The Issue The issue in this case is whether the proposed award by the Division of Emergency Management (DEM) of the contract referenced herein to Everbridge, Inc. (Everbridge) is contrary to DEM’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 2015, DEM posted RFP-DEM-15-16-037 (RFP), titled ”Florida Statewide Emergency Alert and Notification System,” on the state’s Vendor Bid System (“VBS”). The purpose of the RFP is to procure a statewide emergency alert and notification system as mandated by section 252.35(2)(a)(6) Florida Statutes, which requires the DEM to “[e]stablish a system of communications and warning to ensure that the state’s population and emergency management agencies are warned of developing emergency situations and can communicate emergency response decisions.” DEM is a separate budget entity established within the Executive Office of the Governor. Tara Walters, the purchasing manager for DEM, was responsible for the RFP and the procurement process. According to the RFP, the system is to be “vendor- hosted” and capable of proving “mass notification” of “imminent or sudden hazards” through voice telephone calls, text messages, emails, social media, and “Telecommunications Device of the Deaf/TeleTYpewriter (TDD/TTY)” systems. ECN and Everbridge are vendors of mass notification systems. Section 5 of the RFP provided, in relevant part, as follows: RESPONSIVENESS Vendor. In order to qualify as a responsive vendor as that term is defined by section 287.012(27), Florida Statutes, a Proposer must submit a proposal that conforms in all material respects to this solicitation. Proposal. In order to qualify as a responsive proposal as that term is defined by section 287.012(26), Florida Statutes, a proposal must conform in all material respects to this solicitation. The Division shall not consider any proposal that contains a material deviation from the terms of this solicitation. However, the Division reserves the right to consider a proposal that contains a minor deviation or irregularity so long as that minor deviation or irregularity does not provide a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The Division shall not permit a vendor to amend a proposal after the due date for submissions – even if to correct a deviation or irregularity. * * * A proposal may fail to qualify as responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to: Failure to include a material form or addendum; Failure to include material information; Modification of the proposal specifications; Submission of conditional proposals or incomplete proposals; and, Submission of indefinite or ambiguous proposals. Section 28 of the RFP included specific proposal format instructions. Each proposal was to contain two parts: a “Technical Proposal” (Part I) and a “Price Proposal” (Part II). The RFP explicitly identified the contents to be set forth within each part. The Technical Proposal was to include multiple sections, including a table of contents, an executive summary, and a “Management Plan.” According to the RFP, the Management Plan was required to include four elements: the vendor’s relevant experience; significant examples of the vendor’s other clients and pertinent references; a project staffing plan; and a completed “data sheet,” the form for which was included in the RFP. The RFP also required that the Technical Proposal include a section identified as “Technical Plan/Minimum System Requirements” related to the “Scope of Work” necessary to implement the system. The referenced minimum requirements were explicitly set forth at Exhibit “A” to the RFP. Finally, the RFP required that the Technical Proposal include the vendor’s financial statements for the prior three years as follows: The Proposer shall provide information regarding its financial status in order to demonstrate that it is financially stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis. Proposers are to include financial statements created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the last three years. (Financial documentation may be combined into one file and are not included in the page count). The Division reserves the right to evaluate the financial status of any or all Proposers before making an award decision. The Price Proposal was to be submitted separately from the Technical Proposal by using the “Price Proposal Form” included in the RFP. According to the Schedule of Events set forth in the RFP, proposals were due on September 30, 2015. DEM received five proposals in response to the RFP. DEM determined that three of the proposals were not responsive, and they received no further evaluation. The two proposals that advanced into the evaluation process were those submitted by ECN and Everbridge. The RFP identified the process by which each proposal would be evaluated, including the formulas by which some scores would be calculated. Technical Proposals and Price Proposals were separately evaluated. The Technical Proposals were reviewed by a group of six evaluators, several of whom had extensive experience in emergency management and notification systems. The evaluators subjectively scored the three Management Plan elements pertaining to relative experience, examples/references, and staffing plan. Based on the evaluation, proposals could be awarded up to 30 points allocated between the referenced elements. The scores assigned by the evaluators to ECN and Everbridge for the three Management Plan elements were as follows: Evaluator ECN Everbridge Danny Hinson 13 30 Scott Nelson 30 30 Brian Misner 24 29 Phil Royce 29 27 Kevin Smith 24 25 Scott Warner 20 26 The fourth element of the Management Plan, the data sheet, was worth up to 20 points, and was scored through a formula included in the RFP. The data sheet required a vendor to identify a “guaranteed minimum number of concurrent recipient contacts” obtainable by various methods and timeframes. Using this formula, Everbridge received a data sheet score of 20 and ECN received a data sheet score of 3.99. An assertion by ECN that Everbridge cannot achieve the guaranteed minimums set forth on its data sheet was unsupported by evidence. The RFP specifically provided that the “Technical Plan/Minimum System Requirements” section of the Technical Proposal section would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as follows: The minimum requirements of the system are broken down in to five (5) sections in the Exhibit “A”, Scope of Work, and are as follows: Minimum System Requirements, Minimum Geographical Information System Requirements, Minimum Notification Requirements, Minimum Security Requirements, and Minimum Support Requirements. Vendor’s responses shall state each requirement and detail how the system they are proposing meets or exceeds that requirement. This portion of your response is very important as proposed systems that do not meet each of the minimum requirements shall fail the Responsibility Requirements of the RFP and shall not be considered for additional review or scoring. Three of the six evaluators determined that ECN’s proposal failed to comply with all of the minimum requirements and accordingly failed to comply with the “Responsibility Requirements” of the RFP. Nonetheless, DEM completed the review and scoring of the ECN proposal. Price Proposals were reviewed and scored by Ms. Walters according to a formula specified in the RFP. Pricing was worth up to 10 points. Everbridge received a price score of 7 points. ECN received a price score of 10 points. There is no evidence that Ms. Walter’s review of the Price Proposals failed to comply with the applicable requirements of the RFP. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, Everbridge’s total score was 54.83 and ECN’s total score was 37.32. On October 19, 2015, DEM posted its Notice of Intent to Award the contract under the RFP to Everbridge. ECN filed a Notice of Protest on October 20, 2015. ECN filed a Formal Written Protest on October 30, 2015. ECN asserts that at least some of the Management Plan scoring deviated from the RFP and the instructions provided to the evaluators. ECN specifically asserts that the evaluations conducted by three of the evaluators included consideration of information extrinsic to the RFP and the vendor proposals, that the information was flawed, and that the scores awarded were therefore inappropriate. The evidence fails to establish that the evaluation of the Management Plan materially failed to comply with procedures or criteria set forth in the RFP. The evidence establishes that the individuals selected to evaluate the proposals understood the requirements of the RFP, and that they conducted their evaluations according to their understanding of the evaluation criteria at the time the evaluations were performed. The evidence further fails to establish that any alleged deficiencies in the evaluation process, even if established, would have altered the total scores sufficiently to change the intended award of the contract as set forth in the DEM Notice of Intent. ECN asserts that the Question and Answer process employed by DEM was irrational and materially impaired the competitiveness of the procurement process. Pursuant to the RFP, vendors were permitted to submit questions to DEM. On September 21, 2015, DEM posted the questions and the DEM responses, including this question submitted by ECN: If a prospective bidder utilizes third parties for completing the RFP requirements, shall the bidder’s service level agreements (SLAs) with those third parties be submitted within the proposal response? DEM’s posted response to the question was “Yes.” Everbridge did not include SLAs within its proposal. ECN asserts that DEM should have rejected the Everbridge proposal as nonresponsive because Everbridge failed to include SLAs in its proposal. ECN submitted SLAs within its proposal, although the SLAs submitted by ECN were unexecuted or incomplete. There is no requirement in the RFP that vendors submit SLAs as part of a response to the RFP. Section 15 of the RFP (titled “Oral Instructions/Changes to the Request for Proposal (Addenda)”) provided in material part as follows: No negotiations, decisions, or actions will be initiated or executed by a proposer as a result of any oral discussions with a State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Division will be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the Division. Notices of changes (addenda) will be posted on the Florida Vendor Bid System at: http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/main_menu. It is the responsibility of all potential proposers to monitor this site for any changing information prior to submitting your proposal. All addenda will be acknowledged by signature and subsequent submission of addenda with proposal when so stated in the addenda. DEM’s response to the question posed by ECN did not amend the RFP. DEM did not issue any notice of change or addenda to the RFP that required a vendor to include SLAs within a response to an RFP. ECN asserts that Everbridge is not a responsible vendor because Everbridge failed to comply with Section 18 of the RFP (titled “Qualifications”), which provided, in relevant, part as follows: The Division will determine whether the Proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon their proposal demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. * * * In accordance with sections 607.1501, 608.501, and 620.169, Florida Statutes, foreign corporations, foreign limited liability companies, and foreign limited partnerships must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. “Foreign Corporation” means a corporation for profit incorporated under laws other than the laws of this state. Such authorization should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, must be obtained prior to posting of the intended award of the contract. ECN, a Delaware-incorporated limited liability company, complied with the referenced requirement. Everbridge, a Delaware-incorporated corporation, did not. Although Everbridge asserts that the statutes referenced in the requirement did not require it to be registered prior to the posting of the intended award, the issue is not whether Everbridge complied with state law, but whether Everbridge met the RFP’s qualification requirements. The RFP specifically provided that in order to qualify as a responsive vendor “as that term is defined by section 287.012(27) Florida Statutes,” proposals were required to conform in all material respects to the solicitation. The RFP provided as follows: The Division shall not consider any proposal that contains a material deviation from the terms of this solicitation. However, the Division reserves the right to consider a proposal that contains a minor deviation or irregularity so long as that minor deviation or irregularity does not provide a competitive advantage over the other proposers. The issue is whether the registration requirement was “material” to the RFP. It was not. The foreign corporation registration requirement was “boiler plate” language, apparently included by DEM in the RFP with little thought. Neither Ms. Walters, nor any other DEM employee, made any effort to determine whether the vendors that submitted proposals in response to the RFP complied with the requirement. The evidence fails to establish that the failure to comply with the registration requirement constituted a material deviation from the terms of the RFP. Everbridge obtained no competitive advantage over ECN or any other vendor through noncompliance with the registration requirement. ECN asserts that the Everbridge proposal was nonresponsive to the RFP because the Everbridge proposal included the following language: Legal Disclosure Everbridge's RFP response is provided for informational purposes and is not meant to form a binding contract for the provision of our critical communications suite. Upon request, Everbridge will engage in contract negotiations to execute a service agreement tailored to appropriately capture each party's applicable rights and obligations. ECN asserts that the cited language rendered the Everbridge proposal as conditional. The RFP provided that submission of a conditional proposal could result in a proposal being deemed nonresponsive. The evidence fails to establish that Everbridge submitted a conditional proposal in response to the RFP. Section 20 of the RFP (titled “Agreement Document”) provided as follows: The Division’s “Contract” document is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The terms and conditions contained therein will become an integral part of the contract resulting from this RFP. In submitting a proposal, the proposer agrees to be legally bound by these terms and conditions. One of the three submitted proposals rejected by DEM prior to evaluation was considered to be a conditional proposal, in part because the vendor struck through portions of the RFP in its response. Unlike that vendor, Everbridge unequivocally acknowledged, on page 127 of its response, the DEM’s “instructions regarding the terms and conditions that will ultimately form the service agreement between the state and its selected vendor.” Everbridge asserts that the ECN proposal failed to comply with the requirement that the Technical Proposal include “financial statements created in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for the last three years,” and that the failure renders the ECN proposal nonresponsive. The evidence supports the assertion. The phrase “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles” (GAAP) refers to a set of financial reporting standards and procedures adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a private organization, and adopted throughout the accounting profession. Financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP include what are commonly identified as “notes” that disclose extensive and relevant information supporting the financial analysis reported in the statements. The financial statements submitted by ECN did not meet the requirements of the RFP. Although ECN asserted at the hearing that the financial statements it submitted were prepared in accordance with GAAP, the financial statements submitted by ECN were incomplete because they failed to contain the requisite notes. The RFP required that the financial information provided by each vendor “demonstrate that it is financially stable and has the resources necessary to perform the services outlined in this RFP on a statewide basis.” The notes to ECN’s financial statements should properly have disclosed that the ECN statements contained financial information related to ECN subsidiaries, in addition to that of ECN. The absence of notes impeded determination of the reporting entity’s financial stability and resources. The Everbridge proposal fully complied with the requirement to submit financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP and included the notes. ECN’s failure to submit financial statements meeting the RFP requirement is a material deviation from the terms of the solicitation that may not be waived because it provided a competitive advantage over other proposers who complied with the requirement. Everbridge also asserts that the ECN proposal is nonresponsive because three of the six evaluators determined that, for various reasons, ECN’s technical plan failed to meet the minimum requirements set forth in the Scope of Work. The RFP specifically provided that a failure to meet each of the minimum requirements would result in a proposal not being further reviewed or scored. Nonetheless, the ECN proposal was reviewed and scored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Emergency Management enter a final order dismissing the First Amended Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Emergency Communications Network, LLC, and awarding the contract to Everbridge, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the proposed award of contracts by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to Caremark, Inc. (Caremark), and Lynnfield Drugs, Inc., d/b/a Hemophilia of the Sunshine State (Lynnfield), pursuant to AHCA's Request For Proposal (RFP) 0507, was contrary to AHCA's governing statutes, AHCA's rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). There are approximately 250 Medicaid-eligible individuals ("beneficiaries") in Florida who have hemophilia. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous clotting proteins or "factors" that contribute to the ability of a person's blood to clot. The disease is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to a person. The costs for hemophilia medicines ("factor products") and treatment for this relatively small group of beneficiaries are extremely high, estimated to be $46 million in 2005. Half of these costs are paid by Florida, half by the federal government. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2004),2/ requires an agency to make a written determination that an Invitation to Bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or services prior to issuance of an RFP. On August 24, 2004, AHCA made the written determination that an Invitation to Bid was not practicable for procurement of the services called for in the MCHM program. Pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, a challenge to the terms and specifications of an RFP must be filed within 72 hours of notice of the posting of the RFP. There were no challenges filed to the terms and specifications of RFP 0507. RFP 0507 contemplates a statewide hemophilia management program that combines pharmaceutical management and disease management. Section 5.0 of the RFP identifies the two fundamental requirements for vendors responding to the RFP: The vendor must demonstrate that it has the capability to design, implement, monitor and evaluate a comprehensive hemophilia management program. The vendor must demonstrate that it has the experience in designing and implementing projects similar to the one prescribed in this RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA was to contract with up to three experienced vendors for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. Beneficiaries of the hemophilia services will be notified and instructed to choose one of the winning vendors or, for beneficiaries who do not make a choice, AHCA will assign a winning vendor on an equal, rotational basis. The RFP provides that the successful vendors will be paid on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement of factor product costs. Originally, RFP 0507 called for the submission of a technical proposal and a separate cost proposal. The cost to the State for the services provided was not to exceed the total cost of the factor products dispensed, discounted to the Average Wholesale Price (AWP) of the factor product, minus 39 percent. Cost proposals would have been scored separately from technical proposals, and then the two scores were to be combined to determine the ranking of the competing vendors. On January 21, 2005, prior to the deadline for responses to RFP 0507, AHCA issued Addendum 5 to the RFP, which eliminated the requirement for a separate cost proposal. All vendors were required to provide the technical services for the revenue they would receive under a reimbursement methodology set forth in Addendum 5. The reimbursement methodology makes AWP, minus 39 percent one of several measures of cost, the lowest of which determines the maximum reimbursement that Florida will pay the vendor. The change to RFP 0507 brought about by Addendum 5 did not change the fundamental nature of the RFP. Both the original RFP and the revised RFP created a competition among vendors to provide the best hemophilia management services to the State for a maximum cost. Addendum 5 changed the maximum cost from AWP, minus 39 percent, for factor products to a cost determined by the reimbursement formula. Under both the original RFP 0507 and the RFP as modified by Addendum 5, vendors could propose to provide factor products at a cost to the State lower than AWP, minus 39 percent. However, greater weight or importance would have been given to a proposal to provide factor products at a lower cost under the original RFP, because it called for cost proposals to be separately presented, evaluated, and scored. Based on the maximum scores attainable for the technical and cost proposals (1000 and 500, respectively), the cost proposal would have accounted for a third of a vendor's total score under the original RFP. Under the revised RFP, cost-saving measures offered by a vendor were relevant to only a few of the technical items in the RFP, such as those related to the management and dispensing of factor products. Even in the aggregate, these evaluation criteria allowed for the award of relatively few points for cost-saving measures contained in a proposal. AHCA received eight proposals in response to RFP 0507. One proposal was rejected by AHCA because it was determined to be non-responsive. The seven remaining proposals were made a part of the case record. Although RFP 0507 stated that up to three contracts would be awarded, AHCA decided to award contracts only to Caremark and Lynnfield. In a memorandum dated May 16, 2005, AHCA explained that "the points awarded indicate the top proposals scored significantly higher than the others. A difference of 124 points between the number two and the number three ranked proposal indicates a measurable difference in quality." The Organization of HHS's Proposal Section 6.0 of the RFP sets forth "Proposal Instructions." These instructions include a requirement to submit the proposal in a three-ring binder and to number the pages of the proposal. Another requirement imposed on the form of the proposal, as opposed to its content, was that the proposal had to use four tabs with specified titles. Tab 4 was to contain each vendor's technical response to the RFP. The RFP stated, "This is the most important section of the response with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." Section 6.1E of the RFP describes the various categories of information that are required to be part of the vendor's technical response. There are eight general categories: Summary; Organizational Background and Experience; Project Staffing; Technical Approach; Innovations; Implementation Plan; Systems, Security and Confidentiality; and Certification Relating to Contracts. Some of these general categories were broken down further into separately numbered items of required information. For example, under the heading "Organizational Background and Experience," there are 11 numbered paragraphs describing the information required to be included in the proposal. Some of the numbered paragraphs are further divided into information requests identified by letter, such as item 9, which is divided into 23 information requests, lettered a through w. A logical manner in which to organize a proposal would be to present the information in the same order as the information is requested in the RFP, using the same headings, numbers, and letters that are used in the RFP. All the vendors, except HHS, organized their proposals so that the technical information required by Section 6.1E of the RFP was located under a divider or page labeled "Tab 4" or "Technical Proposal," and presented in the same order as the information was requested in the RFP. HHS's proposal has a "Tab 4" with a first page that includes the title "Technical Proposal" and begins with the required "Summary." Following the summary, however, HHS skips items 1 through 8 that were set forth in the RFP under the general category "Organizational Background and Experience" and presents a response to item 9. Then, HHS skips other items set forth in the RFP and presents information about "Innovations." At the end of HHS's Tab 4 is the heading "Additional Requested Information," followed by a list of seven appendices. Some of the information required to be in HHS's technical proposal is contained in these seven appendices. HHS's proposal included a table of contents that listed 31 other appendices, with subject titles, that contained more of the information that the RFP required to be included in each vendor's technical proposal. HHS chose to organize its proposal as it did because it believed the information it placed in the appendices was responsive to several parts of the RFP, and it would "irritate" the evaluators to see the same information repeated in several places. However, HHS's proposal did not always include notations that directed the evaluators to the appendices where relevant information was located. HHS acknowledged that it could have done "a much better job" in organizing its proposal. In the case of some items of requested information, very little effort was required for the evaluators to find the information in HHS's technical proposal. For example, it was relatively easy for an evaluator looking for information related to project staffing to find it in HHS's Appendix AG, entitled "Project Staffing." In other cases, however, greater effort was needed to find the information HHS says was relevant to a particular information request in the RFP. For example, HHS did not include behind Tab 4 a direct response to item 5 under "Organizational Background and Experience," which requests a detailed description of the vendor's organizational structure and ownership, and HHS did not refer the evaluator to a particular appendix. HHS contends the requested information is provided in Appendix AL, entitled "2004 Accredo Annual Report," which contains the Form 10-K for Accredo Health, Inc., HHS's parent company. Another example is HHS's response to item 8 under "Organizational Background and Experience," which requests a plan for the use of woman- or minority-owned businesses. HHS did not respond directly to this request under Tab 4 of its proposal, and its proposal merely contains a letter in Appendix AJ, entitled "Ethnically Diverse Utilization," from a woman-owned business to Accredo Health, Inc., acknowledging an existing relationship with HHS's parent company.3/ One of AHCA's evaluators said she gave HHS a score of zero for 27 evaluation criteria because she could not find the relevant information in HHS's proposal. The record evidence does not show that any other evaluator was unable to find information presented in HHS's proposal or failed to review the proposal in its entirety and score the proposal on its substantive merits. Whether HHS's Proposal Was Non-Responsive AHCA and the Intervenors claim that HHS's proposal was non-responsive to RFP 0507 because it does not include information required by Sections 7.2I and 7.2L of the RFP. Section 7.2 is entitled "Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Technical Proposal" and states in relevant part: During this phase, the Agency will determine if the technical proposal is sufficiently responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination upon opening the technical proposal, the overseer(s) will check each technical proposal against the following list: * * * Does the proposal include a table of contents listing sections included in the proposal and the corresponding sections of the RFP to which they refer? * * * L. Does the technical proposal include a description of the vendor's corporate background and experience at the level outlined in Section 6.1E of the RFP? Section 7.3 states that only those technical proposals determined to meet the mandatory technical requirements set out in Section 7.2 will be further evaluated. Presumably, AHCA determined that HHS's technical proposal included all mandatory requirements, because the proposal was not rejected. The table of contents in HHS's proposal accurately describes the information that is presented in its proposal. However, it does not list all the headings and information items as they appear in the RFP. There are over 30 itemized information requests in Section 6.1E related to the vendor's background and experience. HHS's proposal included information about its corporate organization and experience. However, the organization of the proposal made some of the information difficult to find. Sandra Berger, the AHCA employee who has coordinated contracts and procurements for the Medicaid program, stated that AHCA's policy regarding the review of RFPs is that the evaluator is to review the entire proposal; and if information is not found where it should have been presented, the evaluator will look elsewhere in the proposal for the information. AHCA's expectation is that the evaluator will read every sentence in every paragraph of each proposal. AHCA's Consideration of HHS's Guarantees HHS contends that three cost-saving measures that it offered in its proposal were not considered at all or not fairly considered by the evaluators. HHS offered an "assay management guarantee," an emergency room visit guarantee, and an outdated product guarantee. Because clotting factors are proteins or "biologics," the manufacturers of factor products cannot create a precise potency; they can only target potency. In the same sense that ore is assayed to determine its content of gold or other mineral, factor products are assayed to determine their content of clotting factor (potency). A manufacturer of factor products will generally produce products with low range, mid-range, and high-range potencies. Even within a targeted range, there will be variances of potency between particular vials of product that are dispensed. The recommended potency for some hemophilia treatments, such as a prophylactic regimen, is less than for others, such as for break-through bleeding. Therefore, "assay management" for factor products is a fundamental component of the current treatment of hemophilia. AHCA has established 105 percent as a threshold for evaluation of assay management. That means AHCA has an expectation that the factor dispensed to a patient will generally deviate less than five percent above the factor assay or potency prescribed for the patient by the physician. The 105 percent figure is a monitoring and evaluation threshold, not an absolute maximum. The State is required to pay for factor products exceeding the 105 percent threshold if they were medically necessary. HHS offered an "assay management guarantee" to repay AHCA on a quarterly basis for the cost of factor product that exceeded 102 percent of the target dose. Based on an HHS study done with 56 patients, the guarantee would have created a cost savings of $154,000. If a similar savings rate were realized for the approximately 250 Medicaid-eligible hemophilia patients in Florida, the savings would be approximately three times greater. Caremark also offered an assay management guarantee, but structured differently. However, AHCA does not view this particular type of guarantee as necessarily beneficial. AHCA believes it could create an incentive for the provider to withhold care, not based on medical considerations, but on financial considerations. A provider might reduce factor products dispensed to the patient in order to avoid exceeding a guarantee and having to repay the State. HHS also offered an emergency room visit guarantee so that AHCA would not have to pay for unnecessary emergency room visits. HHS defined unnecessary emergency room visits as those caused by the patient not having the correct amount or type of factor or a sufficient amount or type of infusion "ancillaries." HHS offered to credit AHCA $500 for each unnecessary visit. Another cost-saving measure offered in HHS's proposal was to replace outdated product without cost to AHCA. AHCA did not dispute that these two cost-saving measures would be of benefit to the State. No evidence was presented regarding the estimated value of the benefit. Few of the evaluation criteria for RFP 0507 related directly to the cost-saving measures offered by HHS. HHS presented information about its assay management guarantee in items 9.j and l, under "Organizational Background and Experience." Information about HHS's outdated product guarantee was presented under item 9.k. Information about HHS's emergency room visit guarantee was presented under item 9.v. The maximum score that HHS could have received for these four items was 20 points, out of a total score of 1000 for all criteria.4/ The Scoring Criteria For purposes of evaluation and scoring of proposals, AHCA formed the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria, each worth from zero to 10 points, for a maximum possible score of 1000 points. The scoring scale for the 50 criteria was as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each of the 50 criteria was set forth on a separate evaluation sheet used by the evaluators. Each evaluation sheet identified from where in the RFP the criterion came. The 50 criteria in the evaluation sheets, however, did not correspond to 50 evaluation criteria, identified as such, in the RFP. RFP 0507 rarely uses the term "criteria." Instead, the itemized information requests in the RFP are alternately referred to as "instructions" (Section 6.0), as "specifications" (Section 6.1E), and as "requirements" (Section 7.3). In seven instances, two or more itemized information requests in the RFP were combined to form one criterion on an evaluation sheet. An example is page 13 of the evaluation sheets that grouped together items 9.e, f, g, and h, under "Organization Background and Experience." Judith Saltpeter, the AHCA employee who was principally responsible for the creation of the evaluation sheets, grouped these items together because they all related to vendor assistance to "physicians, specialists and other providers." Another example is the combination of items 9.j, k, and l into one criterion for scoring on page 15 of the evaluation sheets. These three items were combined by Ms. Saltpeter because they were all related to the vendor's proposed handling of factor products. There were two instances in which a single information request in the RFP was divided into more than one criterion for scoring on the evaluation sheets. For example, the evaluation criteria on pages 25, 26, and 27 of the evaluation sheets are derived from a single paragraph of the RFP under "Project Staffing": 2. Identification of staff along with details of training and experience of those individuals who will serve as the Project/Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist Coordinator, and Care Management Coordinator. Resumes and relevant licensure of all identified/named staff shall be included in an appendix to the proposal. AHCA made each of the three positions named in this paragraph a separate criterion for evaluation and scoring because of the perceived importance of these positions to the quality of the vendor's performance. The 50 evaluation criteria used for RFP 0507 were almost identical to the 50 evaluation criteria used for RFP 0403, in which HHS participated. Section 7.3 of the RFP, entitled "Evaluation of Technical Proposals," states in relevant part: Only those technical proposals determined to meet the technical requirements of this RFP will be further evaluated. Evaluation of technical proposals will involve the point scoring of each proposal by component specified in the RFP. The Agency will evaluate the extent to which the services offered in the proposal and the procedures and methods for performing such services meet the requirements of the RFP. For this purpose, evaluators will judge a vendor's description and explanation of the services it will perform to meet the service requirements of each component. Included in Addendum 5 to RFP 0507 and made a part of the RFP are "Agency Responses to Bidders' Questions," which include questions asked by the vendors at the vendors conference held prior to submittal of proposals and AHCA's answers. Two questions and answers are relevant here: Question: How will scoring for the technical proposal be evaluated? Do some [technical] questions have higher weight: If so provide weighting. Answer: All technical items have equal weight. Question: What specific factors will be used for the technical proposal evaluation pursuant to Section 7.3 of the RFP? What will be the relative weight of each factor? Answer: Equal consideration will be given to all items found under Section 6, excluding 6.3 Cost Proposal Requirements and 6.4, Cost Proposal Instructions. The organization of the technical requirements of the RFP into itemized lists and AHCA's statements to the vendors that "All technical items have equal weight" and "Equal consideration will be given to all items found under Section 6," communicated to the vendors a scoring process that was not followed by AHCA. There is nothing in the RFP that informs prospective vendors of the scoring process that was actually used. The combining and dividing of the information requirements in the RFP for scoring purposes affected their relative importance, but no prospective vendor would know from reading RFP 0507 that some of the requirements of the technical proposal would be combined for scoring and other requirements would be divided for scoring. No prospective vendor would know which items in the RFP would be worth up to 10 points, which items were worth only 1/3 or 1/4 as much and which items were worth twice as much. There is no evidence that AHCA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in combining and dividing the technical requirements of the RFP to create the 50 evaluation criteria. There was a rationale behind the combinations and divisions. However, RFP 0507 did not indicate the relative importance of the criteria. Their relative importance was only determinable by reviewing the evaluation sheets, which were not made a part of the RFP. Nevertheless, HHS failed to demonstrate that this error by AHCA made any difference to the contract awards under RFP 0507. The combining and dividing of technical requirements affected all vendors equally. Adjusting the scores so that every itemized technical requirement from the RFP is given equal value would not change the rankings. For example, if an evaluator gave a score of "5" for a criterion that was created from four requirements set forth in the RFP, the score was adjusted to 20 (four times five), and this kind of adjustment was made to all scores for all affected criteria, HHS would still finish in sixth place. Even if the actual scores might have varied from the adjustment just described, there is no evidence to explain how the variance could be more than de minimus or could change HHS's ranking. A related issue concerns item 3 under "Project Staffing" and item 20 under "Technical Approach," also related to staffing, that did not become evaluation criteria for scoring purposes. HHS claims that AHCA's decision to not make these items evaluation criteria was prejudicial to HHS because its proposal regarding project staffing was superior to what was offered by the other vendors. However, if these two items had become two evaluation criteria, they would have been worth a maximum of only 20 points. Even assuming that HHS had been given the highest points by all four technical evaluators for these two items, HHS's ranking would not have changed. Scoring by the Evaluators The four AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposals were Linda Barnes, a registered pharmacist (Scorer "A"); Maresa Thomas, a registered nurse (Scorer "B"); Bruce McCall, who holds a doctorate in pharmacy (Scorer "C"); and Nancy Knox, a registered nurse (Scorer "D"). Kay Newman, a certified public accountant, reviewed only the financial information provided by the vendors. The evaluators were each provided a copy of the seven proposals, the original RFP, Addendums 5 and 11 to the RFP, an evaluation packet, and a conflict of interest form. The technical evaluators were given an instruction sheet and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. Some of the evaluators made comments, others did not. Each evaluator worked independently. The evaluators did not confer with each other or with anyone else during their evaluation of the proposals. The evaluators conducted their evaluations over a period of three weeks. Because each evaluator worked independently, the scores on each proposal differed. It can be expected, and was true in this case, that some evaluators will generally assign lower scores than other evaluators; some evaluators will tend to assign higher scores. There was no evidence that any evaluator for RFP 0507 was inconsistent in the application of his or her scoring approach to all proposals. In addition to the points awarded by the technical evaluators for the 50 criteria, each proposal also received "Financial Audit" points (between one and ten) from Kay Newman. Ms. Newman scored the seven proposals as follows: Caremark 9 Lynnfield 9 AmeriHealth 0 OptionCare 8 Maxim 8 HHS 9 PDI Pharmacy 4 Points were also assigned to the vendors based on telephone "reference reviews" conducted by AHCA employees Hope Chukes and Patricia Morena. Two references were selected for each vendor from the references listed in the proposals. The reviewers used a form with questions related to whether the vendor had fulfilled its obligations under previous contracts. In most cases, three points were given to the vendor when the reference reported that the vendor had performed the particular obligation; otherwise, a score of zero was given. The maximum score that could be obtained for the reference review was 19 points. Some questions on the reference review form were not relevant to the previous contract between the vendor and the reference organization. In those instances, Ms. Chukes was directed to give vendors a score of "3" for the question, rather than penalize the vendors with a score of zero. Because the reference reviews indicated that all vendors had performed their obligations under previous contracts, AHCA gave all vendors the maximum total score of 19. Following the conclusion of the technical evaluations, Ms. Chukes tallied the scores from the four technical evaluators, the financial audit scores from Ms. Newman, and the reference review scores. The resulting total scores and ranking of proposals were as follows: 1 Caremark 1437.2 2 Lynnfield 1384.9 3 AmeriHealth 1207.83 4 OptionCare 1107 5 Maxim 964.3 6 HHS 889.3 7 PDI Pharmacy 774.55 There are some fractional scores, because Ms. Thomas (and only Ms. Thomas) scored multi-part criteria by initially assigning a score to each subpart, using the zero-to-ten scale, and then averaging the result. Although this scoring approach would have caused a variance, in some cases, from the score that Ms. Thomas would have assigned if she had simply scored the criterion as a whole, the variance would have been de minimus. It would not have changed HHS's ranking. For reasons not explained in the record, AHCA manipulated the raw scores by averaging them, assigning the highest ranked vendor a score of 1000, and dividing the average scores of the other vendors by 1000. These manipulations did not change the ranking that resulted from the total raw scores as indicated above. None of the evaluators ranked HHS higher than fourth. One evaluator ranked HHS fourth, one ranked HHS fifth, and two ranked HHS seventh (last). Scoring by Ms. Thomas Ms. Thomas assigned HHS's proposal a zero for 27 of the 50 evaluation criteria. In her notes on the evaluation sheets and in her testimony at the hearing, Ms. Thomas explained that she gave HHS zeroes because she could not find HHS' responses for these criteria, and she assumed they had been omitted. For example, because she did not see information under Tab 4 of HHS's proposal numbered 1 through 7 to correspond to paragraphs 1 through 7 of the RFP, she assumed that the information had been omitted from HHS's proposal. Ms. Thomas did not always look through HHS's entire proposal to determine whether the information she expected to see in Tab 4 was located in an appendix or elsewhere. When she did not find information where she expected it, she often made a notation "nothing presented" on the evaluation sheet and assigned a zero for the criterion. There was no evidence that any other evaluator did the same. The other three evaluators apparently looked through HHS's entire proposal, found the relevant information, and assigned points for each criterion based on their review of the information. As stated above, AHCA's policy regarding the review of a proposal is that the evaluator is to review the entire proposal and, if information is not found where it should have been presented, the evaluator will look elsewhere in the proposal for the information. AHCA's expectation is that the evaluator will read every sentence in every paragraph of each proposal. There is no evidence that Ms. Thomas was biased either for or against any particular vendor. However, it was the duty of the evaluators to read each proposal in its entirety. Nothing in the RFP instructions authorized the evaluators to ignore information in a proposal if it were in the "wrong" place. In most cases, the information Ms. Thomas claims she could not find required little effort to find and was found by the other three evaluators. Ms. Thomas' failure to consider all the information presented in HHS's proposal when assigning scores under the 50 evaluation criteria was contrary to agency policy. Her assignment of a zero to HHS in 27 categories was arbitrary. However, HHS failed to demonstrate that, but for the arbitrary scoring by Ms. Thomas, HHS would have been awarded a contract under RFP 0507. If all of Ms. Thomas's scores are deleted, HHS still ranks sixth. If all of the zeroes that Ms. Thomas gave HHS were converted to tens, HHS would only move up to fourth place and would still not win a contract under RFP 0507. HHS complained of other aspects of the evaluation process used for RFP 0507, such as the separate financial audit performed by Ms. Newman and the reference review. However, HHS failed to prove that if all these alleged errors by AHCA were eliminated, HHS would have been a winner under RFP 0507.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Heath Care Administration enter a final order awarding contracts under RFP 0507 to Caremark, Inc., and Lynnfield Drugs, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 2nd day of December, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Transportation’s intended decision to conduct negotiations with Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc., under ITN-DOT-13/14-8001-SM is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The ITN The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with planning, acquiring, leasing, constructing, maintaining, and operating toll facilities and cooperating with and assisting local governments in the development of a statewide transportation system. § 334.044(16)-(22), Fla. Stat. (2013).1/ The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill these duties. See §§ 20.23(6) and 334.044(7), Fla. Stat. FTE is a legislatively created arm of the Department and is authorized to plan, develop, own, purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, demolish, construct, improve, relocate, equip, repair, maintain, operate, and manage the Florida Turnpike System. § 338.2216(1)(b), Fla. Stat. FTE is also authorized to cooperate, coordinate, partner, and contract with other entities, public and private, to accomplish these purposes. Id. The Department has the express power to employ the procurement methods available to the Department of Management Services under chapter 287, Florida Statutes.2/ § 338.2216(2), Fla. Stat.; see also Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of Transp., Case No. 06-1541BID (Fla. DOAH July 20, 2006; Fla. DOT Aug. 21, 2006). OOCEA (now known as the Central Florida Expressway Authority), MDX, and THEA are legislatively created or authorized agencies of the State with the power to fix, alter, charge, establish, and collect tolls, rates, fees, rentals, and other charges for the services and facilities system. §§ 348.0003(1)- .0004(2)(e), Fla. Stat. Each of these authorities has the power to enter contracts and to execute all instruments necessary or convenient for the carrying on of its business; to enter contracts, leases, or other transactions with any state agency or any other public body of the State; and to do all acts and things necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business and the general welfare of the authority in order to carry out the powers granted to it by law. § 348.0004(2)(g), (h), (k), Fla. Stat. On November 1, 2013, the Department advertised the ITN, soliciting proposals from vendors interested in participating in competitive negotiations for the award of a contract to provide a CCSS and associated operations and maintenance. The ITN was issued pursuant to section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The purpose of the ITN is to replace the existing customer service center systems of FTE, OOCEA, THEA, and MDX with a CCSS that can be expanded over time to include other tolling and transit agencies in the State of Florida. The CCSS is expected to process nearly all electronic toll transactions in Florida. The successful vendor will enter a contract directly with the Department. The Department will then enter agreements with the other authorities to address coordinated and joint use of the system. Generally, the ITN sets forth a selection process consisting of two parts. Part one involves: (a) the pre- qualification, or shortlisting, of vendors in order to determine a vendor’s eligibility to submit proposals; and (b) the proposal submission, evaluation, and ranking. Part two is the negotiation phase. The instant proceeding relates only to part one. Part two -- negotiations -- has yet to occur. The TRT and Selection Committee – The Evaluators Cubic alleges that “not all of the members of either [the Technical Review or Selection Committee] teams had the requisite experience or knowledge required by section 287.057(16)(a)1., Florida Statutes.” Accenture alleges that “the Selection Committee did not collectively have expertise in all of the subject areas covered by th[e] ITN.” Section 287.057(16)(a) provides in part that the agency head shall appoint “[a]t least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought.”3/ In accordance with the requirements of section 287.057(16)(a), the ITN established a Technical Review Team (TRT) that would be “composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff.” The ITN also provided for a Selection Committee that would be “composed of executive management at the Agencies.” Each agency executive director appointed two individuals from their agency to the TRT. Each agency director was familiar with the background and qualifications of their appointees, who had experience in various aspects of tolling operations including tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals were appointed to serve on the TRT. Bren Dietrich, a budget and financial planner for FTE, has an accounting degree and has worked at FTE for 12 years in budget and financial planning. Mr. Dietrich has been a technical committee member for seven or eight procurements. Mohamed Hassan, a senior operations manager for FTE, has been in information technology for nearly 40 years and with FTE for 22 years handling all aspects of software development and maintenance for the state’s largest tolling authority. Mr. Hassan’s expertise is in software development and maintenance. Mr. Hassan oversees staff that is responsible for maintaining the database application systems, hardware, communications coming in and going out of the customer service center, and any development projects such as transaction processing or account management system upgrades. Steve Andriuk is a deputy executive director for MDX and oversees all tolling operations within MDX’s jurisdiction. Mr. Andriuk’s tolling background goes beyond his tenure at MDX, as he previously was an executive director at Chesapeake Bay Bridge Authority. Jason Greene, MDX’s comptroller of financial controls and budget manager, has a background in finance and accounting and in project management. Mr. Greene has been with MDX for 11 years. Lisa Lumbard, who has been with OOCEA for 16 years, is the interim chief financial officer and previously was the manager of accounting and finance. Ms. Lumbard runs OOCEA’s finance and accounting office and has both procurement experience and substantial experience in the financial aspects of back- office tolling. David Wynne is the director of toll operations of OOCEA and is responsible for the overall collection of all tolls and for the violation enforcement process. Mr. Wynne has held some iteration of this position for approximately 11 years and worked for OOCEA for 16. He also has both procurement and substantial tolling experience. Robert Reardon, THEA’s chief operating officer, is responsible for THEA’s day-to-day operations, including tolls. Mr. Reardon has been with THEA for six years and has experience as a technical evaluator for public procurements. Rafael Hernandez is THEA’s manager of toll operations and oversees all toll operations within THEA’s jurisdiction. The TRT members collectively have the requisite knowledge and experience in tolling, software, finance, and procurement. The following individuals constituted the Selection Committee. Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti has been FTE’s executive director since 2011 and worked for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority for over 20 years, the last two as executive director and the previous 14 as deputy executive director. Laura Kelley is OOCEA’s deputy director over finance administration and the interim executive director. Ms. Kelly has 30 years’ experience in transportation finance and management, 15 of which occurred at the Department and eight of which occurred at OOCEA overseeing information technology, finance, and procurement. Javier Rodriguez, MDX’s executive director, oversees all MDX operations, including planning, finance, operations, and maintenance functions. Mr. Rodriguez has been with MDX for seven years and was with the Department for over 15 years prior to his employment with MDX. Joseph Waggoner has been THEA’s executive director for approximately seven years. Prior to joining THEA, he was with the Maryland Department of Transportation for nearly 30 years, six of which were in tolling operations. ITN section 2.6.2 provides as follows: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. The ITN is structured such that both the TRT and the Selection Committee have shared responsibility for evaluating proposals, with the Selection Committee having ultimate responsibility for ranking the Proposers for the negotiations stage of the procurement process. Combining the eight members of the TRT with the four members of the Selection Team means that there were a total of 12 individuals tasked with the responsibility of evaluating the proposals prior to the negotiations stage of the process. Pre-Qualification and Rankings In the pre-qualification portion of the ITN, interested vendors initially submitted reference forms to demonstrate that the vendors met the minimum project experience set forth in the ITN. Vendors meeting this requirement were invited to give a full-day Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation to the TRT in which each vendor was given the opportunity to demonstrate its proposed system. Under ITN section 2.6.1, A Technical Review Team will attend the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations and will develop scores and written comments pertaining to the reviewed area(s) identified in Section 2.5.1. The Technical Review Team will be composed of at least one representative from each Agency and may include consultant (private sector) staff. The scores provided by each Technical Review Team member for each area of the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations will be totaled and averaged with the scores of the other Technical Review Team members to determine the average score for an area of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation. The average score for each area of a Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation will then be totaled to determine a total Pre- Qualification Oral Presentation score. Each vendor’s Pre-Qualification Oral Presentation was then scored based on criteria set forth in ITN section 2.5.1. Any vendor that received a score of 700 or higher was “short- listed” and invited to submit proposals. Put differently, those receiving a score of at least 700 were deemed qualified to submit formal proposals. ITN section 2.5.1 provides that the “review/evaluation of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list of Proposers to proceed in the ITN process.” Accordingly, the scores assigned in the pre-qualification phase were irrelevant after the short-listing. Six vendors submitted pre-qualifications responses, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. On January 21, 2014, the Department posted its short-list decision, identifying that all six vendors, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, were deemed qualified to submit formal written proposals to the ITN (the “First Posting”). As required by section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes, the posting stated, “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” This posting created a point of entry to protest, and no vendor initiated a protest. After the First Posting, short-listed vendors submitted technical and price proposals and made Proposal Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.24 provides detailed instructions for technical and price proposal preparation and submission. ITN section 2.25 (as amended by Addendum 8) sets forth the process for short-listed vendors to make Proposal Oral Presentations to the TRT. Short-listed Proposers will each be scheduled to meet with the Technical Review Team for Proposal Oral Presentations of their firm’s capabilities and approach to the Scope of Work and Requirements within the time period identified in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. Short-listed Proposers will be notified of a time and date for their Proposal Oral Presentation. Proposal Oral Presentation sessions are not open to the public. The Selection Committee will attend these Presentations. In advance of the Proposal Oral Presentations Proposers will be given detailed instructions on what the format and content of the Proposal Oral Presentation will be, including what functionality shall be demonstrated. The Department may also provide demonstration scripts to be followed. Proposers should be prepared to demonstrate key elements of their proposed System and Project approach and to respond to specific questions regarding their Proposals. These Proposal Oral Presentations will be used to present the Proposer’s approach and improve understanding about the Department’s needs and expectations. The Technical Review Team will participate in all Proposal Oral Presentations. After each Oral Presentation, each individual on the Technical Review Team will complete a written summary evaluation of each Proposer’s technical approach and capabilities using the criteria established in Section 2.5.2 in order to assure the Technical Proposal and Oral Presentations are uniformly ranked. The evaluation will consider both the Technical Proposal and the Oral Presentations. ITN section 2.5.2 is titled “Best Value Selection” and provides as follows: The Department intends to contract with the responsive and responsible short-listed Proposer whose Proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Department. “Best value,” as defined in Section 287.012(4), F.S., means the highest overall value to the state, based on objective factors that include but are not limited to . . . . ITN section 2.5.2 goes on to delineate seven “objective factors,” or evaluation criteria, on which proposals would be evaluated: Company history Project experience and qualifications Proposed Project approach to the technical requirements Proposed approach to the Project plan and implementation Proposed approach to System Maintenance Proposed approach to Operations and performance Price ITN section 2.6.2 explains the process for evaluation of technical proposals and Proposal Oral Presentations and states that: Following Proposal Oral Presentations by all short-listed Proposers (see Section 2.25 Proposal Oral Presentations for additional details) the Technical Review Team members will independently evaluate the Proposals based on the criteria provided in Section 2.5.2 and will prepare written summary evaluations. There will then be a public meeting of the Selection Committee at the date, time and location in Table 1-2 Procurement Timeline. The Technical Review Team’s compiled written summary evaluations will be submitted to the Selection Committee. The Technical Review Team and Selection Committee will review and discuss the individual summary evaluations, and the Selection Committee will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on their technical approach, capabilities and best value. In addition to the Technical Review Team, the Selection Committee may request attendance of others at this meeting to provide information in response to any questions. Of the six short-listed vendors, five submitted proposals and gave Proposal Oral Presentations, including Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic. The Department then undertook a ranking using the evaluation criteria delineated in ITN section 2.5.2. To perform this ranking, TRT members individually evaluated the proposals and prepared detailed, written evaluations that tracked the evaluation criteria factors. The TRT’s evaluations, together with proposal summaries prepared by HNTB, were provided to the Selection Committee in preparation for a joint meeting of the TRT and Selection Committee on April 9, 2014. At the April 9th meeting, the TRT and Selection Committee members engaged in an in-depth discussion about the bases for and differences between the individual TRT members’ rankings and evaluations. Thereafter, the Selection Committee made its ranking decision. On April 10, 2014, the Department posted its ranking of vendors, with Xerox first, Accenture second, and Cubic third (the “Second Posting”). The Second Posting also announced the Department’s intent to commence negotiations with Xerox as the first-ranked vendor.4/ If negotiations fail with Xerox, negotiations will then begin with second-ranked vendor Accenture, then Cubic, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. Accenture and Cubic each timely filed notices of intent to protest the Second Posting and timely filed formal written protest petitions and the requisite bonds. Negotiations are not at Issue ITN section 2.26 provides: Once Proposers have been ranked in accordance with Section 2.6.2 Proposal Evaluation, the Department will proceed with negotiations in accordance with the negotiation process described below. Proposers should be cognizant of the fact that the Department reserves the right to finalize negotiations at any time in the process that the Department determines that such election would be in the best interest of the State. Step 1: Follow the evaluation process and rank Proposals as outlined in Section 2.6 Evaluation Process. Step 2: The ranking will be posted, in accordance with the law (see Section 2.27), stating the Department’s intent to negotiate and award a contract to the highest ranked Proposer that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. Step 3: Once the posting period has ended, the Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first-ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established, or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be achieved with such Proposer. If negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract. The Department reserves the option to resume negotiations that were previously suspended. Negotiation sessions are not open to the public and all negotiation sessions will be recorded by the Department. Step 4: The Negotiation Team will write a short plain statement for the procurement file that explains the basis for Proposer selection and how the Proposer’s deliverables and price will provide the best value to the state. Step 5: The Department will contract with the selected Proposer. As Accenture and Cubic protested the decision by the Department to enter negotiations with Xerox (and because of the automatic stay provision of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes) the negotiation phase of the procurement never commenced. Thus, this proceeding concerns the Department’s actions up to the Second Posting, and not what may happen during future negotiations. Second Posting and Intended Award Section 1.2 of the ITN sets forth the procurement timeline for the CCSS project. The ITN originally indicated that the “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” would occur on March 31, 2014. By addendum issued on February 13, 2014, the date for “Posting of Ranking/Intended Award” was changed to April 10, 2014. Section 1.3.1 of the ITN provides an agenda for the April 10, 2014, “Meeting to Summarize and Determine Ranking/Intended Award.” Section 2.27 of the ITN is labeled “POSTING OF RANKING/INTENDED AWARD.” Section 2.27.1, Ranking/Intended Award, provides that “[t]he Ranking/Intended Award will be made to the responsive and responsible Proposer that is determined to be capable of providing the best value and best meet the needs of the Department.” Section 2.27.2 is labeled “Posting of Short- list/Ranking/Intended Award” and provides in part that “[a]ny Proposer who is adversely affected by the Department’s recommended award or intended decision must . . . file a written notice of protest within seventy-two hours after posting of the Intended Award.” Joint Exhibits 10 and 12 are copies of forms used to announce the rankings of the Proposers. It is not clear from the record if these forms are a part of the ITN. Nevertheless, the forms are identical in format. Each form has three boxes that follow the words “TYPE OF POSTING.” The first box is followed by the word “Shortlist,” the second box is followed by the word “Ranking,” and the third box is followed by the words “Intended Award.” The form also has three columns that coincide with the three boxes previously referenced. The three columns are respectively labeled, “X indicates shortlisted vendor,” “ranking of negotiations,” and “X indicates intended award.” With respect to the last two columns, explanatory comments appearing at the bottom of the form read as follows: ** Ranking: The Department intends to negotiate separately and will award a contract to the highest ranked vendor that reaches an acceptable agreement with the Department. The Department will commence negotiations with the number one ranked vendor until an acceptable contract is agreed upon or it is determined an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with such vendor. If negotiations fail with the number one ranked vendor, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department is able to negotiate an acceptable agreement. *** Intended Award: “X” in the Intended Award column indicates the vendor whom the Department intends to award the contract to, but does not constitute an acceptance of any offer created by the vendor’s proposal or negotiations. No binding contract will be deemed to exist until such time as a written agreement has been fully executed by the Department and the awarded vendor. If irregularities are subsequently discovered in the vendor’s proposal or in the negotiations or if the vendor fails to submit required [b]onds and insurance, fails to execute the contract, or otherwise fails to comply with the ITN requirements, the Department has the right to undertake negotiations with the next highest vendor and continue negotiations in accordance with the ITN process, reject all proposals, or act in the best interest of the Department. On April 10, 2014, the Department issued a posting wherein the “Ranking” box was checked and the “Intended Award” box was not. According to Sheree Merting, it was a mistake to have only checked the “Ranking” box because the box labeled “Intended Award” should have also been checked. Petitioners contend that by not simultaneously checking both the “Ranking” and “Intended Award” boxes that the Department materially changed the process identified in the ITN. Protesters’ arguments as to this issue appear to be more related to form than substance. In looking at the plain language of the ITN, it reasonably appears that the Department intended to simultaneously announce the “Ranking” and “Intended Award.” The fact that the Department failed to combine these two items in a single notice is of no consequence because neither Cubic nor Accenture have offered any evidence establishing how they were competitively disadvantaged, or how the integrity of the bidding process was materially impaired as a consequence of the omission. In other words, Sheree Merting’s confessed error of not checking the “Intended Award” box contemporaneously with the “Ranking” box is harmless error. See, e.g., Fin. Clearing House, Inc. v. Fla. Prop. Recovery Consultants, Inc., Case No. 97-3150BID (Fla. DOAH Nov. 25, 1997; Dep’t of Banking & Fin. Feb 4, 1998)(applying harmless error rule to deny protest where agency initially violated provisions of section 287.057(15), Florida Statutes, by selecting two evaluators instead of three required by statute, but later added required evaluator). Sequential Negotiations As previously noted, section 2.26 of the ITN provides that following the ranking of the short-list proposers, the “Negotiation Team will undertake negotiations with the first- ranked Proposer until an acceptable Contract is established . . . [and] [i]f negotiations fail with the first-ranked Proposer, negotiations may begin with the second-ranked Proposer, and so on until there is an agreement on an acceptable Contract.” Petitioners assert that the Department has abandoned the sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 and has announced “that it will conduct the procurement negotiations only with Xerox as the number one ranked proposer” and that the process of negotiating with only one proposer is contrary to the law because section 287.057(1)(c) “requires that the Department negotiate with all proposers within the competitive range.” Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti testified as follows (T: 1119): Q: Now, you understand that as a result of the rankings that were posted on April 10th, negotiations under this ITN are to proceed with only a single vendor, is that right? A: I believe the ITN provided for consecutive negotiations starting with the first-ranked firm and then proceeding down until we reached a contract. Contrary to Petitioners’ assertions, the evidence establishes that the Department intends to follow the negotiation process set forth in section 2.26. Petitioners’ contention that section 287.057(1)(c) does not authorize sequential negotiations is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Petitioners have waived their right of protest with respect to this issue. Petitioners’ waiver notwithstanding, section 287.057(1)(c) does not preclude the type of sequential negotiation process set forth in section 2.26 of the ITN. Section 287.057(1)(c) provides in part that “[t]he invitation to negotiate is a solicitation used by an agency which is intended to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem and identifies one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” (Emphasis added). Section 287.057(1)(c)4. provides that “[t]he agency shall evaluate replies against all evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation to negotiate in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award [and] [t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). The opening paragraph of section 287.057(1)(c), which is essentially the preamble portion of the ITN provisions, expresses the purpose for which the ITN process was developed, to wit: “to determine the best method for achieving a specific goal or solving a particular problem.” In furtherance of the stated purpose, the Legislature instructs, in the preamble, that the process should “identif[y] one or more responsive vendors with which the agency may negotiate in order to receive the best value.” If the preamble is read in statutory isolation, then one could reasonably conclude that if the agency identifies more than one responsive vendor then the agency should negotiate with each of the vendors “in order to receive the best value.” Arguably, the preamble merely looks at vendor “responsiveness” as the guidepost for determining with whom the agency shall negotiate. Mere “responsiveness” however, is clearly not the only standard for selecting a vendor through the ITN process and illustrates why this portion of the statute cannot be read in isolation. As previously noted, subparagraph four of section 287.057(1)(c), provides that the agency “shall . . . establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible of award,” and once this is done, “[t]he agency may select one or more vendors within the competitive range with which to commence negotiations.” (Emphasis added). By using the word “may” in subparagraph four, the Legislature is authorizing agencies to exercise discretion when selecting vendors with whom to negotiate. In exercising its discretion, agencies can decide to negotiate with a single vendor or with multiple vendors. An agency’s exercise of its discretion is not absolute and the “check” on the exercise of its discretion, in the context of the instant case, is a bid protest whereby an unsuccessful bidder can attempt to prove that the procurement process was impermissibly tainted. Contrary to Petitioners’ allegations, the sequential negotiation process utilized by the Department in the present case does not run afoul of section 287.057. Petitioners forcefully argue that they have been shutout of the negotiation process because neither of them was ranked first. This assertion mischaracterizes the nature of the sequential negotiation process used by the Department. The evidence shows that if the Department fails to come to terms with Xerox, then negotiations may begin with the second-ranked vendor, and so on down the order of ranking until the Department negotiates an acceptable agreement. The truth of the matter is that neither of the protesters has been shutout of the negotiations. It is simply the case that neither occupies the preferred position of being the highest ranked, short-listed vendor. Petitioners also argue that the Florida Department of Transportation Commodities and Contractual Services Procurement Manual – 375-040-020, prohibits sequential negotiations. For invitations to negotiate, the manual provides: There are two general negotiation methods used: Competitive Method A – Vendors are ranked based on technical qualifications and negotiations are conducted commencing with the first ranked vendor. Competitive Method B – Vendor qualifications are evaluated and vendors may be short-listed. Negotiations of scope and price will be conducted with short-listed or all vendors. An award is made to the vendor with the best combination of proposal, qualifications, and price. According to Petitioners, the ITN does not comport with either Method A or Method B. Again, Petitioners failed to timely challenge the ITN specifications regarding sequential negotiations and thus have waived this argument. Even if the merits of the argument are considered, Petitioners’ argument fails. The methods described in the manual are not the only methods available to the Department; in fact, the manual, by stating that “there are two general negotiation methods used (emphasis added),” recognizes that the methods are subject to refinement or modification as the Department deems best to meet the perceived needs of a particular solicitation as long as the final method complies with section 287.057(1), Florida Statutes. Further, the procurement manager for the ITN, Sheree Merting, testified that the shell, or template, provided by the Department’s central office, and used when drafting an invitation to negotiate, contains a combination of the manual’s methods A and B, which is referred to as A/B. The order of negotiations provided for in the ITN and reiterated in the First and Second Postings is not, therefore, inconsistent with the Department’s policies or procedures. Best Value Decision Petitioners contend that the Department, via the Second Posting, has already (and improperly) determined which vendor will provide the best value to the State even though negotiations have not yet occurred. This contention is not supported by the evidence. ITN section 2.5.2 states the Department’s intent to contract with the vendor whose proposal is determined to provide the best value and sets forth the statutorily mandated objective factors, or criteria, on which proposals will be evaluated. ITN section 2.6.2 provides that the TRT and Selection Committee will review and discuss the TRT members’ individual summary evaluations and the Selection Committee “will come to consensus about ranking the Proposers in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities and best value.” The evidence reflects that the evaluation factors were applied during the evaluation process to formulate a best value ranking, but the question of which vendor ultimately provides the best value to the State will not be conclusively determined until after negotiations are concluded. See § 287.057(1)(c)4., Fla. Stat. (“After negotiations are conducted, the agency shall award the contract to the responsible and responsive vendor that the agency determines will provide the best value to the state, based on the selection criteria.”). As testified by Ms. Gutierrez- Scaccetti, “[t]he Selection Committee agreed upon the ranking of firms. It has not made an award.” This is consistent with the ITN and Florida law, which require award to the best value proposer after negotiations. Evaluation Criteria Properly Followed As explained above, ITN section 2.5.2 sets forth the evaluation factors that the TRT and Selection Committee were to use in evaluating proposals. Petitioners allege that the TRT and Selection Committee did not follow the ITN and based their evaluations and rankings on factors other than those listed in ITN section 2.5.2. The evidence establishes that the TRT did in fact use these factors, as evidenced by the detailed evaluation summaries prepared by each of the eight TRT members, which almost uniformly tracked these factors. Seven of these summaries are organized by headings that mirror the seven criteria of section 2.5.2. The remaining summary, prepared by TRT member Mohamed Hassan, was formatted in terms of pros and cons, but nonetheless addressed all of the section 2.5.2 evaluation criteria. Reflective of the TRT’s approach, TRT member David Wynne prepared detailed, typed proposal summaries that are four pages long and single-spaced for each proposal. Mr. Wynne’s summaries capture his deliberate thought process in ranking the proposals and include headings that directly tie back to the evaluation criteria in the ITN. His summaries include specific details from each proposal justifying his qualitative assessment of the proposals. For example, he discusses the benefits of Xerox’s Vector 4G tolling platform, Xerox’s proposed project schedule, and maintenance. Mr. Wynne even included a breakdown of the pricing and his thoughts on how the pricing compared to the other vendors. The other TRT members had equally detailed summaries. When read as a whole, these summaries demonstrate that the TRT engaged in a rational, deliberative, and thoughtful evaluation of the proposals based on the ITN criteria. Additionally, the TRT members testified that they applied the ITN section 2.5.2 factors in conducting their evaluations. Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the TRT members did as instructed in the ITN and evaluated proposals based on ITN section 2.5.2’s factors. There is no credible basis to find that the section 2.5.2 criteria were not the bases of the TRT’s evaluations, rankings, and narratives. The evidence also establishes that the Selection Committee applied ITN section 2.5.2 factors in reaching its decision. The Selection Committee reviewed the TRT summaries, along with a detailed notebook prepared by HNTB, the Department’s consultant. The HNTB notebook was a comprehensive summary of information compiled from the vendors’ voluminous proposals and organized in a digestible format to aid the Selection Committee’s review, including helpful summaries providing head-to-head objective comparisons of vendor pricing, software development, and vendors’ exceptions and assumptions. The HNTB notebook of materials objectively compiled the content taken directly from the vendors’ own proposals and included no editorial comments or opinions by the Department’s consultants. Moreover, the HNTB notebook contained a chart summarizing the TRT’s rankings by TRT member, along with copies of each TRT member’s detailed written summaries. It also contained a detailed, 36-page pricing summary that pulled price information directly from the vendors’ proposals and summarized the information in a manner that allowed for easy side-by-side comparison. The notebook also included a systems matrix summary that was prepared by taking proposed systems information directly from the vendors’ proposals and combining it in a format that could be easily processed. In fact, the notebook even included pages copied directly from the proposals. Armed with the comprehensive TRT summaries and the HNTB notebook, the Selection Committee then engaged the TRT in a thoughtful and detailed discussion and analysis of the qualitative merits of each vendor’s proposal -- all within the bounds of the section 2.5.2 criteria. Petitioners contend that during the TRT and Selection Committee’s discussions, issues such as risk were improperly considered. Although “risk” was not a separately labeled criterion under section 2.5.2 (“risk of solution” is, however, referenced as a sub-bullet), risk is inherently a significant consideration in each of the evaluation factors. Stated differently, the concept of risk is integral to the ITN section 2.5.2 factors, and the Department properly considered such risks. For example, a vendor’s prior project experience -- whether it has successfully completed similar projects before -- was a listed criterion, which is directly relevant to the risk the Department would take in selecting a vendor, that is, the risk that the vendor’s experience is or is not sufficient to assure a timely project completion and quality services under the ITN. Indeed, section 287.057(1)(c) requires that the Department consider prior experience. Another example of risk considered by at least one Selection Committee member was the potential that Accenture’s project manager would not be assigned solely to this project, but might be shared with Accenture’s Illinois tolling project (“local presence commitment” is referenced as a sub-bullet in section 2.5.2). The evidence shows that Accenture stopped short of saying without qualification that its project manager would be released from Illinois and solely assigned to CCSS. This uncertainty raised a risk concern whether the critical project implementation would be properly managed. Considerations such as these are rational and reasonable. There is a Reasonable Basis for the Department’s Ranking Petitioners further contend that there was no reasonable basis for the Department’s intended decision to begin negotiations with Xerox. However, as explained above, the evidence demonstrates the opposite as the TRT and Selection Committee collectively discussed and considered the evaluation criteria and the Selection Committee reached consensus on moving forward to negotiations with Xerox. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Selection Committee’s decision was rational and reasonable. The TRT and Selection Committee’s discussion at the April 9, 2014, meeting where the ranking decision was reached, demonstrates the studied analysis by which the evaluations were conducted. At the meeting, the four Selection Committee members, who had already reviewed the TRT members’ individual rankings and evaluations, each questioned the TRT members about their assessments of the proposals. Selection Committee members asked about the bases for the differences between the individual TRT members’ evaluations, and the TRT members explained why they ranked the vendors the way they did. The discussion revolved around the top three ranked vendors, Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic, which one TRT member described as being “head and shoulders above the rest” -- that is, above the vendors ranked fourth and fifth. As noted above, the Selection Committee members’ primary focus in these discussions was on risk assessment -- the financial risks, operations risks, and information technology risks that the TRT members believed accompanied each proposal. Major Selection Committee items of discussion included modifications to the existing systems, proprietary versus off- the-shelf software issues, and the vendors’ proximity to Florida. Additional discussion points included the risk associated with Accenture’s use of multiple subcontractors and Cubic’s lack of experience with certain tolling systems. From these discussions, it appears that the overriding factor behind the Selection Committee’s ranking decision at the April 9 meeting was Xerox’s proven experience with other similar and large tolling projects, including some of the country’s largest tolling systems, which Accenture and Cubic simply did not possess.5/ As one Selection Committee member expressed, Xerox brought a “comfort level” that did not exist with Accenture and Cubic. Moreover, Xerox, with 78 percent, is the leader in the evaluative category that looks at the percentage of the company’s existing baseline system that meets the CCSS requirements -- more than Accenture’s and Cubic’s combined percentages. As the percentage of existing baseline system compliance increases, the implementation risks decrease. Selection Committee members Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti and Joseph Waggoner expressed the importance of this based on their firsthand experience with existing tolling systems in use for their respective agencies. In sum, this analysis and assessment is a valid and reasonable basis for the Department’s decision. Cubic also contends that such analysis is improper because the ITN allowed transit firms to submit proposals, thus making tolling experience an irrelevant evaluative factor. This contention fails because by prequalifying transit firms to bid, the Department was not precluded from considering a vendor’s specific tolling experience as part of the evaluative process. Contrary to Cubic’s allegation, the factors listed in ITN section 2.5.2, including “Project Experience and Qualifications,” contemplate tolling experience as being part of the relevant analysis. Therefore, the Selection Committee was fully authorized under the ITN to consider the benefits of a proven commodity -- a firm with Xerox’s extensive tolling experience. The Selection Committee’s qualitative assessment that, on the whole, Xerox was the better choice for commencing negotiations was supported by reason and logic and was wholly consistent with the ITN specifications. Petitioners further argue that the Department’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the pre-qualification scoring, where Accenture and Cubic each scored slightly higher than Xerox. This argument fails as ITN section 2.5.1 expressly provides that the evaluations and scoring of the Pre-Qualification Oral Presentations will not be included in decisions beyond determining the initial short-list. Regardless, these three vendors were essentially tied in that scoring: Accenture’s score was 885.38, Cubic’s was 874.75, and Xerox’s was 874.00. Petitioners also contend that the Selection Committee’s ranking decision is inconsistent with the ranking decision of the TRT majority. The ITN is clear, however, that the Selection Committee would be the final arbiter of ranking. No Demonstrations Were Cancelled The procurement timeline in the original ITN allotted ten business days for Proposal Oral Presentations. The revised timeline in Addendum 8 allotted two days. Cubic asserts that this reduction in presentation time occurred because the Department, without explanation, cancelled planned vendor demonstrations that were to occur during Proposal Oral Presentations, thus placing Cubic at a disadvantage as it was unable to present its demonstrations to Selection Committee members. Cubic also asserts that the cancellation of demonstrations is an indication that the Department had already made up its mind to select Xerox. The ITN and the testimony are unequivocal that no demonstrations were “cancelled.” ITN section 2.25 contemplates that the Department may request demonstrations in the proposal evaluation phase but in no way states that demonstrations will be held. Section 2.25 also provides that if any demonstrations were to be held, they would be as directed by the Department. Thus, the ITN did not guarantee Cubic any presentation, as Cubic suggests. Moreover, all vendors were treated equally in this regard. Further, the evidence reflects that the decision to hold demonstrations only during the Pre-Qualification Presentations was made when the ITN was released and that the Department never planned to have vendor demonstrations at the Proposal Oral Presentations. Indeed, during the mandatory pre- proposal meeting, the Department informed all vendors of the planned process, to include one demonstration at the pre- qualification phase and an oral presentation and question-and- answer session during the proposal and ranking phase. In short, Cubic presented no credible evidence in support of its allegations regarding the alleged cancellation of the demonstrations or any resulting harm. Exceptions and Assumptions were properly considered The ITN required vendors, in their technical proposals, to identify assumptions and exceptions to contract terms and conditions. Significantly, the ITN states that the Department is not obligated to accept any exceptions, and further that exceptions may be considered at the Department’s discretion during the evaluation process. ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 provides, in its entirety: Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions If Proposers take exception to Contract terms and conditions, such exceptions must be specified, detailed and submitted under this Proposal section in a separate, signed certification. The Department is under no obligation to accept the exceptions to the stated Contract terms and conditions. Proposers shall not identify any exceptions in the Price Proposal. All exceptions should be noted in the certification provided for in Proposal Section 9. Proposers shall not include any assumptions in their Price Proposals. Any assumptions should be identified and documented in this Section 9 of the Proposal. Any assumptions included in the Price Proposals will not be considered by the Department as a part of the Proposal and will not be evaluated or included in any Contract between the Department and the Proposer, should the Proposer be selected to perform the Work. Failure to take exception in the manner set forth above shall be deemed a waiver of any objection. Exceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department. Petitioners allege that the ITN did not clearly set forth how vendors’ exceptions and assumptions would be treated and that the Department accordingly failed to consider such exceptions and assumptions. This is a belated specifications challenge and therefore has been waived. Regardless, the evidence demonstrates that both the TRT and Selection Committee did, in fact, consider the exceptions and assumptions in the evaluation and ranking of proposers. The TRT and Selection Committee were instructed to consider exceptions and assumptions and to give them the weight they deemed appropriate subject to staying within the confines of the ITN’s section 2.5.2 criteria. Consistent with these instructions, some TRT members included comments regarding exceptions and assumptions in those members’ evaluation summaries, reflecting that exceptions and assumptions were considered during the evaluation process. Other TRT members considered the exceptions of minimal significance given that the Department would address them during negotiations and was not bound to agree to any. Indeed, the evidence was that it was the Department’s intent to sort out the exceptions and assumptions in the negotiation process and, again, that the Department need not agree to any exceptions initially set forth by the vendors. Thus, the Department acted rationally and within the bounds of the ITN and its discretion when considering exceptions and assumptions. The Selection Committee Reached Consensus Accenture alleges that the Selection Committee failed to carry out its duty to reach a “consensus” in ranking vendor proposals. The evidence establishes the exact opposite. The ITN provides that the Selection Committee will come to “consensus” about ranking the vendors in order of preference, based on technical approach, capabilities, and best value. A consensus does not require unanimity. According to the testimony of Selection Committee member Javier Rodriguez, who was the only Selection Committee member who voted for Accenture as his first choice, “at the end, Xerox got three votes from the Selection Committee; Accenture got one. So for me, consensus meant: Are we in consensus to move forward with Xerox? And as I said at the selection meeting, I didn’t object. So from a consensus standpoint, we’re moving on to starting negotiations with Xerox, and that was the intent.” Therefore, the unrebutted evidence is that the Selection Committee did, in fact, reach consensus. Subject Matter Experts Accenture contends that the TRT and Selection Committee made use of subject matter experts in the course of the evaluation and ranking in violation of Florida statutory requirements and governing procurement policies. The record, however, is void of any substantial competent evidence in support of these allegations. Tim Garrett is the tolls program manager for HNTB under the General Engineering Consulting contract for FTE. Mr. Garrett was the overall project manager assigned to support FTE in the development and execution of the ITN. He and other HNTB employees, such as Wendy Viellenave and Theresa Weekes, CPA, provided support to both TRT and Selection Committee members in regards to summarizing proposals and defining the process. There is no evidence that any employee of, or sub-consultant to, HNTB communicated qualitative assessments or opinions about any of the competing proposals to TRT or Selection Committee members. Rather, the evidence shows that HNTB facilitated the TRT’s and Selection Committee’s evaluation work by presenting to the committee members data in the form of summaries, charts, and recapitulations pulled from the voluminous technical and price proposals submitted by the five competing vendors. Other than the support provided by HNTB, the record is essentially devoid of evidence that proposal evaluators made use of subject matter experts.6/ But in any event, neither Petitioner has made a showing that the use of subject matter experts is proscribed by governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of the ITN. Although the use of subject matter experts was not addressed in the ITN itself, the Department, before the Pre- Qualification Oral Presentations in early January 2014, issued written “Instructions to Technical Review Committee.” These instructions authorized TRT members to confer with subject matter experts during the procurement process on specific technical questions and subject to certain additional parameters, as follows: Subject Matter Experts Subject matter experts are authorized to support the TRC on specific technical questions that the TRC members may have throughout the procurement process. Subject matter experts may respond to questions on any aspect of the procurement or proposal, but may not be asked to, nor will they support, the evaluation of proposals, which is the responsibility of each TRC member. A subject matter expert can discuss the specific elements of the ITN and a vendor’s proposal with a TRC member, but they cannot meet with more than one TRC member at a time, unless in a public meeting – subject to the Procurement Rules of Conduct stated above. The subject matter experts are fact finders. A subject matter expert cannot disclose the specific questions asked by another TRC member. No evidence has been presented to establish that the Instructions to Technical Review Committee, as to the use of subject matter experts, violated Florida law or the terms of the ITN, or that any subject matter expert -- whether affiliated with HNTB or not -- failed to perform within the parameters set forth in the Instructions.7/ Both Petitioners devoted significant hearing time to the FTE consultancy work of John McCarey, McCarey Consultants, LLC, and John Henneman, an employee of Atkins Engineering, Inc., and sub-consultant to HNTB. There has been no showing by Petitioners that either Mr. McCarey or Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert to any member of the TRT or Selection Committee or that either had improper contacts in regards to the evaluation or ranking of the vendors. The undisputed evidence is that Mr. McCarey did not serve as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators. As for Mr. Henneman, although one TRT member testified in deposition that he “believe[d]” Mr. Henneman was a technical expert or considered one of the subject matter experts, there is no evidence that Mr. Henneman served as a subject matter expert for any of the evaluators -- TRT or Selection Committee. In sum, there is simply no evidence that any of the subject matter experts had any improper influence on the TRT or Selection Committee members.8/ No Improper Contacts, Attempts to Influence, or Bias Cubic alleges that there was improper contact between the Department and Xerox during this protest that violates the statutorily imposed “cone of silence” for procurements. Cubic also asserts that there were attempts by Xerox to influence the evaluations or rankings based on the Department’s, or the other agencies’, past or existing relationships with Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. There simply is no record support for the assertions that there was any improper contact or any attempt by any person to influence the Department’s evaluations or rankings based on past or existing relationships between the Department and Xerox or Xerox’s acquired entities. Xerox’s counsel did not have any contact with the TRT or the Selection Committee prior to the filing of the protests and the attendant “stop” of the procurement process pursuant to section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The only contact Xerox’s counsel had with TRT or Selection Committee members was as a participant with the Department’s counsel in pre-deposition meetings with some witnesses designated by Petitioners -- all in the context of ongoing litigation following the filing of Accenture’s and Cubic’s protest petitions. This contact is essentially no different than Petitioners’ contact with Department personnel in depositions and the trial, as well as during the section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes, settlement conference with the Department. Furthermore, all such contact was after both the TRT’s and the Selection Committee’s work under the ITN was completed and the said contact was of no import to the procurement process. In short, there is no evidence of attempts by Xerox to influence the process, improper contact between Xerox and the Department, or Department bias in favor of Xerox. Responsiveness of Xerox’s Proposal The evidence, at best, is that the Department has yet to fully vet the representations made in the proposals by the respective Proposers, including Xerox. Protesters suggest that such a full vetting is a condition precedent to negotiations. Such an argument, however, ignores ITN section 2.12, which has to be reconciled with ITN section 2.9.1 b). ITN section 2.9.1 b) provides in part that “[t]he Proposer shall have Key Team members with the following experience at the time of Proposal submission.” The section then goes on to list several positions that fall within the “Key Team Personnel” category. Petitioners contend that the Contract Project Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, and Human Resources Manager proposed by Xerox fail to meet the “Qualifications of Key Team Personnel” set forth in ITN section 2.9.1 b), thus rendering the Xerox proposal nonresponsive. ITN section 2.12 provides in part that “[a]fter the Proposal due date and prior to Contract execution, the Department reserves the right to perform . . . [a] review of the Proposer’s . . . qualifications [and that] [t]his review will serve to verify data and representations submitted by the Proposer and may be used to determine whether the Proposer has an adequate, qualified, and experienced staff.” Xerox’s omission, at this point in the process, amounts to a non-material deviation from the ITN specifications given that ITN section 2.12 reserves in the Department the right to review key personnel representations made by Xerox, and any other short-listed Proposer, at any time “prior to Contract execution.” Cubic also contends that Xerox and Accenture submitted conditional Price Proposals rendering their proposals non- responsive under ITN section 2.16. The analysis turns on the provisions of Technical Proposal Section 9: Exceptions and Assumptions, which provides a detailed description of how exceptions and assumptions are to be provided by vendors, and explains that “[e]xceptions may be considered during the Proposal evaluation process at the sole discretion of the Department.” As provided by the ITN, all vendors included a detailed listing of exceptions and assumptions in their Technical Proposal. Consistent with the discretion afforded to the Department under ITN Technical Proposal Section 9 to consider listed exceptions during the Proposal evaluation process, the Department then made the following inquiry of each of the Proposers: Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Exceptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Please identify whether your price proposal is based on the Department’s acceptance of the Assumptions in Section 9 of your technical proposal? Xerox responded to both inquiries as follows: “The Xerox price proposal is based on the assumptions and general risk profile created by the inclusion of Section 9. We assume the parties will reach mutual agreement on the issues raised in Section 9 without a material deviation in the price proposal.” In addition to providing written answers to the questions, the vendors also addressed these issues in the Proposal Oral Presentations in response to questions by the Department. By the end of the Proposal Oral Presentations, all three vendors had made clear to the Department that resolution of exceptions and assumptions would not affect the proposed price. For example, Xerox’s senior executive in charge of the procurement, Richard Bastan, represented that there is no financial implication to any of the exceptions and that Xerox would honor the terms and conditions and the scope of services in the ITN for the price set forth in the Price Proposal. Accordingly, none of the proposals were improperly conditioned, and Xerox, Accenture, and Cubic were treated equally. Cubic also contends that Xerox’s proposal was nonresponsive as Xerox allegedly failed to meet the stated experience minimums for transactions processed and accounts maintained. There is, however, no credible evidence to support this contention. Indeed, the evidence is that the Department, through its consultant HNTB, verified these requirements by calling the referenced projects. Moreover, Xerox met or exceeded the stated minimums with its New York project reference. The Department’s decision that Xerox was responsive on this issue is logical, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. Price Proposals ITN section 2.5.2 lists “price” as a factor to consider in determining “Best Value.” The vendors’ price proposals were presented to the TRT members for purposes of conducting their evaluations. Price was also an appropriate factor for consideration by the Selection Committee. Accenture argues that “[t]he ITN does not indicate how pricing will be considered by FDOT during the selection process.” Accenture’s contention that the ITN failed to disclose the relative importance of price is a challenge to the terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITN and should have been filed within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation, as required by section 120.57(3)(b). Accenture has waived its right of protest with respect to this issue. Conflict of Interest Accenture complains that “[n]either Mr. Henneman nor Mr. McCarey submitted conflict of interest forms as required under the Department’s Procurement Manual . . . [because both] were present during the oral presentations made by the vendors in connection with this procurement.” Accenture also complains that Wendy Viellenave never disclosed that her husband works for TransCore, a company that is a subcontractor for Xerox. Ms. Viellenave’s husband currently works for TransCore as a maintenance and installation manager in California and has not worked in Florida in nearly twenty years. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Viellenave, through the relationship with her husband, has any “significant” direct or indirect -- financial or otherwise -- interest in TransCore that would interfere with her allegiance to the Department. The fact that Ms. Viellenave is married to an individual that works for a Xerox subcontractor is insufficient, in itself, to establish a real or potential conflict of interest. Jack Henneman currently runs the back office operation for FTE at its Boca Raton facility. His future role for the CCSS is as project manager for the implementation of the CCSS. Mr. Henneman became aware of the CCSS procurement through his work on a Florida Transportation Commission Report that culminated in 2012. This report documented the cost efficiencies for all of the tolling authorities in Florida. Mr. Henneman attended some of the Pre-Qualification Demonstrations as his schedule would permit because he is the “go-forward” project manager for the CCSS implementation. Mr. Henneman formerly worked for ACS from 2002 – 2009, and met Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti during his employment with the company. Mr. Henneman was the transition manager for the transfer of the back office operation of the New Jersey Turnpike from WorldCom to ACS. Mr. Henneman did not have any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti from approximately 2009 to 2012. In his capacity as the “go-forward” project manager, Mr. Henneman reviewed the technical proposals submitted by the vendors in the instant proceeding but he did not have any discussions with the TRT members or the Selection Committee members about the proposals. He reviewed the technical proposals for the purpose of educating himself so that he would be better prepared to carry out his functions as the “go-forward” project manager. John McCarey is a sub-consultant to FTE general engineering contractor, Atkins. Mr. McCarey has a future role as being a part of the negotiations group for the CCSS. Mr. McCarey formerly worked for Lockheed for approximately 25 years and then spent 5 years working for ACS. Mr. McCarey was the chief financial officer for ACS’s State and Local Solutions Group at one time. Mr. McCarey left the employment of ACS in 2006. Mr. McCarey currently assists with various functions, including work on issues with the consolidation of the back office systems of OOCEA and FTE. For approximately 10 years before becoming a sub-consultant, Mr. McCarey had not had any contact with Ms. Gutierrez-Scaccetti. As it relates to the CCSS project, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. McCarey provided recommendations to the TRT or the Selection Committee.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioners’ protests be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid specifications, together with other applicable authority, require that a bid, in order to be responsive, contain any written list of subcontractors.
Findings Of Fact On September 26, 1989, Respondent issued a document entitled, Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, West Orange High School, Winter Garden, Florida, Engineers Project No. 89-016. As amended by three addenda, the above-described specifications shall be referred to as the "ITB." Respondent duly advertised for bids ore September 26, October 3, and October 10, 1989. The advertisement did not state that Respondent reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. In response to the ITB, Florida Mechanical, Inc. ("FMI") and B & I Contractors, Inc. ("B & I") timely submitted bids. For the base work and alternate 1, which Respondent ultimately decided to select, FMI bid $1,439,000, B & I bid $1,438,000, and a third bidder, S. I. Goldman, Company bid $1,621,000. These bids are recorded on a Bid Tabulation Sheet prepared by the engineer retained by Respondent for the project. The Bid Tabulation Sheet contains eight columns. Four columns record bid amounts for the base work and various alternates. The remaining columns are entitled, "Bidder," "Bid Bond," "Addenda," and "Subs." Each of the three bidders were named in one of the rows beneath the "Bidder," column. Each bidder had one "X" in its "Bid Bond" column and three "X"s in its "Addenda" column. However, only FMI and S. I. Goldman Company had "X"'s in their "Subs" columns. By resolution adopted on November 29, 1989, Respondent directed that all bids were rejected and that the Superintendent would correct any ambiguities and uncertainties in the ITB and solicit new bids. The resolution noted that Respondents staff had recommended that, if any bid were accepted, it should be that of B & I. However, [FMI] submitted with its bid a list of Major Sub-contractors of the form displayed in the [ITB], and B & I did not submit wish its aid a list of Major Sub-contractors[.] The resolution concluded that Respondent based on advice of staff and counsel, found that the [ITB is) ambiguous and/or uncertain as to whether or not a bidder must submit along with his bid a list of Major Sub-contractors, (b) that because of such ambiguity and/or uncertainty, it would be unfair and/or improper for [Respondent] to accept either of the bids received by it, and (c) that as a result thereof [Respondent] should reject all bids received by it for ,the Project and should solicit new bids for the Project as soon as is reasonably feasible after correction by [Respondents] staff of any ambiguity and uncertainty as aforesaid in the [ITB]. FMI and B & I each timely filed a notice of intent to protest and formal written protest of Respondent's decision to reject each company's respective bid. S. I. Goldman did not protest the decision and is not a party to the subject case. At a meeting on December 12, 1989, Respondent elected to refer the bid protests to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing., At the beginning of the hearing, the parties filed a written stipulation, which stated that the only issue for determination was which Petitioner should be awarded the contract and not whether Respondent should seek further bids or award the contract to another bidder. The stipulation also stated that the Petitioners and Respondent agreed to abide by the recommendation of the hearing officer. At the hearing, the parties further stipulated that the sole issue for determination is whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. In addition, the parties stipulated that both Petitioners had standing and the protests were timely and sufficient. The ITB requires that each bidder familiarize itself with all federal, state, and "Local Laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the work." Under the section entitled, "Preparation and Submission of Bids," the ITB states: "Each bidder shall use the Bid Form that is inserted herein, and may copy or reproduce the form on this own letterhead." Among other requirements, the ITB requires two bonds. The first is a "bid guarantee" of at, least five percent of the amount of the bid. The form of this guarantee may be cash or a Bid Bond." The other bond described in the ITB a 100% public construction bond. The surety on this bond must have been admitted to do business in Florida, must have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operation for at least five years, and must have at least a Bests Financial Rating of "Class VI" and a Bests Policyholder Ration of "A." The Bid Form contained in the ITB is two pages. Among other things, the Bid Form requires that the bidder receiving written notice of acceptance of its bid must provide the prescribed payment and performance bond and execute the contract within ten days after notification. The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "Form of Bid Bond." The provisions on this page identify the A.I.A. document to use and state that the Bid Bond "shall be submitted with the Bid Proposal Form." The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "List of Major Subcontractors." The List of Major Subcontractors states: Bidders shall list all major subcontractors that will be used if a contract is awarded. Additionally, bidders shall identify in the appropriate box whether or not that trade specialty is minority owned. Another paragraph defines minority ownership. The remainder of the form consists of ten rows for the "bidder" and nine major subcontractors, such as concrete, electrical, HVAC, and controls, and blanks where the bidder can indicate which of these entities are minority owned. The next document in the ITB is the Owner-Contractor Agreement, which is followed by tie Form of Construction Bond, General Conditions, and Supplementary General Conditions. Section 7.11 of the Supplementary General Conditions establishes certain requirements to be performed after the submission of bids. This section provides: Pre-Award Submittals: Before the Contract is awarded the apparent low bidder shall provide the following information to the owner. A copy of the Contractors current State of Florida General Contractor's or Mechanical Contractors License. Pre-Construction Meeting. After the Notice to Proceed and within eight (8) business days of the Owner [sic], the Contractor shall meet with the Owner, Engineer and Subcontractors that the Owner may designate... The Contractor shall provide the following to the Owner. * * * 2. A written list of all Subcontractors, material men and suppliers with such information as requested by the Owner or Engineer. * * * The remaining documents in the ITB are the technical specifications for the job. The three addenda supply additional technical information not relevant to this case. Respondent has promulgated rules with respect to the bidding process ("Rules"). The ITB does not refer to the Rules, which define and use many terms that are found in the ITB. For instance, Rule 1.1.25 defines the phrases, "Performance and Payment Bond," which is the same phrase used in the Bid Form in the ITB. The Rules define several other capitalized terms that are also used in the ITB, such as Bid Bond, Bid Guarantee, Bidder, and Contractor. Rule 4.1 similarly states that the bidder is familiar with federal, state, and "Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations that in any manner affect the Work." Rule 6.1 describes the process by which a bidder is to prepare and submit bids and the Bid Guarantee in language similar to that contained in the ITB. Rule 6.2 discusses the listing of subcontractors. Rules 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 state: General Contractor shall include as an integral part of his bid a List of Subcontractors he proposes to use. The Bidder shall enclose this list in a 4" x 9" envelope, sealed and marked "List of Subcontractors" and identified ... The Bidder shall enclose said envelope with his bid proposal in the mailing envelope. The List of Subcontractors enclosed with tee Proposal of each Bidder will be examined by the ... Engineer before the Proposal is opened and read. In the event that the form is not properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened... Rule 6.3 requires a Statement of Surety as another "integral part" of each bid. Rule 6.3.3 states: The Statement of Surety will be opened examined by the ... Engineer prior to the opening of the Proposal.... Although similar to Rule 6.2, Rule 6.3 lacks the warming that if the Statement of Surety is not "properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened." Rule 19.1 sets forth the requirements, for the surety. These requirements are different than those set forth in the ITB. Rules 19.1.1 and 19.1.2 require, as does the ITB, that the surety be admitted to do business in the State of Florida and shall have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operations for at least five years. However, Rule 19.1.1 requires that the surety be represented by a reputable and responsible surety bond agency licensed to do, business in the State of Florida and have a local representative in the Orlando area. Rule 19.1.3 requires minimum Bests ratings of "A" in "management," and, as to "strength and surplus," "AAA+" in financial rating and $12,500,000 minimum surplus. Rule 19.1.3.3 also requires that the surety be listed on the U.S. Treasury Departments Circular 570. The bids of FMI and S. I. Goldman Company contained a completed List of Major Subcontractors. The bid of B & I did not. No bidder included a Statement of Surety with its bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order awarding the subject contract to Florida Mechanical, Inc. ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of FMI All of FMI's proposed findings have been adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of B & I 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: adopted, except that the staff recommended that, if the bid was to be awarded, that it be awarded to B & I. 6: adopted in substance. 7: rejected as conclusion of law and, to the extent fact, subordinate. 8-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as unsupported by the greater height of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as subordinate. 22: rejected as beyond the scope of the issues and irrelevant in view of the stipulation. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the issue to be addressed would not be whether the intended agency action of Respondent was lawful (i.e., not arbitrary, fraudulent, dishonest, or otherwise improper), but rather whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Schott, Superintendent The School Board of Orange County, Florida P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802 Charles Robinson Fawsett, P. A. Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 James F. Butler, III Smith, Currie & Hancock 2600 Peachtree Center Harris Tower 233 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30043-6601 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esq. Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue P.O. Box 305 Orlando, FL 32803
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intent to award a contract for bridge-tending services (RFP DOT 92/93 2088 REBID) to Intervenor constitutes fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, illegal or dishonest action.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.-12., below. Stipulated Facts Respondent issued the RFP for bridge-tending services on May 14, 1993. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP were opened on June 16, 1993. Proposals were submitted by five firms, including Petitioner and Intervenor. All proposals were determined at the time to be responsive. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was appointed to review the technical portion of the proposals. The three members of the TRC were Alan Hyman, J. L. Gillis, and Yingyong Sujjavanich. The members reviewed the technical portion of the proposals on June 17, 1993. The evaluation forms completed by the TRC and a summary score sheet were delivered to Respondent's purchasing office on the morning of June 18, 1993. The price proposal was evaluated by Respondent's purchasing office. The price evaluation of each proposal was performed by applying a formula which compared the submitted price quotations. After the scores for the technical proposal and the cost proposals were totalled, it was determined that Intervenor's proposal had earned the highest number of points. This result was presented to Respondent's District 2 Executive Committee and a recommendation was communicated by the Purchasing Director to award the RFP to Intervenor. The Executive Committee accepted the recommendation and directed that the contract be awarded to Intervenor. On June 18, 1993, at 4 p.m., the bid tabs were posted noticing Respondent's intent to award the contract to Intervenor. On or about July 6, 1993, Petitioner requested a meeting with Respondent's representatives regarding the RFP. That meeting was held on July 9, 1993. At the meeting, Petitioner raised an issue regarding an arithmetic error in the scoring of the technical proposals. Intervenor remained the proposer with the highest number of points. However, another proposal formerly ranked as number two was lowered to number three status and Petitioner, previously ranked number three, was raised to number two rank. On July 12, 1993, Respondent posted an amended bid tab indicating its intent to award the contract to Intervenor. Other Facts Respondent chose to score the bid pricing, a non- subjective task, in Respondent's District 2 office. Technical portions of the proposals were reviewed by the TRC, comprised of members from Respondent's District 5 office. This unusual step was taken by Respondent in order to reduce prejudice to any proposal in view of previous accusations made against District 2 employees. Bud Rosier, Respondent's employee, has overall responsibility for bridge determination that District 5 employees chosen as committee members were qualified to evaluate the proposals. Each response to the RFP contained a technical proposal and a price proposal. Intervenor's technical proposal received 1.33 points less than Petitioner's technical proposal. The price proposals, as noted above, were scored in accordance with a mathematical formula that compares price proposals to each other and does not take any subjective factors into consideration. Intervenor was awarded 5.55 points, compared to Petitioner who received no points for a proposal more than $140,000 higher for the initial year of the contemplated contract. Although members of the TRC were not given any background information by Respondent regarding the competing proposals, beyond that contained in the submitted bid packages, no information was withheld from the committee. The members were given adequate time to review the proposals and do any desired independent background checking regarding past performance of any proposer, although no requirement in the RFP mandated such a background review. At least one of the TRC members, Sujjavanich, chose not to independently research past performance of the Intervenor. No evidence was offered at hearing with regard to whether the other two members independently researched any of the proposers' past performances. Even if review of past performance, apart from the materials submitted by the proposers, were required by provisions of the RFP, failure of the evaluators to accomplish that task would result only in the loss to Intervenor of the 3.66 points awarded for past performance and Intervenor, with a remaining total of 81.89 points, would remain the highest ranked proposer. In view of the objective process used to arrive at the results of the evaluation of the prices of the competing proposals, there was no need to provide this information to the members of the TRC who were doing the technical proposal evaluation. Although the RFP provided that the TRC would be given such results, the failure of Respondent's personnel to provide this information to the evaluators could not have made any difference in the final result since the committee, using the objective price evaluation criteria, would have arrived at the same result as the purchasing office on cost scores. The admitted failure to provide the superfluous cost information to the TRC is inadequate to show that such omission resulted in prejudice to the final scores of any of the competing proposals and must be considered to be only a minor variation from the RFP by Respondent. Contrary to Petitioner's allegations, there is no competent substantial evidence to support any finding that the members of the TRC (Hyman, Gillis, and Sujjavanich) did not possess required background, experience or professional credentials adequate for evaluating proposals for bridge-tending services. All three members of the TRC were familiar with the RFP, attachments to the RFP, bridge-tending procedures and bridge-tending qualification procedures. There is no competent substantial evidence to establish that Intervenor's proposal is not financially feasible. Proposed utilization of 72 bridge-tenders by Intervenor for a total price of $673,333.44 does not mean that 72 bridge-tender positions would be established or filled, or that the positions would be paid at the rate proposed by Petitioner of $8.40 per hour. The evidence establishes that a proposer would need an optimum number of bridge requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the award of the bid in RFP DOT 92/93 2088 Rebid to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4271BID The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-12. Accepted. 13.-16. Rejected, relevancy. 17. Accepted. 18.-19. Rejected, relevancy. 20.-25. Accepted. 26.-27. Rejected, cumulative. 28. Rejected, credibility. 29.-33. Rejected, relevancy. 34.-35. Accepted. 36.-37. Rejected, argumentative and mischaracterization. 38.-46. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 47.-51. Rejected, relevancy. Intervenor's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected, cumulative. 3.-4. Accepted. 5.-6. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, argumentative. 10.-11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted by reference. 14.-16. Accepted, but not verbatim. 17.-22. Adopted by reference. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-30. Adopted, but not verbatim. 31. Rejected, narrative. 32.-35. Rejected, cumulative. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-11. Adopted. 12. Rejected, unnecessary. 13.-17. Adopted, not verbatim. 18.-19. Rejected, cumulative. 20.-22. Adopted. 23. Rejected, recitation of RFP. 24.-26. Adopted. 27. Rejected, recitation of RFP. 28.-29. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Cassidy, III, Esquire. John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Carolyn S. Holifield, Esquire Mark D. Tucker, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building # 562 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The invitation to bid on state Project Nos. 86906-9093, 86906-9094, and 86906-9085 (the "ITB") contained, among other things, 43 pages of Technical Specifications Roadside and Slope Mowing ("Technical Specifications"). Paragraph VI.A. of the Technical Specifications contained the following provision: When mowing areas within ten feet of the travel way, the equipment shall be operated in the direction of the traffic. This provision does not apply when the specific worksite (sic) is protected in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation Roadway and Traffic Design standards [attached]. 3/ Respondent amended the ITB by letter dated May 1, 1990, which contained Addendum Nos. 1 and 2. Addendum No. 1 amended the invitations to bid on State Project Nos. 86906-9093 and 86906-9094 by deleting the "last" word "attached" from Paragraph VI.A. Addendum No. 2 amended the invitations to bid on State Project No. 86906-9085 by deleting the "last" word "attached" from Paragraph VI.A. No other changes were made in the amendments to the invitations to bid on the three state projects at issue in this proceeding ("Amended ITB"). The ITB contained a requirement that all bidders attend a Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference to allow bidders an opportunity to speak to Respondent's maintenance engineers about any concerns over the ITB. Petitioner attended the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference conducted on April 26, 1990, for the ITB. 4/ The ITB and the Amended ITB contained a requirement that each bidder visually inspect the roadside areas to be mowed. Petitioner knew of the requirement for visual inspection and complied with that requirement. Petitioner had previous experience in mowing roadside areas for Respondent. The Florida Department of Transportation Roadway and Traffic Design standards ("Standards Index") was not attached to either the ITB or the Amended ITB. Paragraph 9 of the General District Contract Specifications provided that the successful bidder "...shall adhere to the requirements of Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD")." Neither the ITB nor the Amended ITB included a copy of either the MUTCD or Part VI of the MUTCD. Petitioner received the ITB on April 12, 1990, and requested a copy of the Standards Index at that time from Teresa Martin, Assistant District Contracts Administrator, District Four, Florida Department of Transportation. Ms. Martin advised Petitioner on April 12, 1990, that no copies of the Standards Index were available locally and further advised Petitioner of the location and means for obtaining a copy of the Standards Index in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner made no attempt to obtain a copy of the Standards Index at that time. Petitioner again requested a copy of the Standards Index from Ms. Martin on May 2, 1990, and was advised again at that time of the location and means of obtaining a copy of the Standards Index. The bid package did not fail to contain any "plan" referred to in: Section 4, Scope of Work, paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2; Section 5, Control of the Work, paragraph 5.2; Section 12, Work Assignment and Planning for Routine Contract Maintenance, paragraphs 2 and 4-6, page 5, paragraph 1.2, page 20, Section II D., III A., page 24, Section IX, and page 64, Proposal. Petitioner presented no evidence or authority describing the applicable standard for defining a "plan". The ITB and Amended ITB contain a description of which roadsides are to be mowed, the manner in which the work should be performed, each pay item and the quantity estimated for each item, the estimated number of mowing cycles, and numerous other detailed provisions regarding mowing operations, operator safety, equipment maintenance, and conversion charts. While the ITB and Amended ITB are standard forms of contract issued by the Department of General Services, they are tailored to meet the specific needs of a mowing contract by means of the Technical Specifications. In the absence of evidence or authority to the contrary from Petitioner, the ITB and Amended ITB are found to include all relevant plans. Respondent failed to include either the "form of Contract" or "Bond" referred to in pages 1, 10, and 64 of the ITB and Amended ITB. Page 64 contained a form of bid proposal which required each bidder to sign a statement that the bidder had "...carefully and to [its] satisfaction examined the...form of Contract and Bond.. The ITB and Amended ITB did not fail to state standards for what is "customary to the mowing operation". The ITB and Amended ITB were prepared on a standard form of contract issued by the Department of General Services and used by Respondent to solicit bids for various types of commodities and services. The ITB and Amended ITB were used to solicit mowing services for specified roadside areas In Broward County, Florida. They were composed of general specifications, bidding documents, technical specifications, and mowing guidelines. The term "custom" by definition refers to the prevailing practice that has been established over time within a geographical area rather than the written terms of a contract. 5/ The definition of grass or vegetated roadside areas to be mowed, which is set forth in Section I, Description A, page 19, excludes certain plants and vines which are present in the areas to be mowed. 6/ Such a definition does not take into account the different toughness and clumping characteristics of each type of grass or weed within the mowing area. Differences in toughness and clumping characteristics of grasses and weeds can adversely alter the uniformity of cutting height. The Technical specifications neither define the term "routine mowing", as used in Sections II.D. and III.A., nor prescribe how high grass or weeds should be allowed to grow before Respondent issues a work order or a notice to proceed. Grass, weeds, plants, and vines in a roadside area that are left for several months without a work order being issued can grow to a height of 10 feet, develop very hard stems, or lay down during mowing and later rebound. The Technical Specifications do not contain a definition of minimum mower size. The frequency with which Respondent issues work orders or notices to proceed depends on growth conditions in the particular roadside area including rain and drought. The topography of the roadside areas to be mowed includes holes, boulders, and un-repaired washouts. The topographical characteristics of the roadside areas and the toughness and clumping characteristics of the grasses and weeds in the roadside areas adversely affect the ability of a successful bidder to comply with cutting height and green streak requirements in the Technical Specifications. 7/ The ITB and Amended ITB were neither arbitrary, capricious, nor beyond Respondent's discretion. The terms of the ITB and Amended ITB were not inherently uncertain or unreasonable. No evidence was presented that Respondent abused its discretion in soliciting the bids, that the accepted bid, if any, was not a reasonable price for the work solicited, that the law was not complied with, or that the contract to be awarded was not fair and capable of just and lawful enforcement. The ITB and Amended ITB were sufficiently precise to protect the public against collusive contracts, prevent favoritism toward contractors, and secure fair competition upon equal terms to all bidders. The ITB and Amended ITB afforded a basis for an exact comparison of bids among all bidders and did not reserve to an officer of the public body the power to make exceptions, releases, and modifications that would afford opportunities for favoritism after the contract is let.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's written formal protest be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August, 1990. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1990.
Findings Of Fact On March 17, 1994, the Department issued a request for proposal, RFP- DOT-93/94-9025, for the provision of rest area/welcome station security services for the Department's districts geographically identified as 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The request for proposal (RFP) contained instructions to proposers, a scope of services, and attachments. Pursuant to the RFP, sealed technical and price proposals were to be submitted to the Department's headquarters no later than 2:30 p.m., April 20, 1994. The RFP contained the procedure which the Department would follow to evaluate and score competing proposals. Petitioner, Intervenor, and others timely submitted proposals to be evaluated by the Department. After reviewing the proposals, the Department posted its proposed tabulations for each of the districts. This posting, on May 10, 1994, identified the proposer to whom the Department intended to award the contract in each of the districts. Petitioner was ranked first in district 5. The intended award for district 5 is not in dispute. Petitioner was ranked second in districts 1, 2, and 7. Intervenor was ranked first in those districts. Petitioner was ranked third in district 3. Intervenor was ranked first in that district, and another proposer ranked second ahead of Petitioner. On May 13, 1994, Petitioner timely filed a notice of intent to protest the intended awards to Intervenor in districts 1, 2, 3, and 7. Subsequently, Petitioner timely filed the formal written protest which is the subject of this case. During the last week in June, 1994, the Secretary of the Department issued a declaration of emergency pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and awarded the contracts notwithstanding the pendency of this case. As a result, before the end of June, 1993, the Department and Intervenor executed contracts for districts 1, 2, 3, and 7; each with a July 1, effective date. The substantial interests of Petitioner are affected by the Department's award to Intervenor of the contracts for districts 1, 2, 3, and 7, as are the interests of Intervenor to support those contracts. Section 1.1 of the RFP defined "proposer" as follows: For the purpose of this document, the term "proposer" means the prime Consultant acting for itself and those individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations comprising the proposer's team. The term "proposal" means the complete response of the proposer to the request or invitation for proposals, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation. Section 1.7 of the RFP established the "qualifications for consultant services" as follows: General The Department will determine whether the proposer is qualified to perform the services being contracted based upon the Consultant demonstrating in its proposal satisfactory experience and capability in the work area. The proposer shall include the necessary experienced personnel and facilities to support the activities associated with this contract. Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Contract Manager. Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/ or licenses should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Review of Facilities After the proposal due date and prior to contract award, the Department reserves the right to perform or have performed, an on-site review of the proposer's facilities. This review will serve to verify data and representations submitted by the Proposer and to determine whether the proposer has an adequate, qualified, and experienced staff, and can provide overall management facilities. The review will also serve to verify whether the Proposer has finan- cial capability adequate to meet the contract requirements. In the event the Department determines that the size or nature of the proposer's facilities or the number of experienced personnel (including technical staff) are not reasonably adequate to ensure satisfactory contract performance, the Department has the right to reject the proposal. Section 1.8 of the RFP provided: General The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received and reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the proposals submitted. Therefore, the proposals should be submitted initially in the most favorable manner. It is understood that the proposal will become a part of the official file on this matter without obligation to the Department. Responsiveness of Proposals All proposals must be in writing. A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal. Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A proposal may be found to be irregular or non- responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional proposals, incomplete proposals, indefinite or ambiguous proposals, improper and/or undated signatures. Multiple Proposals Proposals may be rejected if more than one proposal is received from an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation, or combination thereof, under the same or different names. Such duplicate interest may cause the rejection of all proposals in which such proposer has participated. Subconsultants may appear in more than one proposal. Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of proposals include evidence of collusion among proposers, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Proposal will be rejected if not delivered or received on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other proposers. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Proposals by giving a proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other proposers. Section 1.10 of the RFP provided: 1.10 Contractual Obligations The general terms and conditions of any agree- ment between the Department and the selected proposer will be guided by State procedures. Each individual, partnership, firm or corporation that is part of the proposer's team, either by joint venture, or subcontract, will be subject to, and comply with, the contractual requirements. The basic form of Agreement shall be the State of Florida Department of Transportation's Contractual Service Agreement, attached hereto as Attachment II. Section 1.19 of the RFP provided: 1.19 Award of the Contract The Department intends to award the contract to the responsible and responsive proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department IN EACH DISTRICT. Section 1.21 of the RFP provided: 1.21 Contract Execution The Department and the successful proposer will enter into a contract establishing the obligations of both parties, FOR EACH DISTRICT. Section 1.16.2 of the RFP provided: 1.16.2 Technical Proposal(Part I)(6 copies) (Do not include price information in Part I) The Proposer must submit six (6) copies of the technical proposal which are to be divided into the sections described below. Since the Department will expect all technical proposals to be in this format, failure of the Proposer to follow this outline may result in the rejection of the proposal. The technical proposal must be submitted in a separate sealed package marked "Technical Proposal Number RFP-DOT-93/94-9025." EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary is to be written in non- technical language to summarize the proposer's experience, overall capabilities, and approaches for accomplishing the services specified herein. The proposer is encouraged to limit the summary to no more than ten (10) pages. PROPOSER'S MANAGEMENT PLAN The Proposer shall provide a management plan which explains the approach, capabilities, and means to be used to administer and manage the work. Administration and Management Proposer should include a description of the organizational structure and management style established and the methodology to be used to provide quality services and to maintain schedules; as well as the means of coordination and communication between the organization and the Department. Identification of Key Personnel Project Manager: Provide the name of Project Manager on Proposer's team, as well as a resume. A description of the functions and responsibilities of the person relative to the task to be performed is required. The approximate percent of time to be devoted exclusively for this project and to the assigned tasks also must be indicated. Contract Supervisors: Provide the names and resumes of all supervisors proposed. If you are proposing on more than one District, the number of supervisors should be consistent with the number of Districts being proposed. PROPOSER'S TECHNICAL PLAN Technical Approach This section should explain the approach, capabilities, and means to be used in accomp- lishing the tasks in the Scope of Services for each District. (i.e.; number of security guards, phones, vehicles, backup capabilities for equipment and personnel, etc.) Facility Capabilities A description and location of the proposer's facilities as they currently exist and as they will be employed for the purpose of this work must be identified. Section 1.17 of the RFP provided the criteria for the proposal evaluation. That section provided, in part: Evaluation Process: A Selection Committee, hereinafter referred to as the "Committee", will be established to review and evaluate each proposal submitted in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP). The Committee will be comprised of at least three persons with background, experience, and/or professional credentials in the service area. The Contractual Services Office will distribute to each member of the Committee a copy of each technical proposal. The committee members will independently base their evaluation of each proposal on the same criteria in order to assure that values are uniformly established. The Committee will evaluate each technical proposal on its own merit without compar- ison to proposals submitted by other firms and individuals. The Committee will assign points, utilizing the technical evaluation criteria identi- fied herein and complete a technical summary. * * * During the process of evaluation, the Committee will conduct examinations of proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the RFP. Those determined to be non-responsive will be automatically rejected. The Committee shall make a determination of the responsibility level of each Proposer. Proposals that are determined to have been submitted by non-responsible Proposers will be so marked. Criteria for Evaluation Technical Proposal Technical evaluation is the process of reviewing the Proposer's Executive Summary, Management Plan, and Technical Plan for understanding of project, qualifications, technical approach and capabilities, to assure a quality product. Price Proposal SEPARATE EVALUATION WILL BE DONE BY EACH DISTRICT PROPOSED Price evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider. Price analysis is conducted through the comparison of price quotations submitted FOR EACH DISTRICT. The criteria for price evaluation shall be based upon the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) x Weighted Price Points = Total Points Point Distribution (Weighted Values) The following point system is established for scoring the proposals: Point Value Technical Proposal 30 Price Proposal 70 Certified Minority Business Enterprise 10 Total Points 110 Borg-Warner Protective Services Corporation (Borg-Warner ) timely submitted a response to the RFP and proposed to provide services to the Department by using its affiliates or subsidiaries in each of the districts. Borg-Warner identified Wells Fargo Guard Service Inc. of Florida (Wells Fargo) as the service provider for districts 1 and 2; NYCO and Burns International as the providers for district 3; and Burns International for district 7. Prior to submitting its proposal, Borg-Warner communicated with the Department to inform it of the plan to submit its response as Borg-Warner offering the services of its operating divisions in each geographical area. The Department approved the concept of one proposal with each district clearly identified by provider. Wells Fargo is wholly-owned by Borg-Warner. Burns International Security Services, Inc., was a former corporate name for the entity now known as Borg-Warner. Burns International Security Services is a fictitious name that has been registered to Borg-Warner (or its predecessors) since 1982. "NYCO" is a fictitious name registered to Borg-Warner. The following Department employees served on the selection committee that evaluated and scored the RFP proposals: Larry Alan Reese All districts Dominic Richard All districts Richard A. Marino District 1 R.S. Manning District 2 Thomas W. Cook, Jr. District 3 Raymond D. Benedict District 7 Mr. Reese was the chairman of the selection committee; his point awards together with scores from two other members were tabulated for each district to arrive at the assignment of points for each proposer for criteria 1 (technical proposal). The price proposal (worth a point value up to 70) is not in dispute. The selection committee did not calculate the points assigned for price and it is presumed such calculations have been computed correctly. Similarly, points for firms utilizing certified minority business enterprise participation (worth a point value up to 10) are not in dispute. The selection committee did not tabulate the points assigned for MBE participation, and it is presumed such calculations have been computed correctly. All submittals were screened by the Department's contract services office to verify the proper forms (both in type and quantity) were timely submitted by each proposer. Such review is not in dispute. At all times material to this case, Borg-Warner has been appropriately licensed, or has submitted materials to become licensed, as required by the RFP. No administrative action has been taken to deny or limit Borg-Warner's right to do business through its affiliates or subsidiaries in Florida. Borg-Warner's proposal clearly and accurately identified the subsidiaries or affiliates who were to perform services in each geographic district proposed. The selection committee members were employees of the Department with experience in the areas of contracts, maintenance, and service requirements. While the members had limited, if any, expertise in terms of providing security services, each member has had experience in evaluating a management plan for providing services for the Department. It is found that such experience and the directions of the RFP adequately apprised them of the criteria for scoring the proposals for this RFP. Mr. Richard drafted the scope of services for this RFP and relied on his research of another contract and applicable statutes and rules. Mr. Reese participated in the administration of the Department's first contract for security guard services and assisted Mr. Richard. Mr. Marino, who is the maintenance contracts engineer for District 1, participated in the administration of the Department's first contract for security guard services. He has 25 years of experience with the Department, has drafted and reviewed scopes of services for other projects, and has reviewed RFP proposals for at least one other service contract. Mr. Manning, a maintenance engineer in District 2, participated in the administration of the Department's first contract for security guard services. He has 33 years of experience with the Department. Mr. Cook, an assistant district maintenance engineer in District 3, participated in the administration of the Department's first contract for security guard services. He has worked for the Department 23 years and has scored other RFP proposals in the past. Mr. Benedict, a maintenance contract engineer in District 7, participated in the administration of the Department's first contract for security guard services. He has written scopes of services for other projects and reviewed RFP proposals for another services contract. None of the criteria within the technical proposal for evaluation are of such a complex or technical nature that the selection committee members would not fully understand the proposals being submitted. Additionally, such criteria were not challenged as vague or ambiguous. No proposal was rejected as vague or ambiguous. The RFP sought submittals from contractors who could best ensure that properly licensed security guards would be at each rest area or welcome station 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Such contractor was to provide supervision for such guards to assure that they followed applicable laws and the general criteria set forth in the scope of services. Of the 30 possible points allowed for the technical proposal, 20 were identified for management, the other 10 points were split between the technical plan and facilities. Aside from the point distribution set forth in paragraph 45, the selection committee members were given discretion as to how, within the given parameters, to assign the points scored. Each reviewer scored the points consistently within the parameters described above and consistently assigned points as they deemed appropriate within that guideline. That is, for example, each consistently scored the 20 points for management in the same manner for each proposer. While the selection committee members individually may not have used the same method for scoring (each had discretion in applying the given criteria), each was consistent to their own system of evaluation when applying it to each proposal. Each evaluation was consistent with the RFP instructions to independently evaluate each proposal on the same criteria to assure uniform values. Each evaluator scored each proposal on its own merit without comparison to another proposal. The proposals were not ranked against one another but, rather received scores based upon the reviewer's comparison of it to the RFP terms. The committee members did not reject any proposal, or fail to review any, due to its nonresponsiveness to the RFP. The committee members did not reject any proposal, or fail to review any, because the proposer was deemed nonresponsible. The committee members had flexibility in scoring the proposals but did so consistently for each submittal reviewed. Borg-Warner submitted an unambiguous offer to perform the scope of services called for in the RFP and, therefore, its proposal was responsive. At all times material to the RFP Borg-Warner was able to perform the services called for in the RFP. Borg-Warner's proposal included all forms and was appropriately signed and dated. Its proposal was not conditional. The Borg-Warner proposal met the "other conditions" criteria found at Section 1.8.4 of the RFP. Moreover, it is found that no credible evidence was offered to establish collusion or other misconduct in connection with the submittal of this proposal. No proposer was favored or disadvantaged by the method or procedures utilized by the Department in the award of this project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the award of RFP-DOT-93/94-9025 to Borg-Warner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1995, 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 31st day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3160BID Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 9, 27, 30, 31, 38, 42, 43, 51, 52, 55, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 87, 88, 89, 99, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 114, and 115 are accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as vague or irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected as vague or irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioner's argument is misplaced: since Borg-Warner may perform security services state-wide it makes little difference whether it chooses to use its foot or its hand or some other portion of its corporate body to perform the services. Since all must account to the head, they are not in competition with each other. In this case, Borg-Warner designated which affiliate, division, or subsidiary would perform the work for each district identified. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant. See comment to paragraph 14 above. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 20, the first sentence, is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as speculative or irrelevant. Paragraph 21, the first sentence, is accepted. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 28 is rejected as incomplete or contrary to the exhibit when reviewed in its totality. Paragraph 29 is rejected contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The second sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 33 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 34 it is accepted that Borg-Warner acquired companies which became members of it corporate family; regardless of whether those entities are doing business under fictitious names or otherwise, it is clear they were properly identified and authorized by the parent to perform the services in each of the districts proposed. Paragraphs 35 and 36 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as vague, incomplete or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is rejected as repetitive, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 41 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 47 through 50 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 53 the first sentence is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 54 the first three sentences are accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 56 (including all subparts), 57, 58, and 59 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 60 and others which state what the committee "may" do, the committee had the authority to do many things, it was not required to take any specified action such that the failure to exercise its authority automatically constituted some breach of their duties. As there is no evidence that the committee acted arbitrarily or favored one proposer over another, its decision not to take action is not a material issue. Therefore, the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the total evidence or irrelevant. Where paragraphs 61 through 63 and 65 through 67 have been accepted they have been considered to accurately state what occurred, no conclusion should be reached that should suggest the actions were inappropriate or contrary to the duties given to them. Paragraph 69 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 70 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 75 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 76 is rejected as incomplete, inaccurate or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 77 through 86 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. While some portions of the proposed findings are accurate the totality of what the paragraphs suggest, that the committee inappropriately scored the responses, is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 90 is rejected as an incomplete statement and is therefore rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 91 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 92 through 95 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 96 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 97 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 98 is rejected as argument and contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 100 through 104 are rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 107 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 108 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence and argument. Paragraph 112 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 113 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 6, 8 through 14, 16 through 41, 43 through 47, 49 through 54, 57, 58, 59, paragraph erroneously marked 39 after 60, 61 through 68, 70, and 71 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 7, Section 1.7.3 not 1.7.2 specifically stated: The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the proposal due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. * * *[Emphasis added.] In light of the foregoing, it is expressly found that the RFP only mandated licensure at the time of the contract and not at the time of the RFP proposal. With regard to paragraph 15, the response filed by Borg-Warner identified the entities through whom the work would be performed as its "divisions." See letter dated 20 April 1994, Joint Ex. 3. However, the record in this case (and the RFP response in its totality) make it clear that Borg- Warner proposed to use its "divisions" or its affiliates or its subsidiaries, whichever name should be used, which are controlled by the parent entity to perform the services in the districts identified. There was no confusion as to which sub-entity would perform the service. Additionally, it is expressly found that the parent Borg-Warner, at all times material to this case, owned or controlled its affiliates. Paragraph 42 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56 is rejected as an incomplete statement. It is found, however, that three-person committees utilizing consistent review criteria as to each proposal reviewed would produce objective results despite the subjectiveness involved in each individual review. If criteria are consistently applied the three results taken together are reliable. Paragraph 60 is rejected as an incomplete statement. The proposals were to be evaluated on an individual basis reviewed against the criteria of the RFP; that is what the committee members did. That they may have compared responses from one proposer to the next is understandable; however, the scores given related not to each other but to the criteria of the RFP. With regard to paragraph 69, the evaluation process is described in Section 1.17.1 of the RFP, that section does not specify that every word of every page must be read. However, it is presumed that the committee will be required to fairly review the documents submitted. In this case, it is found that while every word of every page may not have been read, the individual members consistently and thoroughly reviewed the proposals submitted. Except as explained herein, paragraph 69 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Intervenor: Paragraphs 1 through 12, 19, 20, 24 through 31, 33, 34, 36, 38 through 48, 50, 51, and 55 are accepted. Paragraphs 13 through 18 are rejected as irrelevant. The RFP required licensure and compliance with Chapter 493 at the time of contracting. Paragraph 21 is rejected as repetitive or unnecessary. Paragraphs 22 and 23 are rejected as irrelevant or repetitive. Paragraph 32 is rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. The last sentence of paragraph 35 is accepted; otherwise rejected as incorrect or inaccurate quote. Paragraph 37 is rejected as incorrect summary and repetitive. Paragraph 49 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 52 and 53 rejected as vague or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Marks & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Thomas H. Duffy Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Room 562 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Bruce Culpepper Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr. D. Andrew Byrne Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thorton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. 06-DC-7727 to Communications Engineering Service Company is contrary to the Department of Correction’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. 06-DC-7727 on October 27, 2006. The purpose of the ITB was to solicit bids for maintenance and repair of radio equipment owned by the Department in each of its four regions. The original deadline for submitting bids in response to the ITB was November 30, 2006, but the deadline was extended to December 15, 2006, through an addendum to the ITB. First Communications, CES, and Motorola, Inc., submitted bids for Region I. Another company, Econo Communications, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Communications, also responded to the ITB, but it did not bid on Region I. It was stipulated that First Communications’ bid was responsive to the ITB. The Department determined that the bid submitted by Motorola was not responsive to the ITB. That determination was not challenged. The Department determined that the bid submitted by CES was responsive, despite the issues discussed below. CES was determined by the Department to be the lowest responsible bidder. The bid submitted by CES was $2,571 per month.1 First Communications was the next lowest bidder. Its bid was $3,408.85 per month,2 which is 32.6 percent higher than CES’s bid. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB states that “it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5 with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements).” Section 5.1 of the ITB lists the “mandatory responsiveness requirements” for bids, and states that: The following terms, conditions or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to the ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory.Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. (Emphasis in original). Nearly identical language is contained in Sections 1.7 and 4.3.6.1 of the ITB, and in the ITB Review Manual used by Department staff in reviewing the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Indeed, the ITB Review Manual refers to the mandatory responsiveness requirements as “fatal criteria.” The mandatory responsiveness requirement in the ITB that is most pertinent to this case is in Section 5.1.2,3 which states: It is mandatory that the bidder supply one original signed Bid and three (3) copies of the signed bid. . . . . (Emphasis in original). The bid package submitted by CES did not include the original signed bid. It only included the three copies of the signed bid. This omission was noted by Christina Espinosa, the procurement manager for the ITB who opened the bids on the afternoon of December 15, 2006. However, after Ms. Espinosa consulted with her supervisor and the Department’s legal staff, it was determined that the omission was not material and that CES should be given an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit the original signed bid. As a result, Ms. Espinosa contacted CES and gave it 24 business hours to “cure” the deficiency. CES delivered the original signed bid to the Department on the morning of December 18, 2006, which is three days after the bid submittal deadline in the ITB, but within the 24-business hour deadline given by Ms. Espinosa.4 CES did not have a representative at the bid opening, and there is no evidence that CES knew it was the lowest bidder, either when Ms. Espinosa gave CES an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit an original bid on December 15, 2006, or when it submitted the original bid on December 18, 2006. It is undisputed that the original signed bid submitted by CES on December 18, 2006, is identical in all respects to the three copies of the bid that were timely submitted by CES on December 15, 2006. Ms. Espinosa reviewed the bid submitted by CES despite its failure to include the original signed bid. According to ITB provisions referenced above, that omission should have resulted in the bid being rejected and not further reviewed. The CES bid included at least one other deviation from the specifications in the ITB. The bid stated in the “service delivery synopsis” that the turnaround time for the repair of fixed equipment would be 15 working days. A 15-day time period was referenced in the original ITB, but it was changed to eight days in an addendum. Ms. Espinosa contacted CES about this discrepancy, and on January 3, 2007, CES advised Ms. Espinosa by e-mail that it “acknowledges the change in repair times from 15 days to 8 days.” CES was not the only bidder that Ms. Espinosa contacted after the bids were opened to obtain clarification or information omitted from the bid. For example, she contacted First Communications to obtain copies of its articles of incorporation and business licenses that were not included in its bid; to get clarification regarding First Communications’ use of subcontractors; and to confirm that First Communications acknowledged the eight-day turnaround time for repair of fixed equipment since its bid did not contain a service delivery synopsis. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB authorizes the Department to “seek clarifications or request any information deemed necessary for proper review of submissions from any bidder deemed eligible for Contract award.” However, Section 4.3.1 also states that “no modifications by the bidder of submitted bids will be allowed.” The ITB authorizes the Department to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids, and on this issue, the ITB states: Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this solicitation. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by the bidder. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation there from is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of terms or services bid, or the prices submitted to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities: A variation from the solicitation terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. A minor irregularity will not result in a rejection of a bid. (All emphasis in original). The Department relies on these sections of the ITB as its authority to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids with respect to any provision of the ITB, including the mandatory responsiveness requirements. On January 4, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract for Region I to CES. In the same posting, the Department rejected all bids for the other three regions. The rejection of all bids for the other regions is not at issue in this case. First Communications timely filed a notice of protest and, then, a formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract to CES. The Department provided notice of this proceeding to CES, as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. CES did not file a petition to intervene or otherwise seek to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing First Communications’ protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether the intended award of a contract for title search and examination services by Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation, is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with coordinating a safe, viable, and balanced transportation system serving all regions of the state. § 334.044(1), Fla. Stat. The Department is authorized to enter contracts and agreements to help fulfill this duty. §§ 20.23(6), 334.044(1), and 335.02, Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement seeking a contract to provide title search and examination services (the "Title Services Contract"). The procurement's objective is to contract with a private vendor to provide title research services and reports to Department District 4. The solicitation at the center of this protest is Request for Proposal for Districtwide Title Search and Examination Services, DOT-RFP-21-4002-JR (the "RFP"). 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order is waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). The initial term of the Title Services Contract is 60 months (five years). The Title Services Contract offers a maximum award of $1,150,000.00 for the length of the contract. The contract may be extended for up to five years upon mutual agreement. The Department issued the RFP on August 7, 2020.3 The Department received proposals from three vendors, including Guaranteed, AGS, and Entrust Abstrax, LLC ("Entrust"). Joe Ricardo served as the Department's Procurement Agent for the RFP, as well as drafted and prepared the RFP documents and forms. Mr. Ricardo expressed that the RFP's goal is to award the Title Services Contract to "the responsive and responsible Proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Department." See RFP, Sections 1 and 7. Upon the Department's receipt of the three proposals, Mr. Ricardo reviewed the responses to ensure that each complied with the solicitation documents and contained all the required information and mandatory materials. The RFP required each vendor to include with their submission both a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal. After his review, Mr. Ricardo determined that all three proposals were "responsive" to the RFP, and each 3 No vendor challenged the specifications in the RFP within 72 hours after the posting of the solicitation. vendor was qualified to perform the services for which the Department was seeking to contract.4 The Department opened the three Technical Proposals from Guaranteed, AGS, and Entrust on September 3, 2020. The Technical Proposals were to include responses explaining the vendor's "approach, capabilities, and means" to accomplish the tasks described in RFP, Exhibit "A," entitled "Scope of Services." See RFP, Sections 6 and 22.2. The Department awarded separate points for the Technical Proposals and the Price Proposals. To score the Technical Proposals, the Department appointed three individuals to serve on a Technical Review Committee (the "Review Committee"). The Review Committee consisted of District 4 employees Erika Ventura, Amelia Rodriguez-Alers, and Susanna Rowland. Ms. Ventura, who also served as the Project Manager for the Title Services Contract solicitation, selected the Review Committee members (including herself). After Mr. Ricardo opened the vendors' Technical Proposals, Ms. Ventura distributed them to the Review Committee members for their individual evaluation and scoring. The Review Committee members were to independently review the Technical Proposals and assess the vendors' capabilities, experience, and qualifications to provide both the desired services, as well as a quality product. 4 RFP, Section 21.1, stated that: A responsive proposal is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Request for Proposal in accordance with all requirements of this Request for Proposal and receiving seventy (70) points or more on the Technical Proposal. RFP, Section 21.1, further warned that: Proposals found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Proposals may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. Under the RFP's evaluation process, the vendors' Technical Proposals were awarded up to 100 points. The Review Committee graded the Technical Proposals on three criteria, with varying point values, as follows: Prior Relevant Experience and Qualification of Firm and Employees (40 total points). This criteria was subdivided into three parts, consisting of: Technical Staff Experience (25 points); Organization and Management Plan (5 points); Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points); Proposer's Technical Plan (Point Value – 40 total points); Quality Control Plan (Point Value – 20 total points). The Review Committee members scored the Technical Proposals of AGS and Guaranteed as follows: Ms. Ventura: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 24 points Guaranteed: 23 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 4 points Guaranteed: 4 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 9 points Guaranteed: 9 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 38 points Guaranteed: 35 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 17 points Guaranteed: 15 points Ms. Ventura's Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 92 points Guaranteed: 86 points Ms. Rodriguez-Alers: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 25 points Guaranteed: 25 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 5 points Guaranteed: 5 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 10 points Guaranteed: 8 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 38 points Guaranteed: 35 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 20 points Guaranteed: 18 points Ms. Rodriguez-Alers' Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 98 points Guaranteed: 91 points Ms. Rowland: Prior Relevant Experience: Technical Staff Experience (25 points): AGS: 25 points Guaranteed: 23 points Organization and Management Plan (5 points): AGS: 5 points Guaranteed: 4 points Experience and Business History of the Proposer (10 points): AGS: 10 points Guaranteed: 10 points Proposer's Technical Plan (40 points): AGS: 40 points Guaranteed: 39 points Quality Control Plan (20 points): AGS: 20 points Guaranteed: 19 points Ms. Rowland's Total Technical Proposal Score (maximum of 100 points): AGS: 100 points Guaranteed: 95 points All three Review Committee members testified at the final hearing. In describing how they approached the review process, the members uniformly stated that they did not receive any formal oral or written instructions or training on how to evaluate or score the vendors' Technical Proposals. Neither did they communicate or consult with each other after Ms. Ventura distributed the proposals. At the final hearing, each member described how they awarded points, as follows: Erika Ventura: Ms. Ventura works in the Survey and Mapping section for District 4. As Project Manager for the solicitation, Ms. Ventura assisted in drafting the RFP and the Scope of Services. She also helped coordinate the RFP timelines and how the solicitation was issued. Ms. Ventura explained that District 4 initiated the procurement to obtain outside support for when it acquires property for Department use. District 4 was looking for vendors who could: 1) identify property through legal descriptions and understanding the same, 2) use available programs and systems to conduct title searches, and 3) map property using legal descriptions. District 4 wanted to contract with a vendor who had the ability to search property records and provide abstract and title reports at the Department's request. In selecting the Review Committee members, Ms. Ventura chose Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland based on their experience with the services for which the Department was looking to contract. Ms. Ventura described Ms. Rodriguez-Alers as an "end user" who receives and uses title reports. Ms. Ventura conveyed that Ms. Rowland works in the District 4 document and title section and reviews documents produced using District 4's "eTitle" program. When awarding points to the Technical Proposals, Ms. Ventura testified that she used the same analysis and evaluation process for each proposal. She read each Technical Proposal independently, and determined whether she believed the vendor could provide the services District 4 might request. She then awarded points as appropriate. Ms. Ventura formulated her scores based on the services described in the Scope of Services. For additional guidance, she referred to RFP, Section 30.4, which listed the criteria she was to evaluate. Ms. Ventura stated that she reached her scores based only on the information contained in each proposal. She did not compare proposals. Neither did she rely upon any outside information or prior knowledge of the vendors. Ms. Ventura denied that she preferred one vendor over another or gave any vendor a scoring advantage. At the final hearing, Ms. Ventura relayed that she could not recall the exact reasons why she awarded more points to AGS's Technical Proposal versus Guaranteed's Technical Proposal. However, generally, she commented that AGS provided an excellent organizational chart that clearly set forth the names, experience, and qualifications of the staff members AGS selected to manage the Title Services Contract. Ms. Ventura also appreciated how AGS described how its "well balanced team" would "tackle" the title search and examination tasks, as well as AGS's "Work Flow" flowchart that presented a checklist for how AGS would approach its work. Summing up her score for AGS, Ms. Ventura voiced that AGS showed that it possessed the technical knowledge and "vast" experience to provide the services needed. Ms. Ventura added that AGS's Technical Proposal demonstrated that it could manage and perform all the services assigned sought through the RFP. Amelia Rodriguez-Alers: Ms. Rodriguez-Alers is a certified surveyor and mapper for District 4. She believed that she was selected for the Review Committee based on her familiarity with mapping services. Ms. Rodriguez- Alers explained that she will be an "end user" of the title reports and abstract services sought through the RFP. When scoring the proposals, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers stated that she independently evaluated each vendor's proposal. Further, to assess the vendors' abilities to perform the services requested, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers assigned the scores using only the information contained in the proposal. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers described her scoring process as "comparative." First, she read through the RFP and the Scope of Services to familiarize herself with the terms of the solicitation. Next, she read each proposal individually. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers then assigned the maximum points she believed appropriate based on the information contained within each proposal. Once she had completed that step, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers then compared all the proposals with each other, and adjust her scores accordingly. If she determined that one vendor's Technical Proposal was not as comprehensive as another's, or did not satisfactorily provide the requested information, she discounted points. Addressing why she awarded AGS a higher score after comparing it to Guaranteed's Technical Proposal, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers stated that both AGS and Guaranteed demonstrated that they were capable of performing the services requested. However, generally, she found that the manner in which AGS presented information was better, and more complete, than what Guaranteed provided. For instance, AGS's Technical Proposal clearly identified each "team member" who would support the Title Services Contract, as well as the specific service he or she would perform for the contract. AGS also laid out the percentage of available time each team member would dedicate to District 4 service requests. Guaranteed's Technical Proposal, on the other hand, did not sufficiently explain how much time each staff member would actually dedicate to District 4 projects and responsibilities. AGS's Technical Proposal also recorded much more experience for each team member as opposed to that described in Guaranteed's Technical Proposal. Further, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers commented that Guaranteed's Technical Proposal indicated that several of its employees were attorneys who also worked for Myron E. Siegel, P.A. Guaranteed, however, did not describe how each joint employee would divide their time between the two employers. Consequently, she reduced her score for Guaranteed's Technical Staff Experience. Finally, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers appreciated how AGS's Technical Proposal featured a chart tracking its "Work Flow," as well as included a more complete explanation of its Quality Control Plan and the innovative concepts AGS might employ to accomplish District 4 tasks. Susanna Rowland: Ms. Rowland works as a Title Examiner for District In her job, Ms. Rowland performs a variety of tasks including bookkeeping, researching properties and roadways, and general office support. To prepare to score the Technical Proposals, Ms. Rowland read through the RFP and the Scope of Services to understand the criteria she was to consider. When scoring, Ms. Rowland testified that she read each proposal independently, then reviewed whether she believed the vendor could meet and provide the services requested in the Scope of Services. She did not compare the Technical Proposals directly to each other, but relied solely on the information contained within each submission. Ms. Rowland further expressed that she used the same standards to evaluate every proposal, and scored all proposals using the same method. Ms. Rowland awarded AGS's Technical Proposal a perfect score (100 points). In describing why she assigned AGS this score, Ms. Rowland commented that she did not find AGS's Technical proposal "deficient in any way." She explained that AGS's Technical Proposal amply demonstrated its ability to provide all services sought through the RFP. Testifying why she awarded AGS a higher score than Guaranteed, Ms. Rowland expressed that, generally, AGS showed that it possessed more experience in the services District 4 needed. For instance, AGS's Technical Proposal revealed that AGS's staff had "long-term" experience working on government projects. In addition, AGS had worked on a number of other contracts for government agencies handling right-of-way property issues. Conversely, Guaranteed's Technical Proposal only generally described its staff members' experience, and reported that Guaranteed had worked on fewer government contracts. Similarly, AGS outlined a "comprehensive" management plan, whereas Guaranteed's management plan was basic and contained less detail. Further, Ms. Rowland found that AGS's Technical Proposal provided a very thorough description of its Quality Control Plan. She was particularly impressed that AGS intended to conduct periodic audits of its examinations. Conversely, Petitioner's Technical Proposal proposed a minimal amount of internal audits. Once the Review Committee members independently calculated the points they awarded to each Technical Proposal, they returned their scores to Mr. Ricardo in the Procurement Office. Mr. Ricardo then averaged the scores into one composite score for each vendor. AGS received the most points with an average score of 96.68. Guaranteed came in second with an average score of 90.66. On September 28, 2020, the Review Committee met at a public opening to announce their scores for the Technical Proposals. After scores for the Technical Proposals were read at the public meeting, the Price Proposals were opened. At that point, Mr. Ricardo, in his role as the Procurement Agent, calculated and assigned points for the Price Proposals. Mr. Ricardo used the price evaluation procedure set forth in RFP Section 30.4.b. Each Price Proposal could receive up to 43 points based on a comparison of the vendors' respective prices. Mr. Ricardo explained that the low bidder would be awarded the maximum points for price (43 points). Thereafter, the Department calculated each score based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) x Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. Mr. Ricardo recounted that the Department designed the price formula to establish a base line with which to compare all proposals. Based on the formula, AGS's proposed price ($7,143,250.00) was the second highest price submitted of the three bidders and received 39.48 points. Guarantee's price ($8,000,250.00) was the highest price submitted and, correspondingly, received the lowest points awarded (35.25 points). Regarding AGS's Price Proposal, at the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo testified that, while reviewing and verifying AGS's prices, he discovered a discrepancy in the number AGS wrote as its subtotal price to electronically process title information. However, as more fully discussed below, Mr. Ricardo determined that the figure was actually a transcription error by AGS when it transferred a price calculation from a previous page. Consequently, because AGS's oversight did not require Mr. Ricardo to change either AGS's total price or the final points awarded to AGS's Price Proposal, Mr. Ricardo deemed the mistake a "minor irregularity." Consequently, he did not disqualify AGS's proposal and allowed it to be considered for award of the Title Services Contract.5 At that point, Mr. Ricardo combined the total points for the Technical Proposals and the Price Proposals for each vendor. AGS received the highest 5 Mr. Ricardo testified that Guaranteed's Price Proposal did not contain any errors. However, Entrust's Price Proposal did include several calculation errors, which Mr. Ricardo also adjusted to determine its final price score. As with AGS's Price Proposal, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that changes he made to Entrust's prices provided Entrust's proposal a competitive advantage or were unfair. ranking with a total score of 136.16. Guaranteed received the second highest ranking with a score of 125.91. On October 12, 2020, the District 4 Selection Committee met to review the total scores and to make the final award of the Title Services Contract. AGS's proposal was determined to hold the highest combined score. Thereafter, the Selection Committee awarded the RFP to AGS. That same day, Mr. Ricardo posted the Proposal Tabulation which served as notice of the Department's intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS. He asserted that, in selecting AGS, the Department determined that AGS's proposal was the most advantageous to the Department and the State of Florida. Guaranteed's Protest: Guaranteed contends that the methodology, processes, and procedures the Department followed in accepting and evaluating AGS's proposal were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Guaranteed asserts that the Department should have rejected AGS's proposal as nonresponsive. Alternatively, Guaranteed contends that the Review Committee members awarded AGS's Technical Proposal points to which it was not entitled, and as a result, AGS improperly received the highest cumulative point total and was undeservedly awarded the Title Services Contract. Myron Siegel testified on behalf of Guaranteed. Mr. Siegel is Guaranteed's President and sole owner. He is also a licensed Florida attorney, as well as a licensed Florida real estate broker and title agent. Mr. Seigel oversaw his staff's preparation and submission of Guaranteed's response to the RFP. Mr. Siegel relayed that he started Guaranteed in 2013 in Hollywood, Florida. Guaranteed operates across the State of Florida offering "full services" in abstract, mapping, and title search and examination services. Mr. Siegel represented that Guaranteed currently provides these services to the state through contracts with Department District 4 and District 6. Guaranteed (through Mr. Siegel) presented a number of arguments contesting the Department's award to AGS. Each specific challenge, along with the Department's response, is discussed below. AGS's Price Proposal Included a Material Mathematical Error: Guaranteed asserts that the Department should have disqualified AGS's proposal based on a material mathematical error in AGS's Price Proposal. Specifically, Guaranteed argues that when Mr. Ricardo "reformed" AGS's Price Proposal to remedy a math error, he provided AGS an unfair competitive advantage. Consequently, by correcting AGS's mistake, then proceeding to score its Price Proposal, the Department acted "contrary to competition." Department Response: As referenced above, Mr. Ricardo explained that, in its Price Proposal, AGS itemized its anticipated prices for twelve different title search and examination services. One of these services was "Electronic Processing of Title Information." On this price page, AGS recorded the unit price for eight "types of services" associated with this category.6 At the bottom of the price page, AGS calculated the subtotal for all the services related to Electronic Processing of Title Information as $39,125.00. Following the 12 price pages for the separate title search and examination services, AGS completed the final page entitled "Summary of Bid Totals." The Summary page listed the subtotal prices for each of the 12 categories, then calculated a "Grand Total/Proposer's Price Amount." According to AGS's Summary page, the Grand Total for all its services equaled $7,143,250.00. 6 Blank forms for the 12 price pages each vendor was to use to prepare its Price Proposal were provided as part of RFP Exhibit "C." On the Summary page, however, in the block reflecting the subtotal for Electronic Processing of Title Information services, AGS incorrectly wrote the figure "$11,725.00" instead of "$39,125.00."7 Despite this mistake, in calculated its Grand Total/Proposer's Price Amount, AGS correctly used the number $39,125.00 to reach the total sum of $7,143.250.00, which was the official price AGS proposed to perform the Title Services Contract. Mr. Ricardo, in reviewing and assigning the price score to AGS's Price Proposal, reached the conclusion that the "$11,725.00" subtotal AGS wrote on the Summary page for Electronic Processing of Title Information was a transcription error. To confirm his suspicion, Mr. Ricardo added all 12 subtotals together, including the correct amount for Electronic Processing of Title Information from the price page ($39,125.00), and confirmed that the Grand Total of AGS's Price Proposal equaled $7,143,250.00, just as AGS ascribed at the bottom of its Summary page. Therefore, in preparing AGS's proposal for reviewed by the Selection Committee, Mr. Ricardo amended AGS's Price Proposal to reflect the correct number ($39,125.00). Mr. Ricardo testified that, in correcting this error, he did not modify or recalculate AGS's Price Proposal. Instead, he simply replaced an incorrect number with the number that AGS "obviously" intended to use and did, in fact use in adding up the subtotal to reach the Grand Total. Mr. Ricardo called the mistake in AGS's proposal a "minor irregularity." Mr. Ricardo testified that a "minor irregularity" is any error or omission that does not affect competition or impact the outcome of the solicitation. Mr. Ricardo conveyed that the "math mistake" in AGS's proposal did not change its total price, or relieve AGS (as the winning vendor) from 7 In the Summary, the subtotals for the five services directly above "Electronic Processing of Title Information" are listed as "$11,725.00." It appears that the individual who transferred the subtotals from the 12 separate pricing spreadsheets to the Summary page in AGS's price proposal inadvertently inserted the number from the wrong category and overlooked the correct number ($39,125.00) from the previous page. any responsibilities under the Scope of Services. Neither did it adversely prejudice the other vendors. Therefore, because he was simply inserting the correct number that was previously listed in AGS's submission, his corrective action did not alter AGS's ultimate price to perform the Title Services Contract. Consequently, the modification did not provide AGS's proposal a competitive advantage, nor did it affect the overall outcome of the solicitation. AGS still received the highest total score for the RFP based on the proposal it submitted in response to the solicitation. Mr. Ricardo further testified that he did not consider the mistake in AGS's proposal "material." If he or the Department had determined that the discrepancy was "material," the Procurement Office would have disqualified AGS's proposal, and it would not have been eligible for award. In response to questioning, Mr. Ricardo conceded that the term "minor irregularity" is not defined in the solicitation documents. Neither is he aware of any Department written instructions or policies for handling math errors in proposals. However, for authority to exercise the option to waive AGS's "minor irregularity," Mr. Ricardo pointed to State of Florida purchasing form PUR 1001 entitled "General Instructions to Respondents," which the RFP references in Sections 35.2 and 36. (The RFP also contained a hyperlink which enabled vendors to directly access the PUR 1001 through the internet.) PUR 1001 states at paragraph 16: Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the State's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. (emphasis added). PUR 1001 defines "buyer" as "the entity that has released the solicitation," i.e., the Department in this procurement. The initial advertisement for the RFP also stated that, "The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids or accept minor irregularities in the best interest of the State of Florida." Based on the testimony at the final hearing, the Department witnesses credibly attested that the transcription mistake in AGS's Price Proposal was a "harmless error" that did not confer AGS a competitive advantage, either in competition or price. Neither was the mistake a "material" error that should have rendered AGS's proposal nonresponsive. Accordingly, the Department persuasively argued that it should not have disqualified AGS's proposal due to its transcription error. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Fails to Include or Reference a Real Estate Attorney: Guaranteed contends that certain services described in the RFP and the Scope of Services may only be performed by a licensed real estate attorney. AGS's Technical Proposal, however, does not identify a real estate attorney on its staff. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that the Department should have disqualified AGS's proposal because AGS cannot perform all the services required under the RFP. Supporting its position, Guaranteed pointed to RFP Sections 9.1.2 and 22.2, and Scope of Services, Section 2.1, which required each vendor to: Identify an active Florida licensed attorney practicing in real property or an active Florida licensed title (real property) agent. Guaranteed advanced that the document preparation services described in Scope of Services, Section 4.1.8, which specifically included "conveyances, releases, satisfactions or any other document(s)," can only be legally prepared by a licensed real estate attorney, not a title agent. Consequently, because AGS's Technical Proposal did not identify a licensed real estate attorney on its staff, AGS could not fulfill the Scope of Services. Department Response: In responding to this point, Mr. Ricardo, as well as every Review Committee member, commented that neither the RFP nor the Scope of Services required any vendor to identify a real estate attorney on its staff to perform any specific task as part of the Title Services Contract. Mr. Ricardo (and each Review Committee member) was quick to point out that the language found in RFP Sections 9.1.2 and 22.2 states that each vendor must employ a real property attorney "or" a licensed title agent. AGS's Technical Proposal lists three licensed title agents on its staff, which made it compliant with the RFP requirements. Consequently, Mr. Ricardo testified that no legal or procedural basis exists for the Department to find AGS's Technical Proposal ineligible for award due to its failure to include a real estate attorney. During her testimony, Ms. Ventura further explained that, as part of the Title Services Contract, District 4 might request the vendor's assistance to prepare title documents in the event District 4 is shorthanded. However, if District 4 should need document support, Ms. Ventura anticipated that the vendor would be provided templates of the pertinent forms, which it could complete. For her part, Ms. Rowland added that, while AGS may not have a real estate attorney on its staff, AGS's proposal indicated that it did have access to outside legal support, if necessary. Accordingly, based on the evidence testimony adduced at the final hearing, the Department persuasively countered Guaranteed's argument that AGS's Technical Proposal should have been deemed nonresponsive or its score reduced based on AGS's failure to identify a licensed real property attorney on its staff. AGS's decision to identify three Florida licensed title agents clearly meets the terms of the RFP. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Fails to Describe its eTitle capability: Guaranteed contends that AGS's Technical Proposal was deficient in that it did not address AGS's technological capability to use District 4's electronic title report database software known as "eTitle." Scope of Services Section 4.1.7 obliged each vendor to have the ability to utilize the "eTitle" software, stating: The Department has designed the electronic title report database software known as eTitle. … The Department requires that the Vendor have the appropriate staff and technological capability to process information and reports through said eTitle. Section 4.1.9.5 adds that services a vendor may provide included, "Scanning and indexing hard copy title reports into eTitle." Guaranteed complains that AGS's Technical Proposal is completely bereft of any information regarding its technological capability to use eTitle. Therefore, AGS's score should reflect this omission. Guaranteed alleges that the Review Committee members, however, did not deduct any points from AGS's proposal due to its failure to show its eTitle capability. Guaranteed further claims that two of the Review Committee members (Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland) went outside the four corners of the AGS's Technical Proposal and assumed critical capabilities that AGS did not state it had. Consequently, the Review Committee acted arbitrarily and/or gave AGS a competitive advantage on this factor. Department Response: Commenting on the RFP conditions regarding eTitle, Ms. Ventura explained that eTitle is a computer program that District 4 specifically developed to help process property title information. For the Title Services Contract, the vendor would be required to input a title report into the eTitle data base, which District 4 personnel could then access. Ms. Rowland added that eTitle is a program that captures information contained in a title report, such as encumbrances. Therefore, to comply with the Title Services Contract, each vender must be familiar with and have the ability to use eTitle. At the final hearing, Ms. Ventura could not recall how she scored AGS's eTitle capability. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, on the other hand, explained that AGS's Technical Proposal referenced eTitle in its "Work Flow" chart, which provided "a summary of the specific procedures outlined … and will be used in our quality control section to illustrate the comprehensive checkpoint process we have identified." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers specifically pointed to the sixth step of the Work Flow that stated that, "Completed research is input into eTitles database." In addition, AGS's "Quality Control" flowchart relayed that "FDOT Research Form allows for quick input into eTitle database." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers also observed that the biographical information AGS included for staff member Kimberly Haddix stated that Ms. Haddix had worked on a prior contract with District 4 as the "the lead abstractor for this contract since its inception in 2010." Therefore, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers surmised that Ms. Haddix was personally familiar with eTitle based on the fact that District 4 uses eTitle in all of its title report contracts. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers conceded that AGS's Technical Proposal did not describe, in detail, the actual technological resources it would rely upon to process eTitle reports. However, she remarked that Section 4.1.7 did not require vendors to describe the specific office equipment they had available. The Scope of Services only instructed each vendor to represent whether it had "the appropriate staff and technological capability" to produce eTitle reports, which she believed that AGS did. Consequently, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers did not deduct points from AGS's Technical Proposal for not detailing the specific technological resources AGS would use to process eTitle reports. Ms. Rowland, in awarding her (perfect) score, also acknowledged that AGS's Technical Proposal contained limited information discussing eTitle. However, she stated that she personally knew that AGS had eTitle experience based on her knowledge of a prior contract AGS worked on for District 4 from 2010 through 2017. Therefore, she assumed that AGS had the present technological capability and resources to use eTitle for the Title Services Contract. Ms. Rowland subsequently clarified her testimony attesting that, like Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, she remembered that "there was a mention of [eTitle] in [AGS's] proposal somewhere." The Department witnesses cogently testified that AGS presented sufficient information within its Technical Proposal regarding its eTitle staffing and technological capabilities to demonstrate that it could meet the performance requirements of the Scope of Services, as well as to be evaluated on the same. The Review Committee members satisfactorily established that the scores they awarded to AGS were based on information contained within the "four corners" of its Technical Proposal. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland effectively articulated that the RFP did not require a vendor to provide more information on eTitle other than to show that it was familiar with and had the ability to use the program. Further, regarding their testimony that they were familiar with AGS's work on a prior contract, Ms. Rodriguez-Alers and Ms. Rowland identified provisions within AGS's Technical Proposal upon which they based their evaluation, and credibly relayed that they did not pull from extraneous information when formulating their scores. Significantly, they both pointed to the fact that AGS's Technical Proposal referenced eTitle in its "Work Flow" charts, as well as mentioned AGS's previous work with District 4, which sufficiently enabled them to evaluate AGS's eTitle aptitude when scoring its proposal. Accordingly, the Department persuasively negated Guaranteed's argument that the AGS's Technical Proposal lacked the requisite information regarding its eTitle capability in order to be effectively evaluated by the Review Committee. AGS's Proposal should be Disqualified Because AGS Did Not Return the "Questions and Answers No. 1" Form to the Department Prior to the Award of the RFP: On August 20, 2020, the Department issued a page entitled "Questions and Answers No. 1" (the "Q&A") to be added as part of the RFP. The Q&A notified vendors of a Department response to a question regarding the Scope of Services. The Q&A specifically announced that a prospective bidder inquired whether the Department would provide any waivers or flexibility in reporting Code Enforcement Liens filed against other property by industrial lenders. The Department answered: In accordance with item Exhibit A, page A-3, Section 4.1, the Department may allow flexibility to follow title industry standards regarding Code Enforcement Liens and those type of lenders, however, the Vendor will be required to conform to the accepted standards of care in the title industry in compliance with the Florida Statutes, Florida Bar, Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, Uniform Title Standards, Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Procedures Manual Land Title Section 7.15 …, the District Four Title Search and Examination Guidelines (dated November 2013 – see Exhibit D attached) and any applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. The Q&A then stated: Proposers must acknowledge receipt of this document by completing and returning to the Procurement Office with their proposal, by no later than the time and date of the proposal opening. Failure to do so may subject the bidder/proposer to disqualification. AGS did not return the Q&A to the Department. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that AGS's proposal should be disqualified. (Guaranteed timely returned a signed Q&A.) Department Response: At the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo explained that the Department issued the Q&A to ensure that vendors fully understood the Scope of Services. Mr. Ricardo testified that he was aware that AGS did not return the Q&A with its proposal. However, he did not disqualify AGS based on two reasons. First, Mr. Ricardo was quick to point out that, according to the language in the Q&A, failure to return the document only "may" subject the vendor to disqualification. No conditions or terms in the solicitation documents required the Department to reject an otherwise responsive proposal based on the vendor's failure to submit a signed Q&A. Second, Mr. Ricardo considered AGS's failure to return the Q&A form a "minor irregularity," which did not require him to disqualify its proposal. Mr. Ricardo explained that the Q&A's purpose was simply to have vendors acknowledge receipt of the Department's answer to a question about the Scope of Services. Whether they returned the Q&A or not, the vendors were not supplementing their Technical or Price Proposals or changing the services to be provided under the RFP. Neither did AGS's failure to return the Q&A relieve it of any requirements of the RFP or materially affect either the Review Committee's final scores or the Selection Committee's determination that AGS's proposal presented the most advantageous terms for the Department. Accordingly, because, in his judgment, AGS's failure to submit a signed Q&A did not modify any information that was to be evaluated or scored, the Department was not required to declare AGS's proposal nonresponsive or subject to disqualification. Mr. Ricardo's explanation of the Department's decision to treat AGS's failure to sign and return the Q&A as a "minor irregularity" was supported by the testimony of Jessica Rubio, the District 4 Procurement Officer. Ms. Rubio described the Q&A as a "clarifying question" that had no impact on either AGS's total score or the final ranking of the vendors' proposals. Based on this testimony, Mr. Ricardo's decision not to disqualify AGS's proposal for neglecting to submit the Q&A is credible and is credited. No evidence shows that the Department's decision to waive AGS's failure to return the Q&A conferred upon it any advantage over other vendors, either in competition or price. Neither did it render AGS's proposal nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. AGS's Proposal Should be Disqualified Because AGS Did Not Return Addendum No. 1 to the Department Prior to the Award of the RFP: On September 24, 2020, the Department issued Addendum No. 1 (the "Addendum") to the three vendors who submitted proposals. The Addendum notified the vendors of a change to the RFP, stating: Request for Proposal, page 4 (containing the Timeline) is hereby replaced with the attached, revised page 4 with a revised timeline. The changes are highlighted in yellow. The Addendum further directed that: Proposers must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by completing and returning to the Procurement Office with their Proposal via email at D4.Purch@dot.state.fl.us, by no later than the time and date of the proposal opening. Failure to do so may subject the Proposer to disqualification. AGS did not return the Addendum to the Department. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that AGS's proposal should be disqualified. (Guaranteed did timely return a signed Addendum.) Department Response: At the final hearing, Mr. Ricardo explained that the original Timeline included in the RFP recorded the "critical dates and actions" for the solicitation process. Mr. Ricardo relayed that, prior to issuing the RFP on August 7, 2020, the Procurement Office felt comfortable calendaring certain key dates, such as when proposals were due (September 3, 2020), when the Department would hold the public opening (September 28, 2020), and when the Department would post the intended award (October 12, 2020). For the two entries describing how vendors could attend the Public Selection Meetings on September 28, 2020, and October 12, 2020, however, the Procurement Office wrote on the Timeline "Location or GoToMeeting: TBD." Mr. Ricardo recounted that, at the time the RFP was publicized, he was still considering whether vendors would be allowed to attend in person, or should call in. Consequently, to clarify the "TBD" entries, the Department issued the Addendum informing vendors of the updated "Location or GoToMeeting" information. Attached to the Addendum was a "revised page 4," which modified (and highlighted in yellow) the two TBD entries to read, respectively, "GoToMeeting Call-in: 1 (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 163-488- 789," and "GoToMeeting Call-in: 1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 230-006-965." Mr. Ricardo explained that the sole purpose of the Addendum was to inform the vendors how to remotely access two public meetings on the procurement schedule. Mr. Ricardo testified that he was aware that AGS did not produce a signed Addendum to be included in its proposal. However, as with the Q&A form, he did not disqualify AGS based on two reasons. First, the Addendum contained the same qualifying language as the Q&A stating that the failure to return a signed Addendum only "may" subject the vendor to disqualification. No conditions or terms in the solicitation documents required the Department to automatically reject an otherwise responsive proposal if the vendor failed to submit the Addendum. Second, like the Q&A, Mr. Ricardo considered AGS's lapse to be a "minor irregularity." Mr. Ricardo explained that the Addendum's purpose was simply to have vendors acknowledge how they could access two procurement events. By returning the Addendum (or not), the vendors were not supplementing their Technical or Price Proposals. Neither did AGS's failure to return the Addendum impact the Review Committee's final scores or the Selection Committee's determination that AGS's proposal represented the most advantageous to the state. Mr. Ricardo characterized the Addendum as a "minor … informational posting." Accordingly, because (in his judgment) the Department had the ability to waive AGS's failure to submit a signed Addendum as a "minor irregularity," Mr. Ricardo believed that he was not required to disqualify AGS's proposal. Ms. Rubio also supported Mr. Ricardo's decision to treat AGS's failure to return the Addendum as a "minor irregularity." Ms. Rubio expressed that the Addendum's purpose was to notify vendors of two changes to the solicitation Timeline. The Addendum, however, did not affect the services the vendors would provide through the Title Services Contract or a proposal's final score. Based on this testimony, Mr. Ricardo's decision not to disqualify AGS's proposal for failure to submit the Addendum is credible and is credited. No evidence shows that the Department's decision to waive AGS's neglect to return the Addendum conferred upon it any advantage over other vendors, either in competition or price. Neither did it render AGS's proposal nonresponsive to the terms of the RFP. AGS's Technical Proposal is Deficient in that it Failed to Include a Licensed Mapper: Guaranteed asserts that certain services identified in the RFP may only be accomplished by a licensed "mapper." Specifically, Scope of Services Section 3.2, states that "[t]he Vendor must have the ability to follow out and map/plot complex legal descriptions and determine whether an instrument of record impacts the property under search." Guaranteed contends that only someone licensed as a surveyor and mapper by the State of Florida may legally perform these tasks. AGS's Technical Proposal, however, does not identify a licensed surveyor and mapper on its staff. Consequently, AGS's staff does not include persons qualified to provide all the services required under the RFP, and its Technical Proposal should have been evaluated accordingly. Guaranteed further pointed to the fact that, in its Technical Proposal, AGS held out one of its employees, Kimberly Haddix, as a "mapping specialist." However, AGS's Technical Proposal did not contain any information showing that Ms. Haddix holds a license as a professional surveyor and mapper or is otherwise capable of providing mapping services. In awarding AGS points for its mapping services, Guaranteed argues that the Review Committee members made assumptions outside the four corners of AGS's proposal. Department Response: Ms. Rodriguez-Alers, calling on her familiarity with mapping services, described "mapping" as "sketching the property." Ms. Rodriguez-Alers explained that title reports contain the written description of property boundaries. A "mapper" puts property descriptions into a detailed, color-coded sketch or map. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers added that if the Department encounters a property dispute, mapping helps the Department verify its ownership rights to the property. Accordingly, District 4 desired the winning vendor to be able to prepare sketches of the property at issue. Mr. Ricardo testified that the RFP only required vendors to have someone on their staff who is proficient in mapping. The RFP did not require vendors to employ someone who actually holds a surveyor and mapper license. Ms. Rodriguez-Alers agreed that the RFP does not require the vendor's "mapper" to hold a state license. Instead, District 4 simply needs someone who is able to create a drawing of the property using the appropriate software. Further, in evaluating how AGS would provide mapping services requested through the Title Services Contract, every Review Committee member pointed to information within Ms. Haddix's resume that conveyed that AGS considered her to be its "mapping specialist." AGS's Technical Proposal further represented that Ms. Haddix is familiar with certain tools used to identify properties such as IcoMap and Deed Plotter. During her testimony, Ms. Ventura also commented that the RFP did not require the vendor to have a professional mapper or surveyor on its staff. When she evaluated AGS's Technical Proposal, Ms. Ventura believed that Ms. Haddix appeared fully capable of providing the mapping services necessary under the RFP's Scope of Services. Ms. Rowland agreed with Ms. Ventura's statement that AGS's Technical Proposal indicated that Ms. Haddix had mapping experience. Based on this testimony, the Department's witnesses persuasively refuted Guaranteed's argument that AGS's proposal should be disqualified due to the fact that AGS does not employ a "licensed" mapper on its staff. Guaranteed did not prove that AGS is unable to meet the terms of the Scope of Services with the staff members it identified in its Technical Proposal. The Review Committee members credibly testified that, based on representations within AGS's Technical Proposal, AGS (through Ms. Haddix) is capable of providing any necessary mapping services to support the Title Services Contract. AGS's Technical Proposal Failed to Identify Subcontractors: Guaranteed asserts that the Review Committee members should have deducted points from AGS's Technical Proposal based on AGS's failure to identify subcontractors. See RFP Section 22.2. Guaranteed argues that the personnel listed in AGS's Technical Proposal were not qualified to perform all the tasks set forth in the Scope of Services. Consequently, AGS would be compelled to hire outside help to support the Title Services Contract. Therefore, when scoring AGS's Technical Proposal, the Review Committee members should have taken into account the fact that AGS omitted subcontractors. Department Response: The Review Committee members uniformly rejected this challenge by pointing out that AGS's Technical Proposal clearly states that "AGS does not anticipate using subcontractors or sub-consultants to provide any services set forth herein." Instead, based on AGS's representations, all work required under the contract could and would be performed by the AGS employees identified in its Technical Proposal. The Department's witnesses convincingly confutes Guaranteed's argument on this point. The Review Committee members credibly testified that the information in AGS's Technical Proposal indicated that AGS could perform all the desired services without requiring support from subcontractors, and Guaranteed did not sufficiently show otherwise. Accordingly, the Department persuasively rejected Guaranteed's argument that the Department should devalue AGS's Technical Proposal based on AGS's failure to identify subcontractors. AGS's Technical Proposal Contains Misleading Statements on its "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" ("DBE") Participating Statement: At the final hearing, Guaranteed called attention to the fact that AGS submitted an Anticipated DBE Participation Statement (the "DBE Statement") with its Technical Proposal, which represented that it intended "to subcontract *100 % of the contract dollars to DBE(s)." As with the previous challenge, Guaranteed raised the point that the RFP required every vendor to identify services which the vendor anticipated to be subcontracted, as well as include resumes of all subcontractors. See RFP Section 22.2. Guaranteed argued that AGS's DBE Statement is either false or misleading because AGS also stated that it will not use any subcontractors for the Title Services Contract. Consequently, the Department should have either scored AGS's Technical Proposal accordingly or disqualified AGS's proposal as nonresponsive. Guaranteed's allegation on this point, however, is easily reconcilable and discounted. The DBE Statement, after instructing the vendor to record the percentage of work that would be subcontracted, asks the vendor to list its proposed subcontractors. AGS, after reporting its intent on its DBE Statement to subcontract "*100%," then lists itself stating, "*AGS is a certified DBE, so 100% of the work completed will be handled by a DBE." The logical conclusion is that AGS intended to report that 100% of the Title Services Contract will be performed by itself, as the "DBE." And, it does not anticipate using any other subcontractors who are DBEs. Accordingly, the Department's treatment of AGS's reference to subcontractors in its DBE Statement (i.e., not finding AGS's proposal nonresponsive) was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Guaranteed's assertion that AGS's DBE Statement contains false or misleading information or inappropriately refers to unidentified subcontractors is unsupported by the record. I. AGS Used an Improper Font Size in Its Technical Proposal: Guaranteed asserted that AGS used an improper font on some of its Technical Proposal entries. To support this challenge, Guaranteed referred to the explicit requirement in RFP Section 22.4 that "[t]ype size shall not be less than 11-point font." RFP Section 22.4 further restricted Technical Proposals to a maximum of 25 pages, excluding resumes, certificates, licenses, organization charts, and indexes. Guaranteed maintained that some of the passages in AGS's Technical Proposal appeared to be written in 10-point font. Guaranteed speculated that AGS used the smaller font in order to fit its Technical Proposal within the 25-page limit. Consequently, Guaranteed argues that the Department failed to provide a level playing field when it, either knowingly or negligently, allowed AGS's proposal to be scored despite the presence of less than 11-point font type in its Technical Proposal. Such action gave AGS an unfair competitive advantage. Department Response: During his testimony, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that the font size was a "material" deficiency that should disqualify AGS's proposal. Upon visual inspection of AGS's Technical Proposal, Mr. Ricardo observed that AGS apparently copied the questions/requests for information directly from the RFP document, then pasted the relevant verbiage onto its submission. AGS then inserted its response beneath each question. In preparing its submission, AGS appears to have used an appropriately sized font for its responses. Only the RFP sections that were copied/pasted were ascribed in font smaller than 11 point. Mr. Ricardo asserted that, as presented, AGS's Technical Proposal totaled 23 pages (excluding resumes, certificates, licenses, organization charts, and indexes). Consequently, he believed that even if AGS used 11-point font for all of its Technical Proposal passages, AGS's proposal would still have fit within the RFP's 25-page limit. Therefore, Mr. Ricardo did not believe that AGS's use of a smaller-than-authorized font type compelled the Department to disqualify its proposal. The Department persuasively refutes Guaranteed's complaint on this issue. Mr. Ricardo credibly testified that AGS did not receive a competitive advantage by inserting some language into its Technical Proposal that was written in smaller than 11-point font. To summarize the findings in this matter, Guaranteed did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department's decision to award the Title Services Contract to AGS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that AGS received a competitive advantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Guaranteed's Cone of Silence Violation: Notwithstanding the above findings, at the final hearing, the Department broached the issue of Guaranteed's violation of the "cone-of- silence" provision in section 287.057(23), which prohibits responding vendors in a bid solicitation from contacting government employees or officers within 72 hours following notice of the award. The implication is that, as a result of Guaranteed's actions, the Department may now dismiss Guaranteed's bid protest because Guaranteed lacks standing to initiate this action due to the fact that it cannot participate in a re-bid proceeding for the Title Services Contract. The undersigned has not included a recommendation on Guaranteed's "cone-of-silence" violation in this Recommended Order based on the conclusion that Guaranteed's protest fails on the merits. However, the undersigned observes that the facts found in this matter would support such action by the Department. See AHF MCO of Fla., Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 308 So. 3d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Section 287.057(23) states: Each solicitation for the procurement of commodities or contractual services shall include the following provision: "Respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72-hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays, any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response." The Department included the required quoted language in Special Conditions, Section 3, of the RFP. The Department "released" this solicitation on August 7, 2020. The Department posted the notice of intended award on October 12, 2020. Accordingly, the 72-hour period following the posting of the intended award ended on October 15, 2020. However, on October 12, 2020, at 2:57 p.m., after the Department announced its intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS, but well within the 72-hour period following the posting, Mr. Siegel sent an email to Ms. Ventura with the subject line "DOR-RFP-21-4002-JR." The email stated: Erika, Now that the award on the DOT-RFP-21-4002-JR has been officially posted, I need to ask you some questions. I have consistently asked how we are doing and what we need to do to improve. I have also asked that you alert me to any performance issues. I have heard nothing. So, you can imagine I was quite surprised to see how you rated us for this RFP, and how we ended up scoring below America [sic] Government which I understood to be a source of substandard work product. I am concerned that if we are rated so low, it makes no sense for us to continue to bid on RFP's from FDOT4 because I am not sure what we can do to improve. Can you please explain the rating you gave us and what it was that you found to be less than perfect. Mr. Siegel sent an identical email, also dated October 12, 2020, at 2:57 p.m., to Ms. Rowland (addressed to "Susie"). Both emails were transmitted from Mr. Siegel's work email address (Myron.Siegel@gftitle.com) and were written over his signature block as President of Guaranteed. Consequently, the evidence clearly establishes that Guaranteed committed a cone-of-silence violation, to wit: Guaranteed (or a person acting on its behalf) contacted (via email) two employees of the Department; Guaranteed's emails were sent prior to the end of the 72-hour period following the Department's posting of the notice of its intent to award the Title Services Contract to AGS; Guaranteed's emails concerned "any aspect of this solicitation" in that Mr. Seigel specifically commented about, 1) the ratings Ms. Ventura and Ms. Rowland gave to Guaranteed's Technical Proposal; 2) how AGS's Technical Proposal received a higher score; 3) how AGS received a higher score despite "substandard work product;" 4) that Guaranteed is considering not bidding on future District 4 contracts based on its rating in this RFP; and 5) what part of Guaranteed's proposal the evaluators found "to be less than perfect;" and Mr. Ricardo is the Procurement Officer for the RFP. The RFP does not set forth any additional representatives (such as Ms. Ventura or Ms. Rowland) to contact regarding "any aspect" of the solicitation. At the final hearing, Mr. Siegel argued that his emails did not concern "any aspect of this solicitation" for the Title Services Contract. Instead, he was only asking Ms. Ventura and Ms. Rowland, the two individuals with the Department with whom he regularly communicated, to comment on Guaranteed's performance in its current work for District 4. Mr. Siegel asserted that he used language regarding Guaranteed's rating in this RFP simply as a frame of reference for his question. Mr. Siegel's attestation that his two emails did not raise issues regarding the RFP or this solicitation for the Title Services Contract is not credited. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the facts establish a "cone-of- silence violation," under section 287.057(23), which would support a Department determination that Guaranteed is a non-responsive bidder. Thereafter, the Department, in its discretion, may issue a Final Order dismissing Guaranteed's formal bid protest for lack of standing because Guaranteed has no chance of obtaining the Title Services Contract in a re-bid proceeding. See AHF MCO, 308 So. 3d at 1139.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the protest of Guaranteed. It is further recommended that the Department of Transportation award Request for Proposal DOT-RFP-21- 4002-JR as set forth in the Proposal Tabulation issued on October 12, 2020. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John Ashley Peacock, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 606 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sean Gellis, General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Myron E. Siegel, Esquire Guaranteed Florida Title & Abstract, Inc. 1055 South Federal Highway Hollywood, Florida 33020 Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the single state agency in Florida authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). In order to participate in the federal Medicaid program, AHCA is required to maintain a state plan for Medicaid in compliance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. AHCA is required to operate the Florida Medicaid program in compliance with the state plan. AHCA is apparently concerned by costs associated with the Florida Medicaid program's hemophilia population. Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries constitute a relatively small, but costly population to serve. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous "clotting factors," which normally causes a persons' blood to coagulate. Hemophilia is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to the person with the disorder. AHCA seeks to control the cost of providing hemophilia-related services to this population through a combination of case management and medication discounts known as the Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management (MCHM) program. AHCA believes that a single vendor responsible for operation of the MCHM program can provide managed care to the population while achieving significant drug-cost savings. Through a federal requirement referred to as "freedom of choice," Florida's Medicaid program state plan must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service and who undertakes to provide such services. The freedom of choice requirement is subject to being waived in accordance with applicable federal law. Such waiver requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). AHCA began seeking approval from CMS for an amendment to an existing "Managed Care Waiver" to implement the MCHM program in October 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2003, CMS approved AHCA's request to amend the existing waiver to permit implementation of the MCHM program. Subsequent correspondence between the agencies has further established AHCA's authority to implement the MCHM program. AHCA issued the RFP ("RFP AHCA 0403") on October 1, 2003. The RFP seeks to implement the MCHM program. There were no timely challenges filed to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2003), requires that an agency must make a written determination that an invitation to bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or contractual services prior to issuance of an RFP. AHCA did not make such a written determination prior to issuance of the RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA will contract with a single provider for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. RFP Section 10.2 sets out an extensive list of vendor requirements designed to provide care to Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries and better management of related costs. The RFP provides that the successful vendor will be paid only on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement for factor product costs. No additional payment beyond payment of factor product costs will be provided. The RFP stated that the successful vendor would be reimbursed for factor product cost based on the average wholesale price (AWP) of the factor product minus a minimum discount of 39 percent. The RFP provided that vendors may offer a greater discount than 39 percent. An Addendum to the RFP indicated that if a vendor proposed a discount greater than 39 percent, the increased discount must apply to all factor products and that vendors could not propose varying discounts for individual factor products. The RFP contains language in the background section referencing budget "proviso" language adopted by the Legislature and referring to the MCHM program as a "revenue enhancement program." HHS asserts that because this RFP does not create a revenue enhancement program, AHCA had no authority to proceed with the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that this program will enhance revenue. The evidence fails to establish that based on the "proviso" language, AHCA is without authority to issue the RFP. RFP Section 20.11 sets forth the "proposal submission requirements." The section included a number of requirements set in capital letters and highlighted in boldface. The terms of each requirement indicated that failure to comply with the requirement was "fatal" and would result in rejection of the proposal submitted. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. RFP Section 20.16 provides that AHCA may waive "minor irregularities," which are defined as variations "from the RFP terms and conditions, that [do] not affect the price of the proposal or give one applicant an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others or adversely affect the state's interest." RFP Section 20.17 provides as follows: Rejection of proposals Proposals that do not conform to all mandatory requirements of this RFP shall be rejected by the Agency. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal was received after the submission deadline; The proposal was not signed by an authorized representative of the vendor; The proposal was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.11 of this RFP; The vendor failed to submit a proposal guarantee in an acceptable form in accordance with the terms identified in Section 20.12 of this RFP or the guarantee was not submitted with the original cost proposal; The proposal contained unauthorized amendments, deletions, or contingencies to the requirements of the RFP; The vendor submitted more than one proposal; and/or The proposal is not deemed to be in the best interest of the state. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. RFP Section 30.1 provides that the "total cost of the contract will not exceed $36,000,000 annually." RFP Section 30.2 provides in part that the "total cost for the contract under any renewal will not exceed $36,000,000 per year." The RFP's contract amount apparently was based on historical information and assumed that some level of cost control would occur through case management. The contract amount cannot operate as a "cap" because Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries are an "entitled" group and services must be provided. If the amount of the contract is exceeded, AHCA is obliged to pay for necessary factor products provided to the beneficiaries; however, in an Addendum to the RFP, AHCA stated that if the contract fails to contain costs "there would be no justification to renew or extend the contract." The RFP required vendors to submit a performance bond based on 20 percent of the $36 million contract amount. The RFP stated that proposals could receive a maximum possible score of 2000 points. The proposal with the highest technical evaluation would receive 1340 weighted points. The proposal with the lowest cost proposal would receive 660 weighted points. The combined technical and cost proposal scores for each vendor determined the ranking for the proposals. The RFP set forth formulas to be used to determine the weighted final score based on raw scores received after evaluation. AHCA conducted a bidder's conference related to the RFP on October 8, 2003. All parties to this proceeding attended the conference. At the conference, AHCA distributed a copy of a spreadsheet chart that listed all factor products provided to Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries during the second quarter of 2003. The chart identified the amount of each factor product used and the amount paid by AHCA to vendors for the factor product during the quarter. The chart also showed the amount that would have been paid by AHCA per factor product unit had the vendors been paid at the rate of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA received six proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were received from Caremark, HHS, Lynnfield, PDI Pharmacy Services, Inc., Advance PCS/Accordant, and Coram. RFP Section 60 contained the instructions to vendors for preparing their responses to the solicitation. As set forth in RFP Section 60.1, the technical response was identified as "the most important section of the proposal with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." The section requires vendors to include "evidence of the vendor's capability through a detailed response describing its organizational background and experience," which would establish that the vendor was qualified to operate the MCHM program. Vendors were also directed to describe the proposed project staffing and the proposed "technical approach" to accomplish the work required by the RFP. Vendors were encouraged to propose "innovative approaches to the tasks described in the RFP" and to present a detailed implementation plan with a start date of January 10, 2003. The technical responses were opened on October 29, 2003. AHCA deemed all six proposals to be responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP and each technical proposal was evaluated. For purposes of evaluation, AHCA divided the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria. AHCA assembled the technical evaluators at an orientation meeting at which time an instruction sheet was issued and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals were delivered. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. The five AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposal were Maresa Corder (Scorer "A"), Bob Brown-Barrios (Scorer "B"), Kay Newman (Scorer "C"), Jerry Wells (Scorer "D"), and Laura Rutledge (Scorer "E"). AHCA employees Dan Gabric and Lawanda Williams performed reference reviews separate from the technical evaluations. Reference review scores were combined with technical evaluation scores resulting in a total technical evaluation score. Reference review scores are not at issue in this proceeding. Kay Newman's review was limited to reviewing the financial audit information provided by the vendors. Technical evaluators reviewed each technical response to the RFP and completed evaluation sheets based on the 50 evaluation criteria. Other than Mr. Wells, evaluators included comments on the score sheets. Mr. Wells did not include comments on his score sheet. The technical proposal scoring scale set forth in the RFP provided as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each evaluator worked independently, and they did not confer with each other or with anyone else regarding their evaluations of the responses to the RFP. Janis Williamson was the AHCA employee responsible for distribution of the technical proposals to the evaluators. She received the completed score sheets and evaluation forms from each of the technical evaluators. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to technical proposals as follows: The total final point scores for proposals will be compared to the maximum achievable score of 1340 points, and the technical proposal with the highest total technical points will be assigned the maximum achievable point score. All other proposals will be assigned a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when a proposal's total technical points are divided by the highest total technical points awarded. S = P X 1340 N Where: N = highest number of final points awarded to t technical proposal P = number of final points awarded to a proposal S = final technical score for a proposal According to the "Summary Report and Recommendation" memorandum dated December 4, 2003, after application of the formula, Caremark received the highest number of technical points (1340 points). Of the parties to this proceeding, HHS was ranked second on the technical proposal evaluation (1132.30 points), and Lynnfield was ranked third (1101.48 points). Lynnfield and HHS assert that the scoring of the technical proposals was arbitrary based on the range of scores between the highest scorer and the lowest scorer of the proposals. Review of the score sheets indicates that Scorer "A" graded "harder" than the other evaluators. The scores she assigned to vendor proposals were substantially lower on many of the criteria than the scores assigned by other evaluators. The range between her scores and the highest scores assigned by other evaluators was greater relative to the Lynnfield and the HHS proposals than they were to the Caremark proposal, indicating that she apparently believed the Caremark technical proposal to be substantially better than others she reviewed. There is no evidence that Scorer "A" was biased either for or against any particular vendor. The evidence fails to establish that her evaluation of the proposals was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to establish that AHCA's evaluation of the technical proposals was inappropriate. After the technical evaluation was completed, cost proposals were opened on November 21, 2003. Section 60.3 addressed the cost proposal requirements for the RFP. RFP Section 60.3.1 provides as follows: The cost proposal shall cover all care management services, hemophilia specific pharmaceuticals dispensing and delivery, and pharmacy benefits management activities contemplated by the RFP. The price the vendor submits must include a detailed budget that fully justifies and explains the proposed costs assigned. This includes salaries, expenses, systems costs, report costs, and any other item the vendor uses in arriving at the final price for which it will agree to perform the work described in the RFP. The maximum reimbursement for the delivery of services and factor products used in factor replacement therapy (inclusive of all plasma-derived and recombinant factor concentrates currently in use and any others approved for use during the term of the contract resulting from this RFP) will be at Average Wholesale Price (AWP) minus 39%. Proposals may bid at a lower reimbursement but not higher. All other drugs not otherwise specified in factor replacement therapy will be paid at the normal Medicaid reimbursement. RFP Section 60.3.2 provides as follows: A vendor's cost proposal shall be defined in terms of Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and conform to the following requirements: The first tab of a vendor's original cost proposal shall be labeled "Proposal Guarantee" and shall include the vendor's proposal guarantee, which shall conform to the requirements specified in this RFP, Section 20.12. Copies of the cost proposal are not required to include the proposal guarantee. The second tab of the cost proposal shall be labeled "Project Budget" and shall include the information called for in the RFP, including the total price proposed, a line item budget for each year of the proposal, a budget narrative, and other information required to justify the costs listed. The RFP does not define the "detailed" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.1 and does not define the "line item" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.2. No examples of such budgets were provided. RFP Section 80.1 provides as follows: Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Cost Proposal Upon completion of the evaluation of all technical proposals, cost proposals will be opened on the date specified in the RFP Timetable. The Agency will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the evaluation team will review each cost proposal against the following criteria: Was the cost proposal received by the Agency no later than time specified in the RFP Timetable? Did the vendor submit an original and ten copies of its cost proposal in a separate sealed package? Was the vendor's cost proposal accompanied by a proposal guarantee meeting the requirements of the RFP? Did the cost proposal contain the detailed budget required by the RFP? Does the proposal contain all other mandatory requirements for the cost proposal? The AHCA employee who opened the cost proposals apparently determined that each proposal met the requirements of RFP Section 80.1, including providing a "detailed" budget. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to cost proposals as follows: On the basis of 660 total points, the proposal with the lowest total price will receive 660 points. The other proposals will receive a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when the total cost points are divided by the highest total cost points awarded. Where: S = L X 660 N N = price in the proposal (for two years) L = lowest price proposed (for two years) S = cost points awarded The cost proposal scoring process clearly required comparison of each vendor's total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Caremark's proposal included estimated total costs of $44,797,207 for FY 2002-2003, $43,245,607 for FY 2003-2004, and $44,542,975 for FY 2004-2005. According to RFP Section 30.1, the maximum annual contract was not to exceed $36,000,000. All of Caremark's estimated annual costs exceeded the contract amount set forth in the RFP. Caremark's proposal also provided as follows: The above budget includes all salary expenses for Caremark employees involved in providing services for the program including the Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist, Care manager, additional pharmacist(s), Client Service Specialists in Florida for the expanded hemophilia program. Also included are the support staff such as pharmacy technicians, materials management, field service representatives, warehouse, reimbursement, marketing, sales and administrative staff. Also included are all delivery, data and report development, educational and marketing communication expenses. Product costs including medically necessary ancillary supplies, medical waste disposal and removal, protective gear and therapeutic devices. Caremark's proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that Caremark indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. The HHS proposal projected estimated costs identified by month and year. The HHS proposal estimated total first-year costs of $14,261,954 and second-year costs of $27,333,389. HHS did not propose to assume responsibility for serving all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries at the start of the contract, but projected costs as if beneficiaries would "migrate to our service at a rate of 20 per month" during the first year and that full service provision would begin by the beginning of year two. RFP Section 10.2 provides as follows: The purpose of this RFP is to receive offers from qualified vendors wishing to provide the services required by the Florida Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management Program. The contract resulting from this RFP shall be with a single provider for up to two years commencing on the date signed, with an option to renew for two additional years. Otherwise stated, all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries would be served though the program's sole provider from the start of the contract period. The RFP provides no option for a vendor to gradually increase service levels through the first half of the two-year contract. The HHS proposal also included a breakdown of costs by factor product unit, identifying the AWP for each listed factor product and applying a discount of between 39 percent and 45 percent to indicate the product cost-per-unit that would be charged to AHCA. In Addendum 2 to the RFP, AHCA stated that it has received a written inquiry as follows: Knowing that the minimum accepted discount is AWP less 39%, can different products have different discounts. AHCA's response to the inquiry was as follows: No. The proposed discount will apply to all factor products. As to the costs included in the proposal annual total, the HHS proposal provided as follows: The product price above will include the following costs incurred in servicing the patients: The cost of the product dispensed to the patient. The cost of freight and other delivery expense of transporting the product to the patient. Pharmacy, warehouse and patient supplies. Cost incurred for patient protective gear and education materials Salary costs for the following: o Project/Contract Manager Clinical Pharmacist Staff Pharmacist Case Management Coordinator Pharmacy Care Coordinators Shipping Clerk Warehouse Coordinator Community Advocates Insurance Reimbursement Specialist The cost of Information Technology support for systems and reporting The cost of rent, office supplies, equipment, postage, printing. The HHS proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that HHS indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. Lynnfield's proposal estimated total costs of $34,000,000 for calendar year 2004 and $36,000,000 for calendar year 2005. Lynnfield's budget proposal included information identifying the specific expense lines which form the basis for the cost estimation, including salary costs by position, travel costs, employee insurance, postage, equipment costs, and various office expenses. Lynnfield's budget proposal included a significantly greater level of detail than did either the Caremark or the HHS proposals. Jerry Wells was assigned the responsibility to evaluate the cost proposals. Mr. Wells failed to review the RFP or the related Addenda prior to evaluating the cost proposals submitted by the vendors. Mr. Wells asserted that it was not possible, based on the information submitted by the vendors, to perform an "apples- to-apples comparison." Each vendor set forth information in its proposal sufficient to calculate a total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Mr. Wells testified at the hearing that his cost review was intended to determine what AHCA would be paying for each of the individual factor products that AHCA provides hemophiliacs through Medicaid because the cost of the products was all AHCA would be paying to the vendors. The RFP did not require vendors to include a detailed list of, or unit prices for, factor products. The RFP specified only that factor products be provided at a minimum of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA employees, under the direction of Mr. Wells, created a cost comparison chart which purported to identify the price proposed by each vendor for certain factor products and which projects an estimated quarterly factor product cost for each vendor. HHS's cost proposal included a listing of specific prices to be charged for factor products. The list was based on products being used by existing HHS patients. Caremark offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. Caremark also suggested various "innovative cost savings," which specified use of factor products and indicated discounts greater than the 39 percent required by the RFP. Lynnfield did not include a product-specific listing of factor costs in its proposal, but offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. The AHCA employees used the HHS cost proposal, including the HHS range of discounts, as the basis for preparation of the cost comparison chart that included the other vendors. The factor products listed on the AHCA cost comparison mirror those listed in the HHS cost proposal. AHCA employees apparently applied the factor product usage information from the second quarter of 2003 that was included on the spreadsheet distributed at the bidder's conference to the HHS factor product list. The AHCA spreadsheet distributed at the bidder conference lists 29 factor products by name and dosage. Of the 29 products, 15 are listed in the HHS cost proposal. The AHCA cost comparison created at Mr. Wells' direction includes only the 15 factor products listed on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison assumed no costs would be incurred, where the AHCA spreadsheet information indicated no usage of the factor product that had been included on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison did not include factor products which have been supplied by AHCA to Medicaid beneficiaries, but which do not appear on the HHS list. Mr. Wells relied on this cost comparison to determine that the cost proposal submitted by HHS offered the lowest cost to the agency and was entitled to the 660 points. Lynnfield and Caremark were both ranked according to cost proposals of AWP minus 39 percent, and according to the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum, were awarded 652.74 points. Calculation of the points awarded to Lynnfield and Caremark in the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum does not appear to comply with the formula set forth in the RFP. The AHCA cost comparison spreadsheet identifies the HHS proposed cost as $10,706,425.66 and identifies the AWP minus 39 percent cost as $10,795,477.48 (assigned as the Lynnfield and Caremark cost proposal). The Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum states the lowest cost proposal to be $10,706,405.66 (perhaps a typographical error). The methodology applied by AHCA assumed that all vendors would utilize identical quantities of identical factor products (based on historical usage in Quarter 2 of 2003 of those listed in the HHS cost proposal) and that there would be no cost savings related to disease management. The application of methodology to compare vendor cost proposals outside the process established by the RFP is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. The vendors who are party to this proceeding assert that each other vendor's budgetary submission is insufficient, flawed, or unreliable for varying reasons. It is unnecessary to determine whether the budgetary information submitted by the vendors meets the requirements of the RFP because, despite having requested the information, AHCA has no interest in the data. There is no evidence that in making an award of points based on the cost proposals, AHCA relied on any of the budgetary information required by the RFP or submitted by the vendors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted in response to the RFP AHCA 0403. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Thomas R. McSwain, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Martin R. Dix, Esquire Akerman & Senterfitt Law Firm 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
