94-005628BID Gulf Real Properties, Inc. vs. Department Of Health And Rehabilitative Services
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 15, 1995.


View Dockets  
Summary: Agency failed to follow DMS rule on turnkey leases. Bids should be rejected.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8GULF REAL PROPERTIES, INC., )

13)

14Petitioner, )

16)

17vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5628BID

22)

23DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

28REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

31)

32Respondent. )

34_____________________________)

35RECOMMENDED ORDER

37Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly

48designated Hearing Officer, Susan B. Kirkland, held a formal hearing in this

60case on January 12, 1995, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and on June 19, 1995, in

75Tallahassee, Florida.

77APPEARANCES

78For Petitioner: Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire

84I. Ed Pantaleon, Esquire

88Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene

93225 South Adams Street, Suite 250

99Tallahassee, Florida 32301

102For Respondent: William A. Frieder, Esquire

108Assistant General Counsel

111Department of Health and

115Rehabilitative Services

1171323 Winewood Boulevard

120Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0700

123Kimberley Tendrich, Esquire

126Assistant General Counsel

129Department of Health and

133Rehabilitative Services, District X

137201 West Broward Boulevard

141Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

145STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

149Whether Respondent's determination to reject all bids for Lease No.

159590:2490 was appropriate.

162PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

164Petitioner, Gulf Real Properties, Inc. (Gulf) responded to Respondent's,

173Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District 10 (HRS), Invitation

183to Bid for Lease No. 590:2490, to lease space to HRS for the Children's Medical

198Services facility.

200HRS issued a notice of award letter to Gulf. A bid protest was filed by an

216unsuccessful bidder, who subsequently voluntarily withdrew the protest.

224After the withdrawal of the protest, HRS issued a letter to Gulf stating

237that HRS was rejecting all bids. Gulf filed a petition for formal hearing.

250The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for

261assignment to a Hearing Officer.

266At the final hearing, Gulf presented the testimony of Mary V. Goodman and

279James F. Antonucci. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-7 were admitted into evidence. HRS

290presented the testimony of Randall Baker, Christopher A. Edghill, and Dr. Joni

302Letterman.

303At the final hearing the parties agreed to file their proposed recommended

315orders withing 21 days of the filing of the transcript. The transcript was

328filed on February 6, 1995. The parties requested that the date for filing

341proposed recommended orders be extended to March 13, 1995. Petitioner filed a

353Motion for Rehearing and/or in the Alternative Motion to File Newly Discovered

365Evidence. The motion was heard by telephonic conference. The motion was denied

377and the time for filing proposed recommended orders was extended to March 20,

3901995. The parties timely filed their proposed recommended orders.

399On April 12, 1995, the Hearing Officer entered an order requesting that the

412parties submit additional argument in reference to the applicability of Rule

42360H-1.015, Florida Administrative Code. Both Gulf and HRS filed a response on

435April 21, 1995.

438Subsequent to April 21, 1995, the Hearing Officer scheduled a conference

449call with the attorneys for Gulf and HRS. During the conference call, the

462Hearing Officer advised both parties that she had intended to request the

474parties to discuss in her April 12, 1995, Order, Rule 60H-1.017, not Rule 60H-

4881.015.

489After consideration of the Motions and Responses filed by both HRS and

501Gulf, the Hearing Officer reopened the hearing in regard to past policies and

514practices in reference to the application of Rule 60H-1.017, and scheduled the

526hearing for June 5, 1995. The hearing was rescheduled to June 19, 1995.

539At the hearing on June 19, 1995, Gulf presented the testimony of Jim

552Antonucci, Randall Baker, Mary Goodman, and Linda Treml, and introduced the

563deposition of George Smith. Gulf Exhibits A-F were admitted in evidence.

574At the hearing on June 19, 1995, HRS did not call any witnesses. HRS

588Exhibits A, B-1, B-2, B-3, and C-Y were admitted in evidence.

599HRS filed a supplement to its proposed recommended order on July 7, 1995,

612and Gulf filed a supplement to its proposed recommended order on July 10, 1995.

626The parties' proposed findings of fact are addressed in the Appendix to

638this Recommended Order.

641FINDINGS OF FACT

6441. Children's Medical Services (CMS) is a statewide program of the

655Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which provides services for

665children who are suffering from medically debilitating or potentially medically

675debilitating conditions of a chronic nature. In Broward County, Respondent,

685District X of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (District X),

697provides CMS services to approximately 4,000 children.

7052. The CMS Broward County Clinic is currently located in a leased

717facility. The lease expires in August, 1995.

7243. In the fall of 1994, District X determined that it would seek to lease

739a larger facility in the private sector to replace the existing leased facility.

752In November, 1993, Christopher Edghill, who was then the Facilities Manager for

764District X, prepared a Request for Prior Approval of Space (RNS), seeking

776approval from the Department of Management Services (DMS) for a new lease to

789house the CMS program in District X.

7964. The RNS stated that District X desired to enter into a ten-year turnkey

810lease for 19,233 square feet. District X desired to acquire the facility in the

825private sector through a competitive bidding process. The RNS also included a

837Letter of Agency Staffing as justification for the space requested and a

849certification that the district had sufficient funds available to pay for the

861leased space.

8635. Prior to submitting the RNS to DMS, Mr. Edghill did not inquire whether

877there was public space available in Broward County which would be suitable for

890housing the CMS program, and no evidence was presented to show that public space

904was available at that time.

9096. After submission of the RNS, District X amended the RNS to include an

923option to renew.

9267. The RNS was approved by DMS on December 3, 1993.

9378. In January, 1994, District X issued the solicitation document for bids

949for lease for CMS facility. The lease number assigned was 590:2490.

9609. A pre-bid conference was held on February 10, 1994.

97010. James F. Antonucci, a representative for Petitioner, Gulf Properties,

980Inc. (Gulf), attended the pre-bid conference.

98611. On April 4, 1994, Dr. Joni Letterman, who is the Medical Director of

1000CMS for District X, was approached by Linda Bouffard and Rita Frantz concerning

1013a needs assessment for a children's medical center in conjunction with North

1025Broward Hospital District (NBHD). At that time the children's center was in its

1038very early planning stages. The children's center was envisioned to be a

1050combined maternal, obstetrical, pediatric, neonatal and full service children's

1059hospital center with inpatient and outpatient services.

106612. On April 6, 1994, Gulf entered into an option agreement to purchase

1079land for space to be utilized for Lease No. 590:2490 should Gulf be awarded the

1094contract.

109513. Gulf and ANF Real Estate Group, Inc. (ANF) timely submitted responses

1107to the solicitation by District X. The bids were opened on April 7, 1994. Gulf

1122submitted one bid and ANF submitted two bids.

113014. Gulf's bid offered a full service lease at $16.79 per square foot for

1144the first year for 19,800 square feet, plus or minus three percent.

115715. A bid evaluation committee of five (5) members was selected by

1169District X. One of the evaluation committee members was Dr. Letterman. On

1181April 20, 1994, the evaluation committee visited the sites proposed by the

1193bidders.

119416. By letter dated April 22, 1994, Dr. Letterman notified Ms. Frantz and

1207Ms. Bouffard that CMS was in the process of selecting a bidder for a ten year

1223lease and that relocation of CMS as part of the children's center would not be

1238possible.

123917. Sometime in late April or early May, 1994, Dr. Letterman was asked to

1253join the Children's Initiative Committee, which was formed to expand on the

1265concept of the children's center. Dr. Letterman attended her first committee

1276meeting in early May, 1994. At that meeting the committee asked Dr. Letterman

1289where CMS could fit into the children's center concept. Dr. Letterman explained

1301that District X was in the midst of a competitive procurement process for a new

1316CMS facility and did not know whether CMS could commit to relocating on the

1330campus of Broward General Medical Center (BGMC). Mr. Will Trower, Chief Officer

1342of BGMC, was present during the meeting but did not offer any space at that time

1358relating to CMS for use while the children's center was being developed.

137018. By memorandum dated May 27, 1994, the evaluation committee notified

1381the acting district administrator that Gulf received the highest rating and

1392recommended that the lease be awarded to Gulf.

140019. By letter dated June 9, 1994, Dr. Letterman wrote to Mrower,

1412stating:

1413For CMS to move forward toward the Children's Center concept and reject

1425bids already submitted, the Department requires a written letter of commitment

1436assuring CMS space and related needs will be met as well as a provision for an

1452interim CMS site as of September 1, 1995, the date our current lease expires.

1466Due to constraints related to the bid process, I must have this written

1479confirmation by the close of business, Thursday, July 16, 1994.

148920. By letter dated June 13, 1994, Dr. Letterman advised Mrower that

1501the deadline for response was incorrect in her June 9, 1994 letter and should

1515have read June 16, 1994.

152021. Mrower responded by letter dated June 16, 1994, wherein he

1531advised:

1532As it relates to interim space for CMS, I

1541can at this time commit to offering to meet

1550with you to have you consider space that

1558will be available this spring in our medical

1566office tower adjacent to the hospital. Based

1573on our previous discussion, I believe this

1580space will be adequate in size and capability

1588for an interim location of the CMS services.

1596A lease agreement could be established which

1603would meet your needs for relocation and provide

1611an interim location until such time as the

1619Children's Center is completed.

162322. BGMC offered a full service lease of 16,950 square feet for $14.50 per

1638square foot.

164023. By memorandum dated June 20, 1994, Mr. Edghill recommended that the

1652best decision would be to award the lease to Gulf. This recommendation was

1665based on Trower's letter which indicated that the Board of Commissioners would

1677have to approve the initiative to develop the children's center, on the effect

1690that a delay could have regarding the bidders' options on the proposed sites,

1703and on the likelihood of a protest by the bidders.

171324. By letter dated June 24, 1994, District X advised the bidders that

1726authorization had been granted to award the lease to Gulf.

173625. A letter of intent to protest the award was timely filed by ANF on

1751June 27, 1994, followed by a timely filed formal protest on July 9, 1994.

176526. On June 30, 1994, Gulf entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale

1779of the property which was the subject of the April 6, 1994, option agreement.

179327. By memorandum dated August 17, 1994, the District X administrator

1804advised James Towey, the Secretary of HRS, of possible options for resolving the

1817CMS lease problem. Option I was to proceed with the competitive bid process

1830through resolution of the ANF protest and sign a contract with Gulf Real

1843Properties. Option 2 was to terminate the competitive bid process, request

1854proposals from the North and South Broward Hospital Districts and award CMS

1866lease space according to revised criteria. Option 3 was to award the lease to

1880Gulf but alter the occupancy plan by replacing clinic-specific space with

1891general office space and relocating other District programs to the site. The

1903District would then award the clinic-specific space to a hospital entity.

191428. On August 26, 1994, ANF filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Formal Written

1928Protest, advising District X that ANF was abandoning its requests for agency

1940action regarding Lease No. 590:2490.

194529. On August 26, 1994, Gulf entered into an addendum to the purchase and

1959sale agreement, whereby it was acknowledged that a protest had been filed by ANF

1973concerning the bid award for the lease of the facility which Gulf intended to

1987construct on the property and it was agreed that Gulf had until September 30,

20011994, to resolve the protest and that if the protest was not resolved in favor

2016of Gulf that Gulf could cancel the contract.

202430. By memorandum dated August 29, 1994, Secretary Towey advised the

2035District X administrator to follow Option 2. His decision was based on his

2048understanding that the District had incorrectly considered North Broward

2057Hospital ("BGMC") not to be a governmental entity when it made its initial

2072decision to award to Gulf and the move to North Broward Hospital would be in the

2088best interests of their clients.

209331. By letter dated August 31, 1994, District X advised Gulf that ANF had

2107withdrawn its protest and that District X was rejecting all bids because

2119suitable space had been made available by governmental entities. The letter

2130advised Gulf that it could request an administrative hearing within 30 days of

2143receipt of the letter.

214732. The governmental entities referred to in the August 31, 1994 letter

2159were North Broward Hospital and South Broward Hospital.

216733. At the end of June, 1994, Dr. Letterman toured the BGMC office space.

2181She determined that the space offered by BGMC was adequate to meet the needs of

2196the District for the CMS clinic. A large number of CMS' clients are located

2210near the hospital. Co-location of CMS at BGMC would allow the sharing of

2223certain areas such as the employee lounge, the medical library, and medical

2235record storage, thus reducing the space that would be required for the CMS

2248program. Additionally, CMS employees, such as economic eligibility employees

2257could be outposted at the hospital, thereby eliminating office space at CMS.

226934. Currently BGMC provides services to the CMS clinic such as x-ray,

2281laboratory, diagnostic, hearing testing, and sleep studies. Co-location of CMS

2291and BGMC would eliminate the need to shuttle clients back and forth between the

2305clinic and the hospital and thereby reduce the stress on the childrens' families

2318and provide more efficient services. For example, co-location would eliminate

2328the need for a child who was going to have outpatient surgery of having to go to

2345the clinic for a pre-op exam, travel to another location for laboratory work,

2358and then go to a different location for the surgery. Through co-location the

2371services could be provided in one visit at one location.

238135. Co-location of CMS with BGMC should result in more efficient use of

2394the physicians' time. For example the doctors would not have to travel back and

2408forth from the clinic to the hospital. Patient records would be more accessible

2421for use by the physicians because the records could be maintained in one

2434location.

243536. In reviewing the proposals submitted by Gulf and ANF, Dr. Letterman

2447had been concerned about the location of an emergency room near the proposed

2460locations. The co-location of CMS and BGMC would result in an emergency room in

2474a CMS approved hospital being in close proximity to the clinic.

248537. On August 31, 1994, Gulf sent a termination letter to the seller of

2499the property, advising that District X had rejected all bids. Gulf and the

2512seller of the property thereafter executed another addendum to the purchase

2523contract effective September 15, 1994, which allowed the withdrawal of the

2534termination letter and provided that the closing should take place no later than

2547May 31, 1995.

255038. Gulf timely filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing on

2560September 30, 1994.

256339. In 1975, DMS, formerly the Department of General Services, promulgated

2574what is now numbered as Rule 60H-1.017, Florida Administrative Code. This rule

2586deals with turnkey leases. The rule was amended once in 1986.

259740. Sometime during 1976 or 1977, management at DMS, relying on advice

2609from legal counsel, determined that it did not have the authority to participate

2622in the evaluation of proposals for turnkey leases of user agencies and decided

2635to ignore Rule 60H-1.017, formerly Rule 13M-1.017. DMS did not repeal the rule

2648and amended the rule in 1986. The DMS real property leasing manual as revised

2662in 1986 contained the procedures for the procurement of turnkey leases as set

2675forth in Rule 60H-1.017.

267941. In 1979, HRS promulgated Rule 10-8.007, Florida Administrative Code,

2689dealing with turnkey leases. The rule has not been amended since its adoption.

270242. In 1993 or 1994, the Division of Facilities Management of DMS, loaned

2715a staff person to HRS to assist in the revision of HRS Manual, Facilities

2729Acquisition and Management, Procuring Leased Space. This manual provides that

2739for the procurement of turnkey lease construction the District should refer to

2751Section 60H-1.017, Florida Administrative Code, and the Department of Management

2761Services' Real Property Lease Manual and consult with the office of general

2773services of HRS.

277643. District X has not made a recommendation to DMS for the proposed award

2790of the lease in issue. The Division of Facilities Management has not made an

2804evaluation of the proposals. There has been no joint approval by the Department

2817of Management Services and District X on the proposal submitted by Gulf

2829Properties.

283044. Although Rules 60H-1.017 and 10.8.007 are still in existence, HRS has

2842been following the procedures set forth in Rule 60H-1.015 at least since 1983.

2855Essentially, HRS determines whether there is existing space available and

2865requests approval from DMS to seek a turnkey lease if there is no existing space

2880available. If DMS approves HRS to seek a turnkey lease, HRS advertises for

2893proposals, reviews the proposals submitted, gives notice of an intended award,

2904and sends documentation to DMS in order that DMS may review and approve the

2918lease. In turnkey lease procurements, DMS has followed a procedure similar to

2930that set forth in Rule 60H-1.015. DMS reviews the initial request from HRS to go

2945out for a turnkey lease. If approved HRS proceeds to solicit and award a lease.

2960DMS will give technical assistance to HRS during the procurment process if HRS

2973requests. After HRS notifies the bidders of the intended award, it sends

2985documentation to DMS for review and approval. DMS reviews the following things:

2997floor plans and specifications; price; compliance of design with the standards

3008of the Americans with Disabilities Act; appropriateness of the completion date

3019of the project; availability of public transportation; parking facilities; and

3029dining facilities as they relate to the turnkey lease location. If any of the

3043criteria reviewed by DMS is inappropriate or fails to comply with the

3055specifications or DMS standards, DMS will not let HRS go forward with the

3068project until the deficiency is corrected.

307445. The bid solicitation document provides:

3080Notification of bid award is final when either

3088no protests are submitted or after all protests

3096are resolved by an administrative hearing

3102procedure. Subsequent protests at District

3107Court level will not be grounds for delaying

3115bid award.

311746. The solicitation document also states that HRS has the right to reject

3130any and all bids.

3134CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

313747. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

3147parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1),

3158Florida Statutes.

316048. The rules for the procurement and acceptance of proposals for leases

3172for existing space and for leases for turnkey construction differ. In the

3184procurement of leases for existing space, the user agency, in this case District

3197X, evaluates the proposals and makes the selection of the lowest and best bid.

3211Rule 60H-1.015 (5), Florida Administrative Code provides:

3218(5) Evaluation

3220(a) The user agency alone shall reserve the

3228right to accept or reject any or all bids

3237submitted and if necessary reinitiate proced-

3243ures for soliciting competitive proposals.

3248(b) The user agency, in conjunction with

3255preparing specifications, shall develop weighted

3260evaluation criteria. The criteria items most

3266significant to the user agency's needs should

3273bear the highest weight. Rental, using total

3280present value methodology for basic term of

3287lease applying the present value discount rate

3294pursuant to Rule 60H-1.029; the cost of relocation,

3302if any; consolidation of activities, if desireable;

3309and any other factor deemed necessary should be

3317weighted.

3318(c) The evaluation shall be made by the user

3327agency.

3328(d) Selection (deemed to be the lowest and

3336best bid) shall be made by the user agency.

3345* * *

3348(f) Selection shall be publicly announced

3354by the user agency at the time and place

3363designated at the bid opening. A copy of the

3372announcement shall be filed with the Bureau.

337949. Rule 60H-1.017, Florida Administrative Code provides the criteria for

3389the solicitation of proposals for a turnkey lease. An agency may procure

3401proposals for a turnkey lease when it is determined that no existing space,

3414either State or private is available. Rule 60H-1.017(3) provides that "[t]he

3425State User Agency will perform the [turnkey lease construction] program to the

3437point of acceptance of proposals, as solicited, in accordance with the

3448Department of Management Services' guidelines, as presented herein." The rule

3458further outlines the responsibilities of the user agency through the evaluation

3469of the proposals.

347250. Rule 60H-1.017(3)(f)8, Florida Administrative Code provides:

3479. . . Evaluation of proposals will be made

3488jointly by the Division of Facilities Manage-

3495ment and the User Agency on the basis of price,

3505design, characteristics of construction,

3509completion date, location (including environ-

3514mental or characteristics of surrounding

3519neighborhood), public transportation availa-

3523bility, availability of parking facilities,

3528and availability of satisfactory dining

3533facilities, and conformance to the User

3539Agency program, performance specifications,

3543and floor layout plan.

3547The User Agency then presents the entire

"3554project review package" (including the User

3560Agency's specific recommendation, justification

3564in support of the recommendation, and the

3571proposed lease contract) to the Division of

3578Facilities Management.

3580The project review package shall contain:

3586a. A letter of transmittal setting forth:

3593(i) the fact that "this is a lease-build

3601proposal," and

3603(ii) functional and staff justification as

3609to the facility's necessity.

3613b. Proof of Advertisement. Said advertise-

3619ment to set forth the particulars of the pre-

3628proposal conference (where, when time, attendees,

3634etc).

3635c. A list of the responses to the advertisements.

3644d. Set of the User Agency's program, any unique

3653planning information, performance specifications

3657(building and site). Site description and or

3664delineated area, floor layout plan, and property

3671appraisal.

3672e. All proposals submitted to the User Agency

3680must be in accordance to guidelines developed.

3687f. User Agency's recommendation with justification.

3693The Division of Facilities Management will

3699review the project, if it concurs with the User

3708Agency recommendation, it will give approval and

3715return to the User Agency for execution. The User

3724Agency and the Department of Management Services

3731must be in joint agreement on the proposal before

3740approval is granted. . . .

374651. Rule 10-8.007, Florida Administrative Code, promulgated in 1979, deals

3756with HRS turnkey leases and provides:

3762(1) Purpose. The purpose of this program

3769is to provide the means of meeting State space

3778requirements, in a competitive area, where it

3785has been determined that existing space, either

3792State or privately owned is not available.

3799(2) The Department shall provide technical

3805assistance in the details of the endeavor.

3812(3) The Department and the Department of

3819General Services [now the Department of Management

3826Services] must be in joint agreement before turnkey

3834approval is granted.

3837A physical inspection of completed building

3843and sites will be made by the Department who will,

3853in turn, supply the Division of Building Construction

3861and Property Management with a Certification of

3868Acceptance, and a Certificate Citing the Date of

3876Occupancy. . . .

388052. Section 255.25(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

3886Except as provided in subsection (10), no state

3894agency shall enter into a lease as lessee for the

3904use of 3,000 square feet or more of space in a

3916privately owned building except upon advertisement

3922for and receipt of competitive bids and award to

3931the lowest and best bidder. The Division of Facil-

3940ities Management [ of the Department of Management

3948Services] shall have the authority to approve a

3956lease for 3,000 square feet or more of space that

3967covers more than 1 fiscal year subject to the pro-

3977vision of ss. 216.311, 255.2501, 255.2502, and

3984255.2503, if such lease is in the judgement of the

3994division, in the best interests of the state.

4002This paragraph does not apply to buildings or

4010facilities of any size leased for the purpose of

4019providing care and living space for persons.

402653. It is apparent that District X was proceeding under the assumption

4038that Rule 60H-1.015 governed the procurement of the lease rather than 60H-1.017.

4050The procurement of space for the CMS facility is for turnkey construction.

4062Thus, the applicable administrative rule is Rule 60H-1.017 rather than Rule 60H-

40741.015. However, the evidence established that both DMS and HRS have not been

4087following Rule 60H-1.017, which has been in existence since 1975. Although DMS

4099management determined they would not follow DMS' own rule around 1976, DMS chose

4112not to repeal the rule and continued to refer to the procedures set forth in the

4128rule in its leasing manual. DMS even amended the rule in 1986. DMS loaned a

4143staff person to assist HRS in revising the HRS leasing manual in 1993-94. The

4157HRS manual referred the districts to Rule 60H-1.017 and DMS' Real Property Lease

4170Manual for the procurement of turnkey leases.

417754. HRS has not been following Rule 10-8.007, to the extent that the rule

4191is interpreted to mean that both DMS and HRS must be in joint agreement for the

4207award of a turnkey lease. This interpretation is the interpretation which is

4219set forth in HRS's current leasing manual when it refers the districts to Rule

423360H-1.017 and to DMS's leasing manual, which sets forth the same procedures as

4246outlined in Rule 60H-1.017, for the procedures to be used in procuring turnkey

4259leases.

426055. Valid rules of an administrative agency have the force and effect of

4273law. Florida Livestock Board v. Gladden, 76 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1954). The

4285validity of a rule is to be assumed by the public official who is to carry out

4302the rule. Graham v. Swift, 480 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). Thus, HRS is

4317bound by Rule 60H-1.017 just as it would be bound by a statute. Rule 60H-1.017

4332has not been declared invalid by the courts or through a rule challenge. HRS is

4347also bound to follow its own Rule 10-8.007 which requires joint agreement by DMS

4361and HRS for approval of a turnkey lease.

436956. Pursuant to Rule 60H-1.017, the acceptance of a turnkey lease proposal

4381required that there be joint evaluation and approval by District X and the

4394Department of Management Services. Rule 10-8.007, requires joint agreement

4403between HRS and DMS before turnkey approval is granted. There has been no joint

4417evaluation and approval of the proposals by District X and the Department of

4430Management Services, thus District X had no authority to award a lease to Gulf

4444when it advised Gulf of its intent to award on June 24, 1994.

445757. Gulf's argument that the competitive bidding process was completed and

4468the award became final when ANF withdrew its protest is without merit based on

4482Rule 60H-1.017. Because there had been no recommendation to the Department of

4494Management Services by District X, no evaluation of the proposals by the

4506Department of Management Services and no joint approval of the proposal by

4518District X and DMS, the competitive solicitation process has not ended.

452958. In Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins, 530 So. 2d 912

4540(Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court set forth the role of a hearing officer

4554in the review of an agency's decision to award or reject all bids.

4567Thus, although the APA provides the procedural

4574mechanism for challenging an agency's decision

4580to award or reject all bids, the scope of the

4590inquiry is limited to whether the purpose of

4598the competitive bidding has been subverted. In

4605short, the hearing officer's sole responsibility

4611is to ascertain whether the agency acted fraud-

4619ulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.

4624Id. at 914.

462759. In Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, 421 So. 2d 505,

4640507 (Fla. 1982), the court noted the strong judicial deference accorded an

4652agency's decision in competitive bidding situations:

4658[A] public body has wide discretion in soliciting

4666and accepting bids for public improvements and

4673its decision, when based on an honest exercise

4681of this discretion, will not be overturned by a

4690court even if it may appear erroneous and even if

4700reasonable persons may disagree.

470460. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that HRS acted fraudulently,

4714arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly when it advised Gulf that it was

4725rejecting all bids.

4728RECOMMENDATION

4729Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

4742RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Gulf's bid protest and

4754rejecting all bids for lease number 580:2490.

4761DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon

4773County, Florida.

4775___________________________________

4776SUSAN B. KIRKLAND

4779Hearing Officer

4781Division of Administrative Hearings

4785The DeSoto Building

47881230 Apalachee Parkway

4791Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

4794(904) 488-9675

4796Filed with the Clerk of the

4802Division of Administrative Hearings

4806this 15th day of August, 1995.

4812APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5628BID

4819To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes

4829(1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of

4841fact:

4842Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

48471. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance.

48532. Paragraphs 2-5: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

48603. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance.

48664. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

48735. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance.

48796. Paragraph 9: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

48867. Paragraphs 10-15: Accepted in substance.

48928. Paragraphs 16-17: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

48999. Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance.

490510. Paragraph 19: The portion of the paragraph stating

4914that Gulf has maintained control of the subject

4922property since the time of initial option is rejected

4931as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence.

4941The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in

4949substance.

495011. Paragraphs 20-21: Accepted in substance.

495612. Paragraph 22: The first sentence is rejected as

4965unnecessary detail. The second sentence is accepted in

4973substance.

497413. Paragraphs 23-25: Accepted in substance.

498014. Paragraph 26: The portion of the sentence which states

4990the ITB required that the award letter be issued within

500030 days is rejected as not supported by the greater

5010weight of the evidence. The remainder is accepted in

5019substance.

502015. Paragraph 27: Rejected as immaterial.

502616. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance.

503217. Paragraph 29: Rejected as immaterial.

503818. Paragraphs 30-31: Accepted in substance.

504419. Paragraphs 32-33: Rejected as immaterial.

505020. Paragraph 34: The portion that states the notice of

5060withdrawal was filed on August 26 is accepted. The

5069remainder is rejected as unnecessary detail.

507521. Paragraph 35: Accepted in substance.

508122. Paragraph 36: Accepted in substance to the extent that

5091the manual refers to Rule 60H-1.017 F.A.C. for the

5100procedures for turnkey leases.

510423. Paragraph 37: Rejected as immaterial.

511024. Paragraph 38: Accepted in substance to the extent that

5120he did follow the manual but not to the extent that the

5132manual set forth the procedures for procuring a turnkey

5141lease.

514225. Paragraph 39: Rejected as not supported by the greater

5152weight of the evidence and as contrary to law.

516126. Paragraphs 40-41: Rejected as unnecessary.

516727 Paragraph 42: Accepted in substance.

517328. Paragraphs 43-44: Rejected as unnecessary.

517925. Paragraph 45: Accepted in substance.

518526. Paragraphs 46-47: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

519227. Paragraph 48: Accepted in substance.

519828. Paragraph 49: Rejected to the extent that the only

5208government entity interested in providing space was

5215Broward General.

521729. Paragraphs 50-51: Rejected as unnecessary.

522330. Paragraphs 52: Rejected as subordinate to the facts

5232found.

523331. Paragraphs 53-59: Accepted in substance.

523932. Paragraphs 60-68: Rejected as irrelevant.

524533. Paragraph 69: Rejected as not supported by the greater

5255weight of the evidence.

525934. Paragraphs 70-71: Accepted in substance.

526535. Paragraphs 72: Rejected as irrelevant as to whether

5274she was qualified as an expert.

528036. Paragraph 73: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

528737. Paragraph 74: Accepted in substance.

529338. Paragraphs 75-81: Rejected as subordinate to the facts

5302found.

530339. Paragraph 82: The first half of the sentence is

5313rejected as unnecessary detail. The remainder of the

5321sentence is accepted in substance.

532640. Paragraphs 83-90: Rejected as subordinate to the facts

5335found.

533641. Paragraph 91: Rejected as constituting argument.

534342. Paragraphs 92-96: Rejected as subordinate to the facts

5352found.

535343. Paragraph 97: Accepted as that has been the practice

5363of HRS but rejected to the extent that it reflects what

5374is required by Rule 60H-1.017.

537944. Paragraph 98: Rejected as not supported by the greater

5389weight of the evidence and by the law.

539745. Paragraph 99: Rejected to the extent that it implies

5407that DMS approval only means that the lease is

5416effective for payment. Approval by DMS is required for

5425a turnkey lease before the lease can be executed by the

5436parties.

543746. Paragraph 100: Accepted to the extent that it means

5447that DMS has not evaluated and given approval of the

5457award.

5458Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order

54631. Paragraphs 1-2: Rejected as unnecessary.

54692. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance.

54753. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance to the extent that

5485HRS had the authority if it followed the procedures

5494under 60H-1.017, and to the extent that the leases were

5504eventually approved by DMS, HRS's premature notices of

5512award were ratified.

55154. Paragraph 5: Accepted to the extent that it applies to

5526the time periods before HRS issued a notice of award.

55365. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance.

55426. Paragraphs 7-8: Rejected as unnecessary.

55487. Paragraph 9: The first sentence is accepted in

5557substance as it pertains prior to HRS issuing a notice

5567of award. It is clear that DMS did do some evaluation

5578of the proposed awardee's proposal prior to DMS

5586approving the lease. The second sentence is accepted in

5595substance as to what actually happened but rejected as

5604to what was stated in Rule 10-8.007 and HRS's

5613interpretation as set forth in its leasing manual.

56218. Paragraphs 10-12: Accepted in substance.

56279. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance to the extent that

5637it refers to the time prior to an agency issuing a

5648notice of intended award.

565210. Paragraphs 14-15: Accepted in substance.

565811. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance to the extent that

5668the procedures were consistent but that the procedures

5676repudiated the procedures set forth in DMS's duly

5684promulgated Rule 60H-1.017.

568712. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance.

569313. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law.

570314. Paragraph 19: Rejected as not supported by the greater

5713weight of the evidence.

571715. Paragraph 20: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law.

572716. Paragraph 21: Accepted to the extent that the District

5737Administrator has authority to award when the

5744appropriate rules have been followed.

574917. Paragraphs 22-23: Accepted in substance.

575518. Paragraph 24: Irrelevant since her current duties do

5764not include procurement of turnkey leases and in the

5773past she did not participate in the procurement of a

5783turnkey lease.

578519. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance.

5791Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

57961. Paragraphs 1-4: Accepted in substance.

58022. Paragraph 5: The first sentence is accepted in

5811substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary detail.

58193. Paragraphs 6-9: Accepted in substance.

58254. Paragraphs 10-11: Rejected as subordinate to the facts

5834found.

58355. Paragraph 12: The paragraph is accepted in substance as

5845it relates to state-owned facilities but not as it

5854relates to other governmental facilities.

58596. Paragraphs 13-14: Accepted in substance.

58657. Paragraph 15: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

58728. Paragraphs 16-17: Rejected as immaterial to the facts

5881actually found.

58839. Paragraphs 18-19: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

589010. Paragraphs 20-51: Accepted in substance.

589612. Paragraph 52: Rejected to the extent that it implies

5906that for this particular case it was the sole

5915responsibility of District X to evaluate the proposals.

592313. Paragraphs 53: Rejected as unnecessary detail.

593014. Paragraphs 54-55: Accepted in substance.

593615. Paragraph 56: Rejected as immaterial.

594216. Paragraph 57: Accepted in substance.

594817. Paragraphs 58-59: Rejected as immaterial.

595418. Paragraph 60: Accepted in substance.

596019. Paragraph 61: Accepted in substance except as to the

5970statement the pressure was passed on, which is rejected

5979as not supported by competent substantial evidence.

598620. Paragraphs 62-66: Accepted in substance.

599221. Paragraph 67: Accepted in substance except as to the

6002date. The notice was faxed to the District on August 26

6013and a hard copy was submitted on August 29.

602222. Paragraph 68: Rejected as not supported by the evidence.

603223 Paragraph 69: Accepted in substance.

603824. Paragraph 70: Rejected as unnecessary.

604425. Paragraph 71: Accepted in substance.

605026. Paragraph 72: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law.

606027. Paragraph 73: Rejected as unnecessary.

6066Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact

60711. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted in substance.

60772. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance to the extent that

6087the evaluation by DMS and the user agency is not done

6098simultaneously.

60993. Paragraphs 4-9: Accepted in substance.

61054. Paragraph 10: Accepted to the extent that in actual

6115practice DMS assists when requested by the user agency

6124prior to the issuance of the notice of award.

61335. Paragraphs 11-19: Accepted in substance.

6139COPIES FURNISHED:

6141Kim Tendrich, Esquire

6144District 10 Legal Counsel

6148Department of Health and

6152Rehabilitative Services

6154201 West Broward Boulevard

6158Suite 513

6160Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

6164William A. Frieder, Esquire

6168Assistant General Counsel

6171Building E, Suite 200

61751323 Winewood Boulevard

6178Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

6181Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire

6185I. Ed Pantaleon, Esquire

6189Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene

6194225 South Adams, Suite 250

6199Tallahassee, Florida 32301

6202Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk

6207Department of Health and

6211Rehabilitative Services

62131323 Winewood Boulevard

6216Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

6219Kim Tucker

6221General Counsel

6223Department of Health and

6227Rehabilitative Services

62291323 Winewood Boulevard

6232Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

6235NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

6241All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended

6253order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit

6267written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

6279written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

6291order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

6304to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be

6316filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

6329=================================================================

6330AGENCY FINAL ORDER

6333=================================================================

6334STATE OF FLORIDA

6337DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

6343GULF REAL PROPERTIES, INC.,

6347Petitioner,

6348vs. CASE NO. 94-5628BID

6352RENDITION NO. 96-017-FOF-BID

6355DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

6358AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

6361Respondent.

6362______________________________/

6363FINAL ORDER

6365This cause came on before me for the purpose of issuing a final agency

6379order. The hearing officer assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings

6390(DOAH) in the above- styled case submitted a Recommended Order to the Department

6403of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). A copy of the Recommended Order of

6416Hearing Officer Susan B. Kirkland, dated August 15, 1995, is attached hereto and

6429incorporated.

6430RULINGS ON EXCEPTION

6433Petitioner Gulf Real Properties' (hereinafter "Gulf" or "Petitioner") first

6443exception is that finding of fact 33 should have found that a larger number of

6458Children's Medical Service's ("CMS") patients were located closer to the Gulf

6471location than to the Broward General Medical Center ("BGMC") location. The

6484exception is denied. Finding 33 that "[a] larger number of CMS' clients are

6497located near the hospital" is a permissible finding based on the evidence. Dr.

6510Letterman's testimony is consistent with the hearing officer's finding.

6519Petitioner also takes exception to the finding in paragraph 33 of the

6531Recommended Order that co-location would allow the sharing of certain areas,

6542thus reducing the space required for the CMS program. Petitioner characterizes

6553Dr. Letterman's testimony as "merely speculative" and as "absolute speculation".

6564However, the transcript of the hearing shows specific testimony by Dr. Letterman

6576regarding the numerous benefits of the proposed co-location. Finding 33 is

6587permissible, based upon competent substantial evidence in the record. The

6597exception is denied.

6600Petitioner's second exception is to the finding in paragraph 35 of the

6612Recommended Order that co-location would result in record sharing in the CMS

6624program. Petitioner asserts that this finding is mere speculation and, as such,

6636is not competent substantial evidence. The transcript of the hearing shows that

6648Dr. Letterman testified that location of the CMS program at Broward General

6660would simplify records. There is competent substantial evidence in the record

6671to support the hearing officer's finding. The exception is denied.

6681For its third exception, Petitioner asserts that as finding 36 states, Dr.

6693Letterman did testify that she was concerned about the lack of an emergency room

6707near the Petitioner's location. However, Petitioner adds that the hearing

6717officer should also have found that Dr. Letterman, as an evaluator, rated the

6730Petitioner's location a 9 out of a possible 10 points for location and that

6744Petitioner received the highest rating in the evaluation process. The weighing

6755of the evidence is reserved exclusively for the trier of fact. The exception is

6769denied.

6770Petitioner's fourth exception is that finding of fact 42 is not supported

6782by the evidence. The Hearing Officer found that the HRS Manual, Facilities

6794Acquisition and Management, Procuring Leased Space provides that in the

6804procurement of turnkey leases, the District should refer to Rule 60H-1.017,

6815F.A.C., and the Department of Management Services' (DMS) Real Property Lease

6826Manual, and should consult with Respondent's Office of General Services.

6836Specifically, Petitioner argues that the HRS Manual has not been promulgated as

6848a rule and that the District is only "directed" to refer to Rule 60H-1.01,

6862F.A.C., "for preliminary informational purposes only". In citing Appendix G of

6874the HRS Manual in support of its argument, Petitioner refers to the statement

"6887Preliminary information can be found in Section 60H-1.01, F.A.C., and in the

6899Department of Management Services' Real Property Lease Manual". Petitioner

6909failed to provide any legal authority to support its argument that this

6921statement in any way limits or restricts Respondent to referring to Section 60H-

69341.01, F.A.C., for the sole purpose of obtaining preliminary information. On the

6946contrary, there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing

6956officer's findings of fact that in the procurement of turnkey leases, the

6968District must comply with all the requirements of Rule 60H-1.01, F.A.C., and

6980DMS' Real Property Lease Manual. The exception is denied.

6989Petitioner's fifth exception is to finding of fact 44 in the Recommended

7001Order. In finding 44, the Recommended Order provides, "Although Rules 60H-1.01

7012and 10.8.00 [sic] are still in existence, HRS has been following the procedures

7025set forth in Rule 60H-1.1015 at least since 1983". Petitioner argues that,

7038regardless of the requirements of Rules 60H-1.01 and 10-8.00, F.A.C.,

7048Respondent's past practice has been to first issue a Notice of Award and to then

7063seek "joint approval" between HRS and DMS for a turnkey lease. Petitioner

7075argues that, contrary to the hearing officer's reference to the above-listed

7086rules, the evidence shows that "joint approval" by HRS and DMS occurs in the

7100initial stages when HRS requests and DMS approves the decision to seek

7112competitive bids for a turnkey lease and that this initial "joint approval" is

7125the only joint approval required by statute or rule. Such an argument is

7138contradictory to the clear language of Rule 60H- 1.01, F.A.C., which provides

7150that the agency must submit a project review package to DMS and the review

7164package must contain specific documents, including proof of advertisement, a

7174list of the responses to the advertisement, and the User Agency's recommendation

7186with justification. These documents would not be available for inclusion in the

7198package in the initial stage suggested by Petitioner. In regard to the project

7211review package, Rule 6OH-1.017, F.A.C., provides:

7217The Division of Facilities Management will

7223review the project, if it concurs with the

7231User Agency's recommendation it will give

7237approval and return to the User Agency for

7245execution. The User Agency and the

7251Department of Management Services must be in

7258joint [agreement] on the proposal [before

7264approval is granted]. [emphasis added]

7269Petitioner also argues in regard to finding of fact number 44 that the

7282record evidence does not support the hearing officer's determination that HRS

7293interprets the procedures set forth in Rule 10-8.007, F.A.C., to be identical to

7306the procedures set forth in DMS's Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C., or as requiring "joint

7319approval" between HRS and DMS of an award of a bid for a turnkey lease, and

7335Petitioner states it "demonstrates that the agency's interpretation, based on

7345its past practices, is that joint approval of the award of a bid is not

7360required". Any interpretation of Rule 10-8.007, F.A.C., which would directly

7371conflict with the provisions of Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C., would be erroneous. In

7383addition, Respondent is statutorily prohibited from promulgating a rule which

7393would be contrary to the clear requirements of Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C.

7404Respondent's authority to promulgate a rule (Rule 10-8.007, F.A.C.) is provided

7415in s. 255.25(2)(c), F. S., which clearly states:

7423Each state agency shall develop procedures

7429and adopt rules to ensure that the leasing

7437practices of the agency are in [substantial

7444compliance] with the rules adopted pursuant

7450to this section as ss. 255.249, 255.2502,

7457and 255.2503. [emphasis added]

7461There is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the hearing

7473officer's findings of fact, and the exception is denied.

7482Exception number six filed by Petitioner is that the hearing officer failed

7494to find as a fact that Respondent did not obtain DMS approval to reject all bids

7510in order to negotiate with BGMC. The weighing of the evidence is the sole

7524responsibility of the hearing officer. The agency head may not make findings of

7537fact in the Final Order. The exception stating that certain facts were not

7550found is denied. Petitioner also did not provide to the undersigned, along with

7563its exceptions, a copy of proposed findings of fact to be reviewed prior to the

7578entry of this Final Order to assure that explicit rulings have been made by the

7593hearing officer on proposed findings of fact where required. Presumably,

7603Petitioner is not alleging the lack of explicit rulings on its proposed findings

7616of fact.

7618In its seventh exception, Petitioner argues that the hearing officer failed

7629to consider and completely ignored Petitioner's argument that upon the Notice of

7641Award of the bid by Respondent, there existed a binding contract. In support of

7655his argument, Petitioner cites to the holding in Carl M. Napolitano v.

7667Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 409 (1990). This case

7679is distinguishable from Napolitano, however, because in the latter case the

7690requirements of the applicable statutes and rules, which mandate that certain

7701procedures occur prior to the issuance of a Notice of Award, were properly

7714followed and, therefore, it was determined that a contract existed. In the

7726instant case, however, the requirement of Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C., which mandates

7737joint agreement between DMS and HRS before approval is granted and only after

7750DMS reviews the project review package which must be submitted by HRS, had not

7764yet been met. As Respondent rejected all bids on August 31, 1994, this case

7778never reached the point of the mandatory DMS review. Therefore, the Notice of

7791Award which was issued in this case was not issued pursuant to the requirements

7805of Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C., and is clearly distinguishable from Napolitano.

7815In its eighth and final exception, Petitioner alleges that finding of fact

7827number 46 overlooks and fails to consider that Respondent's right to reject all

7840bids is limited by the Invitation to Bid which Petitioner states was relied on

7854by Respondent in its August 31, 1994, letter and that no authority exists to

"7868reject" a Notice of Award, which became final before the purported rejection of

7881all bids. The evidence does not support Petitioner's argument that Respondent

7892relied solely on the Invitation to Bid in rejecting all bids. On the contrary,

7906the August 31, 1994, letter clearly states that Respondent rejected all bids

"7918pursuant to Section 255.25, Florida Statutes; Chapter 10-13, F.A.C., and the

7929provisions of the Invitation to Bid, Lease No. 590:2490". In addition, the

7942provisions of s. 255.25, F. S., Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C., and Rule 10-8.007.

7954F.A.C., do not support Petitioner's argument that the Notice of Award became

"7966final". The exception is denied.

7972FINDINGS OF FACT

7975The Department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of

7986fact set forth in the Recommended Order.

7993CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

7996The Department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the conclusions

8006of law set forth in the Recommended Order.

8014Based upon the foregoing, it is

8020ADJUDGED, that the bid protest of Petitioner Gulf Properties, Inc., be and

8032the same is hereby DISMISSED.

8037DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of January,1996 at Tallahassee, Leon County,

8050Florida.

8051EDWARD A. FEAVER, Secretary

8055Department of Health and

8059Rehabilitative Services

8061By:___________________________

8062Lowell Clary

8064Assistant Secretary for

8067Administration

8068A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL

8083REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH

8098THE AGENCY CLERK OF HRS, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED

8113BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE

8127AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

8138SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE

8150OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

8166COPIES FURNISHED:

8168Susan B. Kirkland, Hearing Officer

8173The DeSoto Building

81761230 Apalachee Parkway

8179Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-1550

8182Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire

8186& I. Ed Pantaleon, Esquire

8191Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene

8196225 South Mams St. Ste. 250

8202Tallahassee, Fl. 32301

8205Kimberley Tendrich, Esquire

8208Department of Health and

8212Rehabilitative Services

8214201 W. Broward Blvd.

8218Ft. Lauderdale Fl. 33301

8222William Frieder, Esquire

8225Department of Health and

8229Rehabilitative Services

82311323 Winewood Blvd.

8234Tallahassee, Fl. 32300-0700

8237=================================================================

8238DISTRICT COURT OPINION

8241=================================================================

8242IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

8248FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

8253GULF REAL PROPERTIES, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

8263FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

8268DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

8272Appellant,

8273CASE NO. 96-471

8276vs. DOAH CASE NO. 94-5628BID

8281DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

8285REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, an

8288agency of the State of

8293Florida,

8294Appellee.

8295______________________________/

8296Opinion filed February 4, 1997.

8301An appeal from an order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

8314Wilbur E. Brewton and Kelly Brewton Plante of Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A.,

8327Tallahassee, for Appellant.

8330William A. Frieder, Assistant General Counsel for the Department of Health and

8342Rehabilitative Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

8347BENTON, J.

8349Gulf Real Properties, Inc. (Gulf) asks us to overturn a final order entered

8362by the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) which had

8374the effect of rejecting all bids HRS received in response to an invitation to

8388bid. We affirm.

8391HRS needed space to house a clinic run by Children's Medical Services, then

8404an HRS program. In response to an invitation for bids to furnish a "turnkey"

8418facility in Broward County that HRS could lease with an option to purchase, Gulf

8432submitted one and ANF Real Estate Group, Inc. (ANF) submitted two bids. The

8445invitation to bid stated: "The department reserves the right to reject any and

8458all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida."

8472(Underlined in the original.)

8476On June 24, 1994, HRS notified both Gulf and ANF that "authorization ha[d]

8489been granted to award subject lease to" Gulfeating this letter as notice of

8502the agency's intended decision, ANF filed first a timely notice of protest, then

8515a timely formal written protest, alleging that Gulf's bid was not responsive.

8527While the protest was pending, agency personnel reconsidered the merits of

8538locating the clinic on the campus of Broward General Hospital, particularly in

8550light of section 255.25(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides: "State

8560agencies shall cooperate with local governmental units by using suitable,

8570existing publicly owned facilities . . . ." The North Broward Hospital District,

8583which owns and operates Broward General Hospital, is a local governmental unit.

8595On August 26, 1994, ANF filed a notice of withdrawal of formal written

8608protest which requested "[t]hat this proceeding be closed." On August 31, 1994,

8620HRS wrote Gulf "the Agency is exercising its right to reject all bids . . .

8636[because] suitable space has been made available by governmental entities with

8647which HRS is obligated by statute to cooperate." The letter also advised Gulf

8660that it could request an administrative hearing.

8667Gulf did request a hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of

8681Administrative Hearings. On the basis of an administrative rule promulgated by

8692the Department of Management Services (and since amended), the recommended order

8703concluded that "District X had no authority to award a lease to Gulf when it

8718advised Gulf of its intent to award," and recommended--on that and other

8730grounds--entry of an order "dismissing Gulf's bid protest" and rejecting all

8741bids. HRS's final order, which we now review, overruled exceptions taken by

8753Gulf, and followed the recommendation to dismiss Gulf's "bid protest" or

8764petition for administrative hearing.

8768Acceptance of a bid solicited under the Administrative Procedure Act

8778differs from acceptance by local governmental bodies. Gulf's reliance on cases

8789like City of Homestead v. Raney Construction, Inc., 357 So.2d 749 (Fla. 3d DCA

88031978), Berry v. Okaloosa County, 334 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and Dedmond

8817v. Escambia County, 244 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) is therefore misplaced.

8830The invitation to bid provided that "5120.53(5), Florida Statutes" would govern

8841protest procedures. Like section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996),

8850which has now replaced it, section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1995),

8860provided:

8861Upon receipt of the formal written protest

8868which has been timely filed the agency shall

8876stop the bid solicitation process or the

8883contract award process [until the subject of

8890the protest is resolved by final agency

8897action], unless the agency head sets forth in

8905writing particular facts and circumstances

8910which require the continuance of the bid

8917solicitation process or the contract award

8923process without delay in order to avoid an

8931immediate and serious danger to the public

8938health, safety, or welfare.

8942s 120.53(5)(c), Fla. Stat. (1995) [emphasis supplied]. Once ANF filed its

8953formal protest, the bid solicitation and contract award process stopped.

8963Cianbro Corp. v. Jacksonville Trans. Auth., 473 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

8976Even though ANF subsequently withdrew its protest the requisite final agency

8987action only occurred when HRS entered the final order, in the wake of the formal

9002administrative hearing Gulf requested. No contract between HRS and Gulf ever

9013came into existence.

9016Our decision does not turn on a construction of the administrative rule the

9029Department of Management Services has now amended. We affirm because an

9040agency's rejection of all bids must stand, absent a showing that the "purpose or

9054effect of the rejection is to defeat the object and integrity of competitive

9067bidding." Department of Transp. v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912,

9077913 (Fla. 1988). A disappointed bidder seeking to overturn an agency's decision

9089to reject all bids must show that "the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily,

9101illegally, or dishonestly." Id. at 914. Appellant did not meet this burden

9113here.

9114Affirmed.

9115ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
Date: 02/05/1997
Proceedings: First DCA Opinion (Affirmed) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/1997
Proceedings: Opinion
Date: 01/31/1996
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/26/1996
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
Date: 11/01/1995
Proceedings: Memorandum to W. Freider & K. Tendrich from R. Powell Re: Missing transcripts filed.
Date: 08/28/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Exceptions to the Recommended Order w/cover letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/1995
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 08/15/1995
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 1/12/95 and 6/19/95.
Date: 07/12/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 07/10/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 07/07/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 06/29/1995
Proceedings: Volume III of III Transcript filed.
Date: 06/14/1995
Proceedings: Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed.
Date: 06/09/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Motion to Permit Admission of Deposition Testimony filed.
Date: 06/08/1995
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Continuation of Formal Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 6/19/95; 10:30am; Tallahassee)
Date: 06/08/1995
Proceedings: Motion to Permit Admission of Deposition Testimony w/cover letter filed.
Date: 06/08/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 06/02/1995
Proceedings: (1) Subpoena Duces Tecum; (4) Subpoena Ad Testificandum; Affidavit filed.
Date: 05/25/1995
Proceedings: Order sent out. (ruling on Motions)
Date: 05/25/1995
Proceedings: (2) CC: Letters to W. Brewton from W. Frieder (Re: W. Brewton Letter for Public Document Request) filed.
Date: 05/25/1995
Proceedings: Letter to Wilbur Brewton from William A. Frieder Re: Public documentsrequest; Letter to W. Frieder from W. Brewton (cc: HO) Re: Reviewing file; Letter to W. Brewton from W. Frieder (cc: HO) Re: Letter dated May 24, 1995 from Mr. B rewton; Letter to W. Fri
Date: 05/24/1995
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Compel; Affidavit of Susan S. Hoskins filed.
Date: 05/24/1995
Proceedings: Order sent out. (Motion to quash denied)
Date: 05/24/1995
Proceedings: Letter to William A. Frieder from Wilbur E. Brewton (cc: Hearing Officer) Re: Reviewing files filed.
Date: 05/23/1995
Proceedings: Letter to Wilbur E. Brewton from William A. Frieder Re: Record Request filed.
Date: 05/22/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Emergency Motion to Quash Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 05/19/1995
Proceedings: (HRS) Emergency Motion to Quash Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 05/18/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition w/cover letter filed.
Date: 05/17/1995
Proceedings: Order sent out. (hearing reopened and shall commence 6/5/95; 1:00pm;Tallahassee)
Date: 05/10/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 05/10/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion to Admit Affidavits and/or to Take Additional Testimony; Affidavit; Letter to Wilbur E. Brewton from Randall C. Baker Re: Response to phone conversation on May 3rd filed.
Date: 05/10/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Supplemental Response to Hearing Officer Re: Rule 60H-1.017, F.A.C.; Letter to Wilbur E. Brewton from Randall C. Baker Re: The role of the Division of Facilities Management and its participation in the evaluation of Turnkey Proposals filed.
Date: 04/28/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 04/21/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order w/cover letter filed.
Date: 04/21/1995
Proceedings: (Respondent) Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 04/12/1995
Proceedings: Order sent out. (Re: Supplement to Proposed Recommended Order`s)
Date: 03/20/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order (for Hearing Officer Signature) w/cover letter filed.
Date: 03/20/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 03/13/1995
Proceedings: Order sent out. (Motion for Extension of time to file PRO`s granted; parties shall file proposed recommended orders by 3/20/95)
Date: 03/03/1995
Proceedings: (Joint) Stipulation filed.
Date: 03/02/1995
Proceedings: Letter to SBK from C. Gay (RE: request that due date for proposed recommended Order be changed to 3/13/95) filed.
Date: 02/21/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion for Rehearing and/Or, In The Alternative, Motion to File Newly Discovered Evidence filed.
Date: 02/20/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Rehearing and/Or In The Alternative, Motion to File Newly Discovered Evidence filed.
Date: 02/09/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Telephone Hearing (set for 2/10/95; 2:00pm); Motion for Rehearing and/or, in the Alternative, Motion to File Newly Discovered Evidence filed.
Date: 02/06/1995
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I, II, tagged) filed.
Date: 02/01/1995
Proceedings: Letter to Kimberly A. Tendrich from I. Ed Pantaleon (cc: Hearing Officer) re: Transcript filed.
Date: 01/23/1995
Proceedings: Letter to Hearing Officer from K. Tendrich re: Petitioner`s exhibit filed.
Date: 01/12/1995
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 01/11/1995
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 12-13, 1995; 9:00am; Ft. Laud)
Date: 01/11/1995
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Revised Answers to Interrogatories;Notice of Service of Original Second Revised Answers to Interrogatories; Notice of Service of Second Revised Answers to Interrogatories; Letter to K. Tendrich from W. Brewton (cc HO) re
Date: 01/11/1995
Proceedings: Letter to I. Ed Pantaleon from K. Tendrich (cc: Hearing Officer) re: Adding Will Trower`s name to witness list filed.
Date: 01/06/1995
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Prehearing Stipulation; Subpoena Ad Testificandum (2/from W. Frieder); Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Unilateral Response to Prehearing Order; Cover Letter filed.
Date: 01/03/1995
Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Compel Better Answers to First Interrogatories and Assessing Attorneys Fees; Respondent`s First Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Date: 12/29/1994
Proceedings: Letter to D. Ketchum from I. Pantaleon re: Request for subpoenas; Letter to Hearing Officer from I Pantaleon (Re: Filing Prehearing Stipulation) filed.
Date: 12/27/1994
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion to Compel Discovery, Assessing Costs, or in the Alternative Certifying a Witness for Contempt; Return of Service Affidavit; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed.
Date: 12/22/1994
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Second Motion for Protective Order filed.
Date: 12/20/1994
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Answers to Interrogatories filed.
Date: 12/12/1994
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 12/12/1994
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 12/07/1994
Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Order Rescheduling Final Hearing filed.
Date: 12/07/1994
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion for Protective Order, Emergency Notice Of Hearing filed.
Date: 11/28/1994
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
Date: 11/28/1994
Proceedings: Verified Motion/Affidavit for Disqualification of the Hearing Officer(Petitioner) filed.
Date: 11/21/1994
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Date: 10/31/1994
Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel filed.
Date: 10/19/1994
Proceedings: Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out.
Date: 10/19/1994
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 11-13, 1995; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale)
Date: 10/17/1994
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
Date: 10/17/1994
Proceedings: Emergency Motion for Continuance filed.
Date: 10/10/1994
Proceedings: Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders; Petition for Administrative Hearing; Motion for Leave to Amend Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.

Case Information

Judge:
SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND
Date Filed:
10/10/1994
Date Assignment:
10/13/1994
Last Docket Entry:
02/05/1997
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
BID
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):

Related Florida Rule(s) (3):