Findings Of Fact On September 4, 1984, the Department issued its initial Request for Proposal (RFP), RFP No. 2695-84, for office automation equipment to be used in a one-year pilot project at nine locations within the Neil Kirkman Building, Tallahassee, Florida. Under the terms of the RFP the Department had the option, based on the success of the pilot project and contingent upon future legislative fundings, to expand the system over a four year period to 254 locations statewide. Pertinent to this case is an understanding of the nature of the Request for Proposal (RFP) procedure. Under Section 287.057(3), Florida Statutes, where, as here, an agency determines that the use of competitive sealed bidding, an Invitation for Bids (IFB), is not practicable, contractual services shall be procured by an RFP. Section 287.057(3) provides: A request for proposals which includes a statement of the services sought and all contractual terms and conditions applicable to the procurement of contractual services, including the criteria, which shall include, but need not be limited to, price, to be used in determining acceptability of the proposal shall be issued. . . . To assure full understanding of and responsiveness to the solicitation requirements, discussions may be conducted with qualified offerors. The offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment prior to the submittal date specified in the request for proposals with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals. The award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the state, taking into consideration the price and the other criteria set forth in the request for proposals. . . . Whereas consideration of an IFB is controlled by cost, consideration of an offer to an RFP is controlled by technical excellence as well as cost. System Development Corp. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 423 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Of further import to a resolution of this case, is a provision of the RFP which states: The Bidder's Equipment Agreement Form, Licensed Software or Services Form, or any other Form provided by the bidder, shall not be used since the bidder's proposal and the State's acceptance thereof shall constitute the complete agreement. Bids containing terms and conditions conflicting with those contained in this Request for Proposal may be rejected. The foregoing provision of the RFP, as well as Section 287.057(3), Florida Statutes, renders it clear that upon the State's acceptance the bidder's offer establishes the terms of the contract. Consequently, a responsive and unambiguous proposal is imperative under the RFP procedure. The RFP required that vendors submit their sealed technical and cost responses separately. If technically responsive, the vendor's cost response would be opened and evaluated; if not responsive, the cost response would be returned to the vendor unopened. The RFP granted vendors the opportunity to suggest changes to the RFP and to submit written inquiries. A bidders' conference, held September 26, 1984, was attended by twenty prospective bidders, including Petitioner. Petitioner submitted one written question regarding the bid bond, but submitted no further written inquiries regarding the RFP. The other vendors submitted approximately 160 questions. By Addenda I, dated October 1, 1984, the Department provided its written response to vendor inquiries, as well as certain changes to the RFP. Three subsequent addenda were also issued. The RFP, and addenda, constitute the bid document. Petitioner acknowledges receipt of all addenda. By October 19, 1984, the deadline established in the RFP, seven proposals and thirty no-bids had been filed with the Department. An evaluation committee consisting of Randolph Esser, chief of the Bureau of Information Services for the Department, and primary drafter of the RFP, Randy Walford, the Department's Systems and Programming Manager, and James K. Knerr, a data processing procurement consultant with the Department of General Services, reviewed the technical proposals of the seven vendors. The committee found the technical proposals of five vendors, including Petitioner, to be non-responsive. Accordingly, their cost proposals were returned unopened. The technical proposals of two vendors, Honeywell and Mohawk Data Systems (MDS), were found responsive. On October 24, 1984, the cost bids of Honeywell and MDS were opened. The committee found the cost proposal of MDS to be non-responsive. Accordingly, since only one bidder remained, the bid process was terminated. During the committee's review of the technical responses, it used a checklist which had been prepared by Mr. Esser to facilitate the committee's evaluation of the responsiveness of the various proposals. The checklist consisted of a list of bid requirements, according to RFP page number, followed by a "yes" or "no" space to be checked, as appropriate, if the proposal contained, or failed to contain, a particular requirement of the RFP. If the bidder's response was found technically unqualified, a narrative sheet was attached to the checklist explaining any shortcomings the committee had identified at that time. The committee did not purport to undertake an analytical critique of each vendor's proposal. The checklist and narrative sheet were collectively referred to as a "Technical Qualification Summary." Although the committee members considered the checklist an internal working document designed solely to assist them in evaluating the vendor's technical proposals, a copy of the Petitioner's checklist was released by the Department to Petitioner. Petitioner contends it relied on this checklist in preparing its responses to the rebid, and since the deficiencies found in its rebid were not reflected on the checklist for its initial bid, that the Department should be estopped from raising such deficiencies. On October 31, 1984, the Department issued its rebid, RFP No. 2695-84 (Rebid), which is the subject of these proceedings. The rebid documents were identical to those which comprised the initial bid documents with three exceptions. First, the deadline for filing bids was changed to November 19, 1984. Second, the special provision of the RFP which provided for a bidders' conference and the submission of proposed written changes was deleted. General Condition 5, however, which permitted a vendor to submit written inquiries up to ten days before the bids were opened, remained. Finally, accompanying the rebid documents, was a cover letter to the vendors from Merelyn Grubbs, the Department's chief of the Bureau of General Services. That letter, dated October 31, 1984, provided: Due to failure to receive responsive competitive proposals to this Department's Request for Proposal No. 2695-84 filed October 19, 1984, a rebid is being released. Attached is information reflecting the reasons bidders were found to be non- responsive. Bidders are encouraged to carefully examine their proposals submitted in response to the original Request For Proposal and to rectify any oversights within their responses. The Department will not accept changes to the Request For Proposal or contract. The attachment to Ms. Grubb's letter consisted of a composite of the narrative sheets prepared by the committee on each technically non-responsive proposal. The checklists were not, however, distributed with the rebid documents. On November 19, 1984, the deadline established in the RFP-Rebid, six proposals and fifteen no-bids had been filed. The evaluation committee, comprised of the same membership as the initial committee, first reviewed the technical proposals of the six vendors. The committee found the technical proposals of four vendors, including Petitioner, to be non-responsive, and their cost proposals were duly returned unopened. Petitioner's cost proposal was delivered to it on November 30, 1984. On November 21, 1984, the cost proposals of Honeywell and MDS, who were found technically responsive, were opened and each was fully evaluated. Honeywell emerged the apparent successful bidder. On November 29, 1984, after Honeywell had successfully passed a benchmark test for the proposed equipment, the Department posted its recommended award of the bid to Honeywell. On December 3, 1984, Petitioner filed its notice of intent to protest the award to Honeywell. Petitioner's Petition for Formal Hearing was filed with the Department December 12, 1984, and with the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 16, 1985. As part of its technical evaluation of the six rebid vendors, the committee again utilized its "Technical Qualification Summary," which consisted of the checklist and narrative previously described. The rebid evaluation was performed without reference to the initial technical evaluations or bid responses. The initial and rebid RFP required that a proposal include eleven separate tabs, each tab to describe specifically designated aspects of the proposal. Failure to meet any of the mandatory requirements of the RFP subjected the bid to rejection. On the technical evaluation of the initial bid, Petitioner was found non-responsive by the committee as to Tab 5 (Equipment Maintenance), Tab 6 (Application Support), Tab 7 (Training Support), and Tab 9 (Benchmark). The evaluation of Petitioner's rebid found Petitioner non-responsive as to Tab 4 (Licensed Software), Tab 5, Tab 6, Tab 7, and Tab 10 (Manuals). Petitioner's rebid varied from its response to the initial bid as to Tabs 5, 6, 7 and 9, with minor changes to Tabs 1, 2 and 3. Petitioner did not alter its response to Tabs 4 and 10. Rebid, Tab 4 -- Description of Licensed Software Special condition 4 of the RFP-Rebid required that the vendor include a complete description of each Licensed Software package bid under Tab 4. Petitioner's Tab 4 was found non-responsive because it did not include a description of the UNIX System V Application Processor which it had described in the Management Summary (Tab 1). Tab 1, Management Summary, was required to contain a brief synopsis of the vendor's proposal. Petitioner's Tab 1 proposal specifically stated: IMS (Petitioner) believes the proposed configuration, consisting of a megaframe acting as both a shared resource processor and a UNIX System V-based applications processor, provides the DHSMV with the latest in computer technology while offering substantial expansion capability in both memory and processing power. [Emphasis supplied.] UNIX is an item of software necessary to operate the UNIX applications processor. Petitioner's president, Russell Kelly, and senior consultant, William Childers, testified that the applications processor and UNIX software were only included in the proposal as an option. Therefore, Petitioner argues, Tab 4 was not unresponsive for failing to include UNIX as an item of software. Whatever Petitioner's "intent" may have been, Tab 1 clearly describes the UNIX System V application processor as part of the "proposed configuration," and UNIX is an item of software necessary to operate the application processor. Rebid, Tab 5 -- Equipment Maintenance The RFP contemplated an ultimate system comprised of 145 "locations" within the Neil Kirkman Building, Tallahassee, Florida, and 100 remote "locations" throughout the State of Florida. Consequently, the RFP required that a vendor's proposal include an agreement to provide on-site maintenance statewide. Petitioner's proposal provided: IMS will provide, in accordance with the RFP, on-site maintenance at all DHSMV locations for the Host Office Automation equipment, workstations and peripherals. [Emphasis supplied.] Petitioner's proposal was found non-responsive because it did not specify on- site maintenance was available for remotely located equipment. The "Host Office" was the Neil Kirkman Building. Therefore, the clear import of Petitioner's proposal was that it would provide on-site maintenance for the proposed 154 "locations" -- the automation equipment, workstations and peripherals -- to be located in Tallahassee. Petitioner's proposal did not specify on-site maintenance at the proposed 100 remote "locations." Petitioner asserted that its proposal contemplated on-site maintenance at all Department locations statewide. While that may have been Petitioner's intention, the language it selected to convey its proposal limits on-site maintenance to the Neil Kirkman Building. Rebid, Tab 6 -- Application Support Special Condition 6 of the RFP, Application Support, required that the: Bidder shall present and explain the methods and procedures to be employed by the bidder. "Addenda I" further defined application support to mean: . . . that any software acquired from the successful bidder and installed as a result of this RFP shall be supported by that bidder regardless of the type of software provided. . . . If third party software is involved, bidder shall be the State's primary contact for problem resolution. Petitioner's proposal provided: The Department shall be responsible to appoint a coordinator who will instruct the DHSMV remote sites on the unpacking and installation of the NGEN microcomputer, letter quality printer and modem. These personnel should be capable of loading the software at each remote site. Petitioner's Tab 6 was found non-responsive by the Department since it failed to describe any application support. Petitioner sought to avoid the import of its failure to respond to Tab 6 by suggesting that such failure was not material because certain matters of a support nature could be gleaned from other sections of its proposal. While a detailed review of Petitioner's proposal does reveal some items which could be considered application support, Petitioner's response was not in substantial accord with the RFP mandatory requirement that bids be submitted in the Tab format. Rebid, Tab 7 -- Training Support The RFP, and addenda, required that 12-15 persons be trained. Petitioner's proposal provided: IMS will provide user training in Tallahassee during the Pilot Project for 12 to 15 people. This training will cover the following aspects of the system: Word Processing two 4-hour sessions with 4 persons per session Multiplan two 12-hour sessions R : base two 8-hour sessions Workstation Software Overview one 16-hour session Workstation Operations two 2-hour sessions During years 2 through 4 IMS will conduct the above training courses once every four months at a location mutually agreed upon by the State and IMS. Except where indicated differently, sessions will be held for a maximum of 12 people. [Emphasis supplied.] Petitioner's proposal was found non-responsive since it failed to agree to provide training support for the required 12-15 persons. Specifically, Petitioner's proposal limited word processing training to 8 persons, not the 12- 15 required for the nine workstations/microprocessors to be installed. Rebid, Tab 10 -- Manuals Special condition 10 of the RFP required that: The bidder shall list all the Equipment and Licensed Software manuals required. Petitioner's response did contain a list of all manuals. However, Petitioner also inserted in Tab 10 a three-page "Software Licensing Overview " which, among other things, required a CTIX object code license agreement be signed before UNIX could be delivered. The RFP precluded the signing of any agreements not previously approved by the State. Accordingly, Petitioner's Tab 10 was found technically non-responsive. Petitioner asserted that Tab 10 was responsive and that the "Software Licensing Overview" was merely supplemental information for the UNIX "option." However, since UNIX was not clearly an "option," the Department was justified in interpreting the additional requirements set forth in the "Software Licensing Overview," as additional terms and conditions which it was precluded from accepting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the relief requested by Petitioner, Integrated Microsystems, Inc., be denied, and its petition dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary R. Rutledge, Esquire Sparber, Shevin, Shapo & Heilbronner, P.A. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 348 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Paul A. Rowell, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Smith, Esquire Office of General Counsel Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. 6 West Druid Hills Drive, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30329 Leonard R. Mellon, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: 1) whether the Respondent’s decision to award a contract to operate a juvenile work release halfway house program to the Henry and Rilla White Foundation was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; and 2) whether the award of the contract is void as a matter of law because of procedural violations by the selection committee and the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, JUVENILE SERVICES PROGRAM, INC. (JSP), is a Florida-based private not-for-profit corporation which was founded to serve troubled youths and their families. Respondent, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJ), is the agency of the State of Florida with the statutory authorization for planning, coordinating, and managing programs for the delivery of services within the juvenile justice consortium. Section 20.316, Florida Statutes. RFP #16P05 On September 27, 1996, Respondent DJJ advertised and released a Request For Proposal (RFP) #16P05 to provide a Work Release Halfway House for Delinquent Males in District IX, serving Palm Beach County, Florida. In response to the RFP, four bids were submitted to DJJ by the following parties: the Henry and Rilla White Foundation, Total Recovery, Inc., Psychotherapeutic Services Inc., and Petitioner JSP. The DJJ bid selection committee of evaluators for the RFP were Jack Ahern, Steve Brown, Jaque Layne, Patricia Thomas, and from the Office of Budget Finance, Fred Michael Mauterer. The contract manager for the RFP was Diane Rosenfelder. On October 28, 1996, each DJJ evaluator was sent a package consisting of a copy of the RFP, which included the evaluation sheet, a copy of each proposal submitted to DJJ, a conflict of interest questionnaire, a certificate of compliance, a description of the proposal selection process, and instructions. Each package sent to the evaluators had a different colored cover sheet which identified the specific evaluator. After completing the evaluations, each evaluator returned the signed conflict of interest forms, and certificates of compliance to Diane Rosenfelder. The evaluations were identified by the color of the cover sheets, as well as the signed conflict of interest forms and certificates of compliance. DJJ initially intended to provide each evaluator with an Award Preference Form which were to be used in the event the final evaluation scores were very close. The Award Preference Forms, however, were inadvertently omitted from the packages sent to the evaluators. The evaluation process resulted in the Henry and Rilla White Foundation receiving the highest average score of 391.50 points. Petitioner JSP received the second highest average score of 360.50 points. The award of points was determined by each evaluator which is indicated by the evaluator checking the box on Section 5 of the evaluation sheet, or by filling in the appropriate point score. The contract manager, Diane Rosenfelder, corrected addition errors on the scoring sheets. The budget part of the evaluation was completed by Fred Michael Mauterer, Senior Management Analyst Supervisor. In accordance with the evaluation scores, DJJ determined that the best response was submitted by the Henry and Rilla White Foundation which was awarded the contract. On November 8, 1996, Petitioner JSP filed a timely Notice of Protest of the award, which was supplemented on December 9, 1996 with the required posting of a $5000 bond. Alleged Errors and Discrepancies in the Evaluation Process Petitioner JSP alleges that several errors in the evaluation process require that the contract award to the Henry and Rilla White Foundation be set aside and that the RFP be reissued and rebid. Petitioner first alleges that the bid selection committee failed to follow the certain instructions during the evaluation process. The instructions were prepared by the contract manager Diane Rosenfelder. The instructions were not required by rule or policy of DJJ. The contract manager considered the instructions advisory in nature. The instructions stated that the members of the bid selection committee should not contact each other with respect to the proposals under evaluation. The evaluators, however, were permitted to contact the contract manager who would record all questions and answers. There were instances in which the contract manager did not record questions from the evaluators to the contract manager. There is no evidence that the evaluators contacted each other regarding the proposals during the evaluation process. The instructions asked the evaluators to explain high or low scores given to the proposals under consideration. None of the evaluators made specific explanations of high or low scores. The contract manager who prepared the instructions considered this instruction discretionary, and there is no evidence that any score given by an individual evaluator was without basis. The evaluators were instructed to provide page numbers from the proposals used to score each item. None of the evaluators complied with this instruction. As indicated above, however, there is no evidence that the actual scores give by the evaluators were without basis. As set forth above, none of the evaluators received the Award Preference Form. This form was to be used in the case of very close scoring of the proposals. The actual scores from the bid selection committee reflected a clear preference for the proposal submitted by the Henry and Rilla White Foundation. Accordingly, there was no demonstrated need for DJJ to rely upon the Award Preference Forms in making its decision to award the contract. The letter of introduction sent to the bid selection committee members from the contract manager stated that the proposal score sheets and the evaluators award preference and the best interest of the district would be considered in determining the award. The contract manager considered this statement advisory in nature. DJJ has not promulgated specific standards relating to the best interest of District IX; however, the proposal evaluation forms sent to the bid selection committee inherently include criteria setting out standards for the determination of the best proposal for the district. The evidence reflects that one of the evaluators, Patricia Thomas, erroneously checked the box on each proposal which gave each of the proposals fifty points as certified minority enterprises, and erroneously wrote “50” as a point count on one evaluation score sheet. None of the proposals included a copy of the certification for minority enterprise as required by Section 287.0945, Florida Statutes, and the contract manager recognized that the evaluator had made a mistake in this regard. In response to this error, the contract manager consulted her supervisors. Because each proposal was awarded the same points, DJJ did not consider the evaluator’s error as prejudicial to any proposal or to the bid selection process, and did reject the evaluator’s scoring of the proposals. There is no showing that Petitioner JPS was prejudiced by DJJ’s decision in this regard. The contract manager added signature lines to the last page of the evaluation sheets. Some of the sheets were returned unsigned from the evaluators. There is no DJJ requirement that the evaluation sheets specifically contain the signatures of the evaluators. The contract manager did not consider the signature page mandatory, and the evaluation proposal score sheets were clearly identified by both color coding and the certificates of conflict signed by the evaluators. There is no evidence that the procedural discrepancies affected the substance of the evaluator’s scoring of the proposals, nor did the procedural discrepancies prejudice the evaluators’ consideration of Petitioner’s proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order upholding the proposed agency action to award the contract to the Henry and Rilla White Foundation, and dismissing the Petition filed in this case. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dominic E. Amadio, Esquire Republic Bank Building, Suite 305 100 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Scott C. Wright, Assistant General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should award a contract to Intervenor to provide physical and occupational therapy services to approximately 1,300 exceptional education students who qualify for such services in 77 public schools in Brevard County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor is the incumbent contractor for physical and occupational therapy services provided to Respondent. Intervenor has provided such services to Respondent for approximately six years. On February 24, 1999, Respondent issued its request for proposals ("RFP") for occupational and physical therapy services. The RFP consists of eight unnumbered pages. Ten companies responded to the RFP. However, only the proposals of Petitioner and Intervenor are at issue in this proceeding. A four-member evaluation committee ranked each proposal on the basis of six categories. The six categories were: experience; qualification; recruiting ability; location of office; and responsiveness. The evaluation committee also considered the hourly rate and mileage to be charged by each proposer. The evaluation committee met as a body. Each member of the committee then returned to his or her respective office to complete a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet listed each proposer's name in a column down the left side of the sheet and the six categories for evaluation from left to right across the top of the sheet. A column down the right side of each sheet listed the hourly rate to be charged by the proposer identified in the column down the left side of the sheet. The RFP does not prescribe a scoring formula to be used in completing the scoring sheets. In relevant part, the RFP merely states: . . . The Selection Committee shall rank the firms in order of preference and will submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. All four members of the evaluation committee ranked Intervenor's proposal first and Petitioner's proposal second. However, the hourly rate in Petitioner's proposal was the lowest of all proposers, at $34.75, and $4.25 less than the $39 hourly rate quoted in the proposal submitted by Intervenor. The proposal submitted by Intervenor charged mileage in addition to the hourly rate while the hourly rate quoted by Petitioner included mileage. Before May 11, 1999, when the Board selected Intervenor as the proposer, the evaluation committee met. The committee asked Respondent's buyer assigned to the contract if the committee was required to recommend the proposal with the lowest price. The buyer advised the committee that the contract was for professional services and did not require the committee to recommend the lowest-priced proposal. The committee determined that Ms. Eva Lewis, one of its members and the Director of Program Support for Exceptional Student Education in Brevard County, should telephone Intervenor and ask if Intervenor would match Petitioner's price. Ms. Lewis telephoned Mr. Rick McCrary, the manager for Intervenor, and asked if Intervenor would accept the contract price of $34.75. After consultation with his superiors, Mr. McCrary agreed to the straight-rate price of $34.75. On May 11, 1999, Ms. Lewis presented the recommendation of the evaluation committee to the Board. The Board asked Ms. Lewis if Intervenor's price was the lowest price. Ms. Lewis disclosed that the evaluation committee preferred the proposal submitted by Intervenor, asked Intervenor to lower its price to meet that of Petitioner, and that Intervenor agreed to do so. The Board voted unanimously to select Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. The parties directed most of their efforts in this proceeding to the issues of whether competitive bidding requirements apply to the proposed agency action and whether the scoring formula used to rank the proposers complied with those requirements. Petitioner asserts that the selection of Intervenor by the Board violates the competitive bidding provisions in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated). Intervenor and Respondent contend that Section 120.57(1), rather than Section 120.57(3), controls the Board's selection of Intervenor for the contract. Although the document used by Respondent to obtain proposals from vendors describes itself as an RFP and describes the responses as either proposals or bids, Respondent and Intervenor suggest that the document is not an RFP but merely a "solicitation." Respondent and Intervenor further argue: . . . that the . . . Board . . . did not attempt to comply with the requirements for competitive procurement under Section 120.57(3) or Chapter 287. . . . And . . . that the . . . Board was never required to comply with those statutes. . . . these are contracts for professional, educational and health services, contracts uniquely and specifically exempted from [the] competitive bid procurement process. Transcript ("TR") at 40. It is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Section 120.57(1) or the competitive procurement provisions in Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 control Respondent's selection of Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. In either event, the proposed agency action is contrary to the specifications in the RFP. Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 do not apply to the contract at issue in this proceeding, Respondent failed to comply with RFP specifications. As Intervenor and Respondent point out in their joint PRO, Section F.8. of the RFP states: The . . . Board . . . and the selected proposer will negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions for submission to the . . . Board for consideration and approval. In the event an agreement cannot be reached with the selected proposer in a timely manner, then the . . . Board reserves the right to select an alternative proposer. (emphasis supplied) Intervenor and Respondent are also correct that the phrase "negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions" includes terms and conditions such as the contract price. Contrary to the provisions of Section F.8., the Board did not first select a proposer at its meeting on May 11, 1999, and then negotiate a contract price with the selected proposer. Rather, the evaluation committee negotiated a contract price with Intervenor before May 11, 1999, and the Board then selected Intervenor as the successful proposer. The evaluation committee is not the Board and does not have authority to act on behalf of the Board. As the RFP states, the evaluation committee has authority only to: . . . rank the firms in order of preference and . . . submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. The last sentence in Section F.8. makes clear that the right to select a proposer is the sole province of the Board and not the evaluation committee. Even if one were to ignore the legal distinctions between the evaluation committee and the Board and the authority of each, the RFP specifications fail to provide adequate notice to potential proposers of the true purpose for the RFP. As Respondent and Intervenor state in their joint PRO: . . . the . . . Board used the proposals it received to test the market for physical and occupational therapy services in Brevard County. The . . . Board then used the information it developed from the proposals as negotiating leverage to obtain a price concession from its incumbent contractor. The . . . Board's negotiation tactics permitted it to secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor. PRO at 33. The RFP fails to disclose that Respondent intended to use potential proposers to obtain negotiating leverage with the incumbent contractor. The failure of the RFP to disclose its purpose violates fundamental principles of due process, adequate notice, and fairness to potential proposers. It creates a gap between what agency staff knew of the Respondent's intent for the RFP and what potential proposers could know from reading the specifications in the RFP. The failure of the RFP to disclose its true purpose suggests that its authors recognized the chilling effect such a disclosure would have had on the response of potential proposers. The lack of responses from potential proposers, in turn, would have frustrated Respondent's intent to "secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor." Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) controls the contract award at issue in this proceeding, Respondent's proposed agency action violates relevant provisions in Section 120.57(3)(f). In relevant part, Section 120.57(3)(f) provides: In a competitive procurement contest, other than a rejection of all bids, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. . . . (emphasis supplied) As previously found, the proposed award of the contract to Intervenor is contrary to the RFP specifications, including specifications for the evaluation and selection process described in paragraphs 7 and 17, supra. The proposed agency action is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). It violates fundamental notions of due process, adequate notice, and a level playing field for all proposers. All of the proposers who were induced by the terms of the RFP to expend the time, energy, and expense required to prepare and submit proposals were entitled to rely in good faith on the specifications in the RFP and to require Respondent to adhere to its own specifications. The proposed agency action is also contrary to competition within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). The economic incentive to respond to an RFP would likely diminish over time if the proposed agency action were to persist. Potential proposers would eventually recognize the RFP process as a device intended to reduce the contract price of the incumbent provider rather than as a bona fide business opportunity for potential proposers to gain new market share. Such an economic environment would not likely induce potential proposers to incur the time and expense necessary to prepare and submit proposals. The pool of potential proposers would shrink, and Respondent would lose negotiating leverage with the incumbent vendor. The likely result would be an erosion of negotiating leverage and an accretion in costs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the selection of Intervenor for the contract award is contrary to the RFP specifications and contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Sawyer, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699 Harold Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier, Miniclier and Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Cocoa, Florida 32922 Jonathan Sjostram, Esquire Steel Hector and Davis, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward J. Kinberg, Esquire Edward J. Kinberg, P.A. 2101 South Waverly Place Suite 200E Melbourne, Florida 32901
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
Findings Of Fact Background The procurement of private legal services by the Department for child support enforcement is exempt from the competitive bidding requirements set forth in Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. In July 1992, the Department published notice that it was soliciting proposals from interested attorneys to provide intrastate and interstate child support legal services in HRS District VI, including Hillsborough, Hardee, Highlands, and Polk Counties. These services were to be provided from October 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. Separate proposals were solicited for each of the following: the Hillsborough County Interstate Contract, the Hillsborough Intrastate Contract, the Polk County Contract, and the contract for Hardee and Highland Counties. The solicitation package does not incorporate any of the Florida Statutes or the agency's own rules regarding solicitation and award procedures in competitive bidding situations. Instead, the solicitation purports to be a self contained package of reasonably definite specifications with its own evaluation criteria and award procedures. The Petitioners in all four of the consolidated cases timely filed written protests which challenge the contents and requirements of the package. Evaluation Criteria In addition to the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation package, the Department adopted and distributed to its employees additional criteria to be used in evaluating the proposals submitted. The additional criteria are set forth in the following documents which were entered into evidence as Belveal Exhibit No. 7: Work Sheet for Evaluating Criteria and Determining Relative Value to be Applied to Technical Information, Evaluation Criteria, Scoring Matrix for Structured Interview of Offerers, Work sheet for Scoring Oral Interview, and Questions for Use at Interview. The additional criteria set forth in these documents were intended for use to award points in the evaluation of offers, and to make the award of the contracts. They were not revealed to potential offerers. Such a procedure affords opportunities for favoritism, whether or not any favoritism is actually practiced by the Department. Once the representation is made in a solicitation package that it contains the evaluation criteria, the offerers should not be subjected to an additional evaluation process. Anne Donovan, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, admitted during hearing that the additional criteria which was not included in the solicitation package are intentionally biased to give existing legal services contractors an advantage in obtaining renewal of their contracts. This is contrary to the representation made in the solicitation package which states, "Through this solicitation for offers to provide legal services, the department seeks to obtain the highest possible standard of legal representation... while ensuring free and open competition among prospective offerers." Specifications The proposed contract to be executed at the conclusion of the bid solicitation and contract award process was to provide for compensation to the contractor based on (a) the number of cases referred to the contractor during the contract term, and (b) the number of final orders obtained by the contractor in these cases referred for action. The solicitation package contains a document identified as Attachment VI, which sets fort numbers purporting to be the Department's estimates of the number and type of cases which would be referred to the successful bidder during the course of each of the contracts, the number of payable orders to be expected, and the maximum fees which would be paid for each type of order obtained pursuant to the contract. Separate estimates have been given for the following contracts: Hillsborough County Intrastate, Hillsborough County Interstate, Polk County, and Hardee and Highlands Counties. The actual numbers set forth in each of the four separate contract proposals were estimates made by the field office staff of the Department and compiled by the headquarters office. Rosemary O'Neil, the contract manager in District VI, estimated the number of functions for each of the four contracts in District VI. In identifying the direct cost amount for each individual contract, she used automated and manual statistics or the tracking of functional activities for the past year. During the preparation of her projections, Ms. O'Neil tracked only nine activities, as originally required by the Department. Later, she was required to break these down into twenty-two functions, which may have adversely affected the estimates. Ms. O'Neil and other Department personnel testified that the estimates for District VI might be too low based upon past estimates and current needs. Ms. O'Neil completed the estimates in good faith and in accordance with the Department's stated requirements. Attachment VI also contains a fee schedule based upon a functional cost survey devised and carried out by the Department between April 15, 1991 and March 31, 1992. The survey randomly selected 3,800 cases throughout the state for tracking to determine the average cost the Department paid over the stated time period for each legal activity represented in the survey. During the survey, only 2,100 of these cases were actually tracked. In October 1992, the functional cost survey was changed to include 22 instead of 10 categories of legal service activity. The implementation of the survey was faulty in that different districts tracked attorney time and paralegal time in different ways. In addition, the administrative procedures utilized by judges and hearing officers in different districts directly affected statistics in ways which were not contemplated in the survey. Without uniform procedures, the legal services performed and attorney fees charged in different counties cannot be effectively reviewed on a comparable basis to create a true average cost per function. Many of the fees allocated to different functions in the specifications were illogical. For example: Fees paid for stipulated matters were, in many cases, higher than the fees paid for contested matters of the same type. Fees paid for simple matters, such as contempt hearings, were substantially the same as fees paid for more complex litigation involving the establishment of paternity and support. Certain orders obtained by the attorney, such as bankruptcy matters, required the expenditure of time by the contractor, but did not pay any fee. The functional cost survey used to establish the terms in the solicitations for estimated number of cases, types of cases and the maximum fees to be paid is defective as it relates to District VI. Proposals cannot be comparatively reviewed because the data upon which the proposals are created is inaccurate. After the contract award, it is reasonably anticipated that the Department would be required to make modifications to the contract which would afford opportunities for favoritism.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: The previously undisclosed evaluation criteria should be included in the solicitation package if the Department intends to use them in the evaluation process. The current specifications on the projected number of cases to be referred in each contract in District VI should be revised to more reasonably and accurately reflect potential referrals within the District. The designated attorney fee for each function should be revised so that the charges are reasonably related to the work expected by the specifications in the proposal. The contents of the functional cost survey should be reevaluated based upon the evidence presented during the protest proceedings. The current specifications should be rejected as they are so flawed as to be arbitrary, in violation of state standards regarding the competitive bidding process. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1992. VERONICAL E. DONNELLY 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 22nd day of December, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner Carlton's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 5 Accepted. See HO No. 7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. See HO No. 19. Accepted. See HO No. 17. Accepted. See HO No. 18. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 - No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. See HO No. 15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. - 81. Rejected. Without jurisdiction to determine. 82. - 87. Rejected. Beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer under the Grove-Watkins review standards. 88. - 100. Rejected. Beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer. Petitioner Redman's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 7. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 8 - No. 9. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 and No. 22. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 17. Accepted. See HO No. 18. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 19. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20. The word "misleading" should be replaced by the "faulty". Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 and No. 22. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 22. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Rejected, except for the determination that the specifications are arbitrary. All other allegations were not proved at hearing. Accepted. See HO No. 11. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 13. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. Accepted. - 105. Rejected. Beyond the hearing officer's jurisdiction. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to findings, except the determination that the specifications were arbitrary and unreliable. Rejected. Beyond subject matter jurisdiction. Rejected. Competency not determined. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. - 128. Rejected. Beyond subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner Belveal's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 2. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement & HO No. 4. Accepted. See HO No. 11. Accepted. See HO No. 3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 5. Accepted. See HO No. 5 - No. 6. Accepted. See HO No. 7. Accepted. See HO No. 10. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES L CARLTON ESQ 2120 LAKELAND HILLS BLVD LAKELAND FL 33805 CECELIA M REDMAN ESQ 2124 W KENNEDY BLVD - STE B TAMPA FL 33606 DONALD W BELVEAL ESQ 100 W KENNEDY BLVD - STE 600 TAMPA FL 33602 JACK EMORY FARLEY ESQ HRS DISTRICT VI LEGAL OFFICE 4000 W DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD TAMPA FL 33614 JOHN DAVIS ESQ 1170 NE CAPITAL CIRCLE TALLAHASSEE FL 32308 JOHN SLYE ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed policies and summaries of procedures in Sections 7.29 through 7.33 of the Hillsborough County School Board Policy Manual are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is an engineering firm. Joe Robinson, a professional engineer, is the majority owner and president of Petitioner. Petitioner is a "small business" as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is also certified as a minority-owned business by the State of Florida and the School Board. Petitioner has performed engineering work on projects for the School Board in the past, and has expressed interest in performing such work for the School Board in the future. Respondent is a local school district, and is responsible for the construction, renovation, management, and operation of the public schools in Hillsborough County. To fulfill those responsibilities, Respondent is often required to obtain the services of architects, engineers and other professionals through competitive procurement under Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA). Background Prior to the Proposed Rules, the School Board's only adopted policy or procedure relating to the acquisition of professional services was Section 7.14 of the Policy Manual. That section does not specifically reference the CCNA; it simply authorizes the superintendent or his or her designee to "contract for professional or educational services to complete projects or activities authorized or approved by the school board." The only description of the School Board's existing procurement process under the CCNA is in a document entitled "Capital Projects Standard Procedures." That document was presented to but never adopted by the School Board, and it provides only a general outline of the procurement process. The procedures utilized by the School Board to procure professional architectural, engineering, and construction management services have been the subject of considerable review and some criticism over the past year. In February 2002, Mr. Robinson, on behalf of the Black Business Union, provided the School Board with a list of concerns related to the School Board's selection process, including: Selection criteria does not comport to requirements of F.S. 287.055 (i.e., points for utilizing certified minority firms, volume of work, etc.) [School Board] practices fail to follow the requirements of Chapter 4, SREF, Volume #1, and have not been adopted through any determinable policy or procedure. Compliance with [School Board] Policy 7.14 Purchasing Policies and Bidding, has not been followed. (Designees are exempt from nepotism and favoritism policy) On May 17, 2002, the Ernst & Young consulting firm submitted to the School Board a report summarizing the findings and recommendations of its "forensic evaluation and analysis of the District's construction and maintenance policies, practices, and procedures." At the request of the School Board staff, Mr. Robinson provided comments to Ernst & Young in connection with the evaluation. The Ernst & Young report was critical of many aspects of the School Board's procurement, construction, and maintenance policies, practices, and procedures. With respect to the procurement of architectural and engineering services, the report included the following assessment which is pertinent here: Our review of [the District's] vendor's [sic] selection process indicates, in many respects, that the process follows traditional requirements established by SREF and Florida Statute [sic]. Furthermore, in many instances, the procedures mirror those utilized by peer and contiguous school districts. However, we have identified significant shortcomings related to ranking the professional service providers that have submitted bids for either architectural design, engineering, or construction management services. * * * Interviews with the A/E/C [architectural/engineering/ construction] community have indicated that the vendor selection process is generally understood by the professional community. However, the architects and construction managers within the community do not understand how vendors are evaluated or ultimately rank ordered [sic] by the District to arrive at a list of the three highest ranked respondents. As a matter of fact, the District has moved away from using a score sheet or "score card" with pre-established evaluation criteria and a weighted point structure, and toward a rather subjective process whereby a selection committee simply appoints professional service providers either based upon past performance on a similar type of project (i.e. replicate design) or based upon the District's desire to equitably distribute work amongst the A/E/C community. This type of evaluation and selection process, as currently utilized by the District, while effective at distributing work amongst the A/E/C community, does not ensure that the best or most qualified vendor will be selected for each of the proposed school district projects. The current vendor selection process could permit abuse and favoritism as the selection committee could be influenced by School Board input, personal relationship [sic] and lack of objective criteria. Although we found no evidence of undue influence, the subjective nature of the process offers the District little credibility. * * * E&Y [Ernst & Young] found that the vendor selection process being utilized by [the District] lacks credibility in that it remains highly subjective as new projects are allocated without respect to numerical analysis of prior performance, company financial condition, proposed project management team, etc. Moreover, the selection committees do not rotate sufficiently to eliminate the possible influence from senior [District] Administrators or Board Members. * * * Upon comparison to each of the peer and contiguous school districts, Ernst & Young found that only [the District] engages in a vendor selection process in the absence of pre-established or pre-determined evaluation criteria and a numerically-based scoring system which permits a numerical ranking of each interested professional service provider. E&Y found that the vendor selection process being utilized by [the District] lacks credibility in that it remains highly subjective as new projects are allocated without respect to numerical analysis of proper performance, company financial condition, proposed project management team, etc. . . . Ernst & Young Report, at 27-29, 107 (emphasis supplied). The report included the following recommendations relevant to the procurement of architectural and engineering services: The District's vendor selection process can be more objective and better understood within the A/E/C community by developing standard evaluation criteria and a numerically-based scoring system. Such a system will permit the District to numerically rank each interested professional service provider and thus eliminate bias and potential favoritism of the [District] selection committee. Evaluation criteria should include, among other things, prior performance, company financial condition, proposed project management team, etc. Moreover E&Y recommends that the District augment its vendor selection committees with community members, business leaders, school principals, and other external stakeholders as appropriate. In conjunction, [the District] should also increase its rotation of the selection committees [sic] members to eliminate possible influence from senior Administrators or Board Members. Ernst & Young Report, at 117. On July 31, 2002, Gibson Consulting Group (Gibson), on behalf of the Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Governmental Accountability, submitted a report based upon its "best financial management practices" review of the School Board pursuant to Section 230.23025, Florida Statutes (2001). Unlike the Ernst & Young report, the Gibson report was not critical of the District's procurement process for professional services. Indeed, the report concluded that the District "has an efficient school planning and construction operation" (Gibson Report, at 6 and 10-1), and that it is utilizing best management practices in procuring professional services. Id. at 13 and 10-34 through 10-35. The Gibson report stated that "[t]he district can demonstrate that procedures for selection were in compliance with Subsections 287.055 and 235.211, Florida Statutes, and that the committee screened written applications in order to select an appropriate number of professionals to be interviewed and that selected candidates were interviewed." Id. at 10-34 (emphasis supplied). The Gibson report also noted that the district can demonstrate that the interview committee considered the factors described in Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, including minority business status. Id. The Gibson report did not acknowledge or address the shortcomings in the evaluation process detailed in the Ernst & Young report. The Gibson report did acknowledge that "[t]he state statute [Section 287.055] encourages objectivity," but it nevertheless concluded that the School Board’s existing procurement process is "an effective hybrid of objectivity and subjectivity." Id. at 10-35. Aside from that conclusion, the results of both studies are consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID involved a challenge to the specifications of a request for qualifications (RFQ) issued by the School Board in response to a recommendation in the Ernst & Young report that the School Board supplement its in-house staff with contract architects or engineers to provide more on-site supervision and inspection of construction projects. Petitioner in this case was also Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID concluded (consistent with the Gibson report) that "the School Board's current selection process, although not detailed in a formally-adopted rule or policy, is consistent with the procedural requirements of the CCNA." See DOAH Case No. 02- 2230BID Recommended Order, at 35 (emphasis supplied). However, the Recommended Order also concluded (consistent with the Ernst & Young report) that the evaluation of consultants was arbitrary and contrary to competition because the factors upon which the evaluation would be made and the weight afforded to each factor was not specified in advance and because the committee members did not utilize a uniform method of evaluation. Id. at 36. Based upon the conclusion that the RFQ specifications were arbitrary and contrary to competition, the Recommended Order recommended that: the School Board issue a final order that rescinds the [RFQ] and reformulates the specifications of the request in a manner that, at a minimum, advises potential respondents in advance of the factors upon which the responses will be evaluated and the weight that will be uniformly given to each factor by the selection committee. DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID Recommended Order, at 37. The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID was issued on September 6, 2002. The record does not reflect whether the School Board has issued its final order in that case yet.3 As of the date of this Order, the final order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID had not been filed with the Division in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Rulemaking Process In response to the Ernst & Young report and Petitioner's challenge to the RFQ specifications in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID, the School Board initiated the rulemaking process to formalize and improve its competitive procurement procedures under the CCNA. The Proposed Rules were drafted by Tom Blackwell, the School Board's Director of Planning and Construction, and the School Board's attorney. The Proposed Rules were reviewed by an engineer on Mr. Blackwell's staff. The language of the Proposed Rules was derived from the procurement policies used by other local school boards, the State University System, and other governmental entities. Copies of those other policies were not introduced at the hearing. The Proposed Rules were first considered by the School Board at its meeting on June 18, 2002. The record does not include a copy of the notice that was provided for the June 18, 2002, meeting. Typically, however, the agenda of the meeting is provided to the press and posted on the School Board's website. The agenda includes only the general subject-matter of the agenda items (i.e., "procurement of professional services") and not their substance. The Proposed Rules were an "off-agenda item." They did not appear on the published agenda, so the first public notice that the Proposed Rules would be considered at the June 18, 2002, meeting may have been at the meeting itself. Petitioner (through Mr. Robinson) was aware that the Proposed Rules would be considered at the June 18, 2002, meeting. Mr. Robinson attended the meeting and provided extensive comments on the Proposed Rules. Copies of the Proposed Rules were apparently available at the June 18, 2002, meeting, because Mr. Robinson annotated his copy of the Proposed Rules (Exhibit P3) as he provided his comments to the School Board. At the conclusion of the June 18, 2002, meeting, the School Board authorized its staff to "go forward" with the Proposed Rules. Based upon that authorization, notices were published in local newspapers on June 27 (The Courier), June 28 (La Gaceta), June 29 (Tampa Tribune), and July 5, 2002 (Florida Sentinel-Bulletin). The notices were published in the legal advertisement sections of the papers. The notices stated in relevant part: In compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter [sic] 120.54 of the Florida Statutes, 1978 [sic], and the School Board of Hillsborough County's policies, the public is hereby notified of the following amendment to the School Board's Policy Manual: 7.29 Acquisition of Professional Services, 7.30 Public Announcement, 7.31 Competitive Selection, 7.32 Competitive Negotiation, and 7.33 Standardized Agreements. Anyone challenging the above affected Policy/Summaries of Procedures is requested to do so in writing and mail or deliver to the address listed below within twenty-one (21) days of this notice. The public hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2002, 6:00 p.m., in the Board Room, Raymond O. Shelton School Administrative Center, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard. Copies of the affected Policy/ Summaries of Procedures, which have no appreciable economic impact on the school system, are available for inspection and copying at the office of the Superintended of Schools, Hillsborough County School Administrative Center. The notices did not identify the specific authority or law implemented by the Proposed Rules. However, that information was included on the copies of the Proposed Rules available at both the June 18 and July 30, 2002, School Board meetings. On July 11, 2002, Mr. Robinson sent a letter on behalf of Petitioner to the School Board requesting "a Public Workshop pursuant to Florida Statute 120.54(2)(c)" or an explanation from the agency head as to why such a workshop is unnecessary. On July 19, 2002, the chairwoman of the School Board responded to Mr. Robinson's letter and stated that a workshop was determined to be unnecessary because a public hearing was already scheduled on the Proposed Rules for July 30, 2002. The chairwoman also noted that the School Board staff had met with Mr. Robinson on a number of occasions to discuss the procurement policy, and that Mr. Robinson appeared at the June 18, 2002, meeting where he presented his recommendations on the policy. The chairwoman invited Mr. Robinson to submit written comments to the School Board prior to the July 30, 2002, public hearing, and to make an oral presentation to the School Board at the public hearing. On July 25, 2002, in response to the invitation in the chairwoman's letter, Petitioner (through Mr. Robinson) submitted a comprehensive procurement policy for the School Board's consideration. The policy was submitted as an alternative to the Proposed Rules. Petitioner's proposed policy (Exhibit P7) tracks the language of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. It also includes the prohibition against contingent fees and the exemption for reuse of existing plans which are in the statute but were not restated in the Proposed Rules. Petitioner's proposed policy also includes a detailed explanation of the selection process, instructions for the evaluation of applicants (including criteria to be considered in the evaluation and the process for awarding points for those criteria), and forms to be used by applicants and scoring sheets to be used by the evaluation committee. The School Board held a public hearing on the Proposed Rules at its July 30, 2002, meeting. Mr. Robinson attended the meeting and provided comments on each of the Proposed Rules. The minutes of the July 30, 2002, meeting reflect that at least one other professional, an architect, appeared and provided comments on the Proposed Rules at the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the School Board voted unanimously (six to zero) to approve the Proposed Rules. The version of the Proposed Rules approved by the School Board on July 30, 2002, included several of the changes previously recommended by Mr. Robinson. Those changes are discussed below. On August 9, 2002 (10 days after the School Board's July 30, 2002, meeting), Petitioner filed a petition with the Division requesting a determination that the Proposed Rules are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Substance of the Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules create Sections 7.29 through 7.33 of the Policy Manual. The complete text of the Proposed Rules is included in the Appendix to this Final Order. Each section of the Policy Manual has two parts, a "policy" statement and a "summary of procedures" that implement the policy. The Proposed Rules follow that same pattern. Accordingly, the "policy" and the "summary of procedures" must be read together. The specific authority cited for the Proposed Rules is Sections 230.03(2), 230.22, 230.23, 235.211, and 230.23005, Florida Statutes. The law implemented by the Proposed Rules is Sections 235.211 and 287.055, Florida Statutes. The procedural aspects of the Proposed Rules are essentially the same as the practice followed by the School Board in the past as detailed in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID. Proposed Section 7.294 establishes the general policy that professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, land surveying, or construction management services will be procured in accordance with the CCNA. The School Board's Operations Division is assigned the responsibility for administering the procurement process. Proposed Section 7.30 establishes the public announcement requirements for acquisitions of professional services on projects with construction costs in excess of $250,000 or professional service fees in excess of $25,000. Those are the same thresholds in the CCNA. The public announcement must include "a general description of the project and must indicate how interested consultants may apply for consideration." The announcement is required to be published in the Tampa Tribune, La Gaceta, the Florida Sentinel Bulletin, and another paper whose circulation is in the vicinity of the project. Proposed Section 7.31 outlines the competitive selection process. It requires firms interested in providing services to the District to be certified as being qualified to render the required service, and provides a non-exclusive list of factors to be used in determining whether the firm is qualified. Proposed Section 7.31 also creates the Professional Services Selection Committee (Committee) that is responsible for evaluating and ranking prospective providers of professional services. The Committee is chaired by the Assistant Superintendent of Operations, and the other members of the Committee are specified. The Committee is responsible for evaluating materials submitted by interested firms, conducting interviews, hearing presentations, and ranking applicants. The evaluation criteria "shall" include: the ability of professional personnel; whether the firm is a certified minority business enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms; and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the District, and such other factors which may be pertinent to the project. Section 7.31 (emphasis supplied). The word "shall" was used rather than "may" based upon Mr. Robinson's comments at the June 18, 2002, workshop. As a result, consideration of these criteria/factors is mandatory. However, as the underscored language suggests, the evaluation criteria may vary from project to project. The project-specific evaluation criteria will be available to prospective applicants at the time of the public announcement along with the location of project, scope of work, project budget, project schedule, and submission requirements. See Proposed Section 7.30. In addition, Proposed Section 7.31 requires the weights to be associated with each qualification and evaluation criteria to be disseminated to prospective applicants, presumably also at the time of the public announcement. Proposed Section 7.31 requires the Committee to "report a consensus evaluation for each applicant, including a relative ranking for each weighted criteria." The phrase "consensus evaluation" is not explained, but because the Committee is required to "short-list" the three firms that receive the "highest aggregate score" it appears that the evaluation will be made based upon a numerical scoring system. Such a system is a significant improvement over the existing evaluation process which was found to be arbitrary in the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 02-2230BID at pages 16-17. Indeed, the School Board's witnesses confirmed that, although the criteria and weights may vary from project to project, all of the applicants for a particular project will be evaluated and scored by the Committee members in a uniform manner. The Committee is required to interview the applicants as part of its evaluation if the project's construction cost is more than $1 million. If the cost is less than $1 million, Proposed Section 7.31 provides that interviews are optional. The purpose of the threshold was not explained at the hearing. Mr. Blackwell simply testified that the threshold was derived from a review of the policies of other governmental entities. Those policies were not introduced at the hearing, and the record is devoid of any other evidence to justify the School Board's choice of $1 million as the threshold, as compared to some other amount. The Committee's "short-list" will be submitted to the School Board for approval. Thereafter, the School Board is required to notify each applicant of the "short-listed" firms. The notice must be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, and must include the notice required by Section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The latter requirement was added after the June 18, 2002, meeting based upon Mr. Robinson's comments. Proposed Section 7.32 outlines the competitive negotiation process. Pursuant to that section, the Director of Planning and Construction is required to negotiate with the top- ranked firm. The top-ranked firm is required to submit a fee proposal with supportive information, if required. If a mutually acceptable compensation package cannot be negotiated with the top-ranked firm, negations will commence with the next firm on the "short list." Upon completion of successful negotiations, the agreed compensation must be submitted to the School Board for approval. Proposed Section 7.33 requires the Director of Planning and Construction, in collaboration with the School Board attorney, to prepare standard contract documents to be used on all projects. Modifications from the standard documents must be clearly indicated. In short, the polices and summaries of procedures in the Proposed Rules prescribe the process that will be followed in connection with all procurements subject to the CCNA. The policies and procedures also prescribe the critical substantive aspects of the process, but they contemplate additional detail being provided on a project-by-project basis in the solicitation package (i.e., RFQ or request for proposals (RFP)) for the project. The project-specific materials, which will be available to potential applicants at the time of the public announcement (and, hence, in advance of the submittal and evaluation of responses) will specify the particular evaluation criteria/factors to be used by the Committee as well as the weight that will be given to each factor. Those materials will include forms, instructions, and other information similar to that in Petitioner's alternative proposal (Exhibit P7). The Proposed Rules do not specifically incorporate the prohibition on contingent fees in Section 287.055(6), Florida Statutes, nor do they incorporate the provisions of Section 287.055(10), Florida Statutes, relating to reuse of existing plans.
The Issue The issues are whether the intended contract awarded to Intervenor, The Henry and Rilla White Foundation, Inc. (Intervenor or White), pursuant to Request for Proposals #P2062 (RFP) for an Intensive Delinquency Diversion Services (IDDS) program in Palm Beach County, Florida (Circuit 15), is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, policies and rules, and the RFP. Petitioner, Juvenile Services Program, Inc. (Petitioner or JSP), timely challenged the intended award, and alleged that the award to Intervenor was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency for this proceeding. Petitioner is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida. Intervenor is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Florida. On November 23, 2009, Respondent issued the RFP to select a provider to operate IDDS programs in multiple counties, multiple circuits, within Florida. Petitioner did not protest the specifications of the RFP within 72 hours of the issuance of the RFP. Petitioner and White submitted timely responses to the RFP. Both sought the award for Circuit 15. On or about March 5, 2010, the Department posted its NOAA and informed all parties of its intent to award the contract at issue to Intervenor. The NOAA ranked White, first, with 1549.78 points; JSP, second, with 1451.34 points; and Urban League of Palm Beach, Inc., third, with 862.58 points. Petitioner filed a formal protest of the intended award to White on March 15, 2010. Thereafter, representatives from Petitioner and Respondent met to attempt resolution of the protest, but were unsuccessful. As the case moved forward to trial, White petitioned to intervene as the first ranked proposer. It is uncontested that White and JSP have standing in this matter. Throughout these proceedings, Petitioner maintained that Respondent scored the proposals contrary to the specifications of the RFP. Additionally, Petitioner claimed that the persons appointed to evaluate the proposals for the award did not have the requisite experience and knowledge in the program areas, and service requirements sufficient to score the proposals. Under the RFP, three components were to be scored by the evaluators: a technical section; a financial section; and a past performance section. A team of three evaluators independently scored the proposals submitted. Department program area managers selected the evaluators, who were then approved by the Department’s Deputy Secretary. All evaluators were trained in the evaluation process. In order to assure that appropriate employees are selected to serve as evaluators, Amy Johnson, Respondent’s chief of contracts, created a spreadsheet to identify those employees who are qualified to evaluate different types of procurements. The spreadsheet notes which program service area each employee is approved to serve. All of the evaluators in this case were chosen and deemed credentialed by Respondent to evaluate the subject RFP. In this case Karen McNeal, Jeffrey Balliet, and Cheryl Surls were selected and approved to evaluate the responses to the RFP. Ms. Johnson insured that the evaluators were trained to perform their duties. In this regard, Ms. Johnson reviewed the rules of the evaluation process and a generic evaluation with each of the evaluators. Training for the evaluators included how to score, along with sample scoring sheets. Although Ms. McNeal had not served as an evaluator prior to this case, she was appropriately trained and instructed in the methodology and guidelines for scoring proposals. Further, her job training and experience assured that she was familiar with IDDS program services. Mr. Balliet has served as an evaluator for proposals for approximately ten years. Mr. Balliet was appropriately trained and instructed in the scoring process. Additionally, Mr. Balliet’s work experience also qualified him to evaluate the IDDS proposals encompassed within the RFP responses. Finally, Ms. Surls has been familiar with the programs and services of IDDS for several years. She also completed RFP evaluation training prior to being placed on the spreadsheet list of potential evaluators. On January 11, 2010, Elaine Atwood, the procurement officer for the instant RFP, conducted a conference call with the evaluators for this case. All of the evaluators were familiar with the IDDS program and were provided an opportunity to ask Paul Hatcher, the author of the scope of services for this RFP, any program question regarding IDDS and/or the RFP. The Evaluation Team Ground Rules and Instruction specified that the evaluators were to read, evaluate, and score the proposals based upon the scoring sheet matrix. The evaluators were directed not to speak to other evaluators, nor to consider any information from any source other than the information provided within the proposal itself. If any evaluators were to require assistance, he or she was instructed to contact Ms. Atwood. All scoring was to be done based upon the solicitation document and the proposal submitted. The matrix for scoring assigned a score from 0 to 5 depending upon how well the proposal addressed the specification requirement. A score of 5 constituted the highest rating, and only those proposals that exceeded all technical specifications and requirements for the service component specified, with innovative, comprehensive, and complete detail were to receive that score. A score of 0 would be assigned when the proposal did not address the service component specified, or the evaluator could not locate the information in the proposal necessary to use another rating number. Petitioner maintained that one evaluator, Ms. McNeal, failed to follow the directions related to changes to scoring. It is concluded that Ms. McNeal adequately marked the score sheet, such that there was no confusion as to the score awarded, or the time of its entry. Contemporaneous with an initial score of “5” for the category “Management Capability,” Ms. McNeal re-marked the JSP score to a “4.” Similarly, Ms. McNeal re-marked the JSP score for the category “Consideration 1" from “5” to “4.” Any “change” occurred in the matter of moments that it took for Ms. McNeal to re-mark the score sheet, and did not indicate a reflection or after-thought of “change.” If anything, the “change” was to correct an error of marking. Ms. McNeal’s testimony as to the marking of the score sheet and her rationale for re-marking it has been deemed credible. Any deviation from the instructions as to a requirement that “change” must be documented is deemed minor or insignificant. Documenting a “change” is deemed minor and insignificant in this case, because the notation for the score of “4” was contemporaneous with the initial mark and not a later after- thought. Petitioner also challenged Ms. Surls’ award of the score “3” to all of JSP’s categories. Petitioner maintained that such an award demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding the subject matter addressed. To the contrary, Ms. Surls also awarded the score of “3” to White. The only category that exceeded “3” on Ms. Surls scoring of White was "Behavioral Management," for which Intervenor received a “4.” Ms. Surls was consistent and thorough in her review of the proposals and commented appropriately as to the basis for each score. The Technical Proposal narrative submitted by White did not exceed sixty pages. Petitioner did not contest scoring where an evaluator increased JSP’s score without comment. None of the alleged “changes” to scoring gave any proposal an unfair advantage. All proposals were given the same consideration and thoughtful review. The Department has used RFPs to cover multiple circuits in numerous instances. Petitioner did not timely challenge the process of providing for proposals for multiple circuits. Moreover, no evidence supports a finding that the process of covering multiple circuits within one RFP is inherently flawed or contrary to law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Petition filed by Juvenile Service Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Tonja White Mathews, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice The Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Walter Kelly, Esquire The Nelson Law Firm, PLC 1020 East Lafayette Street, Suite 214 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice The Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice The Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on a construction project referred to as Florida Atlantic University Modulars. The ITB required a base bid and bids on five alternates to the base project. Each bidder was instructed that it must bid on the base project and on each alternate for its bid proposal to be considered responsive. On March 19, 1990, Addendum 1 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was an informational addendum and advised the date, time, and location of the posting of the award recommendation. Addendum 1 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 21, 1990, Addendum 2 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was also an informational addendum and advised as to a non- mandatory, pre-bid conference to be held March 27, 1990. Addendum 2 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 30, 1990, Addendum 3 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This addendum advised that the date and time for the bid opening had been changed to April 9, 1990, at 2:00 p.m. Addendum 3 also contained modifications, explanations and corrections to the original drawings and specifications which impacted the cost and scope of the project. Immediately above the signature line on the cover page of Addendum 3 was the following: This document must be returned in it's [sic] entirety with the bid. Please sign below to verify that you have read and understand all the changes. Item 2 on page ADD-1 of Addendum 3 required each bidder to submit its per unit price structure with its response to the ITB and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: ... The unit price shall not be included in Base Bid. Submit a separate sheet with bid package. The following instructions are given in Paragraph 1(c) of the Instructions to Bidder: NO ERASURES ARE PERMITTED. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The instructions are repeated in Paragraph 1 of the General Conditions of the ITB: EXECUTION OF BID: ... No erasures are permitted. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids, or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The following is contained as part of the Instructions to Bidder: Failure to complete, sign, seal and return the required documents will result in rejection of your bid. Any questions should be directed to Susan Kuzenka, (305) 761-7460, Purchasing Department, Broward Community College. (Emphasis in the original.) Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions portion of the bid package provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 8. AWARDS. As the best interest of Broward Community College may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received ... On April 9, 1990, Petitioner submitted a bid to Respondent in response to the ITB. Petitioner had received the complete bid package, including all instructions and addenda to the bid package. At the pre-bid conference held March 27, 1990, an employee of Respondent emphasized to the attendees that it was necessary for the bidders to return Addendum 3 in its entirety. Petitioner did not attend the non-mandatory, pre-bid conference. The base bid submitted by Petitioner was $1,085,790.00. The base bid of Double E Construction Co., the next low bidder and the bidder to whom Respondent intends to award the contract, was $1,113,300.00. Petitioner's bid for each of the alternates was lower than that of Double E Construction Co. Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum 3 as instructed. On page four of the bid package Petitioner acknowledged that it had received Addendum 3, and it signed and returned the cover sheet to Addendum 3 under the language quoted in the foregoing Paragraph 4. Respondent considered this an important requirement because it wanted to prevent a bidder from later claiming that it had not received Addendum 3 or that it had received information different than that contained in Addendum 3. Petitioner made a correction to its bid for Alternate Number 3 found on page 5 of 13 of Petitioner's bid. Petitioner's bid for this alternate was $88,000. In the space for the written amount of the bid, Petitioner's president inserted by hand the words "Eighty-eight Thousand". In the space for the numerical insertion of the bid he initially wrote the sum $125,000 (which was the amount of Petitioner's bid for Alternate 4). He struck through the figure $125,000 and wrote above the stricken figure the figure $88,000. He did not initial his change. Respondent has never accepted changes to price quotations which were not initialed because it is concerned that uninitialed corrections on bids may result in challenges to the integrity of the bid process and may expose its staff to charges of collusion from a disgruntled bidder. Pioneer did not include a unit price structure in its bid as required by Addendum 3. The unit price structure is an informational item that is not separately considered by Respondent to determine the lowest bidder on this project. On April 6, 1990, Petitioner's estimator on this bid telephoned Susan Kuzenka regarding the unit price structure sheet to inquire as to the format that should be followed in submitting the unit price structure. Ms. Kuzenka is named in the Instructions to Bidder as the person in Respondent's purchasing department to whom questions about the bid process should be directed. Petitioner's estimator was told that the unit prices would be required to be submitted by the successful bidder at the pre-construction meeting after the bids were opened, but that the unit price structure need not be submitted with the bid. Petitioner's president verified this information on April 9, 1990, prior to the bid opening, during a telephone conference with the project engineer employed by Respondent for this project. In reliance on the information that was supplied by Respondent's agents, Petitioner did not submit its unit price structure sheet with its bid. Following its examination of all bids, the bid of Petitioner was disqualified on three grounds. The first reason cited by Respondent was that Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum (3) as required. The second reason was that Petitioner did not initial a correction to a quoted price figure. The third reason was that Petitioner did not include the unit price structure as required in Addendum (3). Petitioner thereafter timely protested its disqualification and the intended award of the contract to Double E Construction Co. Petitioner contends that the reasons cited by Respondent for its disqualification are minor irregularities that should be waived by Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the third reason should not disqualify it because Petitioner acted in reliance upon the instructions of Respondent's agents in not submitting the unit price structure along with its bid package. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Broward Community College, enter a final order which denies the bid protest of Petitioner, Pioneer Contracting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2. 6 and 7 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 10. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached because of the clear instructions contained in Addendum 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last two sentences of paragraph 5 are supported by the evidence, but are not adopted as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. All proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part. Copies furnished: Eric L. Dauber, Esquire Beyer & Dauber Suite 5300 2101 W. Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 James D. Camp III, Counsel Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Janet Rickenbacker Director of Purchasing Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue : The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the agency action in recommending award of the contract for a renovation of a National Guard Armory to Concrete Services, Inc. (CSI) was "clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious." More specifically, it must be determined whether a specification requiring that all general and subcontractors visit the project site and examine the existing site conditions prior to bid submittal, and certifying to that fact, was a waivable or minor irregularity, not affecting the price of the proposal by giving an unfair competitive advantage to any bidder or proposed vendor.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Military Affairs (Department) issued an invitation to bid for certain renovation work at the National Guard Armory in Tallahassee. The invitation to bid was issued on March 2, 2008. It was accompanied by an advertisement number 207005 and addenda No. 1-3. These were the documents that defined the scope of the work proposed to be constructed by the Department and the various specifications, conditions, and criteria which were to guide and be relied upon by prospective vendors or bidders. The invitation to bid stated that the contract would be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The invitation to bid notified prospective bidders that the Department reserved the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid where they did not affect the price of the proposal. Thus, the Department stated in the Invitation to Bid "the Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received and reserves the right to make an award with or without further discussion of the proposals submitted or accept minor informalities or irregularities in the best interest of the State of Florida, which are considered a matter of form and not substance and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other proposals." The reasons stated in the Invitation to Bid and Addenda for disqualification of a bidder did not include the failure of the contractor or subcontractors to visit the project site. Rather, the invitation to bid and advertisement list placed on the discriminatory business list, the submission of an electronic bid and employment of unauthorized aliens as irregularities that would result in disqualification of a bidder. The invitation to bid defines minor irregularities as "those that will not have an adverse effect on the DMA's interest and will not affect the price of the proposal by giving a proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by all other proposers." The Department thus did not make failure of a contractor or subcontractor to visit the site of the project an event that would result in disqualification. The Department's intent rather was to place contractors on notice that failure to visit the site would be at the sole risk of the general contractor/bidder if failure to visit the site resulted in an unforeseen problem, cost, or risk. The Department stated at Addendum 1, D-9 the following: D-9 site examination by contractor: The general contractor and all subcontractors as listed on Exhibit Five, shall visit the project site and examine the existing conditions affected by this work prior to submitting a bid. Any bid submitted without prior examination of on-site existing conditions will be at the sole risk of the general contractor. The contractor shall submit on its letterhead the following at time of bid, certifying that he and his subs thoroughly examined the project site: 'I (name of general contractor), do hereby certify that all associated general and subcontractor entities have visited the project site and thoroughly examined the on- site existing conditions prior to the submittal of the bid.' Lt. Col. Keating is the contract officer and manager. His duties include reviewing the bids and making final determination on bid proposals submitted to the Department for projects such as this renovation project. He reviewed the entire package of bid submissions after the bid opening in Tallahassee. These are his duties concerning every bid opening of the Department. Lt. Col. Keating reviewed the failure of CSI to submit the Addendum D-9 letter and determined that the absence of the letter did not give CSI an unfair competitive advantage. He determined that this was a minor irregularity which was waivable. Mr. Hersey was the construction consultant for the Department for this project. Mr. Hersey reviewed the CSI file after the bids were submitted, noting that CSI's bid did not include all the verbiage required by Addendum One, D-9. He determined, however, that the proposed included the "Exhibit 4" document which stated that CSI had "visited the site of the proposed project and familiarized himself with the local conditions, nature, and extent of the work." Mr. Hersey brought this omission to Lt. Col. Keating's attention. Lt. Col. Keating considered the failure of CSI to submit the Addendum 1, D-9 letter language and determined that the omission did not give CSI an unfair competitive advantage over other bidders and therefore that it was a minor irregularity. He determined that the fact that there was language in the bid submittal of CSI to the effect that the contractor had visited the site and familiarized himself with conditions, nature, and scope of the work made the bid actually responsive. The failure to include the language required in Addendum 1, D-9 did not render the bid unqualified or non- responsive, but, instead, the failure to include that language would have the consequence of making CSI responsible for any loss caused by the failure to visit the project site or have the subcontractors visit the project site before bidding. If that omission caused any additional cost or unforeseen circumstances which had a cost attributable to them, CSI would have to bear the risk of paying for any such expense itself under the terms of the specifications. It was thus determined that the failure to visit the site had the consequence of making the contractor assume resulting risks but was considered by the Department to be a quality assurance measure in the specifications, instead of a determining or qualifying factor for award of the project. Lt. Col. Keating determined that the failure to submit the required language in the letter did not give CSI an unfair competitive advantage. CSI's bid was $1,866,212.00. The bid of the Petitioner, Warren Building Company, Inc., was $1,944,000.00. Thus, CSI's bid was $77,788.00 lower than the bid submitted by the Petitioner Warren. In preparing his bid submittal, the Petitioner had not been charged by his subcontractors for their visiting the Tallahassee project site. His entire cost of submitting the response to the invitation to bid on behalf of Warren, was $10,000.00 or less. Thus, the failure by CSI to have subcontractors visit the site and evaluate the work was clearly not shown to have saved CSI costs, in an amount anywhere approaching the total difference in the amounts of the two bids. Only if the avoidance of such costs represented by the visits of the contractor and subcontractors to the job site was greater than or at least approximately equal to the $77,788.00 difference between the two bids, would the failure of CSI to entirely comply with this specification result in a change in the relative competitive positions of the two bidders. Put another way, there was no evidence to show that had CSI completely complied with the disputed specification, that it would not still have much the lowest-priced responsible and responsive bid. It was thus determined by Lt. Col. Keating that the $1,866,212.00 bid submitted by CSI was the lowest responsible and responsive bid. He therefore determined that the award of the contract should be give to CSI and an Agency decision to that effect was posted on April 11, 2008. The subject protest and proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Military Affairs, awarding the contract for renovation work at the National Guard Armory in Tallahassee, Florida (No. 207005) to Concrete Services, Incorporated. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Thayer M. Marts, Esquire 1105 Hays Street Post Office Box 1814 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kim F. Heller, II, Esquire Elizabeth C. Masters, Esquire Florida National Guard Post Office Box 1008 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-1008 Elizabeth C. Masters, Lt. Colonel Florida Army National Guard 82 Marine Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue The issue in this case, a bid protest, is whether the intended decision of Respondent, Orange County School Board (the "School Board"), to award a contract for interactive devices and associated equipment to Intervenor, SMART Technologies Corporation ("Smart"), instead of to Promethean, Inc. ("Promethean"), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Promethean is a Delaware corporation. Its parent company, founded some 15 years ago in the United Kingdom, has operations throughout North America, Europe and elsewhere. The original reason for founding the company was to develop interactive whiteboard technology. Promethean is now one of the leaders in interactive technology and has prior experience with the School Board, with as many as 1,900 interactive whiteboards installed in Orange County schools. The School Board is the public entity responsible for investigating, purchasing, and implementing interactive technology into the classrooms of the Orange County public school system. The School Board is the tenth largest school district in the nation and the fourth largest in Florida. It is the second largest employer in Orange County, Florida, with over 21,000 full and part-time employees. The district consists of over 180 schools and has over 179,000 students. Smart is also a leader in the interactive technology field. Smart, a Delaware corporation, has offices in Arlington, Virginia and Calgary, Canada. Smart and Promethean, combined, have 80 to 90 percent of the K-12 market for interactive technology. On or about August 17, 2010, the School Board issued Request for Information No. 1008466RFI (the "RFI"), inviting manufacturers and retailers to demonstrate interactive devices to the School Board's Audio Visual Committee. Timely responses to the RFI were made by several entities, including both Promethean and Smart. On or about February 16, 2011, based on its review of information received, the School Board issued Interactive Devices and Associated Equipment ITN No. 1102044ITN. The submittal date for responses to the ITN was set for March 10, 2011. An ITN goes through a process whereby the School Board posts a solicitation and vendors submit their proposals. Then a committee is formed to evaluate the proposals. Based upon their review, a short list of responding firms is created, narrowing the number of proposals that will be further considered. The short list firms' proposals are then opened for further negotiation and discussion. At that point, the School Board's procurement experts take over the process for doing the negotiations with each vendor. After completion of the negotiations, a recommendation is made for approval of one vendor. The purpose of the ITN was to "request solicitations from manufacturers who can provide the interactive device solutions (with or without a board), portable stands or permanent wall installation throughout the school year in varying quantities from individual location sites within the District. These purchases will be made through the Procurement Services Department on an as requested basis. The purchases will not be made on any schedule[d] purchase plan." The ITN also stated that manufacturers must be able to provide a complete classroom solution including the following components and suggestions: A board or board-mounted solution; A tablet or slate type device that allows remote control; A document camera that can be controlled via the manufacturer's software; Student response systems that interface with the manufacturer's software; Multi-touch capability (two or more people interacting with the surface simultaneously) "would be desirable"; and Use of Bluetooth wireless connections is "discouraged." The ITN also describes the process that would be used in evaluating responses. Pertinent portions of the ITN are set forth below: Proposal Evaluation Committee A Proposal Evaluation Committee (PEC) consisting of District Staff will convene, review, evaluate and rank all valid responses submitted based on the evaluation criteria developed by the Committee. The Proposal Evaluation Committee reserves the right to interview any, all or none of the Manufacturers that responded to the ITN and to require formal presentations with the key personnel who will administer and be assigned to work on behalf of the contract before recommendation of the award. This interview is to be based upon the written proposal received. * * * Evaluation Criteria Only proposals that meet the minimum requirements will be scored. Proposal that meet the minimum Technical requirements will be evaluated based on the following criteria: Shortlist Evaluation Possible Maximum Criteria Points Weight Value Experience, Qualifications 150 30% Equipment Solution 250 70% Should the PEC members request presentation or interview from shortlisted Manufacturers, the following evaluation criteria will apply: Presentation/Interview Possible Maximum Evaluation Criteria Points Weight Value Education Impact & Operational Effectiveness 100 50% Experience 100 20% Price & Cost Containment Strategies 100 30% * * * The Procurement Representative shall calculate all scoring and determine a ranking of the short listed firms based on the presentation/interview evaluation criteria. * * * The District deserves the right to negotiate the price and contract terms and conditions with the most qualified firm(s) to provide the requested service. If a mutually beneficial agreement with the first selected Manufacturer [cannot be reached], the Committee reserves the right to enter into contract negotiations with the next highest ranked Manufacturer and continue the process until agreement is reached. * * * The District reserves the right to negotiate, either serially or concurrently, with any and all Manufacturers at any point in the solicitation process. The District reserves the right to finalize the negotiations at any point and post an "Intent to Award" notice. Manufacturers should recognize the District's right to finalize the negotiation process without the need to explicitly request an interim revised response or a best and final offer. The District reserves the right to award based on the offer that is deemed the best value to the State. . . . Timely responses to the ITN were submitted by six manufacturers: Promethean, Smart, Sanford Brands, QOMO Hite Vision, PolyVision, and AVerMedia. The responses were reviewed by the PEC which was composed of a diverse group of School Board officials with varying backgrounds in finance, academia, and school administration. The PEC ranked the proposals submitted by each manufacturer based upon the first two general criteria: I. Experience and qualifications; and II. Equipment solution. Price and cost containment strategies were not considered at that time. Promethean and Its Proposal Promethean initially began its business operations with a product called the ActivBoard 78, or AB78, a 78-inch (diagonally measured) board with certain desired functions. It was the first active board furnished to the School Board. In 2009, Promethean developed the AB164 and AB178, the next series in the development of active boards. The next series of active boards it developed was the 300 series. That series included the AB378 and an upgraded version, the AB378PRO. The latter version includes speakers and sound capability built into the board and has dual pen capability. That is, the AB378PRO allows the teacher to operate the board with one pen, while the student operates at the same time with a separate pen. The AB378 can have dual pen capability, but it must be added as an option, rather than being part of the board's basic functions. The two pens operate on different frequencies so that the student's interaction can be distinguished from the teacher's movements on the board. The AB378 or AB378PRO is used in most of Promethean's demonstrations to potential school customers. Of the 1,900 whiteboards installed by Promethean for the School Board, approximately 620 are AB378PROs, about 700 are AB378s, and the rest are primarily the AB78s, predecessor to the AB178s. As part of its response to the ITN, Promethean also included a slate, basically a small whiteboard held by students at their desks. Promethean also offered the ActivExpression device, referred to in the industry as a student response system or learner response system. Using ActivExpression, a teacher could pose questions to students who would respond on their slate. The responses would then be tallied into the ActivExpression device, telling the teacher whether the students were keeping up or needed more instruction on a particular area of instruction. The Promethean proposal included an ActivHub, a device which plugs into a USB port on the whiteboard or a computer and allows wireless access to other products offered by Promethean, such as the slate. The proposal also included a document camera called an ActivView. Students use it to display copies of documents on the whiteboard and then annotate the document using the pens. Software on the various versions of Promethean's whiteboards can be different. The AB178, for example, includes their ActivInspire basic edition. The AB378 and AB378PRO come with ActivInspire Professional Edition. The ActivExpression learner response systems come with ActivInspire Professional. That software is available on the AB178, but it must be added. With ActivInspire Professional Edition, Promethean makes the site license available to the schools. The site license was offered as part of Promethean's proposal to the School Board in its ITN response. Promethean also offered the School Board the right to use AtivInspire Professional Edition on their existing whiteboards provided by the competitor, Smart. However, that offer was contingent upon Promethean being the sole provider of whiteboards for future purchases. Smart and Its Proposal Smart proposed a whiteboard from its D680 series. That whiteboard also had dual touch capability. Smart's boards had a different design than Promethean's boards and provided a touch screen that could be operated by the touch of a person's finger, rather than using a pen. Smart uses a resistive technology as opposed to Promethean's electromagnetic technology. Smart's product included a math package as part of the offered software. That software was extremely attractive to the School Board due to the manner in which it might assist teachers. Smart offered a volume discount for purchases if the School Board would make Smart the sole provider for equipment during the two-year contract period. There is no evidence that the School Board accepted that offer. Smart also proposed its SRP-XE-24 high-end learner response system. A $30,000 credit was offered to the School Board on this system, but only if the School Board purchased 60 of the units at a cost of $106,000. Again, there is no evidence that the School Board availed itself of that credit offer. There was no testimony or evidence presented as to the elements of any other entity involved in the negotiations. The School Board appears to have given both Smart and Promethean's proposals full consideration. The School Board's Review Upon receipt of the responses to the ITN, on March 15, 2011, the School Board issued an Evaluation Ranking based upon the general review criteria. Promethean achieved the top rank with a total of 220 points; Smart was second with 197.10 points, and Sanford Brands was third with 142.50 points. Each of the other applicants received less than 100 points. The PEC agreed by consensus to invite the three top ranked firms for interviews and presentations. Notice was posted on March 15, 2011, identifying the three selected applicants. The interviews and presentations were scheduled as follows: Sanford Brands--March 21, 2011, at 11:00 a.m.; Promethean--March 21, 2011, at 2:45 p.m.; and Smart--March 22, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. As directed by the ITN, the PEC scored each manufacturer on the basis of the Educational Impact/Operational Effectiveness criteria and the Experience criteria. It did not, however, assign any scores for the Price and Cost Containment criterion. On March 31, 2011, the School Board issued another evaluation ranking based on the PEC's scoring of the first two evaluation criteria. This time, Smart was ranked first with 63 points; Promethean was second with 61.50 points; and Sanford Brands was third with 42.50 points. The PEC agreed by consensus to invite the top two firms to enter into negotiations with the School Board. Representatives of Promethean and Smart met with the School Board's procurement staff in separate negotiation sessions on May 4, 2011. Both Promethean and Smart then entered into an exchange of documents and information with the School Board, including final specifications for relevant models, final pricing lists, and various other data. Promethean initially asked for additional time to submit its documentation and information, but that request was denied by the School Board. Promethean then provided its first updated data on the afternoon of May 5, 2011, the day after meeting with the procurement staff. At that time, Promethean provided the School Board with its "lowest and best offer" for its proposal. The offer included "value added" items, such as spare parts and software licensing, a rebate arrangement, training, and professional development, all at no cost to the School Board. Promethean, thereafter, provided corrections to its pricing list and an updated equipment list to a procurement representative via a telephone call on May 12, 2011, followed up by an email. Smart submitted its first updates just after midnight, i.e., technically on May 6, 2011. Smart, thereafter, on May 10 and 12, 2011, submitted updates further reducing the prices for its proposal. There is no evidence in the record as to why Smart submitted further updates to the School Board, but there is no direct prohibition in the ITN against doing so. Based upon the information provided, the live presentations, and a review of the School Board's needs, the School Board posted its Notice of Intent awarding the contract to Smart on May 24, 2011. The notice was based on a price comparison between Smart's D680 model and Promethean's AB378PRO. The School Board did not consider Promethean's AB178 model because, although it can be upgraded to comply with the requirements in the ITN, it was not an acceptable system without the updates. The cost comparisons forming the final decision by the School Board are as follows: Slate/Tablet $ 272.00 $ 351.02 Response System $1,088.00 $1,544.49 Document Camera $ 692.00 $ 486.62 TOTAL $3,249.00 $3,641.70 The comparison was based on prices submitted by Promethean on Component Smart Promethean Interactive Board $1,197.00 $1,259.57 May 5, 2011, and on prices submitted by Smart on May 5, 2011, as revised on May 10 and 12, 2011. Promethean also made suggested changes to its prices on May 24, 2011, but the School Board's decision had already been made by that time. It was later determined that one of the added costs anticipated by the School Board for Promethean's proposal would not be necessary if the AB378PRO model was considered. Also, the price for Promethean's slate should have been $265.12, rather than as stated. The combination of those two changes could reduce Promethean's total price to $3,406.80, but that would still be higher than Smart's price. The Warranty Issue The ITN called for a minimum 5-year replacement or repair warranty, postage paid--advanced replacement or on-site support, with a maximum 48-hour response time. The standard warranty on Promethean's AB178 is one year, plus one additional year at registration. On the AB378 and AB378PRO, the standard warranty is three years plus two additional years at registration. Neither of the warranties is an advanced replacement warranty; they are only standard warranties. None of the other components of Promethean's proposal normally comes with a standard five-year warranty. In fact, Promethean does not even offer those warranties for purchase for the various components. In order to obtain five-year warranties for the whiteboard component, a customer would have to purchase them at an additional cost. However, as part of its pricing component for the ITN response, Promethean added in a five-year advanced replacement warranty for both the whiteboard and the other components of its proposal. Smart's interactive boards have five-year warranties, but they are not specifically advance replacement warranties. They would constitute repair warranties, however. The Final Decision The School Board's review of the two proposals considered Smart's D680 series to be most similar to Promethean's AB378 or AB378PRO whiteboard. Its review of the proposals presumed the inclusion of dual pen or dual touch technology. The ability to add that technology to a whiteboard not equipped with it as a standard feature was not acceptable to the School Board. If the School Board had compared Smart's D680 series to Promethean's AB178, it is likely Promethean's proposal could have come in at a lower overall cost. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Promethean intended its AB178 to be considered or that the School Board would be satisfied with the AB178 series interactive boards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Orange County Public Schools upholding its Notice of Intent to award the contract to Smart Technologies Corporation and denying the Petition filed by Promethean, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald (Ron) Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801-0271 Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Diego Rodriguez, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1129 Susan L. St. John, Esquire Ruden McClosky 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Post Office Drawer 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
