2003. Section 60.3 addressed the cost proposal requirements for the RFP. RFP Section 60.3.1 provides as follows: The cost proposal shall cover all care management services, hemophilia specific pharmaceuticals dispensing and delivery, and pharmacy benefits management activities contemplated by the RFP. The price the vendor submits must include a detailed budget that fully justifies and explains the proposed costs assigned. This includes salaries, expenses, systems costs, report costs, and any other item the vendor uses in arriving at the final price for which it will agree to perform the work described in the RFP. The maximum reimbursement for the delivery of services and factor products used in factor replacement therapy (inclusive of all plasma-derived and recombinant factor concentrates currently in use and any others approved for use during the term of the contract resulting from this RFP) will be at Average Wholesale Price (AWP) minus 39%. Proposals may bid at a lower reimbursement but not higher. All other drugs not otherwise specified in factor replacement therapy will be paid at the normal Medicaid reimbursement. RFP Section 60.3.2 provides as follows: A vendor's cost proposal shall be defined in terms of Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and conform to the following requirements: The first tab of a vendor's original cost proposal shall be labeled "Proposal Guarantee" and shall include the vendor's proposal guarantee, which shall conform to the requirements specified in this RFP, Section 20.12. Copies of the cost proposal are not required to include the proposal guarantee. The second tab of the cost proposal shall be labeled "Project Budget" and shall include the information called for in the RFP, including the total price proposed, a line item budget for each year of the proposal, a budget narrative, and other information required to justify the costs listed. The RFP does not define the "detailed" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.1 and does not define the "line item" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.2. No examples of such budgets were provided. RFP Section 80.1 provides as follows: Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Cost Proposal Upon completion of the evaluation of all technical proposals, cost proposals will be opened on the date specified in the RFP Timetable. The Agency will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the evaluation team will review each cost proposal against the following criteria: Was the cost proposal received by the Agency no later than time specified in the RFP Timetable? Did the vendor submit an original and ten copies of its cost proposal in a separate sealed package? Was the vendor's cost proposal accompanied by a proposal guarantee meeting the requirements of the RFP? Did the cost proposal contain the detailed budget required by the RFP? Does the proposal contain all other mandatory requirements for the cost proposal? The AHCA employee who opened the cost proposals apparently determined that each proposal met the requirements of RFP Section 80.1, including providing a "detailed" budget. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to cost proposals as follows: On the basis of 660 total points, the proposal with the lowest total price will receive 660 points. The other proposals will receive a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when the total cost points are divided by the highest total cost points awarded. Where: S = L X 660 N N = price in the proposal (for two years) L = lowest price proposed (for two years) S = cost points awarded The cost proposal scoring process clearly required comparison of each vendor's total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Caremark's proposal included estimated total costs of $44,797,207 for FY 2002-2003, $43,245,607 for FY 2003-2004, and $44,542,975 for FY 2004-2005. According to RFP Section 30.1, the maximum annual contract was not to exceed $36,000,000. All of Caremark's estimated annual costs exceeded the contract amount set forth in the RFP. Caremark's proposal also provided as follows: The above budget includes all salary expenses for Caremark employees involved in providing services for the program including the Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist, Care manager, additional pharmacist(s), Client Service Specialists in Florida for the expanded hemophilia program. Also included are the support staff such as pharmacy technicians, materials management, field service representatives, warehouse, reimbursement, marketing, sales and administrative staff. Also included are all delivery, data and report development, educational and marketing communication expenses. Product costs including medically necessary ancillary supplies, medical waste disposal and removal, protective gear and therapeutic devices. Caremark's proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that Caremark indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. The HHS proposal projected estimated costs identified by month and year. The HHS proposal estimated total first-year costs of $14,261,954 and second-year costs of $27,333,389. HHS did not propose to assume responsibility for serving all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries at the start of the contract, but projected costs as if beneficiaries would "migrate to our service at a rate of 20 per month" during the first year and that full service provision would begin by the beginning of year two. RFP Section 10.2 provides as follows: The purpose of this RFP is to receive offers from qualified vendors wishing to provide the services required by the Florida Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management Program. The contract resulting from this RFP shall be with a single provider for up to two years commencing on the date signed, with an option to renew for two additional years. Otherwise stated, all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries would be served though the program's sole provider from the start of the contract period. The RFP provides no option for a vendor to gradually increase service levels through the first half of the two-year contract. The HHS proposal also included a breakdown of costs by factor product unit, identifying the AWP for each listed factor product and applying a discount of between 39 percent and 45 percent to indicate the product cost-per-unit that would be charged to AHCA. In Addendum 2 to the RFP, AHCA stated that it has received a written inquiry as follows: Knowing that the minimum accepted discount is AWP less 39%, can different products have different discounts. AHCA's response to the inquiry was as follows: No. The proposed discount will apply to all factor products. As to the costs included in the proposal annual total, the HHS proposal provided as follows: The product price above will include the following costs incurred in servicing the patients: The cost of the product dispensed to the patient. The cost of freight and other delivery expense of transporting the product to the patient. Pharmacy, warehouse and patient supplies. Cost incurred for patient protective gear and education materials Salary costs for the following: o Project/Contract Manager Clinical Pharmacist Staff Pharmacist Case Management Coordinator Pharmacy Care Coordinators Shipping Clerk Warehouse Coordinator Community Advocates Insurance Reimbursement Specialist The cost of Information Technology support for systems and reporting The cost of rent, office supplies, equipment, postage, printing. The HHS proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that HHS indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. Lynnfield's proposal estimated total costs of $34,000,000 for calendar year 2004 and $36,000,000 for calendar year 2005. Lynnfield's budget proposal included information identifying the specific expense lines which form the basis for the cost estimation, including salary costs by position, travel costs, employee insurance, postage, equipment costs, and various office expenses. Lynnfield's budget proposal included a significantly greater level of detail than did either the Caremark or the HHS proposals. Jerry Wells was assigned the responsibility to evaluate the cost proposals. Mr. Wells failed to review the RFP or the related Addenda prior to evaluating the cost proposals submitted by the vendors. Mr. Wells asserted that it was not possible, based on the information submitted by the vendors, to perform an "apples- to-apples comparison." Each vendor set forth information in its proposal sufficient to calculate a total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Mr. Wells testified at the hearing that his cost review was intended to determine what AHCA would be paying for each of the individual factor products that AHCA provides hemophiliacs through Medicaid because the cost of the products was all AHCA would be paying to the vendors. The RFP did not require vendors to include a detailed list of, or unit prices for, factor products. The RFP specified only that factor products be provided at a minimum of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA employees, under the direction of Mr. Wells, created a cost comparison chart which purported to identify the price proposed by each vendor for certain factor products and which projects an estimated quarterly factor product cost for each vendor. HHS's cost proposal included a listing of specific prices to be charged for factor products. The list was based on products being used by existing HHS patients. Caremark offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. Caremark also suggested various "innovative cost savings," which specified use of factor products and indicated discounts greater than the 39 percent required by the RFP. Lynnfield did not include a product-specific listing of factor costs in its proposal, but offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. The AHCA employees used the HHS cost proposal, including the HHS range of discounts, as the basis for preparation of the cost comparison chart that included the other vendors. The factor products listed on the AHCA cost comparison mirror those listed in the HHS cost proposal. AHCA employees apparently applied the factor product usage information from the second quarter of 2003 that was included on the spreadsheet distributed at the bidder's conference to the HHS factor product list. The AHCA spreadsheet distributed at the bidder conference lists 29 factor products by name and dosage. Of the 29 products, 15 are listed in the HHS cost proposal. The AHCA cost comparison created at Mr. Wells' direction includes only the 15 factor products listed on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison assumed no costs would be incurred, where the AHCA spreadsheet information indicated no usage of the factor product that had been included on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison did not include factor products which have been supplied by AHCA to Medicaid beneficiaries, but which do not appear on the HHS list. Mr. Wells relied on this cost comparison to determine that the cost proposal submitted by HHS offered the lowest cost to the agency and was entitled to the 660 points. Lynnfield and Caremark were both ranked according to cost proposals of AWP minus 39 percent, and according to the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum, were awarded 652.74 points. Calculation of the points awarded to Lynnfield and Caremark in the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum does not appear to comply with the formula set forth in the RFP. The AHCA cost comparison spreadsheet identifies the HHS proposed cost as $10,706,425.66 and identifies the AWP minus 39 percent cost as $10,795,477.48 (assigned as the Lynnfield and Caremark cost proposal). The Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum states the lowest cost proposal to be $10,706,405.66 (perhaps a typographical error). The methodology applied by AHCA assumed that all vendors would utilize identical quantities of identical factor products (based on historical usage in Quarter 2 of 2003 of those listed in the HHS cost proposal) and that there would be no cost savings related to disease management. The application of methodology to compare vendor cost proposals outside the process established by the RFP is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. The vendors who are party to this proceeding assert that each other vendor's budgetary submission is insufficient, flawed, or unreliable for varying reasons. It is unnecessary to determine whether the budgetary information submitted by the vendors meets the requirements of the RFP because, despite having requested the information, AHCA has no interest in the data. There is no evidence that in making an award of points based on the cost proposals, AHCA relied on any of the budgetary information required by the RFP or submitted by the vendors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted in response to the RFP AHCA 0403. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Thomas R. McSwain, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Martin R. Dix, Esquire Akerman & Senterfitt Law Firm 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) proposed award of a contract to Intervenor, CDM Constructors, Inc. (CDM), is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation's specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are made: Background Piney Point is an abandoned fertilizer manufacturing plant adjacent to Port Manatee in Manatee County. In the fertilizer manufacturing process, phosphate rock is converted into soluble phosphorus by adding sulfuric acid to the phosphate rock to produce phosphoric acid. A by-product of this activity is phosphogypsum. For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, approximately five tons of phosphogypsum are produced. The phosphogypsum is stored in stacks like the ones at Piney Point. Federal and state regulations require that the phosphogypsum be managed in stack systems. (Stack systems are large impoundments containing contaminated water that has come into contact with the phosphogypsum.) This is accomplished by using process water to "slurry" the phosphogypsum to the stacks where the phosphogypsum settles out. The process water becomes extremely polluted as a result of the manufacturing activities and is typically very acidic. It contains heavy metals, such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and fluoride, in addition to high levels of nutrients, nitrogen, and total dissolved solids. It is also slightly radioactive. The process water is stored in impoundments surrounded by the phosphogypsum stacks, in cooling ponds, and in the seepage ditches around the stacks. The Piney Point site is located south of Tampa, approximately one mile inland from Bishops Harbor, which is a portion of Tampa Bay. The site encompasses a total of approximately six hundred acres. There are two phosphogypsum stacks located at Piney Point; each of these is divided into two compartments or ponds. Today, the old gypsum stack rises to a height of eighty feet. The site previously held around 1.4 billion gallons of process water with 800 million gallons stored in the various ponds and 600 million gallons stored in the pores of the gypsum stacks as pore water. The site is currently estimated to have 500 to 550 million gallons of process water of which about 350 million gallons is pore water. All of this water must be treated and removed in order to close and remediate the site. To close one of these phosphogypsum stack systems, all of the water must be removed from the ponds. The surface is allowed to dry and is then graded. A polyethylene liner is placed over the surface and than a soil cover is placed on top of the liner. The liner prevents any additional rainfall from infiltrating into the gypsum stack and creating additional process water. The pore water underneath the liner is then allowed to drain from the stack and is collected in seepage ditches, where the water will ultimately be treated. A thick layer of grass is grown on the steep slopes of the gypsum stacks to help prevent infiltration of rainwater back into the stacks. The ultimate goal is to convert this site into a freshwater reservoir for the residents of Manatee County. Until early 2001, Piney Point Phosphates, Inc., which was a subsidiary of Mulberry Phosphate Company (Mulberry), owned and operated a fertilizer manufacturing complex at Piney Point. (Mulberry also operated another fertilizer manufacturing complex in Mulberry, Florida). In February 2001, Mulberry filed a petition for protection from creditors in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Tampa, Florida. At the same time, Mulberry notified the Department that it did not have the resources to maintain the site. (The Department was also advised by Mulberry that it did not have the resources to maintain the stack system at the Mulberry site.) Because there existed the potential for release of the contaminated waters from Piney Point into Tampa Bay, the Department immediately assumed financial responsibility for Piney Point and in May 2001, a state court appointed a Receiver for Piney Point to take "all reasonable steps and action to preserve the Property's environmental integrity and its compliance with environmental regulations." To execute these duties, the Receiver entered into a contract with the Department. Pursuant to that contract, it retained the services of Ardaman, an international engineering consulting firm in Orlando, Florida, as its engineer of record to design a plan to close Piney Point and to ensure that the plan was properly implemented. At about the same time, the Receiver contracted with IT Corporation, the predecessor to Shaw, to begin some of the site closure work on an emergency basis. Since that time, the Department has spent $63 million at Piney Point, with Shaw receiving a majority of that amount. Based on the Department’s experience at the Mulberry site, it believed that it could realize a significant savings to the State through the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) process and the use of a lump sum contract, rather than continuing to contract out the work for Piney Point on a time and materials basis. Further, the Department's Inspector General had recommended a lump sum contract as an incentive to the contractor selected to conduct the closure work. The ITN Under Section 403.4154(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2004),1 "[t]he department may take action to abate or substantially reduce any imminent hazard caused by the physical condition, maintenance, operation, or closure of a phosphogypsum stack system." Pursuant to this provision, on July 16, 2004, the Department issued ITN No. 2005002C (the ITN) entitled "Closure of the Piney Point Phosphogypsum Stack System." The contract called for a contractor to provide services at the Piney Point site in three primary areas: continued operation and maintenance of the site; water consumption; and closure of the phosphogypsum stack system. Water consumption consists of treating the process water and pore water and removing it from the site by evaporation, irrigation, discharge, or other methods. Closure of the stacks includes draining water from the stacks, grading the banks, and installing liners, clean soil, and sod. The contract is estimated to be worth approximately $51.2 million to the successful vendor. The contract was intended to replace the Receiver's existing contract with Shaw, although Shaw was free to compete for the new contract. A number of individuals were involved with developing the ITN. First, Gwenn D. Godfrey, who is the Department's Procurement Administrator, assisted with the original ITN. Also, Phil Coram, who is the Department's Chief of the Bureau of Mine Reclamation, was heavily involved with the ITN and assumed a major role on technical issues such as operation and maintenance as well as water management planning. Although the Department does not normally use private consultants in the procurement process, due to the complex technical issues involved, it retained Ardaman to assist with the procurement process. Ardaman, who was then serving as engineer of record on the project, does approximately 90 to 95 percent of all work performed in Florida in the area of phosphogypsum stack systems and has special expertise in that area. (As noted above, Ardaman designed the complex closure plan for the facility.) One of its employees, Dr. Nadim Fuleihan, a senior vice president and principal engineer, has served as the chief engineer for the Piney Point project since 2001 and has worked closely with Mr. Coram, who has been the Department's coordinator on the project since 2002. According to Mr. Coram, Dr. Fuleihan "knew more about that site, especially the closure aspects, . . . than anyone." This observation was undisputed. For that reason, Dr. Fuleihan was requested to assist in the procurement process. Mr. Coram was asked by Department management to identify individuals to serve as evaluators for the ITN process. Besides Dr. Fuleihan, management wanted the evaluators to consist of Department employees within the Bureau of Mine Reclamation, the Division of Waste Management, the Office of General Counsel, and representatives from other agencies that had been involved with Piney Point. The seven ITN evaluators consisted of Mr. Coram; Dr. Fuleihan; Sam Zamani, Administrator for the Department's Phosphate Management Program; John Wright, a professional engineer in the Department's Division of Waste Management; Jon Alden, a Department attorney who has represented the Department in the Mulberry bankruptcy case; Robert Brown, a Senior Environmental Administrator for Manatee County; and Richard Eckenrod, Executive Director of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). Before the evaluation process began, the Department required all members of the evaluation team to sign a certification that if "at any time during [their] participation on the contractor selection committee, that a potential conflict of interest exists," they agreed to notify the Department's Procurement Section of the circumstances surrounding the potential conflict of interest. By doing so, the Department complied with Section 287.057(20), Florida Statutes, which requires that if the procurement costs more than $25,000.00, "the individuals taking part in the development or selection of criteria for evaluation, the evaluation process, and the award process shall attest in writing that they are independent of, and have no conflict of interest in, the entities evaluated and selected." A requirement that the certification form be executed by each team member is also found in the solicitation instructions. Significantly, the certification form imposed a continuing obligation on the evaluators to notify the Department should any "potential conflict of interest arise." Prior to submitting responses, three potential vendors, Shaw, Compass, and CDM, contacted Dr. Fuleihan and asked him to participate on their respective teams in the ITN process. Dr. Fuleihan declined to work with any of them on an exclusive basis. Tetra Tech, Inc., which is Ardaman's parent company, also considered preparing a response to the ITN but Dr. Fuleihan advised it not to do so since Ardaman's status as engineer of record could raise a conflict of interest. On September 10, 2004, CDM, Compass, Shaw, and Coburn Construction (Coburn) submitted replies to the ITN. The Department subsequently deemed the reply by Coburn to be non- responsive for its failure to comply with the requirements of the ITN. Coburn did not challenge this determination. The other proposals were independently reviewed, scored, and ranked. The results were given to Mr. Coram, who computed an average rank for each of the firms. The final average rankings were very close with Shaw being ranked first, followed by Compass and CDM, who were tied. After the initial replies were filed, Mr. Eckenrod became concerned that he had a potential conflict of interest with Craig A. Kovach, President of QuietEarth Consultants, Inc., which was identified as a CDM subcontractor and team member. Mr. Kovach's wife served on the TBEP Board of Directors and had hiring and firing authority over Mr. Eckenrod. Accordingly, Mr. Eckenrod emailed the Department's Office of General Counsel for a determination of whether a conflict existed. Under the Department's Code of Ethics, which is also known as Administrative Directive DEP 202 (DEP 202), "[e]mployees should avoid any conduct . . . which might undermine the public trust, whether that conduct is unethical or may give the appearance of ethical impropriety." See Compass Exhibit 32, DEP 202, paragraph 7.a. In addition, another document known as DEP 315 establishes Department policy for the purchase of contractual and professional services. See Compass Exhibit 61. Paragraph 26 of DEP 315 adopts the standards of conduct for public officers and employees which are codified in Section 112.313(3) and (7)(a), Florida Statutes. While not specifically applicable to Mr. Eckenrod's situation, among other things, that paragraph prohibits Department employees from having an "employment or contractual relationship with any business entity . . . which is . . . doing business with" the Department. Teresa L. Mussetto, a Department attorney who then served as a Department Ethics Officer on behalf of the General Counsel, issued an opinion on September 29, 2004, stating in part that even though Mr. and Mrs. Kovach had never sought to influence Mr. Eckenrod, his professional association with a member of the CDM team "may be perceived as a conflict of interest," and that if the contract were ultimately awarded to CDM, the transaction might "reasonably give rise to the 'appearance of impropriety.'" See Shaw Exhibit 21. Ms. Mussetto also determined that even though Mr. Eckenrod was not a Department employee, he acted as an integral part of the procurement team and that DEP 202 was applicable to him. (It follows that DEP 315 would likewise apply.) Because DEP 202 requires that every aspect of the procurement process be conducted in a manner which would not undermine the public trust or lead a reasonable person to question its fairness and impartiality, Mr. Eckenrod's potential conflict with CDM's subcontractor was a sufficient basis for his removal from the evaluation team, and he did not participate further in the process. On October 12, 2004, the Department gave notice of its rankings of the vendors and informed them that it intended to exercise its right to conduct oral discussions with all three vendors. The firms would then be asked to submit Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) which would be scored anew. This was consistent with the ITN, which provided that the Department "reserves the right to short list respondents deemed to be in the competitive range to conduct oral discussions prior to the final determination of contract award." The decision to conduct oral discussions was made by senior management in the Department at the time scores were posted for the replies to the ITN. The Secretary of the Department, along with other senior management, determined oral discussions would be conducted with all three vendors to assist in formulating the BAFO Instructions (Instructions) and then the Department would proceed to score the BAFOs. No one has challenged this process. Development of the BAFO Instructions Before drafting the Instructions, the Secretary of the Department met with Earl Black, a Department of Revenue attorney, and Barbara F. Phillips, a Purchasing Analyst with the same agency. Both individuals had substantial experience with procurements and were asked to participate in the BAFO process. They agreed and were added to the evaluation team. As finally formed, the team consisted of two attorneys, four engineers, and two persons with significant procurement experience. Six of the eight had considerable prior knowledge of the Piney Point site. In an effort to refine the Instructions, CDM, Compass, and Shaw each made oral presentations to the Department's evaluators and other Department staff on November 3, 2004. All of the evaluators, including Mr. Black and Ms. Phillips, attended the oral presentation. As part of this process, the vendors were able to ask questions of the evaluators, and the evaluators were able to ask questions of the vendors. Following the oral discussions, another round of discussions was held with each vendor. These discussions were referred to as "negotiation sessions." The purpose of these discussions was to better understand the cost elements and facts of each vendor’s initial proposal in order to develop the Instructions. Mr. Alden, Dr. Fuleihan, Mr. Black, and Ms. Phillips conducted these discussions with each vendor. The Instructions were drafted by a group of individuals including Dr. Fuleihan, Mr. Black, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Godfrey, Mr. Alden, and Mr. Coram. Dr. Fuleihan gave input on the sections relating to technical issues primarily in the scope of work, which included the process water consumption section. He was also involved in revising the pricing summary and developing the evaluation criteria. Neither Shaw nor Compass challenged any part of the Instructions. After the Instructions were completed, but before the BAFOs were submitted by the three vendors, the Department again required each evaluator to complete a second conflict of interest certification. The form was similar to the earlier certification in the procurement process and required that the members certify that they had "no conflict of interest" with the "entities being considered for the contract award." Like the earlier form, it imposed a continuing obligation on the evaluators to notify the Department should any potential conflict of interest arise. The form listed CDM, Compass, and Shaw as the relevant entities. Each member, including Dr. Fuleihan, executed the certification. At that time, Dr. Fuleihan was not aware of any projects that Ardaman was doing for Shaw or Compass, and he did not believe that Ardaman was doing any work for CDM because of a past disagreement with one of the CDM entities that resulted in no work between the companies for many years. Section 1.19 of the Instructions provides that the Department reserves the right to waive minor informalities or irregularities in the offers received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance and the correction of which are not prejudicial to other vendors. Evaluation of the BAFOs On November 15, 2004, the Department issued the Instructions, which required that responses be filed by the three vendors no later than Wednesday, December 1, 2004. The Instructions also informed the vendors that negotiations with the top-ranked vendor would begin immediately after the posting of the scoring results. CDM, Compass, and Shaw timely submitted their BAFOs on December 1, 2004. CDM's response indicated that it proposed to use a specific water treatment process relying on The Mosaic Company (Mosaic) as its subcontractor. This company was formed when the phosphate operations of the Cargill Companies and IMC Global, Inc. were combined in October 2004, or shortly before the BAFOs were filed. The evaluators located in Tallahassee were individually given the responses submitted by CDM, Compass, and Shaw on Thursday, December 2, 2004. For those evaluators located outside of Tallahassee, the responses were given on Friday, December 3, 2004. Pursuant to a specific set of instructions provided by the Department, each evaluator, acting independently, then individually ranked the BAFO responses. In order to determine the responsiveness of the BAFOs, Ms. Godfrey used a checklist to review the individual submittals and found that all three were complete. Also, Dr. Fuleihan, who served as the subject matter expert, reviewed each proposal to ensure that the qualifications of the persons identified in the responses met the minimum qualifications listed in the Instructions. He determined that all three vendors met the minimum qualifications. Therefore, the Department considered all three vendors responsive to the Instructions and qualified to perform the work. (If an evaluator considered a particular item in the response to be incomplete or defective, the evaluator could reflect that by assigning a lower score to that response.) The BAFO Scoring Process For scoring purposes, each BAFO response was divided into approximately fifteen identified subcategories. A one-to- five scale (with five being the highest score) was used to evaluate each subcategory of the vendor’s response. The raw scores for a given subcategory would be multiplied by a weight factor that corresponded to that subcategory to arrive at a weighted score for each subcategory. To obtain a total score for each vendor, the weighted scores for each subcategory would then be added together. The total weighted scores could range between 0 and 220. Each vendor was then assigned a ranking based on its weighted total score. The vendor with the highest score received a rank of one, the second highest score received a rank of two, and the third highest score received a rank of three. If two or more vendors had identical weighted total scores the ranks were added together and divided by two. (For example, if Vendor A received a 175 and Vendors B and C each received a 170, the vendors would be ranked as follows: Vendor A - 1.0, Vendor B - 2.5, and Vendor C - 2.5.) After all the scores had been submitted, the ranks of each vendor were averaged to determine the best proposal for the State. Average ranks were used in order to normalize the evaluations so that an especially generous or especially hard grader would not skew the outcome. Each of the eight evaluators conducted an individual, objective, and impartial review of the three responses to the Instructions. They all spent four to five days, including a weekend, reviewing each of the responses. (There is some confusion regarding the actual amount of time that Mr. Zamani spent reviewing the BAFOs. Documents offered by Shaw reflect that he received the BAFOs on December 3 and returned his rankings the following day, December 4. Testimony offered by the Department reflects that he spent several days reviewing the filings. Even if Shaw's time frame is correct, there is no evidence that Mr. Zamani evaluated the BAFOs in an improper or arbitrary manner.) The evaluators did not have any discussions during the evaluation process about their evaluations. Outside one phone call from Mr. Brown to Mr. Coram to clarify what the vendors had received with the Instructions, the evaluators had no contact with one another. Mr. Alden ranked CDM first with a score of 177, Compass second with a score of 174, and Shaw third with a score of 172. Mr. Black ranked CDM first with a score of 140, Compass second with a score of 137 and Shaw third with a score of 106. Mr. Brown ranked CDM first with a score of 205, Compass second with a score of 183 and Shaw third with a score of 182. Mr. Coram ranked Compass first with a score of 180, Shaw second with a score of 175 and CDM third with a score of 170. Dr. Fuleihan ranked CDM first with a score of 192, while Compass and Shaw tied with scores of 189. Ms. Phillips originally submitted her evaluations with Compass ranked first with a score of 144, and Shaw and CDM tied with a score of 141. Due to an error when she transposed her scores from her notes to her score sheet, she corrected her evaluations at the hearing. With the corrected scores Compass was still ranked first with a score of 144, but CDM was now second with a score of 143, and Shaw third with a score of 139. However, this correction did not change the final results of the evaluation process. Mr. Wright ranked Shaw first with a score of 183, Compass second with a score of 181, and CDM third with a score of 166. Mr. Zamani ranked CDM first with a score of 218, Compass second with a score of 210, and Shaw third with a score of 191. After the evaluators submitted their score sheets, the ranks were added up and averaged to obtain a final ranking for each vendor. The final ranking was as follows: CDM was ranked first with an average rank of 1.688, Compass second with an average rank of 1.813, and Shaw third with an average rank of 2.500. (If Dr. Fuleihan's scores were removed from the final tabulation, as requested by Compass, then Compass would be the highest ranked vendor.) On December 7, 2004, the Department electronically posted a recommended award to CDM as the best- ranked vendor. As predetermined in the Instructions, the announcement also stated that negotiations would immediately begin with CDM, and if those negotiations failed, it would then negotiate with Compass, the second ranked vendor, and if those failed, with Shaw, who was ranked last. Compass and Shaw timely filed their Notices of Protest on December 9, 2004. On December 20, 2004, they timely filed their Formal Written Protests. Both Petitioners have contended that the process was flawed because Mosaic (a listed subcontractor on CDM's proposal) was a client of Ardaman; that Dr. Fuleihan had a conflict of interest which should have been disclosed; and he should have recused himself from the process. Shaw also contends (for the first time in its Proposed Recommended Order) that at least two of the evaluators (Mr. Black and Ms. Phillips) had little, if any, knowledge or experience concerning the scientific and technical requirements sought in the ITN and Instructions and were not qualified to evaluate the responses. It also alleged that a Sunshine Law violation may have occurred; that Mr. Zamani did not have a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the proposals;2 and that the proposals of CDM and Compass were non-responsive in various respects. The other contentions raised in Shaw's formal protest and the Pre-Hearing Stipulation have not been addressed in its Proposed Recommended Order and are deemed to have been abandoned. The remaining contentions are discussed below. Sunshine Law Violation There is no evidence that the evaluators met in closed meetings. Rather than scoring as a group, each of the evaluators scored the BAFOs separately and independently. Therefore, there was no meeting of the evaluators that was required to be conducted in the sunshine. No vendor attended the oral discussion meetings between another vendor and the evaluation team. However, there is no evidence that any of the vendors asked to attend those meetings or that the Department denied the vendors the ability to attend. Qualifications of the Evaluators There was no allegation in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation that any of the evaluators were unqualified. Although Shaw elicited testimony on that issue at hearing, especially regarding the qualifications of Mr. Black and Ms. Phillips, the issue was not timely raised. Even if it was, the evidence does not show that those two individuals, or any other member of the team, were not qualified. Mr. Black and Ms. Phillips were chosen for the team because of their extensive experience in state procurement, and not for their technical or scientific background. Mr. Black, who has been an attorney for thirty-two years, is an Assistant General Counsel and Section Chief for the Department of Revenue (DOR). In this position, he has handled numerous procurement cases for that agency. His duties include handling procurement matters, leasing matters and administrative functions for DOR. Prior to assuming his position at DOR, he worked for fourteen years for the Department of Management Services (DMS) as its primary attorney responsible for contracts dealing with environmental issues. Ms. Phillips is a Purchasing Analyst for DOR with over 28 years of procurement experience with the vast majority involving solicitation evaluations. Her responsibilities involve ensuring proper administration of complex contracts and specifications, Invitations to Bid (ITB), Requests for Proposals (RFP), ITNs, and advertisements. She develops guidelines and procedures to facilitate the ITB/RFP/ITN process and has evaluated procurement policies and procedures for DOR. Conflict of Interest Issue In its response to the ITN, CDM identified IMC Global, Inc., as a subcontractor for water treatment. After CDM's initial reply was submitted, IMC Global, Inc. and a subsidiary of Cargill merged to form a new company known as The Mosaic Company. To conform its BAFO with this corporate merger, CDM changed its response to reflect the new company as a subcontractor for water treatment and consumption. Because Ardaman had a contractual relationship with Mosaic at the time the BAFOs were submitted, Petitioners have contended that Dr. Fuleihan had a conflict of interest, that he should have disclosed this fact, and that he should have withdrawn from the ITN process. They also contend that the Department dismissed another non-employee evaluator, Richard Eckenrod, when it learned that he had a potential conflict of interest and that Dr. Fuleihan's circumstances are no different. When Mr. Coram suggested that Dr. Fuleihan participate as an evaluator, he knew that it would be likely that Ardaman would have contractual relationships with most or all of the phosphate companies over time. He expected Ardaman to continue to have such contractual relationships in the future simply because Ardaman does excellent work. However, he did not hesitate to recommend Dr. Fuleihan because he had worked with him on a daily basis for over the past three years and had known him for at least ten years. Mr. Coram testified that he always found Dr. Fuleihan's actions to be ethical and in the best interests of the State. Dr. Ardaman is a Senior Vice President of Ardaman, a member of its management team, and head of the firm's corporate engineering group. He receives a salary, bonus, and stock options; the bonus and stock options are tied to performance and profitability of Ardaman and its parent company, Tetra Tech, Inc. IMC, The Cargill Companies, and Mosaic have been clients of Ardaman. This is not surprising, however, because Ardaman's clients include "the whole phosphate industry." Indeed, Ardaman does approximately 90 to 95 percent of the engineering work performed in Florida involving phosphogypsum stack systems, a fact well known by virtually all of the players in the phosphate industry, including Petitioners. Over the last five years, Ardaman has represented such clients as Agrico Chemical Company, CF Industries, Inc., the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, PCS Phosphate, Comanco Environmental Corporation, Moretrench Environmental Services, Inc., Shaw Environmental, Inc. (and its predecessor, IT Corporation), PENN PRO, Inc., and the Florida Department of Transportation. The Department itself is among Ardaman's most significant clients. When the ITN was first posted it was well known that Dr. Fuleihan knew all of the principals of CDM, Compass, and Shaw, including those who testified at the final hearing. In fact, Dr. Fuleihan has worked on numerous occasions with most, if not all, of the subcontractors and the consultants listed by all three vendors in their BAFOs. All three vendors also knew that Dr. Fuleihan had assisted with the ITN and BAFO processes and was serving as an evaluator for the BAFOs. Prior to the issuance of the Instructions, Dr. Fuleihan was present during the oral discussions along with the other evaluators. He also led the "negotiation sessions" where the Department was gathering information to develop the Instructions. Only after the Department proposed to award the contract to CDM on December 7, 2004, did Petitioners challenge Dr. Fuleihan's participation in the solicitation process and express a fear that the process might be tainted. Mosaic is considered an important client for Ardaman. However, there was no evidence that Ardaman would stand to gain anything from Mosaic by it serving as a subcontractor. Under the terms of the ITN, Ardaman will continue working for the Department at Piney Point as the engineer of record regardless of which vendor ultimately contracts with the Department. Ardaman did not receive any additional work from IMC Global, Inc., when it was conducting work at Piney Point in 2003, and Ardaman does not expect to receive any additional work if Mosaic returns to the site to assist with the operation of water treatment equipment. Although it is characterized as an important team member, Mosaic at most will have a limited role on CDM's team and would receive very little financial benefit from this work. Specifically, Mosaic will receive a nominal fee for allowing CDM to use the patents on its reverse osmosis equipment and roughly $50,000.00 for technical support in years three through five of the project, or a total of less than one-tenth of one percent of the estimated $52 million contract. (There is no guarantee that Mosaic will even be used by CDM since the vendor has the right to substitute subcontractors during the post-award negotiation process. In fact, CDM approached Mosaic because, at that time, Dr. Vaughn Astley worked for Mosaic, and CDM wanted his expertise and experience as part of CDM's team. Dr. Astley subsequently retired from Mosaic, as planned.) There is no evidence that, as a result of Mosaic being retained as a subcontractor for CDM, Ardaman or Dr. Fuleihan would be given extra business over and above what they already provide. There is also no evidence that as a result of CDM's being awarded the contract that Dr. Fuleihan would have his salary increased, obtain some sort of bonus, increase his stock options, or be enriched in any way. There is no evidence that Dr. Fuleihan attempted to influence the BAFO process to the advantage of any particular vendor. There is no evidence that he favored one vendor over another when he assisted in the preparation of the Instructions, determined whether the responses to the Instructions satisfied the minimum qualifications, and reviewed the BAFOs. To the contrary, the evidence supports a finding that Dr. Fuleihan scored and ranked the individual BAFOs in a fair and objective manner. Notwithstanding the lack of any evidence to show that Dr. Fuliehan exhibited bias or favoritism during the solicitation process, the facts surrounding the removal of Mr. Eckenrod are essentially the same as those of Dr. Fuleihan. In the case of Mr. Eckenrod, a non-employee, he alerted the Department that he feared that there might be an appearance of impropriety due to the fact that one of the individuals listed in CDM's proposal and his wife held positions on boards of the organization where he worked. Because the boards had the ability to hire or fire him, and determine the program's budget, Mr. Eckenrod was under the impression that this relationship might be perceived as potentially influencing his evaluation of the proposals. Given this impression, it was determined that a reasonable person might come to the same conclusion and therefore Mr. Eckenrod was excused from service. In the case of Dr. Fuleihan, also a non-employee, he had a professional relationship with a subcontractor (Mosaic), which relationship might reasonably give rise to an appearance of ethical impropriety in the event the contract was ultimately awarded to CDM. Therefore, even though there is no evidence that Dr. Fuleihan acted improperly in evaluating the proposals, a reasonable person might question his perceived impartiality. Under the precedent established in Mr. Eckenrod's case, DEP 202 and DEP 315 apply to Dr. Fuleihan's conduct, and he is obligated "to avoid any conduct . . . which might undermine the public trust . . . or give the appearance of ethical impropriety," and to not have a "contractual relationship with any business entity . . . doing business with" the Department. Given these standards, at a minimum, disclosure of this conflict was necessary as soon as the BAFOs were filed. By failing to make such a disclosure, the requirements in Section 287.057(20), Florida Statutes, the corresponding Instructions, and DEP 202 and 315 were contravened. The Department's contention that DEP 202 and DEP 315 do not apply to non-employees has been rejected, especially since the Department applied the same provisions to Mr. Eckenrod. During the course of discovery in this case (and after the solicitation process was over), Dr. Fuleihan learned that Ardaman does have one small contract (valued at $57,000) with CDM's parent company, Camp, Dresser & McKee (located in St. Louis, Missouri), that was entered into in April 2004. That contract calls for Ardaman to serve as a specialty consultant/ subcontractor to Monsanto Company (Monsanto) in providing waste disposal services for Monsanto's elemental phosphorus plant located in Idaho. When Dr. Fuleihan reviewed the BAFOs, he was unaware of this contract. He acknowledged, however, that had he known, he would have disclosed this fact to the Department. Even so, it is fair to infer that a reasonable search of Ardaman's records prior to the commencement of the process would have revealed this conflict, and the Department's Ethics Officer could have then made a determination as to whether Dr. Fuleihan could serve as a team member. Dr. Fuleihan signed two conflict of interest forms certifying that he had no conflict. He did not disclose any conflict with Mosaic because he did not believe that the form applied to subcontractors (as opposed to prime contractors), and because his firm's relationship with a potential subcontractor would not impede his ability to carry out his responsibilities in evaluating the proposals. (If Mosaic had been a prime contractor, Dr. Fuleihan acknowledged that he would have recused himself from the process.) Other Department witnesses (Godfrey and Coram) conceded, however, that the conflict of interest form applies to subcontractors as well as the prime contractor, and that if a conflict with a subcontractor arose, it should be disclosed to the Department. In summary, while there is no evidence that Ardaman's professional relationship with both a prime contractor and a subcontractor caused the evaluator to exhibit bias or favoritism towards any particular vendor, the relationships give rise to an appearance of ethical impropriety so that a reasonable person might question the impartiality of Dr. Fuleihan. By not having those relationships disclosed, the Department's governing statutes, policies, and Instructions were contravened. g. Were the CDM and Compass Proposals Responsive? Shaw also contends that there were "many areas" in which the proposals made by CDM and Compass did not materially comply with the Instructions, and that they should be considered non-responsive. Although Shaw's Formal Written Protest identified a wide range of purported deficiencies, only those items which are discussed in Shaw's Proposed Recommended Order are addressed here. Shaw first contends that even though the vendors were required by the Instructions to demonstrate the reliability of their chosen methods of water treatment, Compass elected to treat half of all water it would treat through an unproven technology that was not demonstrated to be reliable. Compass proposed a water treatment and consumption method consisting of double-liming and air stripping or aeration, followed by reverse osmosis. (Double-liming is a chemical treatment process involving the addition of lime to process water, while reverse osmosis is a physical treatment where process water is forced through a semi-permeable membrane at high pressure to separate the clean and contaminated water.) This was consistent with the Instructions, which specifically allowed a vendor to use double-lime, air-stripping, and reverse osmosis for water treatment. See Joint Exhibit 4, Attachment 3 at pages 20-21. There is no requirement in Attachment 3 that vendors use "proven technology" or demonstrate the reliability and viability of their proposed water treatment methods. There is no credible evidence in the record that the water treatment method proposed by Compass would not work. Shaw also alleged that Compass failed to adequately bid utility services, because on line A2 of its BAFO, Compass bid only $36,200.00 for all five years of electric utility services. In its proposal, Compass also included an assumed prevailing rate for power of $100,922.00 per month. Although only $36,200.00 is shown on line A2, Compass spread the rest of the utility costs (approximately $2.3 million) throughout the lines in Section B of Attachment 4. While this amount was lower than the other vendors, the Department believed that Compass' overall operation and maintenance expenses were reasonable, and if any mistake had been made by Compass by understating the power cost, it was to Compass' detriment and would not adversely affect the interests of the State. Shaw also argues that Compass submitted a drawing that included reinforced geotextile but omitted the cost for that item in that portion of its BAFO entitled "clarifications." (Geotextiles allow for drainage of fluids and provide a basis for bridging over soft, unstable materials). Compass indicated in the clarifications section of its BAFO that "reinforced geotextile would be (as needed). The cost for this reinforced geotextile is not included." Under the terms of the Instructions, there was no requirement that a vendor estimate quantities that are not listed on the Pricing Summary Sheet, so long as it submits a fixed price bid. Here, the Pricing Summary Sheet in the Instructions does not have a line for the "as needed" geotextiles, and Compass submitted a fixed price bid. Therefore, the omission of the cost for that item did not render the BAFO non-responsive. Finally, Shaw has alleged that in its BAFO, Compass limited its exposure for the cost of normal repairs and replacements of pumps and piping and was therefore non- responsive. This argument is based on the fact that Compass included $1.1 million in its cost estimate for normal repairs and replacement of pumps and piping. Shaw asserts, however, that because the plant is very old, the contractor will have to take responsibility for failing equipment in order to keep the plant running, and Compass has essentially capped its replacement costs for transformers, switch gears, and other necessary equipment. Shaw did not present evidence that Compass had actually capped its pump maintenance costs or that the amount shown was inadequate. In fact, Shaw's estimated pump maintenance was between $660,000.00 and $900,000.00, or less than the amount proposed by Compass. Even if the amount shown was underestimated, the Department has made it clear that it wanted a lump sum contract and would hold the vendors to the price stated in the BAFOs. (Like the other vendors, Compass submitted a fixed price bid.) Shaw next contends that CDM's proposal was non- responsive in the areas of spray evaporation, the closure construction schedule, water balance, and spray irrigation. These items will be discussed separately below. Shaw first asserts that CDM overestimated the amount of process water it can treat with spray equipment during the first two years of the contract since the spray equipment CDM proposes to use will not be available until the fifth month of the first year of the contract. During the first two years of the contract, CDM proposes to dispose of 175 million gallons of process water through spray evaporation, which involves spraying water into the air to form a mist of small droplets and enhancing the natural evaporation through various techniques. In doing so, CDM intends to use a new spray system developed by CF Industries, which has achieved a rate of 200 million gallons per year, or twice as much as the amount CDM proposes over a two year period. Therefore, even if the equipment can only be used for twenty months during the first two years, it is reasonable to assume that CDM can evaporate 175 million gallons of process water during the first two years, as projected in its BAFO. Shaw also points out that the Instructions require each vendor to supply a closure schedule including eight "milestones" that must be completed within certain time frames. The eighth milestone is the closure and placement of grass on all lined reservoir slopes at least one year prior to the end of the contract. See Joint Exhibit 4, Attachment 3, page 4, § IV. While it concedes that CDM included a closure schedule for the site, Shaw asserts that CDM failed to indicate when, if ever, it would place grass-protected soil cover on all lined reservoir slopes. While the Department acknowledged that CDM's BAFO was not as detailed as those of the other two vendors, it points out there is "a lot of flexibility in the BAFO," and that "the covers were not critical for the closure schedule." Because CDM clearly intends to place the soil cover on the lined areas in conformance with the closure schedule, the omission was not material and does not render the BAFO non-responsive. Shaw next contends that even though the Instructions require that a vendor prepare an independent water balance, it is not apparent in the BAFO whether CDM prepared one. See Joint Exhibit 4, page 14, § B. (A water balance is a professional estimate of the volume of water on site, coupled with a projection of how it will fluctuate over time considering rainfall and groundwater inputs, surface and spray system evaporation, groundwater seepage, and other factors.) The Instructions required that CDM independently estimate the water balance for the five-year contract period. Nothing in the Instructions, though, requires that the actual calculation or spreadsheets that support the estimated water balance be shown. With the assistance of its consultants, CDM estimated the total quantity of process water as slightly in excess of one billion gallons, which it rounded off to one billion. This amount was responsive to the Instructions and was similar to the amounts estimated by Shaw and Compass. Accordingly, the estimate by CDM was responsive to the Instructions. Finally, Shaw argues that while "CDM also mentioned the use of spray irrigation," CDM "did not estimate any volume of water to be treated with this method." The contention has been considered and found to be without merit. In summary, the BAFOs submitted by CDM and Compass conformed in all material respects to the solicitation. To the extent that there were any minor deviations, they did not give Compass or CDM an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by Shaw, and under Section 1.19 of the Instructions they could be waived by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that its proposed award of the contract to CDM Constructors, Inc., which was based upon a review, grading, and ranking of the vendors by an evaluation team that included Dr. Fuleihan, is contrary to its governing statutes, policies, and specifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On the evidence, it is found and determined that: I. The RFP and Stage I, II and III Evaluation Respondent issued the RFP on August 19, 2004, seeking competitive proposals for a contract for administration of the FCAT. Respondent's intent in this procurement is to contract with a qualified vendor who will be capable of performing the contract at the lowest possible cost to the State. This contract impacts all Florida public schools. The RFP included the following provisions regarding the general scope of the requirements and bidder responsibilities. 1.0 . . . A contract, if awarded, will be awarded by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the state, while taking into consideration price and other criteria specified by the RFP. 1.3 . . . This RFP defines the requirements for implementing the FCAT assessment program. The RFP and the selected contractor's proposal, together with clarifying documents, define the work to be conducted under contract. These documents will be incorporated into the contracts resulting from the FCAT project award. Because the FCAT assessment program is technical and complex, it is possible that a responsive proposal may not totally or clearly reflect RFP requirements in all details. If the proposal of a contractor selected as a result of the bidding process is inconsistent with the RFP, the requirements of the RFP prevail; the selected contractor will be expected to perform all RFP requirements without an increase in cost above the proposed cost. * * * 5.18 Acceptance of a Proposal The Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in a proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the RFP that does not affect the price of the proposal, or give one bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impact the interest of the Department. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the bidder from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the bidder is awarded the contract. Rejection of Proposals Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of this RFP may be rejected by the Department. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal contains unauthorized amendments, either additions or deletions, to the requirements of the RFP. The proposal is conditional or contains irregularities that make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous. The proposal is received late. The proposal is not signed by an authorized representative of the bidder. The bidder is not authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida or has not included a statement that such authorization will be secured prior to the award of a contract. A bid bond is not submitted with the proposal. The proposal contains false or misleading statements or provides references that do not support an attribute, capability, assertion, or condition claimed by the bidder. The proposal does not offer to provide all services required by this RFP. Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received. 5.22 . . . In the event of conflict between the language of a proposal and the language of the RFP, the language of the RFP shall prevail. * * * 7.1 Stage I: Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements (Part I) During the Stage I evaluation, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will determine if a proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will evaluate each proposal according to the process described in this section. The RFP required prospective vendors to submit sealed proposals in two parts, a technical proposal and a price proposal. The technical proposals were reviewed and scored by an evaluation committee prior to opening of the sealed cost proposals. Failure of a bidder to meet every item on the Stage I list would not necessarily result in elimination of the proposal from consideration. A proposal would be eliminated only if it contained a material irregularity. "Stage I" of the process was identified in the RFP and is basically a check list of documents and commitments that are to be included with proposals. In accordance with Section 7.1, the purpose of the Stage I review is to determine whether the proposals are sufficiently responsive to be considered by the evaluation committee. Two of Respondent's employees opened the technical proposals and checked the proposals against the Stage I list to make certain "Mandatory Documents and Statements" required by Section 7.1 of the RFP were present. They did not make any substantive judgments about the extent of compliance. In performing this Stage I review, Respondent's employees followed the department's standard operating procedures. No scoring points were associated with the Stage I check list review. The technical portions of the RFP were categorized into two parts: Part II titled, "Bidder Qualification and Experience"; and Part III titled, "Technical Proposal for Administration." Bidders could receive a maximum of 50 points for Part II and a maximum of 50 points for Part III, a total maximum possible points of 100 for the technical proposals. The RFP is designed to ensure that only qualified, responsible bidders will be eligible for award of the contract. In order to be considered eligible, a bidder was required to receive a minimum of 70 cumulative points for the technical proposals. Each of the two parts of the technical proposals was broken down into ten categories or criteria. The RFP provided that an evaluation committee would assign scores from one to five, with five being the highest possible score, for each of the criteria. The RFP consists of approximately 200 pages of technical specifications, instructions, and guidelines including appendices and addenda issued after the original release date. Each of the bidders submitted technical proposals in excess of 400 pages. The RFP provided that evaluation of proposals would be based on a holistic approach so that the proposals could be scored based on consideration of the whole package proposed by the bidders without artificial limitations on the evaluators' ability to evaluate the entire proposal and score it accordingly. The evaluation process was designed to be as objective as possible, but a degree of subjective judgment is involved in the scoring of the proposals. The 20 scoring criteria for Parts II and III were designed to cover broad categories of qualifications against which the proposals were judged. Because of the holistic evaluation approach, there was no intent to evaluate proposals on the basis of an item-by-item determination. The committee evaluating the proposals was selected to include representatives familiar with various aspects of the FCAT, which were covered in the proposals. It also included a person not employed by Respondent as required by new procurement guidelines and also included a parent representative. The evaluation committee was selected so that each member brought a different expertise or perspective to the process. The evaluation committee was instructed on how the evaluation process was to be accomplished. The evaluators took their responsibility seriously and did a thorough job. For Part II, the rating scale ranged from five (excellent) to one (unsatisfactory). A score of five means the evaluator found that the bidder demonstrated superior qualifications and experience to perform the required tasks. A score of one meant the bidder demonstrated insufficient experience and capability to perform the required tasks or did not establish its qualifications and experience. The RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of Overall Bidder Qualifications and Experience will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix M." The "holistic" approach referenced in the RFP means that Respondent looks at the proposal as a whole. The RFP and the administration of the FCAT is very complex and the evaluators are not required to look at each component of the proposal, but are to judge the whole proposal. For Part III, the rating scale also ranged from five to one. The criteria for what merited a five or a one changed, however, from Part II. A score of five means that the bidder proposed superior solutions to the requirement of the RFP and has proposed products and services that are desirable for use in the FCAT administration program and are likely to create a high quality assessment program that meets sound psychometric standards that are clearly feasible to implement. A score of one under Part III means that the bidder proposed inferior or incomplete solutions to the requirements of the RFP or has proposed products and services that would be technically indefensible, would create a flawed assessment program not meeting psychometric standards, or would not be feasible to implement. Again, the RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix N." The proposals were scored independently based upon the proposal's compliance with applicable RFP criteria; the proposals were not scored based upon how they compared to each other. Indeed, the evaluators were instructed not to discuss their scores so that each evaluator would establish their own internal criteria that was consistent across proposals. Although none of the proposals were deemed non- responsive in this stage, there are indications that failure to meet certain RFP requirements were noticed by the evaluation committed and scored accordingly. Stages II and III of the evaluation process took four days. Representatives of the bidders, including its attorney, attended all of the Stage II and III evaluation sessions. Documentation of Subcontractor Information. The RFP included the following specifications relating to documentation of subcontractors and printers. 4.6.1 Subcontractors The test administration contractor may choose to employ subcontractors for the completion of one or more tasks. If the bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor(s), the qualifications and experience of the subcontractor(s) will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as those of the bidder. A separate chart in the proposal will identify all of the subcontractors proposed to be involved in the project and the services they are expected to provide. All subcontractors must be approved by the Department. It is assumed that the contractor will use outside printers for some materials. Printers will be documented as subcontractors, and the management plan will identify the proportion of materials to be printed by the contractor and by outside vendors. Procedures for quality control and security during printing are to be described. Destruction of secure materials is addressed in Section 3.7.4. The contractor will assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they are performed or produced by the contractor or by subcontractors. The Department will consider the selected contractor to be the sole point of contact for contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. Other specifications in the RFP contained similar or identical language. The RFP also provided the following in Section 5.31 with respect to subcontractors: Any change of subcontractors must be approved in advance by the Department. In the event of poor performance by a subcontractor, the Department reserves the right to direct the contractor to replace that subcontractor. While Item 10 on Page 77 of the RFP required a representation from the vendors that they had identified all subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed directly by each subcontractor, the only investigation that Respondent undertook to confirm the accuracy of these statements was the Stage I evaluation. The Stage II and Stage III evaluators did not check to ensure that all of the subcontractors had been documented as required by the RFP. The RFP specifically required that all printers be identified and documented as subcontractors. Section 6.3 of the RFP requires the management plan to specifically identify the proportion of materials to be printed by outside vendors. Section 4.6.1 of the RFP on Page 53 states that if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the qualifications and experience of the subcontractors will be documented in their proposal at the same level of detail as the bidder. That section also provides that "printers will be documented as subcontractors." The timeliness, accuracy, and security of the printing operations are very important to the FCAT program; and the qualifications and experience of the printers, who would actually print the materials, is an important component of this procurement. As it relates to the "back-end" printing of the student and parent reports, there are privacy concerns that are particularly sensitive. The RFP provisions were included to ensure that, if a vendor was going to use outside printers for some of the activities, Respondent would be able to tell from the response who all of those printers were and what services they were going to perform. The RFP was drafted to ensure that Respondent was dealing with vendors who were qualified and experienced and able to deliver the products requested in the RFP. There were specific requirements in the RFP as to how the bidders were supposed to identify prior contracts, provide contact information, and document the printers who were going to do any of the actual printing. Section 6.2 on Page 74 of the RFP required that all vendors were to document contracted services for previous assessment projects similar to the one described in the RFP. For each of those projects, the documentation was supposed to include a description of the services and products delivered, the contract period, the name, address, and telephone of the contract person for each of the contracting agencies. This provision was applicable to all of the printers who were involved in this contract. The printers were also supposed to document how they were going to monitor security and provide quality control during the printing process itself. The intent of the RFP was to have bidders document who was going to do the printing, whether it was subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, or sub-sub-subcontractors. Section 5.27 on Page 65 of the RFP states that "if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the subcontractor's qualifications and experience will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as that of the bidder. Procedures for quality control and security of the work tasks performed by the subcontractors are to be described." These provisions are not discretionary. They are mandatory and require all vendors to provide a description of the quality control and security measures to be employed by all subcontractors, including the printers who must be documented as subcontractors. CTB's proposal identified The Grow Network as the entity that would be responsible for printing requirements. The Grow Network is an affiliate of CTB. CTB's proposal included documentation regarding The Grow Network's qualifications to perform the printing. In its response to the RFP, CTB provided extensive documentation and met all of the requirements of the RFP with respect to its front-end printers. Indeed each of those printers was identified in paragraph 10 of the transmittal letter that accompanied the CTB proposal. The Grow Network was also responsible for providing the back-end printing for the reports to be sent to the parents and students. The Grow Network was identified as doing 20 percent of the printing. However, the Grow Network does not actually do any printing themselves. At the hearing, the Grow Network claimed that it was the "print publisher" of the back-end reports. It stated that the Grow Network utilizes a "distributed printing approach." This, in fact, meant that the printing was going to be subcontracted out. The services that would be subcontracted out by the Grow Network include digital printing, collating, packing, distribution, and tracking. CTB's proposal states that GDS, a digital imaging company, will be the print facility utilized by the Grow Network to perform these aspects of the FCAT report printing requirements. CTB's proposal describes the corporate capabilities and experience of GDS, including descriptions of the California and New Jersey projects where GDS was utilized by the Grow Network as its print facility. The RFP also required bidders to provide examples of materials to demonstrate the quality of the work done on similar projects. Accordingly, CTB included sample reports printed by the Grow Network in conjunction with GDS, for the California and New Jersey projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing detailed documentation of both the Grow Network and GDS, Petitioner asserts that CTB failed to comply with the RFP because the CTB proposal indicates that much of the printing work will be out-sourced without disclosing who is actually going to be providing these services. However, CTB's proposal identifies only one printing facility, GDS, that will be utilized as the print facility under its distributed printing approach. CTB's proposal specifically states that "Grow currently uses GDS to support their California and New Jersey projects, and they will employ GDS' services for the Florida reporting project." CTB's proposal identifies other printing facilities, Delzer, R.R. Donnelley, and Bowne, that Grow could utilize on the FCAT with Respondent's approval. These other companies were potential "backup" printers, which were identified in case Respondent preferred using another printing facility. Otherwise, the Grow Network intended to utilize GDS as the sole printing facility on the FCAT and has a commitment from GDS to perform the tasks required. The RFP does not require commitment letters from subcontractors. The RFP required only the identification of the proposed printers, which could be changed with Respondent's approval. CTB has also indicated in its response that it will utilize 180 employees of Kelly Services, at three different locations, to supervise approximately 3,000 scorers. However, nowhere in the proposal has CTB documented Kelly Services as a subcontractor, nor provided information regarding their experience and qualifications to perform this work. CTB uses Kelly Services as a recruiting service provider. CTB is responsible for the hiring, training, and directing of the Kelly Services personnel and ultimately for the deliverables received from those employees. Kelly Services is not a subcontractor as contemplated in the RFP, because they are not held accountable for their deliverables. Accordingly, CTB's proposal is not deficient for failing to document Kelly Services as a subcontractor. Even if the failure to so document Kelly Services were a deficiency in CTB's proposal, the lack of detail would only lower CTB's score, not make it non-responsive. The Post-submittal Clarification Process. The RFP provided at Section 7.0 that each bidder would be required to make a presentation to the evaluation committee after the technical proposals were opened and that information presented or issues clarified during the presentation might affect the number of points an evaluation committee member assigned to a given proposal. On the first day of the evaluation process, the bidders were required to make separate oral presentations to the evaluation committee. Following those oral presentations, the evaluation committee was to begin the process of scoring the proposals based on the various RFP criteria. This was to be a "closed session" during which the vendors were not permitted to interact with the evaluation committee members; likewise, the evaluation committee members were not permitted to direct any questions to the vendors. RFP Section 7.0 spells out the rules and processes for conducting the oral presentations of the vendors. This includes the imposition of time limits on the presentations and questions from evaluators, which were to be strictly followed. Section 7.0 states, in pertinent part: The purpose of the presentation will be for the bidder to describe its offering of products and services and make any statements that will enhance understanding of its offering. The proposal evaluation committee will NOT evaluate the presentations or otherwise award points for the quality of the of the presentation. Information presented or issues clarified during the presentation MAY affect the number of points a proposal evaluation committee member assigns to a given proposal. . . . The presentation shall not exceed 30 minutes with an additional 15 minutes reserved for proposal evaluation committee member questions. These meetings will be open to the public; however, only members of the proposal evaluation committee may ask questions of the bidder. The above-quoted language in the RFP does not contemplate written submissions by vendors following the oral presentations. Nothing else in the RFP specifically authorizes vendors to clarify information in their proposals after the presentations have concluded. Thus, the oral presentation part of the evaluation process is the only RFP-authorized mechanism available to evaluators for seeking clarification of the proposals. Because clarifications are permissible during the vendor presentations, the RFP expressly states that such clarifications may affect scoring of the proposals. By contrast, nothing in the RFP authorizes the evaluators to seek or consider in scoring the proposals any vendor clarification made in any other form or at any other point, whether before or after the oral presentations. In fact, considering any information received from the vendors outside of the oral presentations would be inconsistent with RFP Section 5.3, which restricts communications by bidders with Respondent's staff. In short, to the extent a clarification of a proposal was needed, under the RFP, it should have been provided orally during the vendor presentations. Each of the bidders made a presentation to the evaluation committee. During the presentations, members of the evaluation committee asked bidders various questions relating to their respective responses to the RFP. One of the members sought clarification regarding the total number of full time equivalent ("FTE") hours for the persons identified in the proposals. Although the evaluation team was not given any specific standards or base lines to utilize in scoring the staffing and personnel commitments submitted by the parties, a bidders' commitment of personnel resources was an important factor for several of the criteria in the RFP. The bidder representatives for CTB and Petitioner were not able to provide the requested FTE information at the time of the presentation. Harcourt's representatives, who had had the benefit of hearing the presentations made by Petitioner and CTB, were able to answer the FTE question at the presentation. Because the evaluators had lingering questions on staffing, Respondent made a decision to send out questions to two of the three vendors following completion of the oral presentations. No scoring was done on any of the proposals prior to the time Petitioner's and CTB's responses were presented to the evaluators. At least some of the evaluation committee members felt that the staffing information was critical. The questions were not based on the presentations by the vendors, but were based on the evaluation committee members' concerns that had not been resolved by the oral presentations. The questions reflected areas that the evaluators were not able to understand from the initial proposals submitted. After the presentations, Respondent delivered letters dated August 30, 2004, to Petitioner and CTB, but not to Harcourt, asking them to provide the requested FTE information by the following day. CTB and Petitioner both promptly provided the information requested. CTB's August 31, 2004, written response to the FTE question included a chart that identified all personnel and the associated FTEs that would be assigned to the project. This FTE chart was prepared by Diane Driessen, CTB's senior program manager who was one of two CTB employees primarily responsible for preparing CTB's response to the RFP. As a format for its written response, CTB utilized the existing chart for Professional Personnel Responsible for Major Contract Activity (Figure 9), which was in its proposal. CTB added to this chart the additional personnel to reflect the total FTEs for the project as a whole. CTB took the material in the proposal and presented it in a consolidated format. CTB combined the monthly activities by program chart, which was Table 9, with the key personnel chart, which was Figure 9, and handscoring resources presented in the proposal. The additional named personnel in its response were not named in the original figure of key personnel because they were not considered responsible for major contract activities. It was an oversight that the chart still retained the heading, "Time Task Chart for Key Project Personnel" when it actually reflected the 330 total FTEs for the whole project team as requested by Respondent. The cover letter to Respondent explained that CTB was listing all personnel, not just "key personnel." All of the unnamed persons added to the chart are identified by position in the original proposal. As part of its written response to Respondent's written requests for additional information, CTB also included a written recap of the questions and answers from its oral presentation. The evidence demonstrated that the information provided by CTB after receiving Respondent's staff's questions included corrections of errors contained in CTB's initial response to the RFP. This information was presented to the evaluators for them to review and consider in the scoring process. No one from Respondent made an analysis to determine whether the information in the supplement was contained in the original proposal before it was presented to the evaluators. The RFP also required the vendors to provide all required information by the deadline that the proposals were to be received. Respondent was obligated to follow these provisions and not accept any information in a manner inconsistent with them. In addition, bidders were required to commit to complying with all requirements of the RFP if awarded the contract: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal including but not limited to, certification requirements. . . . The supplemental information submitted by CTB should have been included in CTB's initial submittal. The fifth bullet point of Section 4.6.2 of the RFP on Page 54 required bidders to indicate by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities with an estimation of the amount of time and full-time equivalencies each person was going to devote to the tasks under the contract. The proposal was also supposed to include a vitae for all such professional personnel. This bullet point was not limited to only those who had a supervisory role. It was the intention of the bullet point that the individuals should be identified by name, including software development staff. Much of CTB's software development staff was not identified by name in its initial response, but they were identified in the supplement. The RFP required vendors to provide the total time commitment for key personnel in the initial submission and required that the bidders identify by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities. The time commitment for some of the key project personnel that CTB identified in its initial proposal were significantly "revised" in its supplement. These "revisions" purportedly correct "errors" in the initial response and include changes to the time commitment for "key project personnel," including the project manager for manufacturing, senior research scientists and the scoring director for one of the major scoring sites. There are six new names that appear in CTB's supplement, as well as numerous revisions to the time commitment of key personnel. In its written questions to the vendors, Respondent did not request any revisions or corrections of error with respect to any of these key personnel. The evidence is clear that there are "revisions," corrections of errors and significant reformatting that were tailored to address lingering concerns of the evaluators. CTB's supplemental proposal also included a new chart broken down with many different allocations of days that did not appear anywhere in the original proposal. This submittal also included a number of different "to be assigned" categories that were not specifically included on the chart in the initial submittal and a re-categorization of some of the positions. The evaluation committee members would not have had enough time to make an assessment as to whether that information was in the original proposal. Had CTB not provided its supplemental information, the evaluation team would have had a significantly different view point on CTB's staffing. After the oral presentations, Petitioner also received a written question regarding staffing from Respondent. Petitioner's response was a listing of the FTEs taken from the charts already contained in the original proposal. Petitioner was concerned with the procedure that was being implemented, but after seeking advice of counsel, submitted the response nonetheless. Harcourt was not given this opportunity. RFP Section 5.16 does not address proposal clarifications, but it does impose limitations on the consideration of proposal "amendments." Section 5.16 states that, absent a specific request by Respondent, any "amendments, revisions, or alterations to proposals will not be accepted after the deadline for the receipt of proposals." In addition, Section 5.16 does not address when, during the evaluation process, Respondent may request a vendor to amend a proposal. This timing issue is only addressed by statute in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that "no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered." However, the timing of when Respondent could request a proposal amendment under Section 5.16 is not at issue in this case. Respondent acknowledges that it made no such request in this case. Absent a specific request, Section 5.16 precluded Respondent from considering any amendment to a proposal offered by any vendor. CTB's written responses to Respondent's written questions amount to a clarification of their bid proposal, since then were submitted only after Respondent requested the information. The responses do not constitute an amendment or supplement to the proposal. The Evaluation Process Immediately following the bidders' oral presentations and receipt of the bidders' responses to the evaluators' questions, the evaluation committee met as a body and reviewed each of the proposals. Dr. Orr and Dr. Melvin were co-chairpersons of the committee and facilitated the evaluation committee review of the technical proposals. They did not participate in the actual scoring of proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the three proposals consecutively, evaluating them against the criteria in the RFP. Open discussion about the criteria and the locations within the proposals where criteria were addressed was encouraged and took place. Whether one bidder was slightly better than another bidder was not the basis for determining the contract award. The RFP provided a balanced formula that sought to ensure the competency of the awarded by requiring a minimum technical score of 70 while rewarding the competent bidder that submitted the lowest price. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation committee assigned holistic ratings to the technical proposals, judging them based on the quality of the proposals as a whole. Each evaluator independently scored the proposals by assigning a score from one to five for each of the 20 criterion in the RFP. The evaluation committee did not compare the proposals to each other. The evaluation committee completed the evaluation of the first proposal before considering the second proposal and completed the evaluation of the second proposal before completing the evaluation of the third proposal. Alternative Proposals. The RFP permitted bidders to propose alternative approaches for meeting Respondent's objectives, but provided that no cost savings or increases for alternative proposals could be referenced in the technical proposal. Any cost savings or increases for alternative proposals were required to be submitted in a separately sealed package and clearly labeled. None of the bidders included any reference to cost savings or increases in their technical proposals. Petitioner's proposal clearly marked its alternatives. CTB sometimes identified its alternatives with a special marker and sometimes simply described them within the text of the RFP. Harcourt generally did not clearly designate its alternatives. During the Stage II and III evaluation process, a committee member raised a question regarding assigning points for alternative proposals. Because the RFP did not provide a mechanism for evaluating the alternatives, an internal decision was made by Respondent not to consider the alternatives at all in connection with scoring the proposals. The members of the evaluation team were told to disregard the references to alternative proposals submitted by each of the bidders. There was no provision in the RFP that was relied upon in making that determination. The evaluators were given no guidance as to which provisions of the various proposals should not be considered. This led to inconsistencies in what was treated as an alternative and not scored, versus what was treated as part of the base proposal and scored. It is clear that the decision not to consider alternatives resulted in confusion and inconsistency in the evaluation process. For example, one evaluator, Clarence Reed, indicated that if a proposal went beyond the requirements of the RFP and offered something that was not required, but was an enhancement, he viewed that as an alternative and would not have considered it. Similarly, the chairperson of the evaluation committee and one of the facilitators for the evaluation process, Dr. Orr, testified that "enhancements" should not have been considered. By contrast, most of the evaluators viewed offerings by vendors that went beyond the requirements of the RFP and did not include a cost to Respondent as "enhancements" that could be considered in their evaluation of the proposals. Likewise, Dr. Melvin, one of Respondent's facilitators for the evaluation team, believed that an "augmentation" was not the same as an "alternative." Thus, in many instances, when a vendor offered something beyond the requirements of the RFP, at no cost to Respondent, and did not identify it as an "option" or "alternative," it was considered in the scoring by at least some of the evaluators. The evidence is clear that there are portions of the proposals submitted by Harcourt and CTB that was essentially the equivalent of no cost "alternatives" that were considered by the evaluators while Petitioner's clearly identified "alternatives" were not. In sum, whether a particular proposal was an "augmentation," "option," "alternative" or an additional clarification created confusion among the evaluators. As a result, there was no consistency in terms of what the evaluators could consider in the proposals and what they could not consider. While it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of the decision not to consider alternatives, it is clear that Petitioner's bid received a disproportionate negative impact because many of its important enhancements, which were being offered to Respondent at no cost were listed as "alternatives" and never factored into the evaluation process. There were several alternatives proposed by Petitioner that would have been enhancements to the current program and would have been made available at no cost to Respondent. Thus, Petitioner's score was artificially influenced in a negative way. By contrast, the evidence is clear that CTB and Harcourt, in many instances presented different ways to accomplish tasks without specifically utilizing the term "alternative" or "option" and such matters were factored into the evaluation. The claim by Respondent and CTB that the decision not to consider alternatives was applied even-handedly is not supported by the evidence. Because there was not a consistent manner in which the various companies presented their "enhancements," "augmentations," "options" or "alternatives," Respondent's determination to exclude consideration of "alternatives" precluded the evaluators from fairly determining what each of the vendors could actually provide to the program. It also meant that the vendors were not evaluated on an equal footing. Thus, the decision was contrary to the bid specifications. In spite of these concerns, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent's instruction to evaluators not to consider alternatives rendered the proposed agency action clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and/or arbitrary and capricious because Respondent was not obligated to accept any of the alternatives offered by a bidder. The Price Proposals. Respondent's evaluation of the three bidders' proposals established that each of the bidders was capable and qualified to perform the work under the contract. The bidders' price proposals remained sealed until after the evaluation committee completed its scoring of the technical proposals. The price proposals were evaluated based on a formula that awarded 50 points to the bidder with the lowest price. The remaining bidders received points based on a proportion or ratio that compared their price to the low bidder's price. The RFP provided at Section 7.4, Page 82, in pertinent part: A total of 50 points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Cost Proposal. Proposals with higher costs will receive the fraction of 50 points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposal cost to the higher cost proposal. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to one decimal place. For example, if the lowest responsive cost were $50,000.00, the bid would receive 50 points. If the next lowest responsive cost proposal were $75,000.00, it would receive 33.3 points. If the highest responsive cost proposal were $100,000.00, it would receive 25 points. Upon opening the three bidders price proposals, it was determined that Petitioner's bid for the base and renewal period was $224,969,699; Harcourt's bid was $167,055,970; and CTB's bid was $140,107,439. On September 23, 2004, Respondent posted a Notice of Intent to Award the contract for the FCAT administration to CTB. The posting showed the final scores of the three vendors as follows: Proposers Mandatory Bidders Technical Total Cost Total Requirement Qualifications/ Quality Points Proposal Points Met Experience Stage III (Stages Stage IV Stage Stage II II&III) V Pearson Yes Educational Assessment 44.6 44.3 88.9 31.4 120.3 Harcourt Yes 42.7 42.2 84.9 42.4 127.3 CTB/McGraw Yes Hill 43.8 44.9 88.8 50 138.8 CTB's price for performing the contract over a five-year period is approximately $85 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $27 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt. Over a three year contract period, CTB's price for performing is approximately $53 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $14 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of the Department of Education adopt this Recommended Order and enter an final order awarding the contract for RFP No. 2005-01 to the low bidder, CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Donna E. Blanton, Esquire Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A. 313 North Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10967 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jason K. Fudge, Esquire Florida Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Department of Children and Family Services' (FDCF) notice of intent to award the contract for RFP No. MF650TH was contrary to the agency's rules or policies, or the proposal specifications and whether the Petitioner established that FDCF's decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact 1. The parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation specified, in pertinent part, as follows: ADMITTED FACTS The following facts are admitted by all parties and will require no proof at hearing: On or about January 23, 1998, the Department issued RFP No. MF650TH ("the RFP"), Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). The purpose of the RFP was to solicit proposals from qualified proposers to design, develop and implement an automated fingerprint identification system, or AFIS, and to procure a statewide fingerprint identification capability for applicants and recipients of public assistance. The RFP was subsequently amended by Addendums 1, 2, 3, and 4 dated February 18, February 26, March 9, and March 16, 1998, respectively. Two vendors, Lockheed Martin and Sagem Morpho, submitted proposals in response to the RFP on March 23, 1998. The Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract described in the RFP to Morpho on April 17, 1998. On April 22, 1998, Lockheed Martin timely submitted a notice of intent to protest the proposed award to Sagem Morpho, pursuant to the terms of the RFP and Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. On May 1, 1998, Lockheed Martin filed its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding. Jayne Paris served as Procurement Manager for the AFIS RFP. Connie Reinhardt served as Project Manager for the AFIS project. AGREED UPON ISSUES OF LAW The parties have agreed on the following issues of law: The Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. All parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. ISSUES OF FACT WHICH REMAIN TO BE LITIGATED. The following issues of fact remain to be litigated: Whether Morpho's AFIS proposal was responsive to the RFP. Whether Lockheed Martin's AFIS proposal was responsive to the RFP. Lockheed Martin contends that the following additional facts remain to be litigated: What the Department's policy is with respect to evaluation of cost proposals on RFPs. Whether and when the Department altered its method of evaluating the AFIS cost proposals. The reason the Department decided not to use the cost proposal ranking and fatal criteria checklist which had been previously prepared. Whether the addenda to the RFP provided supplemental RFP instructions and incorporated clarifications in response to questions submitted by potential proposers. ISSUES OF LAW WHICH REMAIN FOR DETERMINATION BY THE JUDGE The following issues of law remain for determination by the Court: Whether Morpho's AFIS proposal was materially responsive to the RFP. Whether Lockheed Martin's AFIS proposal was materially responsive to the RFP. Lockheed Martin contends that the following additional issues of law remain for determination by the Judge: Whether any minor irregularities waived by the Department in evaluating and scoring the AFIS proposals met the definition of a "minor irregularity" under Rule 60A- 1.002(16), F.A.C. Whether the Department may alter its proposal evaluation methods after proposals have been received by it. Whether the Department's proposed award of the AFIS contract to Morpho is contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the AFIS RFP specifications. Whether the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, to determine whether the Department's proposed action is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or policies, or the AFIS RFP specifications. Lockheed's unilateral statements of issues do not bind the parties or the undersigned but are included so that the pending Motion to Strike may be addressed in the Conclusions of Law, infra. At formal hearing, Petitioner Lockheed contended that Morpho's proposal was not responsive to the RFP and that Lockheed should be awarded the contract. Intervenor Morpho contended that its proposal was responsive and that Lockheed's proposal was not responsive. FDCF contended that both proposals were responsive and that the proposed final agency action to award the contract to Morpho should be carried out. The RFP solicited proposals from qualified proposers to design, develop and implement an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and to procure a statewide fingerprint identification capability for applicants and recipients of public assistance. (Agreed Facts). AFIS is intended to support the client certification process for the benefit programs delivered through the Department's electronic Benefits Transfer program (EBT). The current EBT programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families -- Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency (TANF-WAGES), and the Refuge Assistance (RA) programs. The Department had determined that AFIS is the only acceptable biometric technology. The RFP included the following pertinent provisions: General Provisions – The procurement process will provide for the evaluation of proposals and selection of the winning proposals according to applicable state and federal laws and administrative regulations. All responses received by the closing deadline, unless determined to be non-responsive will be evaluated by an evaluation team. (Exhibit P-1. pp. 66-67). Statement of Purpose The objective of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain proposals from qualified proposers to design, develop and implement the AFIS in accordance with the requirements defined in Section B of this RFP. FDCF intends to procure a statewide fingerprint identification capability for applicants and recipients of public assistance programs as stated above. Through this competitive solicitation, the FDCF desires to obtain a comprehensive identification service which represents the best value for the state, and which provides all hardware, (with the exception of existing administrative terminals as discussed in RFP Section B, subsection 6), software, communications networks, central site operations, terminal operations training, system administration training, operational support, maintenance, and other services. State personnel will be utilized to operate the system's imaging, fraud investigation, and administrative workstations located at state facilities. The system will include a central identification system to maintain fingerprint and photographic identification records and perform duplicate fingerprint record search and verification. It will also include workstations for creation of the fingerprint and photo identification records and for support of administrative and fraud investigation activities. Evaluation of Technical Proposals Part A Fatal Criteria Failure to comply with all Fatal Criteria will render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for further evaluation. For a list of Fatal Criteria, see Appendix XIX. Any technical proposal that is incomplete, non-responsive, contains cost or pricing data, or in which there are significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies will be rejected by the FDCF. No points will be awarded for complying with the Fatal Criteria. 1.7 Acceptance of Proposals . . . Untimely proposals will be rejected as unresponsive. * * * All responsive proposals timely submitted will be evaluated. No proposed changes to the terms and conditions set out in this RFP, its appendices and any addenda will be accepted and submission of a proposal which purports to do so will make the proposal non- responsive. The FDCF may waive minor irregularities, but need not do so. Where the FDCF waives minor irregularities, such waiver shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the proposer from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the proposer is awarded the contract. * * * The FDCF reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, cancel the RFP, or waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interest of the State of Florida. Minor irregularities are those which will not, in the opinion of the contact person, have significant adverse effect on overall competition, cost or performance. 2. Proposal Format * * * The proposal should be prepared concisely and economically, providing a straightforward description of services to be provided and capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the evaluation of proposals, it is essential that proposers follow the format and instructions contained herein. For purposes of this section, the terms "shall, will and must" are intended to identify items that are required to be submitted as part of the proposal. Failure to comply with all such requirements will result in the proposal being rejected as non-responsive. 3.3 Tab 3. Transmittal Letter Each copy of the proposal must include a transmittal letter in the form of a standard business letter and must be signed by an individual authorized to legally bind the proposer. It shall include at a minimum: * * * A statement indicating that the proposer and any proposed subcontractors are corporations or other legal entities and that each satisfied all licensing requirements of state or federal law and that they are authorized to do business within the State of Florida. All subcontractors must be identified. A statement indicating the percentage of work to be done by the proposer and by each subcontractor as measured by the percentage of total proposed price. A statement identifying the proposer's and any proposed subcontractor's federal tax identification number(s). 3.12 Tab 11. Technical Proposal: Corporate Qualifications . . . This section must also identify and describe the corporate capabilities of any proposed subcontractors and must include three (3) references for each subcontractor including names, addresses, and telephone numbers, and a description of the services which are being provided. Subcontractors not identified in the proposal will not be permitted to perform any work under any contract which results from the RFP. Cost Proposed Format The following information is intended to provide proposers with instructions and a format for submitting cost quotations. Cost quotations must be submitted using the provided pricing schedules. Responses that do not provide cost proposals in the required format will be rejected. Unless otherwise noted, the costs quoted shall apply for the entire term of the contact. Proposers are encouraged to identify means to reduce the cost of AFIS services in Florida. As part of the cost proposal, proposers should identify cost reduction factors, the rationale for costs savings, and any options in service that would produce such cost savings. In order to assess FDCF options, proposers are requested to submit AFIS system costs in two ways—as a bundled price per add transaction and as an unbundled price. The selection of the contract pricing method— either bundled or unbundled—shall be at the sole discretion of the FDCF. The FDCF will not make any corrections to arithmetic or other errors in the cost proposal. All numbers submitted will be assumed by the FDCF to be accurate even if an error appears likely. Proposers are cautioned to assure the accuracy of any amounts submitted because they will be held to the amounts which appear in the cost proposal throughout the term of any contract which results from this RFP as well as any extension or renewals of that contract. The RFP provided blank pricing schedules in the required format for submitting bundled and unbundled proposals. The RFP required proposers to submit prices based on alternative bundled and unbundled methods. Under the first method, proposers were to provide one lump sum price per record added to the AFIS database. An "add" is the function by which a fingerprint image is programmed into the computer and no match is found, indicating that fingerprint is not already in the system. Under that method, the provider was to be paid based on the number of fingerprints added to the database. (Schedules 1A and 1B). Under the second method, proposers were to provide a price per add, a price per inquiry (when the system searches the existing database), and prices for all hardware, broken down by type of hardware. This is called unbundled pricing. (Schedules 2A and 2B). As to unbundled pricing, the RFP specifically provided: Proposers must also provide unbundled pricing under the two communications network assumptions. Unbundled pricing includes a unit price per record added to the database, a unit price per workstation, and a unit price per printer. The cost of system development, implementation and operations must be reflected in the unit prices per add or inquiry. Schedule 3 applied to a POS Verification Study. The RFP also required a way to resolve smudged print identifications: 5.3.7. Identification Searching c) Workstations must provide the capability to launch identification search transactions using selected client records with or without minutiae editing. The RFP also required proposers to submit a thumb print option: Option to Add Thumb Prints . . . The department is also considering the option of capturing and storing both thumb prints, in addition to both index fingers, for each applicant household member required to comply. In order to help the department assess this option, the proposer shall provide an incremental price per record added to the database. . . There is no guarantee that the department will exercise the option to capture and store thumb prints. However, should the department decide to exercise this option, the successful proposer's system must be capable of supporting this option. The proposer was to provide the incremental price to capture and store thumb prints in Schedule 4. The RFP required proposers to submit a technical proposal and a separate sealed cost proposal. The RFP contemplated FDCF doing a completeness review against the "Fatal Criteria" provided in the RFP before the agency technically evaluated the proposals. The RFP presumed that those proposals which failed the completeness review would not be technically evaluated. No points were to be assigned via the completeness review. The RFP also contemplated that the cost proposals would remain sealed unless, and until, a proposer had passed the technical evaluation with at least 400 points. The evaluation system set out in the RFP provided for ranking proposals based on 600 possible points for the technical proposals and 400 possible points for the cost proposals. Any score less than 400 points on the technical proposal would mean the proposer could not be evaluated for cost. On March 23, 1998, the day of submittal, the technical responses were opened by Jayne Paris. She was FDCF's Procurement Manager and contact person for this RFP. In doing the completeness review, Ms. Paris compared the technical proposals with the Fatal Criteria checklist for completeness. She also reviewed each proposer's Supplemental Proposal Sheet for completeness and to be sure each proposer had promised compliance with all RFP requirements. She also reviewed each proposer's transmittal letter to be sure neither proposer intended to deviate from the RFP requirements. This completeness review was witnessed by Project Director, Connie Reinhardt, to assure the integrity and accuracy of the process. Although a consultant's checklist geared to federal contract review of cost proposal compliance was in the contract file which FDCF is required to maintain on every project, this checklist was only a suggestion which FDCF had rejected and had not included in the RFP. Ms. Paris did not apply it. Both Morpho and Lockheed used conditional language in their respective transmittal letters. Morpho's transmittal letter stated, "In the event that these stated requirements and assumptions are subsequently altered by the issuing agency, or are proved [sic] to be invalid due to actual experience, Sagem Morpho, Inc. reserves the right to make appropriate modifications to its scheduling or pricing." Lockheed asserts that by this language Morpho attempted to change the terms of the RFP, condition Morpho's prices, and include "pricing information" contrary to the RFP. The RFP required that each proposer identify in its transmittal letter all proposed subcontractors by name, corporate status, eligibility through licensure for state projects, the percentage of subcontract work each subcontractor would be doing, and federal tax identification number, and also provide three references for each contractor. It also provided that any subcontractors not identified by the proposer could not work on the contract. Lockheed's transmittal letter did not propose any subcontractors. It merely stated that Lockheed anticipated the need for a maintenance subcontractor beginning in June 1999, approximately 13 months after the start of the contract, and that Lockheed anticipated submitting a request for approval of a subcontractor by March 1999. Lockheed stated as its reason for the absence of subcontractor information that waiting until June 1999 would result in selection of a subcontractor that would provide the service levels demanded by Lockheed and FDCF. FDCF concedes that if a proposer intended to deviate from the RFP requirements, i.e. if the transmittal letter created a significant variance from the RFP specifications, that variance would have rendered that proposal substantively unresponsive at the completeness review, and no further evaluation of that proposal should have taken place. (TR-133; Exhibits P-2; P-3; DCF's PRO at page 7) However, in her initial completeness review of the respective proposals for the Fatal Criteria, signed management summary material checklist, and transmittal letter, Ms. Paris, in fact, only considered whether all necessary parts of each proposer's response were included. The Fatal Criteria only applied to the technical response. Ms. Paris deferred consideration of the content or effect of each proposer's "extraneous language" related in Findings of Fact 18-20 to the subsequent technical and cost evaluations. Therefore, Lockheed and Morpho were treated equally at the completeness review, because neither was disqualified as non-responsive nor docked any points on the basis of their respective transmittal letters. Ms. Paris' reason for not finding the transmittal letters unresponsive was apparently based at that stage on Section 1.7 of the RFP, which would hold the proposer to the RFP specifications despite waivers of irregularities. The next day, March 24, 1998, Ms. Paris provided the technical evaluation team with Sections I and III of an Evaluation Manual, which included the introduction and the substantive Evaluation Criteria Parts C-K. Ms. Paris also conducted a training session during which she provided a briefing on the evaluation process and instructions to the evaluation team members. The evaluation team was to evaluate only the technical merit of each proposal. Sections II and IV of the Evaluation Manual, which had been prepared for FDCF by outside consultants, were removed before the manual was distributed to the evaluation team on the basis that these sections were cost-related and the technical evaluation team members, whose duties did not include consideration of cost, were not to use them. The technical evaluation team members individually and independently evaluated the technical portion of each proposal and scored each technical response using a scale of 0 to 4 points, as instructed in Part I of the Evaluation Manual. With the exception of questions requiring a "yes" or "no" answer, scores were assigned as follows: 0 = no value; proposer demonstrated no capability to satisfy the Department's needs, ignored this area, or has so poorly described the proposal for this criteria that understanding it is not possible. 1 = poor; proposer demonstrated little or no direct capability to satisfy the Department's needs, or has not covered this area, but there is some indication of marginal capability. 2 = acceptable; proposer demonstrated adequate capability to satisfy the department's needs 3 = good; proposer demonstrated more than just adequate capability and good approach to satisfy the Department's needs. 4 = superior; proposer demonstrated excellent capability and an outstanding approach to satisfy the Department's needs. This scoring concept comports with the RFP, pp 67-68. A proposer had to receive a minimum score of 400 technical points before FDCF would open, review, and rank that proposer's cost proposal. FDCF determined that both Petitioner and Intervenor met this requirement. Morpho received 582.99 points out of a possible 600 points. Lockheed received 559.88 points. Under the scoring system, neither the Fatal Criteria nor the management summary were entitled to any points, so neither proposer was scored any points on those bases during the technical evaluation. "Minutiae editing" is the process of correcting misinformation details in an original fingerprint image which is smudged. Under Section 5.3.7 of the RFP, the system's workstations were required to have the capability to launch identification searches of fingerprint images "with or without minutiae editing." Morpho's system as proposed can launch a search and find a match after minituae editing. Lockheed's system could search, but its proposal candidly admitted that the Lockheed system could not match prints after minutiae editing. FDCF waived this technical problem with Lockheed's proposed system as an "immaterial irregularity" because the RFP expressly provided that proposers would be bound by the terms of the RFP. The RFP required submittal of a thumb print option but reserved the right of FDCF to unilaterally exercise the option. Lockheed submitted Schedule 4, providing for the thumb print identification option, quoting a cost of $0. However, Lockheed conditioned that $0 quote on FDCF accepting Lockheed's proposal at the time of the initial contract. Morpho did not submit any Schedule 4, and Morpho's technical proposal shows this omission was probably inadvertent. FDCF waived as "immaterial" Lockheed's extraneous language conditioning the thumb print option in its proposal and likewise waived Morpho's complete failure to submit a Schedule 4 for the thumb print option pursuant to the RFP. The optional thumb print function had no impact on ultimate scoring of the respective proposals because no value was assigned to it. FDCF has taken the position that since the technical evaluation team did not consider either proposal to be technically "nonresponsive," then all flaws or omissions were properly waived. The cost proposals remained sealed until after the technical proposals were scored by the technical evaluation team. At formal hearing, FDCF personnel testified that it was never FDCF's intent to enter into a contract for the thumb print option at the time of the initial contract and that the thumb print option was purely for future informational purposes. The RFP used mandatory language to ensure that cost proposals would be submitted in two ways -- a bundled price and an unbundled price. The bundled and unbundled pricing schedules were mutually exclusive, and the point system set up in the RFP assigned equal weight to the scoring of the bundled and unbundled price schedules. FDCF reserved the unilateral right to select either bundled or unbundled pricing as its procurement method. Cost proposals were to be scored using a formula which compared each proposer's price to the lowest price proposal. Of the 400 points possible for cost proposals, 195 points were allocated by the RFP to the bundled pricing schedules (Schedules 1A and 1B), 195 points were allocated to the unbundled pricing schedules (Schedules 2A and 2B), and 10 points were allocated to the POS Verification Study (Schedule 3). The RFP clearly indicated that both bundled and unbundled prices were required to be submitted on the provided Schedule format "in order to assess FDCF options." FDCF did not decide until after scoring the cost proposals and immediately before it was ready to post the Notice of Intent to Award to Morpho, that it would elect to contract based on the bundled cost proposals. Up until that moment, the bundled and unbundled price schedules had some significance to FDCF, if only for flexibility in procurement. The RFP specified that FDCF would not own any of the equipment (hardware) for which it was seeking single unit prices in the unbundled schedules. Nonetheless, on the unbundled pricing schedules provided in the RFP, proposers were required to provide an unbundled unit price per workstation and unit price per printer. On Schedules 2A and 2B, "Unbundled Pricing," Morpho did not provide an entry in dollars and cents for fraud workstation printers or administrative workstation printers. Rather, Morpho's schedule inserted in those spaces, "included in w/s (workstation) price" or "included above." Lockheed also had some extraneous language on one of its schedules as opposed to just a dollar amount, but cost breakout was clear. Morpho considered the printers part of the imaging and fraud investigation workstations because the RFP required a dedicated printer for each workstation and the RFP specified FDCF would not own or maintain any hardware. Ms. Paris reviewed each cost proposal for compliance with Section C of the RFP. She was concerned about whether Morpho's "unbundled" schedules complied with the RFP. The RFP defined waiveable "minor irregularities" as "those which will not, in the opinion of the contact person, have significant adverse effect on the overall competition, cost or performance." Upon advice of her supervisor, Connie Reinhardt, and FDCF's General Counsel, Ms. Paris determined both proposals to be responsive, and substituted a price of "zero" in the questionable spaces on Morpho's "unbundled" schedules, despite the absence of a pricing break-out between the fraud workstations and printers or between the administrative workstations and printers on Morpho's "unbundled" schedules. Ms. Paris conceded that she was never referred to Rule 68-1.001(16) Florida Administrative Code,1 which defines "minor irregularity" in terms of effect on cost. Ms. Paris was told that only items which had an effect on the overall scores of the responding proposers' cost proposals could not be waived. The cost proposals were not evaluated and scored subjectively as the technical proposals had been. No Fatal Criteria applied to this third review phase. Scoring was to be based on a purely mathematical formula devised prior to distributing the RFP. The RFP drafters had contemplated ranking the respective cost proposals by simply inserting the dollar values each proposer placed on the unbundled unit price list into a computer program. Ms. Paris attempted to rank the cost proposals. To assure the integrity of the process, Chris Haggard, Automation Specialist, physically entered cost proposal figures into the computer program. Ms. Paris instructed him to ignore any "extraneous language" on the schedules of both proposers. The computer program would not accept the "zeros" inserted by FDCF. Without any substitutions by Ms. Paris, Morpho had bid "zero" in the space indicating there would be no charge for the unbundled unit price per inquiry, thereby intending to signify that there would be no charge for this function. The record does not suggest that this proper use of "zero" had any effect on the computer program. Ms. Reinhardt viewed the problem with FDCF's imputed zero components as a purely technical problem with the computer program and not an "irregularity" under the RFP. The computer program was adjusted to accommodate the imputed zeroes and produce a spreadsheet. On unbundled Item 14, FDCF ranked Morpho with a score of one and Lockheed with 15, the maximum. On Item 15, the fraud workstation color printer, Morpho was ranked 15 and Lockheed was ranked zero. On Item 16, the administration workstation, Morpho was ranked three; Lockheed was ranked 15. On Item 17, the administration workstation printer, Morpho was ranked 15 and Lockheed was ranked zero. Pursuant to the adjusted spreadsheet, Morpho received a score of 343 for its cost proposal, and Lockheed received a score of 240. Even if Morpho had received zero points for the printers and work stations (lines 14-17 of the Unbundled Schedules), and if Lockheed had received the maximum number of points available on these items, Morpho still would have received the higher score for its cost proposal. At the disputed fact hearing, FDCF gave as its justification for imputing "zero" for bundling language in Morpho's "unbundled" schedules the following reasoning: because FDCF had requested unbundled prices purely for future contracts, not the contract to arise out of this RFP, for informational purposes, or for a cost benefit analysis for state budget purposes; because the RFP specified that FDCF would neither own nor maintain any of the hardware proposed for this RFP; because Morpho's failure to conform to the unbundled price format was not "irregular" if Morpho did not sell printers independently and Morpho used the unbundled schedules in a manner consistent with Morpho's offer; because the zero imputed by FDCF reflected accurately the integrated costs in effect; because Morpho was not charging separately for the printers; because FDCF's insertion of "zero" constituted no unfair economic advantage to Morpho; and finally, because having chosen the bundled option, FDCF believed the Morpho proposal will save a great deal of money and "represent the best value for the state."2 The RFP specified that the successful proposer would be responsible for the "cost of system development, implementation, and operations" for the contract term as well as any extensions and include that cost in either the unbundled unit price per record added (per add) or the price per inquiry (per inquiry) in Schedules 2A and 2B. There is no RFP requirement that the maintenance portion be "unbundled" further. "Cost of . . . operations" meant "cost of maintenance." According to Richard Woodard, who was responsible for the Morpho cost proposal, including Item 9, Morpho's price per add of $6.70 on Schedule 2A included $.80 for maintenance. However, at formal hearing, Lockheed elicited from Ms. Paris testimony that even though Morpho had indicated that maintenance was not included in its unbundled schedules, FDCF had decided to hold Morpho to the prices shown in their per add or per inquiry line item (TR-61), and that because of Morpho's own extra schedule attached to the bottom of unbundled pricing Schedule 2A, Morpho's maintenance price over 5 years could be calculated on current maintenance prices. (TR-62) When the prices are calculated mathematically over the life of the contract they do not correspond to the $.80 per add testified to by Mr. Woodard.3 Morpho's maintenance cost schedule and the provisions within Morpho's "Comments on Unbundled Pricing" indicated that only 12 months of warranty were included with the equipment identified in Morpho's unbundled pricing schedules and that after 12 months, maintenance contracts would be negotiated. FDCF ignored this as "extraneous language," and did not consider it to be a material irregularity. The Morpho bundled cost proposal was calculated on an average of 2.2 persons per file who would require finger imaging and matching. Morpho asserted that these calculations had been made on a "worst case scenario" based on RFP Addendum 3's specification that an actual number cannot be provided. It is expected that less than 2.2 persons per case will be printed. Lockheed selected a number less than 2.2 per file, and asserted that Morpho's "worst case" scenario is, in effect, a "best case" scenario because the higher the number of prints, the less Morpho can afford to charge per add; that by selecting the 2.2, Morpho has materially failed to comply with the RFP specification which estimated less than 2.2 persons per file, and that because Morpho also inserted the extraneous language in its transmittal letter as set out in Finding of Fact 19, supra., Morpho's proposal not only varied the express terms of the RFP by the use of "2.2" but also included "pricing information" in its transmittal letter and conditioned its prices on the potentially false assumptions stated or on a figure greater than a figure "less than 2.2," as required by the RFP.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order rejecting all proposals. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 21st day of December, 1998.
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
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File and relinquishing jurisdiction in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK. BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA11-GM-008 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below jn the manner described, on this — day of January, 2011. yy A fas 4 Paula Ford, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 By U.S. Mail and electronic mail: Thomas A. Cloud, Esq. Clayton Bricklemeyer, Esq. City Attorney, Polk City David Smolker, Esq. GRAY ROBINSON, P.A. Bricklemeyer & Smolker, P.A. Post Office Box 3068 500 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 200 Orlando, Florida 32802-3068 Tampa, Florida 33602-4708 tcloud@gray-robinson.com claytonb@bsbfirm.com davids@bsbfirm.com Jack P. Brandon, Esq. Michael T. Gallaher, Esq. Peterson & Myers, P.A. Post Office Box 1079 Lake Wales, FL 33859-1079 jbrandon@petersonmyers.com mgallaher@petersonmyers.com STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, Case Nos. 10-0045GM 10-2797DRI vs. CITY OF POLK CITY, Respondent, and POLK CITY ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND COLE'S PROPERTY, LLC, Intervenors. ORDER CLOSING FILES This cause having come before the undersigned on the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed January 10, 2011, and the undersigned being fully advised, it is, therefore, ORDERED that the files of the Division of Administrative Hearings in the above-captioned matter are hereby closed. DONE AND ORDERED this llth day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Blac aad J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 EXHIBIT Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this llth day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jeffery Sullivan, Esquire Stidham & Stidham, P.A. 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Jack P. Brandon, Esquire Peterson & Myers Post Office Box 1079 Lake Wales, Florida 33859-1079 K. Clayton Bricklemyer, Esquire Bricklemyer, Smolker & Bolves, P.A. 500 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas A. Cloud, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. 301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802-3068
