88-002960BID Miami Elevator Company vs. Florida State University Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, July 26, 1988.

Summary: Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive; therefore, bid was properly rejected and petition should be dismissed

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, )

) CASE NO. 88-2960BID

Respondent, )

and )

)

MONTGOMERY ELEVATOR COMPANY,)

)

Intervenor. )

____________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on June 30,

1988, at Tallahassee, Florida, before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated

Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Appearances at the

hearing were as follows:

For Petitioner: Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire

Oertel & Hoffman, P.A.

2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C

Post Office Box 6507

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507

For Respondent: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire

Associate General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

The Florida State University

311 Hecht House

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

For Intervenor: S. Grier Wells, Esquire

Brant, Moore, Sapp, MacDonald & Wells

121 West Forsyth Street, Suite 900

Post Office Box 4548

Jacksonville, Florida 32201

ISSUES AND INTRODUCTION

This is a bid protest case arising from the efforts of Florida State

University to obtain a contractor for the maintenance of all elevators and

dumbwaiters at Florida State University. On or about April 28, 1988, Florida

State University extended an Invitation To Bid, Bid No. K-1193-6, for the

maintenance described above. Three bids were received in response to the bid

solicitation. All three of the bids were rejected for failure to meet the bid

specifications.

On May 27, 1988, Petitioner filed a timely notice of protest and on June 2,

1988, Petitioner filed a timely formal written protest incorporating a request

for formal hearing. An answer and affirmative defenses and an amended answer

and affirmative defenses were filed by Florida State University. A petition for

leave to intervene was filed by Montgomery Elevator Company, one of the other

unsuccessful bidders. Montgomery's petition asserted that its bid should have

been accepted or, in the alternative, that Florida State University was correct

in rejecting all bids. At the final hearing, Montgomery's petition to intervene

was granted only to the extent that the petition seeks to support the rejection

of all bids by Florida State University. Mowery Elevator Company, the third

bidder, did not file a protest and did not attempt to participate in this

litigation. The three primary issues addressed at the final hearing were: (1)

whether the inventory certification required by the bid specifications is a

material provision, (2) whether the Petitioner's inventory certification

complies with the requirements of the bid specifications, and (3) whether it

would be a reasonable exercise of agency discretion for Florida State University

to reject Petitioner's bid as unreasonably high.

At the hearing the Petitioner and the Respondent both called witnesses and

offered exhibits. The Intervenor offered to present the testimony of a witness,

but objection to the offer of testimony was sustained. Following the hearing,

all parties were afforded a reasonable period of time within which to file

proposed recommended orders. Timely proposed recommended orders were received

from all parties. All proposed recommended orders have been carefully

considered during the preparation of this recommended order and all findings of

fact proposed by all parties have been specifically addressed in the appendix to

this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at

the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact.

1. On or about April 28, 1988, Florida State University mailed its

Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. K-1193-6, to prospective bidders. According to the

elevator maintenance specifications attached to ITB No. K-1193-6, the stated

purpose of the ITB was was to secure bids for the continuous maintenance of all

elevators and dumbwaiters as per the attached list in accordance with the

conditions, specifications, and terms listed herein." Responses to the ITB were

submitted by Miami Elevator Company in the amount of $289,861.00, by Montgomery

Elevator Company in the amount of $192,356.00, and by Mowery Elevator Company in

the amount of $137,967.00.

2. Section VI of the ITB requires each bidder to submit the following

documentation with its bid.

2. A statement indicating the address of the

service center from which the bidder proposes

to serve the University. To be acceptable

the service center must be located within a

ten (10) mile radius of the University campus

to minimize travel time in securing parts and

supplies.

3. A statement certifying that the local

service center from which he will service

this contract will contain and maintain an

inventory of a least $45,000.00 in parts and

materials specifically intended for the

elevators to be repaired and maintained under

this contract. This inventory is to be

available in the Tallahassee service center

for inspection upon the request of authorized

University officials.

4. A list by name of the type and number of

employees who will be assigned to the

University under this contract detailing

their education, training and experience

record. To be acceptable the employees

assigned must meet the following requirements

in terms of quantity and qualifications.

a. A minimum of two (2) full time, fully

qualified and certified master elevator

mechanics MUST be assigned to service this

contract. Both must possess a "certificate

of competency" from the Dept of Business

Regulation, Division of Elevator Inspection.

Copies of these certificates are to accompany

the the (sic) vendors bid. At least one (1)

of these two mechanics MUST BE ASSIGNED

EXCLUSIVELY to servicing this contract at all

times. The contractor may designate one of

the two mechanics to be the primary mechanic

to service this contract and he will devote

his time exclusively to this contract. In

the event this mechanic is ill or for other

reasons cannot service the contract, the

second mechanic designated under this

paragraph will assume the duties of EXCLUSIVE

service to this contract.

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT.

b. An additional, fully qualified mechanic

holding the above required "certificate of

competency" and at least one (1) helper will

also be listed and be available to render

immediate support to the two primary

mechanics to maintain and repair the

elevators and dumbwaiters covered by this

contract.

* * *

3. The ITB specified that bids would be opened at 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday,

May 17, 1988. On or about May 26, 1988, Florida State University posted its Bid

Tabulation rejecting all bids for failure to meet various specifications. The

reason for the rejection of each bidder was listed on the Bid Tabulation as

follows:

a. As to Mowery the rejection was based on

Mowery's failure to provide a certificate for

additional mechanic; no proof of experience

on other than Mowery Elevators; and no

mention of traction elevators.

b. As to Montgomery the bid was rejected

for failure to provide certificates for

mechanics;

c. As to Miami the bid was rejected for

failure to meet inventory requirements.

4. Paragraph 9, entitled "Awards," of the ITB reserves the right of the

University to reject any and all bids as the best interest of the University may

require.

5. The Miami Elevator Company bid included a letter of certification.

Pertinent portions of that certification are as follows:

2. Address of service center from which we

propose to serve the University:

850 Blountstown Highway

Tallahassee, Florida 32304

[phone]

3. We hereby certify that the Miami Elevator

Company local service center has an inventory

equal or greater than 10 percent of the total bid

amount and have parts inventory greater than

$45,000.00 in our nearest supply warehouse.

6. In 1985, Florida State University issued bid specifications for

elevator maintenance services. The 1985 bid specifications contained a

certification requirement which included the following language:

A statement certifying that the local service

center has an inventory equal to at least ten

percent (10 percent) of the total bid amount

and is supported by a parts inventory of parts

required to service the elevators and

dumbwaiters covered by this contract, of at

least $45,000.00 in the bidder's nearest

supply warehouse. The local inventory, shall

be available in the bidder's Tallahassee

service center for inspection by authorized

University personnel before the bid award.

The successful bidder is to provide the

University, by 7/31/85, with the parts list

of the $45,000.00 inventory he is required to

maintain. Experience has shown that

inventories in the above amounts are

necessary to provide support for an

installation with the number of elevators and

dumbwaiters located at the University.

7. In 1988, prior to the preparation of the bid specifications at issue

here, representatives of Miami Elevator Company met with representatives of

Florida State University and suggested that the latter make certain changes to

the above- quoted language from the 1985 bid specifications when they prepared

the 1988 bid specifications. The University representatives followed the

suggestions and when the 1988 specifications were issued, the certification

requirements regarding inventory read as set forth above in paragraph 2 of these

findings of fact.

8. When Miami Elevator Company prepared its bid response to the 1988 ITB,

the company representative preparing the bid used the company's 1985 bid

response as a model. When he came to the portion of the certification that

addressed inventory, he forgot that he and one of his company colleagues had

prevailed upon the University to change that requirement. Because of his

failure to remember the change, the Miami Elevator Company representative simply

copied the inventory certification statement that appeared in the company's 1985

bid response. That statement was responsive to the 1985 bid specifications

regarding inventory certification, but was not responsive to the 1988 bid

specifications regarding inventory certification. The representative of Miami

Elevator Company intended to submit an inventory certification that complied

with the requirements of the 1988 bid specifications, but simply made a mistake

and copied the language from the company's 1985 bid response.

9. The inventory certification requirement is in a mandatory portion of

the bid specifications. It is a material requirement because the availability

of a sufficient parts inventory is critical to the timely and efficient

maintenance and repair of the elevators and dumbwaiters.

10. The pricing portion of the Miami Elevator Company bid appears to have

been prepared with a lack of much attention to detail. The total contract price

of $289,861.00 was calculated by one of the company's regional managers. The

individual who calculated that total price had not inspected any of the

elevators at the university, had no current personal knowledge of any specific

elevator, and did not possess a certificate of competency from the Department of

Business Regulation, Division of Elevator Inspection. Further, he appears to

have misconstrued the significance of a report regarding the condition of some

of the elevators and also appears to have made some unwarranted assumptions

about the scope of the work required under the bid specifications. Another

representative of Miami Elevator Company inspected some of the elevators, but he

did not participate in the calculation of the bid amount. As a result of what

appears to have been a rather broad-brush approach to the bid calculation

process, the Miami Elevator Company bid was more than $100,000.00 over what the

university expected the bids to be and was almost $100,000.00 over the second

highest bid.

11. The base price of the prior contract awarded in 1985 was $105,344.00.

The Miami Elevator Company bid of $289,861.00 represents an increase of

approximately 175 per cent of the 1985 price. The university expected that

there would be a significant price increase due to such matters as the inflation

rate over the past three years, inflation projection for the next three years,

and some of the differences between the 1985 and the 1988 bid specifications,

but it did not expect an increase of 175 per cent. The university has estimated

that a reasonable bid would represent approximately a 75per cent increase in the

1985 price. The factors on which the university estimate are based appear to be

reasonable and logical.

12. The Miami Elevator Company facility located at 850 Blountstown Highway

includes a separate warehouse on the property which contains inventory valued at

approximately $70,000.00. That inventory would be available to service the

university elevators.

13. The subject ITB specifically required that each bidder certify that it

agreed "to abide by all conditions of this bid." Miami Elevator Company made

such a certification when its representative signed the first page of the ITB.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and on the applicable legal

principles, I make the following conclusions of law.

14. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Sec. 120.57(1), Fla.

Stat.

15. The solicitation to supply the university with maintenance services

for its elevators was by invitation to bid. The nature of invitations to bid,

as distinguished from requests for proposals, has been described as follows in

Systems Development Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services, 423 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982):

Typically, an [ITB] is rigid and identifies

the solution to the problem. By definition,

the invitation specifically defines the scope

of the work required by soliciting bids

responsive to the detailed plans and

specifications set forth. Section

287.057(1)(a) and (2), as amended. On the

contrary, an RFP is flexible, identifies the

problem and requests a solution.

Consideration of a response to an [ITB] is

controlled by cost, that is, the lowest and

best bid, whereas consideration of an offer

to an RFP is controlled by technical

excellence as well as costs. (Footnote

omitted) (Emphasis supplied).

16. Section 287.012(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), furthermore

provides:

(12) "Responsive Bidder" or "Responsive

Offeror" means a person who has submitted a

bid which conforms in all material respects

to the invitation to bid or request for

proposals.

17. Rule provisions which relate to the issues in this case include

paragraphs (e) and (f) of Rule 6C2-2.015(7), Florida Administrative Code, which

read as follows:

(e) Bid Evaluation. Bids shall be evaluated

based on the requirements set forth in the

Invitation to Bid, which may include, but are

not limited to criteria such as price,

inspection, delivery and suitability for a

particular purpose. Those criteria that

affect the price shall be objectively

measured to the extent practicable, such as

all or none, discount, transportation cost or

total or life cycle cost base. The

Invitation to Bid shall set forth the

criteria to be used. (emphasis supplied)

(f) Right to reject bids or waive minor

irregularities. The University reserves the

right to reject any and all bids. The

University also reserves the right to waive

minor irregularities in an otherwise valid

response. A minor irregularity is a

variation from the Invitation to Bid terms

and conditions, which does not affect the

price offered or give the bidder an advantage

or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or

does not adversely impact the interests of

the University. Mistakes clearly evident on

the face of the bid documents, such as an

error in arithmetic extension or pricing may

be corrected by the University. (emphasis

added)

18. The bid of Miami Elevator Company is not responsive to the inventory

certification requirements of the bid specifications. Comparing the Miami

Elevator Company inventory certification to the requirements of the bid

specifications reveals at least the following shortcomings: (a) there is no

statement that the local service center will maintain the required inventory in

the future, (b) there is no statement that the required inventory is in, or will

be in, the Tallahassee service center, and (c) there is no statement that any

existing or future inventory is specifically intended for the elevators to be

repaired and maintained under the contract. Miami Elevator Company argues that

its bid is responsive because it presently has an inventory of at least

$70,000.00 in its Tallahassee service center and because the university

representatives know it has such a local inventory. The argument fails because

present possession of the required inventory fails to meet all of the

requirements of the bid specifications. In addition to having the required

inventory, the bid specifications require that the bidder must also certify that

it will maintain that inventory during the life of the contract and that the

inventory will be "specifically intended for the elevators to be repaired and

maintained under this contract." The argument based upon the current inventory

also fails because, absent the required certification, the actual state of Miami

Elevator Company's local inventory is totally irrelevant.

19. Miami Elevator Company also argues that its bid is responsive to the

inventory certification requirements as a result of its having signed the

certificate that it would "abide by all conditions of this bid." The argument

fails, among other reasons, because it overlooks the differences between the

meaning of the concept "conditions of this bid" (which it certifies it will

abide by) and the concept "conditions of the bid specifications," upon which the

logic of its argument depends. Insofar as they relate to the inventory

requirement, the conditions in the Miami Elevator Company bid differ from, and

are not responsive to, the conditions of the bid specifications. Therefore, if

Miami Elevator Company were to do as it certified and abide by all conditions of

its bid, it would still not be in compliance with, or responsive to, the

conditions of the bid specifications regarding inventory.

20. The inventory requirements in the bid specifications are clearly

material provisions and failure to comply with those provisions is more than a

"minor irregularity," because such failure gives the bidder an advantage not

enjoyed by other bidders and has an adverse impact on the interests of the

university. See Rule 6C2-2.015(7)(f), quoted above. The adverse impact on the

university is that, absent a responsive inventory certification, the university

cannot be assured of an adequate local parts inventory during the life of the

contract. An arguably adequate present inventory does not address concerns

about the future.

21. It is clear that the representative of Miami Elevator Company who

prepared the bid made a mistake when he prepared the inventory certification.

Now Miami Elevator Company is, in essence, asking for a waiver of the, inventory

certification requirement or, alternatively, is asking that its bid be treated

as though it were modified to comply with the inventory certification

requirement. Such waivers or modifications are inappropriate because they tend

to undermine rather than advance the purposes of competitive bidding. See

Graham v. Clyde, 61 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1952); Harry Pepper & Associate, Inc. v.

City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Robinson Electrical Co.,

Inc. v. Dade County, 417 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Lassiter Construction

Co. v. School Board For Palm Beach County, 395 So.2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Of particular application to the facts in this case is the following from

Graham, supra:

If errors of this nature can be relieved in

equity, our system of competitive bidding on

such contracts would in effect be placed in

jeopardy and there would be no stability

whatever to it. It would encourage careless,

slipshod bidding in some cases....

22. Because the Miami Elevator Company bid is not responsive to a material

provision of the bid specifications, the bid should be rejected. But even if it

were to be concluded that the Miami Elevator Company bid was responsive, it

would still be appropriate for the university to reject the bid on the grounds

that it was too high. In this regard attention is directed to Caber Systems,

Inc. v. Dept. of General Services, Apple Computers, Inc., and IBM, __ So.2d __

(Fla. 1st DCA, Case No. 87-909, Opinion filed July 13, 1988), in which the court

quoted with approval the following language from the recommended order:

6. [T]he courts have held that an

agency's authority to reject all bids is not

unbridled. An agency's rejection of all bids

may not be arbitrary or capricious. But,

otherwise, an agency has wide discretion to

reject all bids. See Liberty County v.

Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc., 421

So.2d 505 (Fla. 1982); Capeletti Bros., Inc.

v. Dept. of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359

(Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Couch Constr. Co., Inc.

v. Dept. of Transp., 361 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1978); Woods Hopkins Contracting Co. v.

Roger J. Au & Sons, Inc., 354 So.2d 446 (Fla.

1st DCA 1978).

7. A formal administrative proceeding

under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(Supp. 1986), arising out of the protest of

an agency decision to reject all bids is de

novo in the sense that the issue whether the

agency decision to reject all bids has a

rational basis or is arbitrary and capricious

is decided upon evidence of facts and

circumstances at the time of the final

hearing. See Couch Const. Co., Inc. v. Dept.

of Transp., supra, at 175-176.

23. In Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, 421 So.2d 505 (Fla.

1982), the court described the nature of a public body's discretion in these

types of matters at page 507:

In Florida, on the other hand, a public body

has wide discretion in soliciting and

accepting bids for public improvements and

its decision, when based on an honest

exercise of this discretion, will not be

overturned by a court even if it may appear

erroneous and even if reasonable persons may

disagree.

24. Similarly, the court in Couch Construction Company, Inc. v. Department

of Transportation, 361 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) stated:

We affirm that the Department has wide

discretion to reject all bids and to call for

new bids for public contracts. Section

337.11(3), Florida Statutes (1977); Willis v.

Hathaway, 95 Fla. 608, 117 So. 89 (Fla.

1928); Berry v. Okaloosa County, 334 So.2d

349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Wood-Hopkins

Contracting Co. v. Roger J. Au & Sons, Inc.,

354 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In making

such a determination, the Department cannot

act arbitrarily.

25. From the foregoing authorities it is clear that an agency may reject

all bids if it has any rational basis for its decision. One rational basis for

rejecting an otherwise responsive bid is that the bid amount is unreasonably

high. In this case, even if the Miami Elevator Company bid were to be

determined to be responsive, the amount bid is unreasonably high and it would be

contrary to the university's best interests to accept such a high bid when it

has a reasonable basis for expecting that on a rebid there are likely to be

responsive bids in a much lower amount.

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Florida State

University issue a final order in this case rejecting all bids.

DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida.

_________________________________

MICHAEL M. PARRISH

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 26th day of July, 1988.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2960BID

The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of

fact submitted by all parties.

Findings proposed by Petitioner, Miami Elevator Company

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4: Accepted.

Paragraph 5: Accepted, with some additional details for clarity.

Paragraph 6: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case.

Paragraphs 7 and 8: Accepted, with some unnecessary details omitted.

Paragraph 9: First sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive

competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. Second

sentence rejected as irrelevant.

Paragraphs 10 and 11: Accepted.

Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting argument regarding legal

conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, the legal

conclusion asserted is not warranted by the evidence.

Paragraph 13: Rejected as statement of another party's position rather

than proposed finding of fact.

Paragraphs 14 and 15: These two paragraphs have for the most part been

rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Further, a number of the details

proposed are not supported by persuasive testimony, because I am not persuaded

that Mr. Herbst did a very careful job of informing himself about the

requirements of the bid specifications or about the condition of the subject

elevators.

Paragraph 16: All but last sentence rejected as subordinate and

unnecessary details. Last sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive

competent substantial evidence.

Paragraph 17: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details, in

part as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part

as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraph 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraph 19: Most of this paragraph is rejected as constituting a

statement of another party's position and as argument about that position.

Findings are made that there are differences between the subject invitation to

bid and the immediately preceding invitation to bid.

Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details.

Paragraphs 22 and 23: Rejected in part as argument rather than proposed

findings, in part as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence,

and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.

Paragraph 24: First two sentences rejected as contrary to the greater

weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph (dealing with Mowery)

is rejected as irrelevant.

First Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance.

Second Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate and

unnecessary details.

Paragraph 26: Rejected as for the most part constituting argument rather

than proposed findings; to the extent findings are proposed, they are rejected

as not supported by competent substantial evidence or as contrary to the greater

weight of the evidence.

Findings proposed by Respondent, Florida State University

Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted.

Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting discussion of legal conclusions

rather than findings of fact. (The conclusions are essentially correct, but

they do not belong in the findings of fact.)

Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6: Accepted in substance, but with numerous

unnecessary details omitted.

Paragraph 7: First two sentences rejected as cumulative and repetitious.

Last sentence accepted in substance.

Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance.

Paragraph 9: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details dealing more

with legal conclusions than with facts.

Paragraph 10: First two sentences rejected as cumulative and repetitious.

The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance.

Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant.

Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed

findings of fact.

Paragraph 13: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case.

Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting argument about legal conclusions

rather than proposed findings of fact. (Again, the conclusions are essentially

correct, but they do not belong in the findings of fact.)

Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Rejected as irrelevant because these

proposed findings all relate to issues that were not raised in prehearing

pleadings and were not raised in the prehearing statement.

Paragraph 20: Rejected as procedural details that do not need to be

included in the findings of fact.

Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance.

Paragraph 22: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary generalities.

Paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as subordinate and

unnecessary details.

Paragraphs 29, 30, 31: Accepted in substance, with some unnecessary

details omitted.

Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35: The essence of the findings proposed in

these paragraphs has been found, but most of the details proposed have been

omitted as subordinate and unnecessary.

Findings proposed by Intervenor, Montgomery Elevator Company

Paragraph 1: Accepted.

Paragraph 2: Accepted in substantial part, but with irrelevant portions of

the specifications omitted.

Paragraphs 3 and 4: Accepted.

Paragraph 5: Accepted in large part, but some irrelevant information has

been omitted.

Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance.

Paragraph 7: First sentence rejected as constituting discussion of legal

conclusions rather than proposed findings of fact. Second sentence accepted in

substance by quotation of Miami Elevator Company's certification.

Paragraph 8: Accepted.

Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13: Rejected as irrelevant because these

proposed findings all related to issues that were not raised in prehearing

pleadings and were not raised in the prehearing statement.

Paragraph 14: Bid amount is accepted; remainder is rejected as subordinate

and unnecessary details.

Paragraph 15: The essence of this paragraph has been included in the

findings, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire

Associate General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

The Florida State University

311 Hecht House

Tallahassee, Florida 32306

Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire

Oertel & Hoffman, P.A.

2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C

Post Office Box 6507

Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507

S. Grier Wells, Esquire

Brant, Moore, Sapp, MacDonald & Wells

121 West Forsyth Street, Suite 900

Post Office Box 4548

Jacksonville, Florida 32201