STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DAVID NIXON, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )

)

Respondent, ) CASE NO. 90-6278BID

)

and )

)

AFFORDABLE HOMES OF ) FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a CUSTOM ) CONSTRUCTION BY HARRIS, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on November 13, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: C. Gary Moody, Esq.

Pete Robertson, Esq.

500 East University Avenue Post Office Drawer 2759 Gainesville, Florida 32602

For Respondent: Steven S. Ferst, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

For Intervenor: Richard E. Benton, Esq.

Forrest K. Clinard, Esq. Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The Department of Corrections sought bids for construction of a health services building for a correctional facility. A discrepancy existed between the written specifications and the architectural drawings for the project. An addendum was issued to clarify the matter. The low bidder (Intervenor) did not acknowledge receipt of the addendum until several hours after the opening of

bids. The Department accepted the Intervenor's bid. The Petitioner timely protested the action. The issue in this case is whether, in accepting the Intervenor's bid, the Department acted contrary to the requirements of law.

PROCEDURAL STATEMENT

At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of David C. Nixon, Barbara

C. Nixon, Betsy Wallace, and Eugene Nicoloso. Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1-7 were admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Bill Thurber and Stephen Watson. Respondent's exhibits numbered 1-2 were admitted into evidence. Intervenor presented the testimony of Robert L. Harris and Jerry L. Stratton.

On November 9, 1990, the parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation. The stipulated facts contained therein have been utilized in the preparation of the Order.

A transcript of the hearing was filed on November 21, 1990. The parties filed proposed recommended orders on December 6, 1990. The proposed findings of fact are ruled upon either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On July 31, 1990, the Department of Corrections (hereinafter "Department") issued an Invitation To Bid ("ITB") for PR-35-JRA, Project #90015, consisting of the construction of a Health Classification Building at the Columbia County Correctional Institution. In relevant part, the ITB requested price proposals for said construction, provided that the bid would be awarded to the responsive bidder submitting the lowest cost proposal, provided that "in the interest" of the Department, "any informality" in bids could be waived, and provided space on the bid form for acknowledgment of receipt of all addenda to the ITB. Bids were to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 11, 1990, the time scheduled for bid opening.

   
   

2. Documents issued with the ITB included architectural drawings and written specifications for the building. The architectural firm of Jim Roberson and Associates, (hereinafter "JRA") had been employed by the Department to prepare the drawings and specifications. JRA was responsible for preparation and distribution of related addenda. Further, a JRA representative presided over the opening of bids on behalf of the Department.

   
   

3. Following release of the ITB and supporting documents, JRA became aware of a conflict between sink faucets required by the drawings and those required by the written specifications. The specifications provided that sink faucets operated by hand levers or foot pedals were to be installed in the facility.

   The architectural drawings JRA indicated that sink faucets were to operate by means of "electric-eye" activators, rather than by hand levers or foot pedals.

4. On September 10, 1990, JRA issued an addendum (identified as Addendum #2) 1/ to clarify that "electric-eye" type operators were to be included in the bids. The addendum was sent by telephone facsimile machine to all anticipated bidders. In part the addendum provides as follows:

   
   

   "This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Specifications and Drawings, dated 31 July 1990, as noted below. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to Disqualification."

   
   

5. On September 11, 1990, the eight bids submitted in response to the ITB were opened by the JRA representative. The Intervenor, Custom Construction (hereinafter "Custom"), submitted the lowest bid at $898,898. The Petitioner, David Nixon (hereinafter "Nixon"), submitted the next lowest bid at $900,000.

   
   

6. The bid form provided by the Department as part of the ITB materials to prospective bidders provided space for acknowledgment of addenda to the ITB documents. Upon opening the bid submitted by Custom, the JRA representative officiating at the opening noted that the Custom bid failed to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the appropriate space on the bid form. 2/

   
   

7. Robert L. Harris, president of Custom Construction, attended the bid opening. When the JRA representative noted the lack of acknowledgment of Addendum #2, Mr. Harris stated that he was unaware of the addendum.

   
   

8. At hearing, Mr. Harris testified that his secretary told him that Addendum #2 was not received by his office. The JRA representative testified that his review of JRA's FAX transmission records indicated that the FAXed Addendum #2 was received by all bidders. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Addendum #2 was transmitted to and received by, all bidders.

   
   

9. Upon leaving the bid opening, Mr. Harris immediately contacted his plumbing subcontractor, Jerry Stratyon, and discussed the situation. Approximately two hours after the bid opening, and after talking with Mr. Stratton, Mr. Harris notified JRA, in a letter transmitted by FAX machine to JRA, that his bid price did include plumbing fixtures required by Addendum #2. Mr. Harris concluded the letter, "[w]hen can we start work. I know you don't want the alternate."

   
   

10. On October 8, 1990, JRA recommended to the Department, that the Custom bid be accepted. The letter of recommendation, in part, provides:

    
    

    The apparent low bidder however, did not verify receipt of Addendum No. 2 on the Bid Proposal. Our office did receive a, facsimile after the bid verifying Addendum NO. 2 receipt from the Contractor's Office."

    
    

    However, the actual letter from Custom to JRA states, not that Addendum #2 was received, but that it was included in the price bid by Custom's plumbing subcontractor.

11. Both Nixon and Custom obtained plumbing bids from the same subcontractor, Jerry Stratton. The cost increase attendant to the requirements of Addendum #2 is approximately $2,400 over the plumbing fixtures indicated in the written project specifications. Mr. Stratton was aware of Addendum #2 and testified that the requirements of Addendum #2 were reflected in his price quotes to both bidders. Mr. Stratton provided the same price bid to Nixon and Custom. Mr. Stratton also provided bids to Nixon and Custom for HVAC work. Mr. Stratton was accepted as Custom's HVAC subcontractor. Nixon's bid indicates that another HVAC subcontractor will perform the cork should Nixon receive the contract.

    
    

12. The ITB provided that bid modification or withdrawal was permitted on written or telegraphic request received from a bidder prior to the time fixed for opening. Mr. Harris did not attempt to either withdraw or modify Custom's bid prior to bid opening. No bid modification was permitted subsequent to the bid opening.

    
    

13. The Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of the State and would not be unfair to other bidders.

    
    

14. The evidence does not establish that Custom Construction's failure to acknowledge the addendum was purposefully designed to permit withdrawal of their bid subsequent to the public bid opening.

    
    

15. The omission of acknowledgment of Addendum #2 provided Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid that was not available to other bidders. Custom could have informed the Department that the bid price did not include the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bid could have been withdrawn. Custom was therefore provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had no opportunity to, and would not have been permitted to, withdraw their aids. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

17. The Petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department's actions were contrary to the requirements of law. Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

18. Contracts for construction of public projects are generally awarded through the competitive bidding process. Section 255.29, Florida Statutes. The purpose of competitive bidding is to secure fair competition upon equal terms and to afford an equal advantage to all bidders, and to afford an opportunity for an exact comparison of bids. Wester v. Belote, 138 So. 721 (Fla. 1938)

    
    

19. The award of a construction contract is made to the qualified bidder submitting the lowest valid bid for the work. Rule 13D-11.007, Florida Administrative Code. A bid is valid when it is responsive to the bidding documents and is submitted by a qualified bidder. Rule 13D-11.002(7), Florida Administrative Code. An agency has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids and is accorded substantial deference in competitive bidding activities.

    The agency decision, when based on an honest exercise of discretion, will cot be overturned. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505, at 507 (Fla. 1982).

    
    

20. The responsiveness of a bid is determined as of the time of bid opening. A bid may not be changed subsequent to opening, other than to correct minor irregularities. A non-material bid irregularity may be waived when such waiver is in-the best interests of the State. Rule 13D-11.0072, Florida Administrative Code. A bid containing a material variance is unacceptable. The test for determining whether a variance is material is whether the variation provides that bidder a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. Harry Pepper & Associates v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Robinson Electrical Co. v. Dade County, 417 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986);.

    
    

21. In this case, Mr. Harris stated at bid opening that he was unaware of Addendum #2. Several hours later, Mr. Harris informed the Department (through JRA) that his bid price included the requirements of Addendum #2. The failure to acknowledge the requirements of Addendum #2 must be regarded as a material variance in the bid submitted by Custom Construction, because it permitted Custom an opportunity to withdraw its bid. No other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had any like opportunity. As such, Mr. Harris was provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.

    
    

22. The Department asserts that the failure to meet the requirements of the ITB does no harm to the bidding process even if a low bidder withdraws a bid, because the Department can simply move up to the next low bidder. However, much practice would encourage bidders to submit incomplete bids with artificially low prices, since the bid could simply be withdrawn after opening. This is contrary to the purpose of competitive bidding. It discourages fair competition upon equal terms and eliminates the opportunity for an exact comparison of bids.

    
    

23. The Department suggests that it would be pointless for a bidder to go to the trouble of preparing an incomplete bid, solely to have the opportunity to withdraw it. However, to permit a low-bidder to correct defects in the bid is precisely the point. The Department's view would provide no penalty for manipulating the competitive bidding system by submitting incomplete, "low-ball" bids which could be withdrawn.

    
    

24. The fact that the Department's witnesses here unable to recall a bidder purposefully submitting an incomplete and artificially low-priced bid indicates, not that a bidder would never contemplate such, but that bidders are aware that bids containing material irregularities are rejected and receive no consideration. As long as the bid will be rejected, there is not benefit to submission of an incomplete bid.

    
    

25. The Department's reliance on the bid bond requirement in the ITB to prevent the withdrawal of a bid is misplaced. The bond would provide protection only against a bidder refusing to perform the work on which he bid. In this case, the bid proposal submitted did not acknowledge the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bond requirement would not have protected the Department against the bidder's refusal to include such requirements in his stated price.

26. Based upon Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912, at 914 (Fla.1988), the Department asserts that, unless the waiver of Custom's failure to acknowledge is found to be fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest, the Department's action must be accepted. However, the Groves-Watkins decision was based, not upon the agency's decision to waive an irregularity, but upon the agency's decision to reject all bids where such rejection was clearly authorized by statute. The facts in this case are dissimilar.

    
    

27. By waiving the failure of Custom Construction to acknowledge receipt of Addendum #2 and accepting Custom's bid, the Department provided Custom Construction with an opportunity to withdraw his bid subsequent to the opening, a substantial benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. Such an irregularity may not be waived.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order rejecting the bid submitted by Intervenor as nonresponsive and awarding the contract to the Petitioner.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ Addendum #1 is not relevant to this case.

2/ The Custom bid appropriately acknowledged Addendum #1. All seven other bidders appropriately acknowledged receipt of the two addenda.

APPENDIX

CASE NO. 90-6278B1D

The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.

Petitioner

The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact included lengthy quotations from the hearing transcript. Although helpful, such quotations are rejected as not appropriate findings of fact. Otherwise the proposed findings are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows:

1. Rejected, as to Addendum #1, irrelevant, not at issue in this proceeding.

   
   

2. Rejected, as to requirements other than Addendum #2, irrelevant, not at issue in this proceeding. This case involves the failure of Intervenor to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the bid submission.

11. Rejected, unnecessary.

Respondent

The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows:

13-15. Rejected, irrelevant.

26-29, 31. Rejected. Although the ITB did not specifically state that failure to acknowledge addenda would result in disqualification, the language of the addenda and the inclusion of space for acknowledgment of addenda on the bid submission form included in the ITB materials, indicate that failure to acknowledge may result in disqualification. Thus the addenda acknowledgment provisions are more than mere "requests".

32-34. Rejected. The ITB specifically provides that the Department may "waive any informality". Such need not be inferred from addenda. However, regardless of the ITB language, the Department may not appropriately waive "any informality".

Rejected. The function of addenda is to clarify or

40-41. Rejected. Custom had the opportunity to modify or withdraw bid subsequent to opening.

42. Rejected, unnecessary. Further, document supporting the citation is not in evidence.

48-49. Rejected, irrelevant.

50-51. Rejected, unnecessary.

52. Rejected, unnecessary. Further, document supporting the citation is not in evidence.

53-55. Rejected. The intent of a bidder who submits a bid containing material irregularities is irrelevant. In this case, the irregularity provided Custom with the opportunity to withdraw or modify it's bid subsequent to bid opening, an opportunity not shared by other bidders. The fact that witnesses do not recall having previously seen a bidder do so does not alter the appearance that such unfair advantage exists.

1. Rejected, unnecessary.

   
   

2. Rejected. The "bid" was the proposal opened by the JRA representative on September 11. Such proposal did not acknowledge Addendum #2.

58-60. Rejected, contrary to greater weight of evidence. Custom's bid could have been withdrawn, while bids submitted by parties who acknowledged receipt of both addenda could not have been withdrawn. The ability to withdraw a bid subsequent to bid opening constitutes an advantage not available to all bidders. The fact that Custom did not do so is irrelevant.

61-65. Rejected. The evidence does not establish that a bid bond requires any more than performances of the bid submission. In this case, the bid submitted did not acknowledge the requirements of Addendum #2. Custom could have withdrawn the bid based upon an assertion that such requirements were not included in the price, in which case, the bid bond would not have likely have protected the Department against the withdrawal. The fact that the bid identified subcontractors, does not require the subcontractor to perform services beyond those bid.

1. Rejected, unnecessary. Further, document supporting the citation is not in evidence.

   
   

2. Rejected, contrary to evidence.

69. Rejected. The Custom bid was not responsive in that it failed to specify that the requirements of Addendum #2 would be met. The subsequent, belated Custom acknowledgment of Addendum #2 does not alter the fact that Custom had opportunity to withdraw it's bid after the public bid opening, an advantage other bidders did not have.

71-75. Rejected. The assertion that the Department is not harmed by permitting a bidder who fails to acknowledge certain requirements to withdraw the bid, since the Department can simply accept the next highest bid, is unsupported by credible evidence, and contrary to the purpose of competitive bidding.

77-81. Rejected. The Custom bid failed to acknowledge the addendum at the time of the bid opening. To permit such acknowledgment subsequently is to inappropriately permit the bid to be modified.

85, 88, 91. Rejected. The waiver of the omitted acknowledgment permitted Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid unavailable to other bidders.

Intervenor

The Intervenor's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows:

1. The Intervenor, in part, adopted the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department, Respondent. Accordingly, see the rulings on proposed findings submitted by the Department.

2-4. Rejected, immaterial.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Louis A. Vargas, Esq. General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

C. Gary Moody, Esq.

Pete Robertson, Esq.

MOODY & SALZMAN

500 East University Avenue Post Office Drawer 2759 Gainesville, Florida 32602

Steven S. Ferst, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Richard E. Benton, Esq. Forrest K. Clinard, Esq. YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE

& BENTON, P.A.

Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue tide final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

DAVID NIXON, INC.,

Petitioner,

Case No: 90-6278BID

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent,

and

AFFORDABLE HOMES OF FLORIDA, INC., d/b/a/ CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION BY HARRIS,

Intervenor.

/

FINAL ORDER

This matter comes before the Department of Corrections (the "Department") for consideration and final agency action after an administrative hearing was conducted before William F. Quattlebaum, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration. A Recommended Order was rendered by the Hearing Officer on January 15, 1991 and exceptions were filed thereto by Intervenor on February 11, 1991.

Based upon the complete record submitted to the Department by the Division of Administrative Hearings, together with the Recommended Order, the Department makes the following findings:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department rejects Findings of Fact numbers 13 and 15 included in the Recommended Order as not based on substantial competent evidence in the record.

   
   

2. As to Findings of Fact number 13, the Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities if they do not affect the price of a bid, or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. (Transcript, 72-74)

   
   

3. As to Findings of Fact Number 15, the evidence in the record established that acknowledging Addendum No. 2 was not a requirement of the Invitation to Bid. (Department Exhibit No.1; petitioner Exhibits No. 4 and No.

   7; Transcript, 39, 51 - 53, 61, 88) Therefore, the bid of Custom Construction by Harris ("Custom") was responsive even though it failed to acknowledged Addendum No. 2.

   
   

4. Moreover, even if Custom's bid deviated from the bid specifications the evidence established that failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 was a minor irregularity. The Department's waiver of the acknowledgement provision met the Department's standards. (Transcript 70 - 74)

   
   

5. Furthermore, the evidence established that Custom did not intentionally fail to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 in order to be able to withdraw its bid subsequent to the bid opening (Recommended Order, Paragraph 14)

   
   

6. The evidence also established that Custom could not withdraw its bid without jeopardizing its bid bond. (Transcript, 55 - 57, 64 - 65, 99 - 100)

   
   

7. Finding of Fact Number 15 ignores the evidence in the record. It is based solely on the Hearing Officer's conjecture that Custom had the "opportunity" to withdraw its bid because it did not acknowledge Addenda No. 2.

   
   

8. In fact, the overwhelming evidence in the record is that this conjecture was unlikely and had never yet occurred. (Transcript, 25, 47- 48, 55, 70, 78)

   
   

9. Addendum No. 2 was included in Custom's bid, and it makes no sense to believe that it would withdraw its bid because of a $2,400 addenda. (Transcript, 99, 107-108)

   
   

10. Finally, the statements contained in paragraph number 15 of the Recommended Order are actually conclusions of law and should not be listed as findings of fact.

    
    

11. The Department adopts the Intervenor's exceptions to the Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order.

    
    

12. The Department accepts the remaining Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Department rejects the Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order.

    
    

14. The Department hereby adopts the Conclusions of Law contained in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Proposed Recommended Order of Custom and in Custom's Exceptions to Recommended Order.

    
    

15. Moreover, the Department believes that the position taken by the Hearing Officer establishes a dangerous precedent for future bids and thwarts the purpose and intent of the competitive bidding process.

    
    

16. Addendum No. 2 did not state that a bidder "shall" be rejected for failure to acknowledge the addenda. Addendum No. 2 stated a bidder "may" be rejected for failure to acknowledge the addenda.

17. The Department carefully choose the non-mandatory term "may" rather than "shall" so that Addendum No. 2 would not be a requirement of the bid specifications.

    
    

18. The Hearing Officer's position in the Recommended Order elevates "may" to a mandatory term.

    
    

19. The Hearing Officer's position is that any deviation from a bid specification or term, whether mandatory ("shall") or precatory ("may"), allows the bidder to withdraw its bid after bid opening. If a bidder can withdraw its bid then it has an advantage not shared by other bidders. Therefore, its bid must be rejected.

    
    

20. However, this position, if adopted by the Department, would require the Department to automatically reject every bid that deviated from a bid specification or term, whether or not that specification was a requirement.

    
    

21. This position would force the Department to reject many low bidders and bidders with the best goods and services.

    
    

22. This position would effectively eliminate the Department's, and every other state agency's, ability to waive minor irregularities, as permitted by state law.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that the Department award the contract pursuant to Invitation to Bid, PR-35-JRA, Project No. 90015, to Affordable Homes of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Custom Construction By Harris as the lowest responsive bidder.

This order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the agency and the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigency, the court will require a filing fee and the agency will require payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida.

RICHARD L. DUGGER, SECRETARY

Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500

(904) 488-2326

Copies furnished to:

C. Gary Moody (via certified mail)

500 East University Avenue Post Office Drawer 2759 Gainesville, Florida 32602

Steven S. Ferst

Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Richard E. Benton, Esquire (via certified mail) Post Office Box 1833

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Jim Morris

Chief of General Services Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Ned Terry

Department of Corrections Bureau of Facility Services 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

Steve Watson

Department of Corrections Bureau of Facility Services 2601 Blairstone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500

William F. Quattlebaum, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

Filed in the official records of the Department of Corrections on this

1st day of March, 1991.

LESLIE S. RODES, Agency Clerk

Docket for Case No: 90-006278BID

Orders for Case No: 90-006278BID