87-003338BID
Lido Lines, Inc. vs.
Lee County School Board
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, September 25, 1987.
Recommended Order on Friday, September 25, 1987.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8LEDO LINES, INC., )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) CASE NO. 87-3338B1D
21)
22SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY, )
28)
29Respondent. )
31_________________________________)
32RECOMMENDED ORDER
34Pursuant to notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned
47Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 25, 1987,
59in Fort Myers, Florida.
63Petitioner Ledo Lines, Inc., was represented by E. G. Couse, Esquire, Fort
75Myers, Florida; and Respondent School Board of Lee County was represented by
87Harry A. Blair, Esquire, Fort Myers, Florida.
94Respondent invited bids on a project involving grading and drainage
104improvements. After Respondent announced its intention to award the bid to the
116other bidder, Petitioner timely filed this protest pursuant to Section
126120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the issue for determination herein is
136whether Petitioner is the lowest responsible bidder.
143Petitioner presented the testimony of Herbert L. Martin and Warren Hunt.
154Respondent presented the testimony of Herbert L. Martin, Steve Cook, and James
166Paul Elliott. Additionally, Joint Exhibits numbered 1-9 were admitted in
176evidence.
177Although both parties requested leave to submit post hearing Proposed
187findings of fact in the form of proposed recommended orders, only the Petitioner
200did so. Petitioner's Proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6-9, and 11 have
213been adopted in this Recommended Order either verbatim or in substance.
224Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 10 have been rejected
237as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of
249law or argument of counsel.
254FINDINGS OF FACT
2571. In June 1987 The School Board of Lee County, Florida invited the
270submission of sealed bids for grading and drainage improvements at the new
282Multipurpose Building at Fort Myers High School. In addition to requiring
293grading, the project involves the erection or placement of structures in the
305nature of a drainage system consisting of culverts, pipes, and concrete inlets
317with grates, to be tied into the existing drainage system off School Board
330property across a county right-of-way into a culvert for discharge across the
342street, and which on School Board property attaches to and becomes a part of an
357existing building.
3592. Sealed bids were submitted by Systems Technologies Co. of Ft. Myers,
371Inc. (hereinafter "Systems Technologies") and by Ledo Lines, Inc. Respondent
382determined Systems Technologies to be the lowest responsible bidder and advised
393Ledo Lines, Inc., that it would be awarding the contract to Systems
405Technologies.
4063. Warren W. Hunt is the president and the qualifying agent of Systems
419Technologies. Hunt has an underground utilities contractor's license which has
429been inactive since it was obtained by him in March, 1986, being inactive
442therefore both at the time that Hunt submitted the bid on behalf of Systems
456Technologies and at the time of the final hearing in this cause. The inactive
470status results from Hunt's failure to complete the license process with the
482State of Florida. Since Hunt's license was inactive due to being incomplete at
495the times material to this cause, neither Hunt nor Systems Technologies was a
508licensed contractor and Systems Technologies was not a responsible bidder at the
520time that the bid was submitted.
5264. The contract specifications set forth the method by which the bids
538would be evaluated. Paragraph numbered 2.9 on page PD-4 provides as follows:
550Comparison of Proposals - Proposals will
556be compared on the basis of total
563computed price for each division of work.
570Total computed price equals the sum of
577the prices for the lump sum Contract
584Item, plus the sum of the total prices
592for the unit price Contract Items for
599each Division of work. The total price
606for each unit price Contract Item will be
614obtained by multiplying the estimated
619quantity of each item by the correspond-
626ing unit price set forth in the Proposal
634form[.]
635That provision, accordingly, requires that the bids be evaluated based upon the
647sum of all line items rather than based only upon their total or "bottom line"
662figure. Respondent's Director of Facilities Planning admitted that he failed to
673comply with this provision of the contract specifications in evaluating the two
685bids submitted to him and in determining that the bid should be awarded to
699Systems Technologies.
7015. In Systems Technologies' bid, the sum of the prices for the lump sum
715contract items plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price contract
729items amounts to $30,109.60. However, in submitting its bid Systems
740Technologies incorrectly added its column of figures and incorrectly computed
750its Total Contract Price (Estimated) to be $29,768. Since the contract
762specifications envision a unit price bid rather than a lump sum bid, the amount
776of the bid of Systems Technologies is in fact the amount of $30,109.60. The bid
792of Ledo Lines, Inc., is for $29,913.84. Ledo Lines, Inc., is, therefore, the
806low bidder on this project.
8116. The contract specifications when read in their entirety clearly require
822that the low bid be determined by adding the unit price and lump sum components
837rather than relying on the lump sum "bottom line" figure shown for Total
850Contract Price (Estimated). Employees of the consultant who Prepared the
860specifications testified that they expect to be able to hold the bidders to the
874unit prices but not to the Total Contract Price (Estimated) because the
886estimated quantities may change. Thus, the evidence is uncontroverted that the
897determination of low bidder pursuant to the contract specifications is based
908upon the total of the unit price provisions and not by the single figure at the
924bottom of the page which adds those individual prices and which was added
937erroneously in this case by Systems Technologies.
9447. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated that the School
955Board is subject to mandatory competitive bidding for this project. They
966further stipulated that where there is mandatory competitive bidding, the
976contract must be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder. Since
987Systems Technologies is neither a qualified, responsive bidder nor the lowest
998bidder, it is clear that Ledo Lines, Inc., is the lowest responsive bidder for
1012the project in question.
1016CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10198. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
1029subject matter hereof and the parties hereto. Section 120.57(1), Florida
1039Statutes.
10409. It is uncontroverted that the grading and drainage improvements
1050involved in the project under consideration herein require licensure as a
1061contractor by the State of Florida. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes. That
1072section further requires that the licensure requirements as a contractor apply
1083not just at the time that the work is performed but also requires that proper
1098licensure exist at the time that the contractor submits a bid. Since neither
1111the corporation nor its qualifying agent possessed appropriate licensure at the
1122time its bid was submitted, Systems Technologies is not a qualified responsive
1134bidder for this project. Although Respondent's Director of Facilities Planning
1144testified that he was willing to waive any licensure requirements so that the
1157bid could be awarded to Systems Technologies, it is doubtful that he has the
1171authority to naive state licensure requirements; even if he could, the contract
1183specifications cannot be amended after the opening of sealed bids.
119310. Respondent argues that Systems Technologies will "use" the license of
1204another contractor. Even if such an arrangement were legal pursuant to Chapter
1216489, Florida Statutes, no provision was made in Systems Technologies' bid for
1228work on, or supervision of, the project by any entity other than Systems
1241Technologies, and its bid cannot be amended after the sealed bids have been
1254opened.
125511. Respondent's argument that it is not required to follow the contract
1267provision which establishes how the bids will be evaluated and that the
1279determination of the winner of the bid is totally discretionary, i.e., that
1291Respondent can award the bid to any one it pleases, is without merit, and is
1306contrary to the applicable law stipulated to by the parties in their Prehearing
1319Stipulation, i.e., that where there is mandatory competitive bidding a contract
1330must be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder. In this case, not
1343only is Ledo Lines, Inc., the lowest bidder , it is also the only qualified,
1357responsive bidder on this project.
1362RECOMMENDATION
1363Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is,
1376RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining Ledo Lines, Inc., to
1388be the lowest responsive bidder and awarding the contract for grading and
1400drainage improvements to the Multi- purpose Building at Fort Myers High School
1412to Ledo Lines, Inc.
1416DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee,
1427Florida.
1428_________________________________
1429LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer
1434Division of Administrative Hearings
1438The Oakland Building
14412009 Apalachee Parkway
1444Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
1447(904) 488-9675
1449Filed with the Clerk of the
1455Division of Administrative Hearings
1459this 25th day of September, 1987.
1465COPIES FURNISHED:
1467James E. Melvin, Superintendent
1471School Board of Lee County
14762055 Central Avenue
1479Fort Myers, Florida 33901
1483E. G. Couse, Esquire
1487Post office Drawer 1647
1491Fort Myers, Florida 33902
1495Harry A. Blair, Esquire
1499Post Office Box 1467
1503Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Case Information
- Judge:
- LINDA M. RIGOT
- Date Filed:
- 08/10/1987
- Date Assignment:
- 08/10/1987
- Last Docket Entry:
- 09/25/1987
- Location:
- Fort Myers, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
- Suffix:
- BID