Whether respondent Department of General Services should award a contract for carpet installation, in accordance with invitation to bid number 69-360-240- F, to petitioner, to intervenor, or to neither?Failure to check box on form indicating no felony conviction is material variance even absent conviction, since bidder not entitled to ""second look.""

The issues for consideration in this case are those set forth in the administrative complaint, Department of Professional Regulation, Case No. 0161079 brought by Petitioner against Respondent. Respondent disputes the factual allegations in the complaint. Therefore, a formal hearing was held to resolve that dispute. The administrative complaint, through its allegations, accuses the Respondent, as a licensee of the Petitioner and as a builder- developer, with directly or indirectly entering into various agreements to sell and purchase residential property. Through these arrangements, Respondent is said to have promised and lead sellers/purchasers to believe that the existing mortgage on their property being taken in on trade by the Respondent would be assumed and paid by the Respondent through a partnership known as Tallahassee Properties. By this it is meant that Respondent would apply for, assume and timely make monthly mortgage payments attributable to the property being traded in. It is further stated that these sellers/purchasers relied upon the representations and promises of Respondent to the extent of conveying title to the trade-in residential property over to Tallahassee Properties, in which Respondent was a partner. It is alleged that Respondent received title to that property, in some instances. It is alleged that if it were not for the Respondent's representations that the mortgage would be assumed that the seller would not have conveyed the trade-in property. It is alleged that Respondent failed to apply for the assumptions of the mortgages and the mortgages were not assumed. It is alleged that the Respondent ceased to make payments on the mortgages associated with the trade-in properties resulting in a delinquency and foreclosure. Reference is made to correspondence of February 18, 1986 allegedly drafted by Respondent in which the sellers/purchasers are said to have been alerted that the mortgages had not been assumed and that the lender might foreclose the mortgages leaving the sellers/purchasers with the options of having their trade-in property deeded back or having the lender foreclose. It is alleged that these sellers/purchasers suffered financial losses due to the dishonest acts and false promises of Respondent. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent is guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust, in a business transaction in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. As to each of the transactions in question, it is also alleged as a general matter that Respondent is guilty of a course of conduct or practice which shows that he is so incompetent, negligent, dishonest, and untruthful that the money, property, transactions, and rights of investors, or those with whom he may sustain a confidential relation, may not safely be entrusted to the Respondent, demonstrating violation on his part of Section 475.25(1)(o), Florida Statutes.Failure of proof to show fraud etc. in business transactions involving assumption of mortgages of property being "taken in on trade."