07-001266RU Ikon Office Solutions, Inc. vs. Pinellas County School Board
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Monday, May 14, 2007.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Agency`s misapplication of its duly-adopted rule constituted a new, unpromulgated rule.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., )

13)

14Petitioner, )

16)

17vs. ) Case Nos. 07 - 1266RU

24)

25PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

30)

31Respondent, )

33)

34and )

36)

37XEROX CORPORATION, )

40)

41Intervenor. )

43)

44FINAL ORDER

46Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

57on April 18, 2007, in Tampa, Florida, before Lawrence P.

67Stevenson, a duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the

77Division of Administrative Hear ings.

82APPEARANCES

83For Petitioner: David S. Hendrix, Esquire

89Gray Robinson, P.A.

92201 North Franklin Street, Suite 2200

98Tampa , Florida 33602

101Christine A. Donoghue, Esq uire

106Gray Robinson, P.A.

109201 North Franklin Street, Suite 2200

115Tampa , Florida 33602

118William E. Williams, Esquire

122Gray Robinson, P.A.

125301 South Bronough Street , Suite 600

131Tallahassee, Florida 32302

134For Respondent: John S. Vento, Esquire

140Robert Mitchell, Esquire

143Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin,

147Frye, O'Neill & Mullins, P. A.

153101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700

159Tampa, Florida 33602

162James A. Robinson, Esquire

166Pinellas County School Board

170301 Fourth Street Southwest

174Post Office Box 2942

178Largo, Florida 33779

181For Intervenor: Lewis J. Conwell, Esquire

187DLA Piper US LLP

191101 East Kennedy Bouleva rd, Suite 2000

198Tampa, Florida 33602 - 5148

203STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

207The issues in this proceeding are whether the Pinellas

216County School Board ("PCS") acted pursuant to an unadopted,

227unwritten and unpromulgated rule in violation of Subs ections

236120.54(1)(a), 120.52(15) and 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes

242(2006), 1 by allowing Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") to withdraw

253portions of its proposal after bid opening, after evaluation,

262and after a Notice of Intent to protest had been filed, and

274wheth er Petitioner IKON Office Solutions, Inc. ("IKON") waived

285its right to challenge the rule by failing to timely file its

297protest.

298PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

300On December 15, 2006, Respondent Pinellas County School

308Board ("PCS") issued Request for Proposals No. 0 7 - 015 - 040 - RFP

325(the "2007 RFP") to procure copier service for the Pinellas

336County School District. The 2007 RFP followed a previous RFP,

346No. 06 - 015 - 117 - RFP (the "2006 RFP"), in which all bids were

363rejected. On January 18, 2007, bids were submitted by

372Inte rvenor, Xerox Corporation ("Xerox"), and Petitioner, IKON

382Office Solutions, Inc. ("IKON"), among other potential vendors,

392for consideration in the 2007 RFP. The bid was to be awarded

404according to a two - step procedure. The proposals would first be

416substan tively scored by an evaluation committee or "focus group"

426composed of principals, teachers and other employees of the

435Pinellas County School District. Those proposals receiving a

443minimum of 80 points would qualify for the second step, in which

455the cost pr oposals would be opened. The contract would be

466awarded to the lowest cost proposal among the qualifying

475vendors, regardless of their scores in step one.

483IKON and Xerox were among four vendors obtaining the

492minimum qualifying score of 80 points, allowing t heir cost

502proposals to be considered. The cost proposals were opened on

512January 26, 2007. On January 30, PCS posted a bid tabulation

523indicating that Xerox was the low bidder and presumptive awardee

533of the contract. IKON's bid was the second lowest. On

543February 1, 2007, IKON filed a Notice of Intent to Protest with

555PCS. On February 5, 2007, PCS posted the Notice of Intent to

567Award the contract to Xerox. IKON filed an Amended Formal

577Written Protest and Petition on February 7, 2007. The case was

588forwar ded to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") by

600notice on March 1, 2007, though the actual protest documents

610were not received by DOAH until March 6, 2007. The case was

622given DOAH Case No. 07 - 1055BID. On March 9, 2007, Xerox filed a

636Petition t o Intervene which was granted by Order dated March 13,

6482007.

649On March 16, 2007, IKON filed a Petition Seeking an

659Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Agency

667Statement Defined as a Rule (the "Petition"), alleging that the

678procedure followed by PCS in awarding the contract pursuant to

688the 2007 RFP violated the rulemaking requirements of Subsection

697120.54(1), Florida Statutes, because PCS has not adopted that

706procedure as a rule. That case was given DOAH Case No. 07 -

7191266RU. The bid protest an d rule challenge were consolidated by

730Order dated March 27, 2007. PCS moved to dismiss Case No. 07 -

7431266RU on March 28, 2007. This motion was denied by Order dated

755April 5, 2007. On April 3, 2007, Xerox filed a Response to

767PCS 's Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Dismiss IKON's Petition

778in Case No. 07 - 1266RU. IKON filed a Motion to Strike that

791Response on the ground that Xerox had not formally moved to

802intervene in the rule challenge proceeding. IKON's Motion to

811Strike and Xerox's Motion to Dismiss were both denied at the

822outset of the final hearing.

827After one continuance, the consolidated cases were heard on

836April 18, 2007. At the final hearing, IKON presented the

846testimony of Mark Lindemann, the purchasing director for PCS.

855Xerox presented the testim ony of Mr. Lindemann and Geri

865Pomerantz, the major account contract manager for public sector

874operations for Xerox. Xerox also entered without objection the

883deposition testimony of Brian Chepren, the supervisor of central

892printing for PCS. PCS presented the testimony of Mr. Lindemann

902and Colin Castle, a productions systems specialist for IKON.

911The parties stipulated to Joint Exhibits 1 through 53, which

921were received into evidence.

925An expedited Transcript was received by the undersigned via

934electronic ma il from the court reporter on April 18 and 19,

9462007. The official Transcript was filed at DOAH on April 26,

9572007. Pursuant to stipulation, the parties filed their Proposed

966Final Orders in Case No. 07 - 1266RU on April 26, 2007. The

979parties' submissions ha ve been considered in the preparation of

989this Final Order.

992FINDINGS OF FACT

995Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

1005final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the

1016following findings of fact are made:

10221. PCS is an agency within the meaning of Subsection

1032120.52(1)(b)7, Florida Statutes , and has been granted rulemaking

1040authority by the Florida Legislature. Pursuant to Florida

1048Administrative Code Rule 6A - 1.012, the Florida Department of

1058Education requires PCS to adopt purch asing rules governing its

1068acquisition of products and services. In accordance with this

1077requirement, on or about February 25, 2003, PCS adopted Part A

1088of its Purchasing Handbook as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54,

1099Florida Statutes. This duly adopted PC S rule consists of the

1110General Terms and Conditions which were included in the Request

1120for Proposals ("RFP") at issue in these consolidated cases.

11312. On December 15, 2006, PCS issued the 2007 RFP, entitled

"1142Copier Program -- Request for Proposals." The 200 7 RFP was

1153intended to provide a comprehensive copier program for the

1162entire Pinellas County School District from the award date of

1172the bid, then anticipated to be February 20, 2007, through

1182June 30, 2012. The purpose of the 2007 RFP was stated as

1194follows in Section 3.1 of the General Information section:

1203[PCS] requests proposals from experienced

1208and qualified vendors to provide a

1214comprehensive copier program countywide

1218which fulfills the priorities and needs

1224expressed by district focus groups. PCS

1230wishes to partner with a qualified vendor

1237who will continue to improve information

1243sharing, right size number of assets, and

1250reduce the number of device types while

1257lowering the district's cost. Vendors may

1263propose whatever program they feel best

1269meets the dist rict's needs and are not

1277restricted in any way other than to meet the

1286basic equipment specifications, terms and

1291conditions outlined in this bid. . . .

1299[Emphasis added]

13013. A statement of the 2007 RFP's "scope" set forth in the

1313Special Conditions similarl y provided:

1318[PCS] requests proposals from experienced

1323and qualified vendors to provide a

1329comprehensive copier program countywide

1333which fulfills the priorities and needs

1339expressed by district focus groups. Vendors

1345may propose whatever program they feel bes t

1353meets these needs and a district evaluation

1360committee made up of participants from the

1367focus groups will evaluate proposals and

1373make the selection it feels best meets these

1381needs based upon a set of criteria published

1389in this document. . . . [Emphasis a dded]

13984. The 2007 RFP provided for proposals to be received no

1409later than January 18, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

14175. The 2007 RFP contained General Terms and Conditions,

1426setting forth the standard boilerplate terms common to all PCS

1436procurements, and Section 1 o f "Special Conditions" particular

1445to this contract. 2 These were followed by: Section 2,

"1455Personnel Matrix"; Section 3, "General Information"; Section 4,

"1463Program Specifications"; Section 5, "Equipment Specifications";

1469Section 6, "Cost Proposal"; and Sect ion 7, "Contractor

1478Response."

14796. Paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions,

"1488Acceptance and Withdrawal of Bids," provided:

1494A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be

1502accepted by the purchasing department after

1508the time and date specified for the bid

1516o pening, nor may a bid (or amendment

1524thereto) which has already been opened in

1531public be withdrawn by the bidder for a

1539period of sixty (60) calendar days after the

1547bid opening date and time, unless authorized

1554by the purchasing department. By written

1560reques t to the purchasing department, the

1567bidder may withdraw from the bid process and

1575ask to have their sealed bid proposal

1582returned at any time prior to the closing

1590date and time for the receipt of bid

1598proposals.

15997. Paragraph 14 of the General Terms and Cond itions,

"1609Variance to Bid Documents," provided:

1614For the purpose of bid evaluation, bidders

1621must clearly stipulate any or all variances

1628to the bid documents or specifications, no

1635matter how slight. If variations are not

1642stated in the bidder's proposal, it s hall be

1651construed that the bid proposal submitted

1657fully complies in every respect with our bid

1665documents.

16668. Paragraph 30 of the General Terms and Conditions,

"1675Errors and Omissions," provided:

1679In the event an error or obvious omission is

1688discovered in a bidder's proposal, either by

1695the purchasing department or the bidder, the

1702bidder may have the opportunity of

1708withdrawing their bid, provided they can

1714produce sufficient evidence to document that

1720the error or omission was clerical in nature

1728and unintentiona l . . . This privilege

1736shall not extend to allowing a bidder to

1744change any information contained in their

1750bid proposal; however, in the event of a

1758minor omission or oversight on the part of

1766the bidder, the purchasing department (or

1772designee) may request w ritten clarification

1778from a bidder in order to confirm the

1786evaluator's interpretation of the bidder's

1791response and to preclude the rejection of

1798their bid, either in part or in whole. The

1807purchasing department will have the

1812authority to weigh the severity of the

1819infraction and determine its acceptability.

18249. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions,

" 1833Basis of Award of Bids," provides: "A Bidder who substitutes

1843its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who

1853qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its

1866liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive."

187410. The standard form cover sheet to the both the 2006 and

18862007 RFPs contained a "Note to Bidder" that stated: "A signed

1897bid submitted to the School Board ob ligates the bidder to all

1909terms, conditions and specifications stated in this bid

1917document, unless exceptions are taken and clearly stated in the

1927bidder's proposal ." (Emphasis added)

193211. The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP included a

1942provision titled "Acceptance of Vendor Responses," which stated:

"1950The purchasing department reserves the right to accept

1958proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject

1967portions of a proposal based upon the information requested .

1977Vendors may be excluded from fur ther consideration for failure

1987to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the

1999purchasing department's discretion." (Emphasis added)

200412. The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP also included a

2015provision entitled "Integrity of Bid Documents ," which stated:

2023Bidders shall use the original Bid Proposal

2030Forms provided by the Purchasing Department

2036and enter information only in the spaces

2043where a response is requested. Bidders may

2050use an attachment as an addendum to the Bid

2059Proposal form if suffi cient space is not

2067available on the original form for the

2074bidder to enter a complete response. Any

2081modifications or alterations to the original

2087bid documents by the bidder, whether

2093intentional or otherwise, will constitute

2098grounds for rejection of a bid. Any such

2106modifications or alterations that a bidder

2112wishes to propose must be clearly stated in

2120the bidder's proposal response and presented

2126in the form of an addendum to the original

2135bid documents.

213713. Both Xerox and IKON timely submitted proposals in

2146response to the 2007 RFP. Evaluations of the responses to the

2157RFP were based on a two - step procedure. First, a focus group of

2171individuals from the Pinellas County School District would

2179analyze the bids and award points based on the specifications

2189and the Proposal Evaluation Form set forth in the RFP. The

2200maximum award was 100 points, with 80 points constituting the

2210threshold for further consideration. Second, those vendors

2217which met the 80 - point threshold would compete solely on price.

2229Those bidders wh o did not score 80 points in the first stage

2242would not have their price bids opened.

224914. By January 24, 2007, the focus group had finalized its

2260evaluations, and the cost proposals were to be opened on

2270January 26, 2007. Both IKON and Xerox scored above t he 80 - point

2284level. IKON received a score of 87 points from the focus group

2296and Xerox received a score of 81 points.

230415. Xerox's proposal included, among 15 unnumbered

2311appendices, an appendix titled "Xerox Clarification Addendum to

2319the RFP." This Addendu m contained four "clarifications" of

2328portions of the General Terms and Conditions, seven

"2336clarifications" regarding the Program Specifications portion of

2343the Special Conditions, and 12 items under the heading "Other

2353Xerox Service Terms" that purported to s et forth contractual

2363provisions regarding service, personnel, risk of loss,

2370limitations on liability, payment schedules, and other standard

2378contract terms.

238016. These proposed "clarifications" are reviewed in detail

2388in the Recommended Order for Case No. 07 - 1055BID, issued on

2400May 10, 2007. The Recommended Order found that the Xerox

2410Addendum materially deviated from the requirements of the 2007

2419RFP in several respects and that these deviations rendered the

2429Xerox proposal nonresponsive.

243217. PCS's purchasing department conducted a responsiveness

2439review of the proposals prior to sending them to the focus group

2451for substantive evaluation, but did not notice the Xerox

2460Addendum. Mark Lindemann, the director of purchasing for PCS,

2469testified that it is not customa ry for bidders to submit such an

2482addendum, and therefore his staff was not looking for it when

2493conducting their responsiveness review.

249718. On January 30, 2007, after the focus group had

2507performed its evaluation of all the bids, and the cost proposals

2518had been opened and the bid tabulations had been posted on the

2530PCS website, Colin Castle of IKON brought to the attention of

2541the PCS purchasing department the presence of the Xerox

2550Addendum.

255119. After learning of the Xerox Addendum from Mr. Castle

2561on January 30, 2007, PCS reviewed the Addendum and concluded

2571that it included material deviations to the terms and conditions

2581of the RFP solicitation and that either the Addendum or Xerox's

2592bid must be withdrawn. Negotiations commenced between PCS and

2601Xerox. On Feb ruary 2, 2007, Xerox offered PCS a revised

2612Addendum. PCS rejected the revised Addendum and informed Xerox

2621that the Addendum must be withdrawn in its entirety. On

2631February 5, 2007, Xerox notified PCS by letter that it was

2642withdrawing the Addendum from its proposal. Also, on

2650February 5, 2007, PCS posted its notice of intent to award the

2662contract to Xerox.

266520. In its Petition, IKON alleges that PCS's decision to

2675allow Xerox to withdraw the Addendum from its response to the

2686RFP after the proposals were ope ned was based on an unwritten

2698PCS policy. That alleged policy, generally applicable to all

2707PCS procurements, allows potential vendors who submit

2714procurement responses containing material deviations from the

2721requirements of bid documents the option of eith er confirming

2731their responses without the material deviations, or withdrawing

2739their responses entirely even after PCS receives a notice of

2749intent to protest under Subsection 120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

2757IKON alleges that this policy is not contained in PC S

2768procurement rules, has not been adopted by PCS as a rule, and

2780is, in fact, contrary to many of the PCS's duly adopted rules.

279221. PCS has freely stated its position that it has the

2803authority to reject an addendum without rejecting the entire

2812proposal, an d that it has done so on at least one previous

2825occasion, during the review of proposals submitted under the

28342006 RFP. However, PCS insists that this position is based on

2845its adopted rules, not on an unadopted rule as alleged by IKON.

2857PCS argues that the withdrawal of the Xerox Addendum was

2867entirely in keeping with its procurement rules as reflected in

2877paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, quoted in full

2888above and relevant portion of which provides:

2895A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be

2903accep ted by the purchasing department after

2910the time and date specified for the bid

2918opening, nor may a bid (or amendment

2925thereto) which has already been opened in

2932public be withdrawn by the bidder for a

2940period of sixty (60) calendar days after the

2948bid opening d ate and time, unless authorized

2956by the purchasing department. [Emphasis

2961added]

296222. PCS contends that the emphasized language grants the

2971purchasing department authority to allow a bidder to withdraw a

2981portion of its bid after the bids have been opened. PCS here

2993equates the terms "amendment" and "addendum," assuming that the

3002Xerox Addendum could be withdrawn as an "amendment" to the Xerox

3013proposal. However, for reasons fully explained in the

3021Recommended Order for Case No. 07 - 1055BID, the Xerox Addendum

3032w as not an amendment to the Xerox proposal, but an integral part

3045of that proposal. The Addendum did not amend anything contained

3055in the Xerox proposal; rather, it attempted to "amend" the terms

3066of the 2007 RFP itself.

307123. The underscored portion of paragr aph 3 anticipates the

3081late withdrawal of an entire bid or an amendment to a bid, not a

3095wholesale grant of authority to the purchasing department to

3104allow a bidder to save a nonresponsive proposal by withdrawing

3114the objectionable provisions. IKON correctly notes that the

3122clauses of paragraph 3 are independent: the first clause

3131provides that PCS cannot allow bids or amendments, thereto, to

3141be submitted after the time and date for bid opening; the second

3153clause provides that a bid or an amendment to a bid th at has

3167already been opened may not be withdrawn for at least 60

3178calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless

3188authorized by the purchasing department. In this case, Xerox's

3197proposal was clearly amended after bid opening by the withdrawal

3207of th e Addendum, in violation of paragraph 3 of the General

3219Terms and Conditions and in violation of Subsection

3227120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes .

323124. Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, provides,

3237in relevant part:

3240In a protest to an invitation to bid or

3249r equest for proposals procurement, no

3255submissions made after the bid or proposal

3262opening which amend or supplement the bid or

3270proposal shall be considered . . .

327725. The PCS rules and RFP provisions, correctly

3285understood, do not contravene this statutory r equirement. They

3294grant the purchasing department the flexibility to allow a

3303bidder, under special circumstances, to withdraw from a given

3312procurement after submitting a bid and they allow PCS to waive

3323slight variations or minor irregularities in a bid. T o the

3334extent that PCS interprets its rules and RFP to allow Xerox to

3346substantially amend its proposal after the opening, as occurred

3355in this procurement, then PCS has violated its governing

3364statutes in a fashion that is clearly erroneous, contrary to

3374compe tition, arbitrary, or capricious. PCS has not acted in

3384accordance with an unadopted rule, but has misread and

3393misapplied its adopted rules.

339726. PCS is correct that the "Integrity of Bid Documents"

3407paragraph of the Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP allow s

3418bidders to submit addenda that clearly state "modifications or

3427alterations that a bidder wishes to propose." However, contrary

3436to PCS's treatment of Xerox in this procurement, the RFP does

3447not state that the bidder may propose modifications of the RFP

3458t erms without risk . The cited paragraph clearly warns bidders

3469that proposed modifications or alterations constitute grounds

3476for rejection of a bid. The paragraph does not, and under

3487Subsection 120.57(3)(f), could not, state that bidders will be

3496given the opportunity to withdraw those portions of their

3505proposals deemed nonresponsive after bid opening.

351127. PCS also emphasizes the first sentence of the

"3520Acceptance of Vendor Responses" paragraph of the Special

3528Conditions: "The purchasing department reserves the right to

3536accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject

3546portions of a proposal based upon the information requested."

3555However, the next sentence of that paragraph states that the

3565remedy is not after - the - fact withdrawal of the rejected portion

3578of the proposal, but rejection of the proposal: "Vendors may be

3589excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply

3598with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing

3608department's discretion."

361028. In summary, the evidence pre sented at the hearing

3620established that PCS engaged in a strained and ultimately

3629untenable application of its duly adopted rules in connection

3638with the evaluation of the proposals submitted under the 2007

3648RFP, not in the application of an unadopted rule. S ubsection

3659120.57(3), Florida Statutes, provided IKON and any other

3667adversely affected bidder with an adequate remedy for the

3676agency's misapplication of its rules.

368129. Contrary to the contentions of PCS and Xerox, IKON's

3691Petition was timely filed. Regardl ess of the outcome of the

3702case, the Petition on its face dealt with an alleged unwritten

3713and unadopted rule, and, thus, was brought properly under

3722Subsection 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. The 72 - hour limit for

3732filing a notice of protest, or the ten - day lim it for filing a

3747formal written protest set forth in the RFP, in PCS Policy

37587.15(7), 3 and in Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, is

3767not applicable to the instant case, which is not a protest of

3779the specifications contained in the RFP. 4

3786CONCLUSIONS O F LAW

379030. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

3797jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

3807proceeding pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.

381431. PCS is an "agency" within the meaning of Subsection

3824120.52(1)(b)7, Florid a Statutes, and is, thus, subject to the

3834rulemaking requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.

384132. Subsection 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, defines a

"3848rule" as follows:

"3851Rule" means each agency statement of

3857general applicability that implements,

3861interprets, or prescribes law or policy or

3868describes the procedure or practice

3873requirements of an agency and includes any

3880form which imposes any requirement or

3886solicits any information not specifically

3891required by statute or by an existing rule.

3899The term a lso includes the amendment or

3907repeal of a rule. The term does not

3915include:

3916(a) Internal management memoranda which do

3922not affect either the private interests of

3929any person or any plan or procedure

3936important to the public and which have no

3944application out side the agency issuing the

3951memorandum.

3952(b) Legal memoranda or opinions issued to

3959an agency by the Attorney General or agency

3967legal opinions prior to their use in

3974connection with an agency action.

3979(c) The preparation or modification of:

39851. Agency budget s.

39892. Statements, memoranda, or instructions

3994to state agencies issued by the Chief

4001Financial Officer or Comptroller as chief

4007fiscal officer of the state and relating or

4015pertaining to claims for payment submitted

4021by state agencies to the Chief Financial

4028Of ficer or Comptroller.

40323. Contractual provisions reached as a

4038result of collective bargaining.

40424. Memoranda issued by the Executive Office

4049of the Governor relating to information

4055resources management.

405733. In the absence of a statutory directive to the

4067c ontrary, IKON, as the Petitioner, has the burden of

4077establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the agency

4086statements challenged herein constitute unpromulgated rules.

4092Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc., v. Department of

4100Transportation , 602 So. 2d 632 ( Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Florida

4111Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company , 396 So. 2d 778

4121(Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

412534. Once the Petitioner establishes that the cited

4133statements constitute rules, the burden then shifts to the

4142agency to establish that rulemakin g is not feasible and

4152practicable under Subsection 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

4158§ 120.56(4)(b), Fla. Stat.

416235. Subsection 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides as

4169follows:

4170(1) GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL

4176RULES OTHER THAN EMERGENCY RULES. --

4182(a) Rulemaking is not a matter of agency

4190discretion. Each agency statement defined

4195as a rule by s. 120.52 shall be adopted by

4205the rulemaking procedure provided by this

4211section as soon as feasible and practicable.

42181. Rulemaking shall be presumed feasi ble

4225unless the agency proves that:

4230a. The agency has not had sufficient time

4238to acquire the knowledge and experience

4244reasonably necessary to address a statement

4250by rulemaking;

4252b. Related matters are not sufficiently

4258resolved to enable the agency to addre ss a

4267statement by rulemaking; or

4271c. The agency is currently using the

4278rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in

4283good faith to adopt rules which address the

4291statement.

42922. Rulemaking shall be presumed practicable

4298to the extent necessary to provide fair

4305not ice to affected persons of relevant

4312agency procedures and applicable principles,

4317criteria, or standards for agency decisions

4323unless the agency proves that:

4328a. Detail or precision in the establishment

4335of principles, criteria, or standards for

4341agency decisi ons is not reasonable under the

4349circumstances; or

4351b. The particular questions addressed are

4357of such a narrow scope that more specific

4365resolution of the matter is impractical

4371outside of an adjudication to determine the

4378substantial interests of a party base d on

4386individual circumstances.

438836. An agency statement that is the equivalent of a rule

4399must be adopted according to the rulemaking procedures of

4408Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Environmental Trust, Inc. v.

4416Department of Environmental Protection , 714 So. 2d 493, 498

4425(Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

442937. It is concluded that PCS gave vendors who submitted

4439procurement responses containing material deviations from the

4446RFP the option of either withdrawing the material deviations, or

4456withdrawing their responses entirely a fter bid opening. This

4465practice was conducted pursuant to a misapplication of PCS's

4474duly adopted rules, not pursuant to an unadopted rule.

4483Subsection 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, provided IKON, as an

4491adversely affected bidder, with an adequate remedy for the

4500agency's misapplication of its rules.

450538. The Administrative Law Judge in Medimpact Healthcare

4513Systems, Inc. v. Department of Management Services , Case No. 00 -

45243553RU (DOAH November 21, 2000) aptly concluded:

453112. In the final analysis, an agency must

4539follow its own rules. Marrero v. Department

4546of Professional Regulation , 622 So. 2d 1109,

45531112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Statements

4559confirming the failure to do so do not

4567constitute unpromulgated rules. The

4571statements are not ones of general

4577applicability. They are statements with no

4583applicability.

4584ORDER

4585Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

4594of Law set forth herein, it is

4601ORDERED that:

4603IKON's Petition Seeking an Administrative Determination of

4610the Invalidity of an Agency Statement Defined as a Rule is

4621DISMISSED.

4622DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2007, in

4632Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4636S

4637LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

4640Administrative Law Judge

4643Division of Administrative Hearings

4647The DeSoto Building

46501230 A palachee Parkway

4654Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4659(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

4667Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4673www.doah.state.fl.us

4674Filed with the Clerk of the

4680Division of Administrative Hearings

4684this 14th day of May, 2007.

4690ENDNOTES

46911/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to the 2006

4701edition of the Florida Statutes.

47062/ The 2006 RFP contained the same General Terms and Conditions

4717as the 2007 RFP.

47213/ The cited policy adopts the timing provisions of Subsection

4731120.57(3), Florida Statutes, for bid protests. The PCS Policy

4740Manual may be found at http://www.pinellas.k12.fl.us/planning/

4746html/chapters/toc.htm

47474/ PCS's position is that IKON knew that PCS interpreted its

4758rules and RFP to allow the withdrawal of addenda, because PCS

4769had allowed IKON to withdraw its own addenda during the 2006 RFP

4781process. Thus, possessed of direct knowledge of PCS's

4789interpretation, IKON should have protested the bid

4796specifications at the time of their release. However, IKON

4805contends that it emerged from the 2006 RF P process with the

4817understanding that PCS would no longer allow addenda to be

4827withdrawn. In any event, it would be fundamentally unfair to

4837charge IKON with foreknowledge that PCS would continue to

4846misread and misapply its rules and bid specifications.

4854COP IES FURNISHED :

4858David S. Hendrix, Esquire

4862GrayRobinson, P.A.

4864201 North Franklin Street, Suite 2200

4870Tampa, Florida 33602

4873Christine A. Donoghue, Esquire

4877GrayRobinson, P.A.

4879201 North Franklin Street, Suite 2200

4885Tampa, Florida 33602

4888William E. Williams, Es quire

4893GrayRobinson, P.A.

4895301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600

4901Tallahassee, Florida 32302

4904John S. Vento, Esquire

4908Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin,

4912Frye, O'Neill & Mullins, P. A.

4918101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700

4924Tampa, Florida 33602

4927James A. Robin son, Esquire

4932Pinellas County School Board

4936301 Fourth Street Southwest

4940Post Office Box 2942

4944Largo, Florida 33779

4947Lewis J. Conwell, Esquire

4951DLA Piper US LLP

4955101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2000

4961Tampa, Florida 33602 - 5148

4966Scott Boyd, Executive Director/G eneral Counsel

4972Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

4976120 Holland Building

4979Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1300

4984Liz Cloud, Program Administrator

4988Administrative Code

4990Department of State

4993R. A. Gray Building, Suite 101

4999Tallahassee, Florida 32399

5002Dr. Clayto n M. Wilcox, Superintendent

5008Post Office Box 2942

5012Largo, Florida 33779 - 2942

5017Honorable Jeanine Blomberg

5020Interim Commissioner of Education

5024Department of Education

5027Turlington Building, Suite 1244

5031325 West Gaines Street

5035Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

5040Debor ah K. Kearney, General Counsel

5046Department of Education

5049Turlington Building, Suite 1244

5053325 West Gaines Street

5057Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

5062NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

5068A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

5079entitled to judici al review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

5089Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

5098of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

5106filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of

5117the Division of Administr ative Hearings and a copy, accompanied

5127by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of

5138Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in

5149the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of

5159appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to

5172be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/01/2008
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding records to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2007
Proceedings: Stipulation for Extension of Time for Agency Action Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2007
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2007
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held April 18, 2007). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held April 18, 2007, 2006). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2007
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: (Respondent`s proposed) Recommended Order (Case #07-1055BID) filed.
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1 and 2) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Filing of Respondent Pinellas County District Schools` (Proposed) Recommended Order Denying Ikon`s Bid Protest (Case #07-1055BID) and (Proposed) Final Order Denying Ikon`s Rule Challenge (Case #07-1266RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: (Respondent`s Proposed) Final Order Denying Ikon`s Rule Challenge (Case #07-1266RU) Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: (Respondent`s Proposed) Recommended Order Denying Ikon`s Bid Protest (Case #07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: (Intervenor`s proposed) Final Order (Case #07-1266RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Intervenor Xerox Corporation`s Proposed Final Order (Case #07-1266RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2007
Proceedings: (Intervenor`s proposed) Recommended Order (Case #07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2007
Proceedings: Xerox Corporation`s Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order (Case #07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2007
Proceedings: Trial Exhibit Notebook (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 04/18/2007
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2007
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2007
Proceedings: Respondent`s Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2007
Proceedings: Xerox Corporation`s Cross-Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner IKON Office Solutions, Inc.`s Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Brian Chepren filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2007
Proceedings: Intervenor Xerox Corporation`s Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/05/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County District Schools` Answers to Ikon`s First Set of Interrogatories (07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/05/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County District Schools` Answers to Ikon`s First Set of Interrogatories (07-1266RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/05/2007
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Reply to Xerox Corporation`s Response to PCS`s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Dismiss IKON`s Petition in Case 07-1266RU filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2007
Proceedings: Xerox Corporation`s Cross-notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2007
Proceedings: Intervenor Xerox Corporation`s Response to Pinellas County District Schools` Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Dismiss IKON`s Petition in Case No. 07-1266RU filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/02/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response in Opposition to Pinellas County School Board`s Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2007
Proceedings: Xerox Corporation`s Responses and Objections to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Responses and Objections to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2007
Proceedings: Xerox Corporation`s Response and Objections to Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2007
Proceedings: Response to Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2007
Proceedings: Xerox Corporation`s Responses and Objections to Petitioner`s First Request to Produce filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County District Schools` Response to Ikon`s First Request for Production (07-1266RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County District Schools` Response to Ikon`s First Request for Production (07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County District Schools` Response to Ikon`s First Request for Admissions (07-1266RU) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County District Schools` Response to Ikon`s First Request for Admissions (07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Pinellas County DIstrict Schools` Unsworn Answers to Ikon`s First Set Interrogatories (07-1266BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Pinellas County District Schools` Unsworn Answers to Ikon`s First Set of Interrogatories (07-1055BID) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2007
Proceedings: Pinellas County School Board`s Motion to Dismiss Ikon`s Petition Seeking Administrative Determination filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner IKON Office Solutions, Inc.`s Notice of Taking Deposition of Respondent Pinellas County District Schools` Agency Representative Pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2007
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for April 18, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa, FL; amended as to Date).
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2007
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 07-1055BID and 07-1266RU).
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.`s Certificate of Serving First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Pinellas County District Schools filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.`s First Request for Production from Respondent Pinellas County District Schools filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner Ikon Office Solutions Inc.`s First Request for Admissions from Respondent Pinellas County District Schools filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/20/2007
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 03/19/2007
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Liz Cloud from Claudia Llado copying Scott Boyd and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2007
Proceedings: Petition Seeking an Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Agency Statement Defined as a Rule filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
Date Filed:
03/19/2007
Date Assignment:
03/20/2007
Last Docket Entry:
07/01/2008
Location:
Tampa, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
County School Boards
Suffix:
RU
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (7):