99-002278BID Center Printing, Inc. vs. University Of North Florida Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 27, 1999.

Summary: Low bidder by price was not responsive to the bid. The contract was awarded to the second lowest bidder.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CENTER PRINTING, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99- 2278BID

)

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on June 23, 1999, a formal hearing

was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is

set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

The hearing location was the City Hall Annex Building, 15th Floor

Committee Room, 220 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The

hearing was conducted by Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law

Judge.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire

Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 125

Jacksonville, Florida 32256

For Respondent: Michael Goldsberry, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

University of North Florida

4567 Saint Johns Bluff Road, South

Jacksonville, Florida 32224-2645

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Was it appropriate for the Un iversity of North Florida (the

University) to award the contract in its Invitation to Bid, Bid

No. 99-12P (the ITB), to Corporate Express, Inc. (Corporate

Express), the second low bidder by price? This decision was made

having rejected the bid by Center Printing, Inc. (Center

Printing), the low bidder by price. See Section 120.57(3),

Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Among other vendors, Center Printing and Corporate Express

submitted responses to the ITB. When the University determined

to disqualify Center Printing from participation in the bid

process, Center Printing opposed that decision by filing a Notice

of Protest. Then Center Printing filed a Formal Written Protest.

The parties were unable to resolve the protest by mutual

agreement. See Section 120.57(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes. As a

consequence, the case was forwarded to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing in

accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to resolve

disputed issues of material fact. See Section 120.57(3)(d)3.,

Florida Statutes.

The University replied to the Formal Written Protest by

filing an answer and affirmative defenses.

In response to a prehearing order, the parties filed a

prehearing stipulation which was executed by both parties. The

prehearing stipulation has been considered in preparing the

recommended order.

Upon request, official recognition was made of Rules

6C-18.035(21) and 6C-18.050(4), Florida Administrative Code.

Following assignment of the Administrative Law Judge the

hearing was conducted on the aforementioned date.

At hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Raymond E.

Forbess, Thomas Forbess, Richard E. Young, and Gus Lively.

Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1-5, 6A-6H, 7, and 9-11 were admitted.

Respondent presented the testimony of Beverly Ann Evans, Rickita

Boggs, and Kathryn B. VonDolteren. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1

was admitted consistent with the limitations on its use requested

by Respondent's counsel.

A hearing transcript w as filed on July 13, 1999. The

parties timely submitted proposed recommended orders which have

been considered in preparing the recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The University is part of the State University System in

Florida.

2. Affiliated with the University is the Institute for

Police Technology and Management ( IPTM). IPTM is a direct

support organization of the University located on the University

campus. IPTM is not required to make purchases in accordance

with competitive bidding. However, should IPTM elect to pursue

its purchases by competitive means, it does so in accordance with

the requirements incumbent upon the University under the auspices

of the University's membership in the State University System.

The ITB

3. In this case, IPTM determined to purchase printing

services in accordance with the ITB. The ITB was prepared under

the direction of the Purchasing Department for the University

with IPTM's substantive needs being set forth within the ITB.

4. Paragraph 24 under the ITB General Conditions sets forth

requirements for bidding on public printing where it states:

A bidder must have at the time of bid opening

a manufacturing plant in operation which is

capable of producing the items of bid, and so

certify upon request of the agency. . . .

5. Under paragraph 17 to Special Conditions within the ITB

it is stated:

DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDDER: More than one

bid/proposal from an individual, firm,

partnership, corporation or association under

the same or different names will not be

considered. Reasonable grounds for believing

that a bidder is involved in more than one

bid/proposal for the same work will cause for

rejection of all bids/proposals in which such

bidders are believed to be involved. . . .

6. In pertinent part, the ITB calls for a price quotation

in relation to printing of items such as folded brochures,

flyers, letters, envelopes, template materials, and template

envelopes.

7. In addition to bid specifications in relation to the

categories of items to be printed by the vendor, the bid

specifications and the ITB set forth package and storage

requirements that are under consideration in this dispute. Those

requirements are as follows:

LOT 1

(A) FOLDED BROCHURES

QUANTITY: Minimum of 1,200,999 total

Approximately 95% of orders will

be in quantities of 13,500 each

SIZE: Approximately 95% of Brochures,

8 1/2" x 11" with two (2) folds

Approximately 5% of Brochures,

8 1/2" x 14" with three (3) folds

* * *

PACKAGING: Brochures to be placed in uniform

cartons, 2,500 identical

brochures per carton. Cartons to

have removable tops and be

capable of being stacked, when

fully loaded, six (6) high

without deformation. For easy

identification, a brochure

identical to those contained in

the carton is to be taped

securely to the top of each

carton.

STORAGE: Pending pickup of the brochures

by a courier service, the printer

is to store the brochures not

delivered to the IPTM in a clean,

dry, indoors area. The printer

must have space to store up to

600 cartons with easy access to

any of the cartons.

* * *

(B) FLYERS

QUANTITY: Minimum of 500,000 each

SIZE: Approximately 90% 8 1/2" x 11",

unfolded

Approximately 10% 11" x 17", with

one (1) fold

* * *

PACKAGING: Generally same as for brochures

but quantity per carton (must be

uniform) will be greater.

STORAGE: Same as for brochures except

storage space will be much less

than that required for brochures-

-perhaps 10% of the latter.

* * *

(C) LETTERS

QUANTITY: Minimum of 50,000 sheets

SIZE: 8 1/2" x 11"

Approximately 50% printed front

and back

Approximately 50% printed front

Only

* * *

STORAGE: Same as for flyers (minimal)

* * *

(D) TEMPLATE MATERIALS

(Note: all measurements are approximate)

(1) INSTRUCTION BOOKLETS

(a) "Blue Blitz"

QUANTITY: 15,000 minimum

SIZE: 85% - 11" X 11" (US template)

folded to approximately

11" x 5 3/8"

15% - 11" x 5 15/16" (metric)

Fifteen text pages plus cover

* * *

(b) "Mini Blitz"

QUANTITY: 2,000 minimum

SIZE: 3 3/4" X 4 3/4"

Four pages (7 1/2" x 4 3/4"

Printed both sides, folded)

* * *

(c) Crime scene

QUANTITY: 5,000 min imum

SIZE: 8 1/4" x 8 1/4"

Four pages (17" x 8 1/4"

printed both sides, folded)

* * *

(d) " Nauti Blitz"

QUANTITY: 2,000 minimum

SIZE: 8 1/2" x 11"

Four pages (17" x 11"

Printed both sides, folded)

* * *

(2) TEMPLATE ENVELOPES

(a) "Blue Blitz"

QUANTITY: 15,000 minimum

SIZE: Approximately 85% - 11 5/16"

x 5 3/4" (US)

Approximately 15% - 11 5/16"

x 6 1/4" (metric)

* * *

(b) "Mini Blitz"

QUANTITY: 2,000 minimum

SIZE: 5 5/8" x 4 3/16"

* * *

(c) 360 Protracto r

QUANTITY: 2,000 minimum

SIZE: 6 1/2" x 6 1/2"

* * *

(d) Crime Scene

QUANTITY: 5,000 minimum

SIZE: 8 1/2" x 8 9/16"

* * *

(e) " Nauti Blitz"

QUANTITY: 2,000 minimum

SIZE: 11 3/8" x 8 11/16"

* * *

PACKAGING: Envelope units to be placed in

uniform cartons of minimum

200 lb. test that open from the

top, 200 templates per carton.

Each carton to be labeled on one

long side and on top for type

template (US or metric) and

quantity.

* * *

STORAGE: Cartons to be stored in clean,

dry, indoors area pending

delivery to IPTM in small

quantities (typically 1-2

cartons) as requested. "Mini

Blitz" items and protractor

envelopes will be delivered to

IPTM and not stored by printer.

8. In relation to folded brochures, flyers, and letters,

the ITB bid specifications set forth inventory reporting

requirements for the bidders as follows:

Printer is to maintain an accurate current

inventory of all types of brochures in

storage and to submit a weekly printed/typed

report to IPTM to include:

· Quantity of each type brochure picked up

by security for mailing during the

immediately preceding week, up through and

including the date of the report and the

pickup date for each type brochure.

· Quantity of each type brochure in storage

up through and including the date of the

report, after all brochures for mailing

have been picked up by the courier.

(Similar brochures having different course

dates to be treated as distinct types.)

· Quantity of each type brochure delivered

to IPTM and date of delivery.

9. The ITB provided to the vendors sets forth a bid summary

sheet from which price quotations are derived.

10. In recognition of the fact that the bid process was

through an ITB and not a Request for Proposals ( RFP), it was

expected that the bidder with the low price quotation would win

the contract absent disqualification.

The Bid Opening

11. As contemplated by paragraph 3 to the Special

Conditions within in the ITB, the results of the price

tabulations were posted on March 22, 1999.

12. Center Printing and Corporate Express had submitted

timely responses to the ITB. When the bids were opened there

were five apparently responsive bids when the responses were

considered on their face. Center Printing and Corporate Express

were among those bidders. The overall price quotation by Center

Printing was $52,661.50, compared to the Corporate Express

overall price quotation of $72,773.29. Center Printing was the

low bidder according to price. Corporate Express was the second

low bidder according to price.

13. Contrary to the expectations in paragraph 3 to the

Special Conditions a recommended award was not posted on or about

March 22, 1999.

Prior Affiliation

14. Raymond E. Forbess is President of Center Printing.

Formerly, Mr. Forbess was an officer and owner of a business

known as Center Office Products. Center Office Products had

begun its business in 1981, involving the sale of office

products. Center Office Products expanded into the printing

business in 1990.

15. In the Invitation to Bid, Bid No. 93- 38PYC, Center

Office Products was a successful low bidder for printing services

for the benefit of IPTM. This was in the year 1993. That

contract was signed between Center Office Products and the

University for a one-year period, approximately 1993-1994. In

accordance with the renewal options under that contract, it was

extended for two additional years.

16. In August 1996, Center Office Products sold out to

Corporate Express during the pendency of the printing needs

between Center Office Products and the University. Under these

arrangements Corporate Express took over the printing needs for

IPTM. Corporate Express was paid for rendering services under

the extended contract that had originally been entered into

between Center Office Products and the University. When the

contract expired, Corporate Express continued to provide printing

services to the University for two additional years upon terms

similar to those in the extended contract. The ITB in the

present case is intended to substitute for those prior

arrangements by establishing a new contract for delivering the

printing services for the benefit of IPTM.

17. When Corporate Express bought Center Office Products,

Raymond E. Forbess became an employee of Corporate Express. As

an employee for Corporate Express, Mr. Forbess continued to

service the IPTM account. Mr. Forbess left the employ of

Corporate Express on October 24, 1997. When he left the

Corporate Express employment, Mr. Forbess telephoned Ms. Leshell

Hartney from IPTM. Ms. Hartney was a person with whom he dealt

on a routine basis regarding the printing contract. He

telephoned to inform Ms. Hartney, as a representative of the

University, that he had terminated his employment at Corporate

Express.

18. Corporate Express continued to service the printing

needs for IPTM up to and including the hearing date under terms

that were associated with the expired contract.

Post-Bid Opening

19. Mr. Raymond E. Forbess was persuaded that Center

Printing had provided the low price quotation in the ITB. He was

aware that the University had not posted its recommended award

for the contract on or about March 22, 1999, as contemplated in

the ITB Special Conditions. After a period of 15 to 20 days, he

telephoned an employee at the University to inquire concerning

the award. That person was Linda Arklie an employee with IPTM.

This contact was followed by communication on that topic with

Ms. Kathryn B. VonDolteren, Associate Director of Purchasing for

the University. In response, Mr. Forbess was told by someone at

the University that site visits were going to be made before a

selection was made to award the contract.

20. Prior to the site visits Ms. Rickita Boggs, who was

associated with IPTM, informed Mr. Forbess that Center Printing

and Corporate Express would be visited. Mr. Forbess asked if

there was anything that Ms. Boggs wanted to look at during the

visit to Center Printing. She responded that she wanted to see

six contracts that were of the size of that involved with the

present ITB. Mr. Forbess told Ms. Boggs that he could not

produce six contracts of the size of the ITB solicitation. This

was in recognition that Center Printing was in the early phases

of its business operation, having been established in January

1999. As a consequence, Center Printing did not have the number

of accounts similar to that contemplated in the ITB. In the

telephone conversation establishing the site visit, Ms. Boggs did

not tell Mr. Forbess that Center Printing would need to produce a

sample inventory control sheet or make explanation of the

arrangements for inventory reporting. Ms. Boggs did not mention

that Center Printing would be required to produce samples of

printing done at the Center Printing location during the site

visit.

21. Some delay in the decision to award the contract had

also been occasioned by confusion at the University concerning

the possible continuing affiliation between Mr. Raymond E.

Forbess and Corporate Express, as well as with Center Printing.

Eventually, it was determined that Mr. Forbess no longer had any

association with Corporate Express and that Center Printing was a

separate entity from Corporate Express. Discussion of

Mr. Forbess' involvement with the two companies was set forth in

a communication from Ms. Beverly Ann Evans, Director of

Accounting for the Training and Services Institute at the

University. This communication was directed to Ms. VonDolteren,

among others, with a copy being provided to Ms. Boggs. This

communication was made on April 14, 1999. The site visits took

place on April 19, 1999.

22. In the course of the communication from Ms. Evans to

Ms. VonDolteren, the following observations were made:

Contract Services for Printing

'Center Printing' is not the current printing

services company. . . . The current company

is Corporate Express.

Ray Fhorbess [sic] was the owner of Center

Office Products when the contract was let

several years ago. Ray sold out to Corporate

Express . . . and until recently worked for

Corporate Express. With little notice, Ray

terminated his relationship with Corporate

Express. My understanding is Mr.

Fhorbess[sic] has just opened 'Center

Printing' with 'no' major clients. He know

[sic] the IPTM volume and work load . . . and

we feel he has underbidded [sic] Corporate

Express because he knew what their price

quote would be.

Now back to my original question on Monday

. . . Is there a way to 'not' award to the

lowest bidder. At the minimum . . . I would

like for IPTM personnel and me to visit the

lowest and next to lowest operations to

ensure that the facilities are what we are

expecting. I would also like for you or

Darrin to go along to help document.

Currently, Corporate Express stores a great

deal of coursework materials, brochures, etc.

in their warehouse. We need to make sure

that Center can satisfy 'all' requirements.

Knowing what we know about these two

companies . . . IPTM personnel feels sure we

will get a protest from Center Printing if we

post anyone but them. Mr. Fhorbess [sic] has

been constantly calling IPTM stating that he

'knows he is the low bidder.'

I need your and Darrin's expertise to assist

us in arriving at an amicable solution to

these concerns. . . .

23. In anticipation of the site visits, questions were

prepared to be asked of officials at Center Printing and

Corporate Express at the time of respective site visits.

Pertinent to the present inquiry were the following questions:

8. Can you explain the arrangements for

inventory and inventory reporting?

9. Storage?

10. Samples of prior printing work at this

location?

24. The site visits were made by Ms. Arklie, Ms. Boggs, and

Ms. Evans.

25. When the site visitors arrived at the Center Printing

business location, Ms. Evans conducted the inquiry by asking the

written questions that Ms. Boggs had prepared. Among the

questions that she asked Mr. Raymond Forbess was what inventory

system Mr. Forbess had set up for the ITB. His response was that

at the moment, Center Printing did not have an inventory system

in place to service the contract contemplated by the ITB. Mr.

Forbess indicated that he would establish an office program for

inventory control and that he was familiar with the current

inventory control process employed by Corporate Express in

servicing the account with IPTM.

26. In particular, Mr. Forbess told Ms. Evans that he had

four different ways that he could do inventory, from the very

simple to the very complicated, depending on what the client

wanted. He explained that there were two computer systems

available with three different computer programs. Mr. Forbess

asked Ms. Boggs who the person was at Corporate Express who

handled the inventory control at present. Ms. Boggs named a

person, Erin, whom Mr. Forbess was familiar with. Mr. Forbess

stated that whatever format Erin was using to report inventory

information at present, that would be the most probable approach

that Center Printing would use in responding to the ITB under

consideration.

27. In describing the possible solution to the inventory

control, Mr. Forbess mentioned the possible use of Silver Plus, a

computer system that he explained was "a little bit of overkill."

28. When Mr. Forbess was specifically asked to produce a

sample inventory sheet, Mr. Forbess indicated that he didn't

actually have an inventory sheet with "live customer data on it."

Instead, Mr. Forbess showed the evaluators a spread sheet that

was not designed to comply with the expectations of the ITB

concerning inventory control. The spread sheet was a comparison

of the price quotations between Center Printing and Corporate

Express. The spread sheet was part of an unsolicited information

packet that the evaluators had been provided by Mr. Forbess at

the commencement of the site visit.

29. During the tour, Mr. Raymond E. Forbess displayed some

material that had been printed by his firm, Center Printing.

Those items were a letterhead and envelope for a law firm,

Hardesty and Tyde.

30. While the site visit was being made, one of the

printing presses at Center Printing was in operation printing a

letterhead for a client, Xomed. No one from the evaluation team

requested the opportunity to examine material being produced on

that press. No one from Center Printing offered to produce it

for the evaluators to review.

31. When Mr. Raymond E. Forbess was specifically asked to

produce print samples that would correspond to the expectations

in the ITB, his answer was that he had not been in business that

long with Center Printing and had not been producing that type of

material, but that he knew how to do that. This was in reference

to the bid specifications in relation to printing brochures and

flyers.

32. Mr. Raymond P. Forbes showed the evaluators space for

storing printed material, the brochures in particular. The space

that he described was not sufficient to meet the ITB storage

requirements that have been identified.

33. When the evaluators visited Corporate Express, that

vendor was able to satisfactorily demonstrate the inventory

process and to provide evidence of its reporting system

consistent with the expectations in the present ITB. That vendor

had adequate storage to meet the requirements of the ITB. That

vendor produced print samples of prior work done under existing

terms of the arrangement between Corporate Express and IPTM, as

well as another account serviced by Corporate Express.

34. Following the site visits to the two vendors, the

University rejected the bid response by Center Printing as not

meeting the bid specifications and decided to award the contract

to Corporate Express. The basis for rejecting the bid offering

by Corporate Express was premised upon the belief that Center

Printing did not meet the specifications related to inventory

reporting, did not have adequate storage for print materials, and

had not produced samples of printing work at the business

premises. The decision to award to Corporate Express was made on

May 5, 1999.

Bid Protest

35. Consistent with Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes,

Center Printing contested the University's decision to reject its

bid in favor of the bid submitted by Corporate Express.

Compliance with applicable filing provisions was made in relation

to the timely filing of a Notice of Protest and Formal Written

Protest pertaining to the ITB.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

36. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569, 120.57(1) and

120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

37. Center Printing has challenged the University's

proposed agency action rejecting the Center Printing bid in

response to the present ITB and decision to award the contract to

Corporate Express.

38. No statutory provision relieves Center Printing of the

burden of proving its challenge to the impropriety of the

proposed agency action. Therefore, the burden of proof resides

with Center Printing. See Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida

Statutes. Consistent with that provision, a de novo proceeding

has been conducted to examine the University's proposed action in

an attempt to determine whether that action was "contrary to the

agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or

the bid or proposal specifications."

39. In accordance with Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida

Statutes:

The standard of proof of such proceeding

shall be whether the proposed agency action

was clearly erroneous, contract to

competition, arbitrary or capricious.

40. In this instance the de novo hearing was for the

purpose of evaluating the action taken by the University. State

Contracting and Engineering Corporation v. Department of

Transportation , 709 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

41. In this case the underlying findings of fact are based

upon a preponderance of the evidence. Section 120.57(1)(h),

Florida Statutes.

42. In addition to the provisions set forth in the ITB that

are described in the fact-finding, certain statutes and rules

have relevance in examining the proposed agency action by the

University.

43. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998), refers

to the University president's powers and duties as a chief

administrative officer of the University, a person responsible

for the operation and administration of the University.

Specifically, Section 240.227(12), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998),

refers to activities under the auspices of that power involving

the University president's approval and execution of contracts,

in which the acquisition of items contemplated by the ITB is

being made pursuant to rules of the Board of Regents. Deference

to that provision and related legal requirements is created by

virtue of the decision of IPTM to pursue its printing needs by

competitive means with the assistance of the University.

44. Next, Board of Regents Rule 6C-18.035(21), Florida

Administrative Code, which the University president enforces in

competitive purchasing, defines "responsive and qualified bidder

or offerer" as:

A contractor/vendor who has submitted a bid

or proposal that conforms in all material

respects to a competitive solicitation.

45. Additionally, Board of Regents Rule 6C-18.050(4),

Florida Administrative Code, refers to the requirement that

purchase of printing shall be in accordance with Chapter 283,

Florida Statutes.

46. Section 283.30(1), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998),

defines an "agency" involved with public printing, unless the

context clearly requiring otherwise, as meaning:

Any official, officer, department, board,

commission, division, bureau, section,

district, office, authority, committee, or

council or any other unit of organization,

however designated, the executive branch of

state government, and the Public Service

Commission.

In this case the University meets that definition of an agency.

47. Section 283.33, Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998), is

entitled "Printing of Publications; Lowest Bidder Awards."

48. Section 283.33(3), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998),

states:

Except as otherwise provided for in this

part, a contract for printing of a

publication shall be subject to the

provisions of [ fn2 s.287.062], and, when

applicable, the definitions of s.287.012, and

shall be considered a commodity for that

purpose.

Section 287.062 had been repealed by Section 33, Chapter 90-268,

Laws of Florida.

49. Section 287.012, Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998),

contains definitions in reference to competitive bidding. The

definition set forth in Section 287.012(1), Florida Statutes

( Supp. 1998), defining the term "agency" does not include the

Board of Regents or the State University System. This means that

further reference to the term "agency" within Chapter 287,

Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998), would not pertain to the

University. However, to the extent that other definitions within

Section 287.012, Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998), do not refer to

the term "agency" and are not inconsistent with other definitions

set forth in the Board of Regent's statutes or rules, they could

have relevance to this case, and form the basis for considering

the dispute as contemplated by Section 283.33(3), Florida

Statutes ( Supp. 1998).

50. Section 287.012(17), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998),

defines "responsive bidder" or "responsive offerer" as:

A person who has submitted a bid or

proposal which conforms in all material

respects to the Invitation to Bid or

Request for Proposals.

This definition conforms to that set forth in Board of Regents

Rule 6C-18.035(21), Florida Administrative Code, and is relevant.

51. Aside from the definition set forth in the prior

paragraph, there is an additional definition that has relevance.

That definition is at Section 287.012(13), Florida Statutes

( Supp. 1998), where "qualified bidder," "responsible bidder,"

"qualified offerer," or "responsible offerer" is defined as a:

Person who has the capability in all

respects to perform fully the contract

requirements and has the integrity and

reliability which will assure good faith

performance.

52. In essence, the University has determined that Center

Printing does not meet the definition of "responsive bidder"

found within Rule 6C-18.035(21), Florida Administrative Code,

based upon the non-compliance with inventory control, storage

requirements, and production of samples of printing that the

University asserts are required by the ITB. Similarly, the

contentions made by the University are properly examined in

accordance with the expectations set forth in Section

287.012(13) and (17), Florida Statutes ( Supp. 1998), as those

definitions pertain to Center Printing as a bidder in this

competition who has not complied with those three items.

53. Paragraph 24 to the General Conditions in the ITB

allows the University to determine whether Center Printing had

a plant in operation that was capable of producing the items

that are referred to in the ITB by certifying that capability

upon the University's request. This would include the

opportunity to examine the storage capability called for in the

bid specifications. 1 Likewise, in deciding whether Center

Printing had a plant in operation the University was allowed to

confirm Center Printing's ability to perform based upon an

examination of printing work that had been produced on the

business premises. Finally, the University was entitled to

inquire concerning Center Printing's inventory reporting

abilities in accordance with the expectations set forth in the

ITB concerning inventory control as a means to maintain an

accurate current inventory of the items to be printed.

54. The decision which the University reached concerning

Center Printing's storage, printing abilities, and inventory

reporting, when examined under terms set forth in the ITB and

applicable statutes and rules, does not lead to the conclusion

that the proposed agency action finding Center Printing not in

compliance with the ITB in material respects was clearly

erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.

Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to award the

contract to Corporate Express.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions

of law reached, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered finding the bid response to

the ITB, Bid No. 99-12P, by Center Printing, non-conforming in

material respects and awarding the contract in the ITB, Bid

No. 99-12P, to Corporate Express.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1999, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___ ________________________________

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of August, 1999.

ENDNOTE

1/ It is not perceived that Center Printing's capabilities to

comply with the General Condition at paragraph 24 was any greater

or any less on April 19, 1999, than it was on March 22, 1999,

when the bids were opened.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire

Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 125

Jacksonville, Florida 32256

Michael Goldsberry, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel

University of North Florida

4567 Saint Johns Bluff Road, South

Jacksonville, Florida 32224-2645

Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel

Department of Education

The Capitol, Suite 1701

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Ann Hopkins, President

University of North Florida

4567 Saint Johns Bluff Road, South

Jacksonville, Florida 32224-2645

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 10

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the Final Order in this case.