STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SPACESAVER STORAGE SYSTEMS, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-1475BID

)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, )

)

Respondent, )

and )

)

TAB PRODUCTS COMPANY, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on April 12, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

Warren H. Husband, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel,

Smith & Cutler, P.A. First Florida Bank Building Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Dean Andrews, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Education The Capitol, Suite PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Intervenor: C. Alan Lawson, Esquire

Jonathan Sjostrom, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

This is a bid protest proceeding to determine whether the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Education acted arbitrarily, dishonestly, fraudulently, or illegally in proposing to award Intervenor, Tab Products of Central Florida, the contract called for in the Department's Invitation to Bid

No. 94-28 for "High Density Mechanical & Electrical Compact Shelving" for the Division of Blind Services Library, Daytona Beach, Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 25, 1994, the Petitioner, Spacesaver Storage Systems, Inc. (Spacesaver), initiated this proceeding by timely filing its Notice of Intent to protest the award of the contract to Tab of Central Florida. Spacesaver timely filed its formal bid protest and petition for formal administrative hearing on March 7, 1994. The Department subsequently referred Spacesaver's petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for conduct of a formal hearing. At the same time, the Department referred to DOAH a corresponding bid protest filed by another bidder on the contract, Advanced Manufacturing/Gaylord. DOAH subsequently consolidated these two cases, designating the undersigned as the hearing officer.

The formal hearing in this matter was originally scheduled for March 31, 1994. Pursuant to the hearing officer's Prehearing Order of March 22, 1994, all bidders were notified of the bid protest and formal hearing. On March 23, 1994, Advanced Manufacturing/Gaylord voluntarily dismissed its bid protest petition.

By consent of all remaining parties, the hearing was rescheduled for April 12, 1994.

Tab Products Co. petitioned to intervene in this matter and the hearing officer granted leave to intervene on March 30, 1994. Subsequently, on the day of the hearing, Tab of Central Florida, the actual bidder, petitioned for leave to intervene. The hearing officer granted this motion at the start of the formal hearing. The two intervenors are referred to herein as "Tab".

Pursuant to the hearing officer's Prehearing Order, the parties executed and filed a Joint Prehearing Stipulation setting forth the undisputed issues of fact and law, as well as identifying issues of fact and law on which the parties could not agree. At the commencement of the hearing certain disputed issues were withdrawn by Spacesaver.

Also at the commencement of the hearing Tab moved to dismiss the petition of Spacesaver based on the fact that the bid had been filed jointly by Spacesaver and United Business Systems (UBS) and UBS did not join in the petition. Taken under advisement to allow Spacesaver time to respond in writing, the motion is now DENIED. UBS is not an indispensable party to the issue described above.

After the disposition of preliminary motions, Spacesaver presented the testimony of Mark Haubenschild, James Muth, Joan McBride, Michael Gunde, Keith Weyer, Mark Schaefers, David Eaton, and Will Williams. Spacesavers' six exhibits, designated as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 6, were received into evidence.

After presentation of Spacesaver's case, the Department rested, presenting no testimony and introducing no exhibits.

The Intervenors presented the testimony of Keith Weyer and introduced no exhibits.

Three joint exhibits, designated as Joint Exhibits 1 through 3, were received into evidence by stipulation.

A transcript of the hearing was filed on April 19, 1994. All parties filed their proposed recommended orders by April 29, 1994. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background

1. On January 21, 1994, the Department of Education (DOE) released its Invitation to Bid (ITB) on Bid Number 94-28 for "High Density Mechanical & Electrical Compact Shelving for Division of Blind Services Library, Daytona Beach, Florida."

   
   

2. The ITB solicited bids for the manufacture, delivery, and installation of several high density mobile storage systems. These systems consist of a series of wheeled carriages which move along a set of rails installed in the concrete floor. The equipment specifications address the need to have the rails leveled over an uneven floor. For the purposes of this ITB, shelving units for the storage of library materials are to be mounted on top of the mobile carriages. The ITB requires vendors to bid on a "mechanically assisted" carriage system in which selected carriages are moved by a manual crank to create an aisle within one area of the system and electrically powered carriage systems in which electric motors move the carriages necessary to create aisles in another part of the library.

   
   

3. DOE received timely bids in response to its ITB from Spacesaver/United Business Systems, Tab and Advanced Manufacturing/Gaylord (Advanced Manufacturing).

4. The bids submitted by each bidder were as follows: Advanced Manufacturing $411,558.72

   Tab $463,439.00

   Spacesaver $515,802.00

   
   

5. Advanced Manufacturing was the low bidder on the project. However, in accordance with the terms of the ITB, DOE rejected Advanced Manufacturing's bid as nonresponsive because Advanced Manufacturing submitted an unacceptable alternate warranty, failed to submit an Underwriters Laboratories certification, and failed to submit a proposed rail plan for each system.

   
   

   System Capacity

   
   

6. The ITB calls for carriages of 1000 pounds per foot capacity. The longest electrically powered carriage called for in the ITB is approximately 75 feet 5 inches. Combining these separate specifications, the ITB can therefore be read as requiring electrically powered systems with a total weight capacity of approximately 76,000 pounds, although no 76,000 pound weight requirement is expressly set forth in the ITB.

   
   

7. An undated brochure advertising Tab's products was introduced at the hearing by Petitioner. The brochure states that Tab offers electrically powered systems with a capacity of "1,000 pounds per carriage linear foot." The brochure also states: "Choose (five-inch) high profile carriages with maximum lengths of 80 feet for weights up to 60,000 pounds. Longer carriages are

   available upon request, pending load limit and application." (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) The advertising brochure was not submitted to DOE as part of Tab's bid.

   
   

8. Tab's systems include carriages rated at 1000 pounds per carriage foot, as required by the ITB. The specifications that Tab submitted with its bid regarding its electrical mobile shelving system expressly state that: "Motors shall be of sufficient horsepower so amperage rating on motor is not exceeded when motor is at operating speed driving a fully loaded carriage." (Joint Exhibit 2, p. 10 TAB-TRAC Electrical System Specification 4.0) Tab's bid did not otherwise address the capacity of the system and in no way indicated an intent to provide an electrically powered system with less than the required capacity.

   
   

9. Tab's electrical mobile shelving system bid in response to the ITB has a capacity of at least 1000 pounds per foot and a total weight capacity of at least 150,000 pounds -- nearly twice the capacity called for in the ITB.

   
   

10. At the time that Tab submitted its bid, Tab had submitted its electrically powered system for testing by the Underwriters Laboratories (U.L.) loaded at 60,000 pounds. U.L. does not test for weight capacity of a mobile storage system. After Spacesaver filed its petition alleging that Tab's system could not meet the capacity requirements of the ITB, Tab requested that U.L. retest its electrical mobile storage system. For the retesting, Tab loaded its system with 90,000 pounds of weight. U.L. successfully tested Tab's electrical system using carriages 90 feet long loaded with 90,000 pounds. These tests were performed using the identical system specified in Tab's bid.

    
    

    U.L. Listing Requirement

    
    

11. A U.L. listing is a service of the Underwriters Laboratories to evaluate products to determine if those products are thermally and electrically safe. U.L. "listing" indicates that a system has been evaluated as a whole, as opposed to U.L. "recognition" of individual components.

    
    

12. The ITB requires that the systems bid be listed by the Underwriters Laboratories. The ITB also required a certification that the systems were U.L. listed.

    
    

13. Tab bid its mechanical storage system model "MEBSSAR" and its electrical storage system model "E-3A." Both are U.L. listed.

    
    

14. Tab's bid included the required U.L. listing certification card from U.L., certifying that its mechanical storage model MEBSSAR and its electrically powered system E-3A were listed as required by the ITB. The designation of storage model "MEBSRAR" on page CB5 of Tab's bid response is a plain and obvious typographical error.

    
    

15. Prior to submission of Tab's bid, the tests that U.L. had performed of the electrical systems on Tab's E-3A model were performed using carriages loaded at 60,000 pounds of weight. U.L. tests mobile storage systems at any length and with any weight load desired by the manufacturer, and does not test weight capacity of mobile storage systems.

    
    

16. There was no evidence to demonstrate that Tab violated any rule or standard of the U.L. by bidding for a contract that called for more weight than Tab put on its system when U.L. had previously tested the system. The Underwriters Laboratories tests systems even after they are installed. The

    system which U.L. retested at Tab's request for 90,000 pounds of weight after the bid is precisely the same system that was included in Tab's bid to DOE.

    
    

    Discrepancy Between Rail Plan and Drawings

    
    

17. The ITB required submission of a proposed rail plan stating the number of rails proposed and the length of rails for each area covered by the contract. The ITB also required submission of proposed rail plan drawings. Tab submitted both the plan and proposed drawings.

    
    

18. However, the number of rails stated in Tab's rail plan conflicts with the number of rails shown on two of Tab's drawings (the drawings for areas 2A and 4) due to scrivener's errors in the preparation of the rail plan and drawings. After the protest, Tab notified DOE that it intended to use seven rails in area 4, as shown on the rail drawing for area 4 submitted with Tab's bid, and as indicated for area 2B (which has the same length carriage as area 4). For area 2A, Tab's rail plan proposes using 13 rails while Tab's drawing shows 14 rails.

    
    

19. The DOE review panel did not count the number of rails in each bidder's plan as part of its review. DOE's purpose in requesting proposed rail plans was to give the review panel a general idea as to the proposed lay-out so that DOE could confirm that the bidder understood the basic lay-out that DOE desired -- not to require final plans or drawings.

    
    

20. There was no requirement in the ITB for submission of final drawings and there was no evidence that any bidder submitted final drawings. The ITB does not require that final installation conform precisely to the proposed drawings. The ITB did not specify the number of rails required.

    
    

21. The number of rails ultimately installed will affect the ultimate cost of installation to Tab. However, Tab bid a firm price to DOE for the manufacture, delivery and installation of each system according to the bid specifications. The number of rails that will ultimately be installed in any of the areas of the project cannot be determined until the time of installation, when existing shelving is removed and the uneven level of the concrete floor is evaluated.

    
    

    ADA Compliance

    
    

22. The ITB required that the system installed comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires ramps with a slope not greater than one inch of rise to each twelve inches of run. The ADA also requires unobstructed perimeter aisles of 60 inches. To prevent obstruction of aisles, the ITB prohibits ramps extending beyond the face of the system.

    
    

23. Petitioner asserts that Tab's system will not comply with the ADA. This assertion is based on the assumption that Tab will build its system so that rails are spaced according to the distance between rails (rail centerline or rail spacing measurements) indicated in two of the drawings submitted with Tab's bid.

    
    

24. Tab will not build its system based on the rail centerline measurements indicated in its proposed drawings. Those measurements are inaccurate. Rail centerline measurements were not required by the ITB. Spacesaver included no rail centerline measurements in its bid.

25. The rails necessary for mobile storage systems are mounted on top of the existing floor. The space between the rails is raised so that the floor inside the system (the system floor) is level with the tops of the rails. The ramps necessary for mobile storage traverse the space from the floor outside the system (the existing floor) to the raised system floor. The edge of the system floor is the outer-most rail. Thus, the end (or top) of the ramp is the outer- most rail. Because the ITB forbids ramps extending into the perimeter aisles, the end of the carriages is the beginning (or bottom) of the ramp.

    
    

26. All rails must be level with all other rails. Low spots in the floor must be filled to raise all rails to the same level. The fill necessary to make the rails level increases the total height of the system floor and, consequently increases the total rise (or height) that must be traversed by the ramp.

    Because the fill increases the total height, it also increases the length of the ramp necessary to comply with the requirements of the ADA. Thus, the height of fill, rails, and system floor, the length of the ramp and the necessary distance of the outermost rail from the outside of the carriage all vary depending upon the uneven level of the existing floor.

    
    

27. Moving rails is the only option to increase ramp length because the ITB forbids ramps extending beyond the end of the carriages to prevent obstruction of exterior aisles. Tab employees made several visits to the site where the storage systems were to be installed. They were unable to determine the ultimate system height because existing fixed shelving prevented determination of the levelness of the existing concrete floor. Consequently, just as the number of rails needed cannot be finally determined until the existing situation is assessed, neither can the rail spacing dimensions be determined.

    
    

28. DOE's purpose in requesting proposed rail plans was to give the review panel a general overview of the proposed lay-out -- not to require final drawings or to show compliance with the ADA. The ITB did not require drawings to demonstrate compliance with the ADA and TAB did not submit its drawings for that purpose.

    
    

29. Except for the superfluous rail centerline measurements, Tab's drawings do indicate compliance with the ADA as to those items shown on the drawings. The drawings submitted with Tab's bid show aisle widths that comply with the ADA. Tab's drawings do not portray rails extending beyond the faces of the carriages. The ITB did not require that ramps or ramp slopes be shown on any drawings and Tab's drawings do not show ramps or ramp slopes.

    
    

30. Tab is bound by its bid to comply with the standards of the ADA and intends to install its system to meet all ADA requirements. Tab has previously installed at lease 12 systems where ADA compliance was required.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

31. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties in this proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.

    
    

32. Section 287.057(1), F.S., requires the DOE to award contracts for procurement of commodities or contractual services via competitive bidding to "the qualified and responsive bidder who submits the lowest responsive bid."

33. The standard for review of petitions to protest bid awards is as follows:

    
    

    1. lthough the APA provides the procedural mechanism for challenging an agency's decision to award or reject all bids, the scope of the inquiry is limited to whether the purpose of competitive bidding has been subverted. In short, the hearing officer's sole responsibility is to ascertain whether the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.

       
       

       Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 1988).

       
       

34. No evidence was presented, nor was it suggested, that the DOE has acted fraudulently or dishonestly. Given that the bid the DOE accepted was

    $50,000 less than Spacesaver's bid, it cannot be said that the DOE acted arbitrarily.

    
    

    There is a very strong public interest in favor of saving tax dollars in awarding public contracts. There is no public interest, much less a substantial public interest, in disqualifying low bidders for technical deficiencies in form, where the low bidder did not derive any unfair competitive advantage by reason of the technical omission.

    
    

    Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So.2d 380, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The ITB's reservation of the DOE's right to waive technical defects is simply a restatement of Florida law. See, e.g., Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505,

    507 (Fla. 1982) (upholding decision against bid protest petitioner where agency did not reject a bid containing technical, minor defects); see also, Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (noting authority to accept bid regardless of defects). acceptance of a bid containing technical, immaterial defects to secure the lowest responsive bid is in no way illegal, arbitrary or improper. Indeed, for an agency to reject a low responsive bid -- to choose to pay more for the same work -- solely for a technical deficiency is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. Overstreet Paving

    v. Department of Transportation, 608 So.2d 851, 853 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

    
    

35. The mistaken rail centerline measurements stated in two of Tab's drawings are immaterial, technical irregularities that can be waived by the contracting agency. There is no reference to this measurement in the ITB at all

    -- and, in fact, Spacesaver's bid omitted any reference to rail centerline measurements. See Central Florida Equipment Rentals v. The Lowell Dunn Co., 586 So.2d 1171, 1172-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (upholding agency's decision to waive bid requirement for inclusion of quality control manual where no bidder had included the subject manual).

    
    

36. Spacesaver's argument that the error in the rail centerline measurements demonstrates an intent to violate the ADA is unconvincing. First, with respect to the ADA's aisle width requirements, Tab's drawings explicitly

    show appropriate measurements. Spacesaver offered no explanation for how or why these measurements should be ignored when determining Tab's intent to comply with the ADA in favor of calculations based on measurements that were not specified by the ITB. With respect to ramp slope, the drawings of both Tab and Spacesaver are silent -- as they were permitted to be by the ITB. Additionally, it is undisputed that the drawings required by the ITB were never understood by anyone -- DOE, Spacesaver or Tab -- to be final drawings or to dictate the actual, ultimate installation. It was uncontroverted that the placement of rails and the spacing between rails cannot be determined until the site is cleared and the levelness of the floor is determined. See, Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Roger J. Au & Son, Inc., 354 So.2d 446, 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (post-bid modifications necessary to correct erroneous design were not a material deviation where "the testimony was that design changes would be contemplated and that it would be 'very unusual' if the initial set of design data were accepted by the owner's consulting engineer."). Spacesaver did not meet its burden of proving that Tab's bid was not responsive to the ITB's requirement for compliance with the ADA. Cf. Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v.

    Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359, 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (error in site drawings included in request for bid was not material misrepresentation requiring rejection of all bids where (1) no evidence was presented to show that anyone was misled by the error; and (2) no bidder acquired any advantage by the error).

    
    

37. The discrepancy between the number of rails specified in Tab's proposed rail plan and those shown in Tab's drawings is also immaterial. It is again undisputed that the drawings required by the ITB were not final drawings and did not dictate the actual, ultimate installation. It was also undisputed that the number of rails cannot be determined until the site is cleared and the uneven level of the floor is assessed. In fact, the DOE review panel did not even count the number of rails shown in each bidder's drawing. The bid was awarded to Tab based on its price alone; there is no evidence that any party was either rewarded or penalized in the review process based on the number of rails proposed or shown in the general drawings. Spacesaver identified an inconsequential error unrelated to any criteria used to select Tab's bid over Spacesaver's. DOE was fully justified in accepting Tab's bid, in the proper exercise of its discretion, irrespective of an error in the non-final rail plans. Tab's drawings demonstrate the basic lay-out proposed by Tab -- which is all that the drawings were intended to do.

    
    

38. Spacesaver's identification of a scrivener's error in the listing of the model number of Tab's mobile storage system is equally inconsequential. Tab bid its U.L. listed mechanical system, and the model number of that system is included in the U.L. certification card attached to Tab's bid. Tab typographically erred in transcribing the model number of its mechanical system.

    
    

39. With regard to the capacity of Tab's system, Spacesaver has failed to prove any discrepancy between the requirements of the ITB and Tab's bid. The ITB could be interpreted as requiring total capacity of approximately 76,000 pounds in the largest of the electrical systems specified in the bid. But Tab's bid does not indicate a system of lesser capacity nor did the evidence demonstrate Tab to be incapable of meeting the ITB's requirements.

    
    

40. Spacesaver attempts to go outside of Tab's bid to show that Tab previously advertised 80 foot carriages capable of driving 60,000 pounds, and that U.L. previously tested its electrical system using 60,000 pounds. Neither of these arguments shows that Tab's bid failed to comply with the ITB's capacity requirements.

41. Spacesaver's own witness testified that U.L. does not test "capacity" at all -- but only tests systems at whatever length, loaded with whatever weight, the manufacturer chooses. A manufacturer is apparently free to test more weight or longer carriages at any time without limitation. Spacesaver offered no other evidence of what standards or rules U.L. has established for listed systems or competitive bidding for contracts. Spacesaver offered no testimony of any representative of U.L. to show that Tab's bid violated the standards or rules of the Underwriters Laboratories. The uncontroverted evidence established that Tab's electrical system has capacity in excess of the requirements of the ITB.

    
    

42. Even assuming that testing by the U.L. establishes some limit on the capacity of mobile storage systems, there is still no evidence that Tab's bid violated the ITB. The ITB did not specify that bidders must have previously built, tested and installed 76 foot, 76,000 pound systems. The ITB required only that the electrical systems be U.L. listed and that bidders had previously installed carriages "in excess of 50'." The ITB does not forbid testing of additional weight by the U.L.

    
    

43. Because Tab's bid states that it intends to meet all bid requirements, Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), does not apply. In Harry Pepper, the ITB required, exclusively, bids for one of three specific brands of pumps. Id. at 1192. The low bid specified another, inferior pump. The agency then requested that the low bidder amend its bid to include the specified pumps. The low bidder agreed, and the contract was awarded to the low bidder as amended. The court held that this offer to permit an amendment to change to conforming equipment was an abuse of agency discretion because the low bidder gained the unfair advantage of being permitted to re-bid or not after the bids were opened. Id. at 1193.

    
    

44. By contrast, Tab was never asked to amend its bid. The Capeletti Brothers case is more instructive. There, the challenging bidder asserted that the low bidder should be disqualified because "it had not finalized arrangements for gaining access to the project site." Because the low bidder had not asserted that its bid was conditioned upon gaining access, the court found the argument unavailing:

    
    

    We cannot say as a matter of law that it was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious for the awarding authority to accept [the low bidder's] representation at the hearing that, although it had not yet made definite arrangements to gain access to the project site, it nevertheless assumed responsibility therefor at the amount for which it bid the job. No evidence was presented to indicate that [the low bidder] would not be successful in doing so. (emphasis added)

    
    

    Capeletti Brothers, 432 So.2d 1359, 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Wood- Hopkins Contracting Co., 354 So.2d at 449 (erroneous design was immaterial where "[i]t was uncontradicted that the supplier in this case is bound, as indeed the supplier itself so states, to furnish pipe meeting the specifications at the cost originally submitted, regardless of additional cost to the supplier of changes required."). Here, Tab, by its bid, and in testimony at the hearing has asserted that it accepts the responsibility, and if awarded the contract is

    bound to install a U.L. listed electrical system with the required capacity at the price Tab bid. The DOE was not shown to have acted arbitrarily in accepting that representation. Since Tab's system has already been successfully tested by

    U.L. loaded with 90,000 pounds, there is absolutely no doubt that Tab is capable of meeting the requirements of the contract.

    
    

45. Spacesaver failed to satisfy its burden of proving any material variation from the requirements of the ITB in Tab's bid.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Education award the contract to Tab Products Co. and Tab Products of Central Florida, as the lowest responsive joint bidder.

DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

MARY CLARK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904)488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1994.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1475BID

The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings

The following are adopted in substance: paragraphs 1-6, 10, 13, 16-19, 22-

23, 26, 28, 42.

The following are rejected as unnecessary: paragraphs 7-9, 11-12, 20-21, 24-25, 27, 29-34, 36, 42-43, 46-51.

The following are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence: paragraphs 15, 35, 37-41, 44-45.

Respondent's Proposed Findings are Adopted in Substance.

Those that are not specifically adopted are deemed surplusage or argument.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dean Andrews, Esquire Assistant General Counsel State Board of Education The Capitol, Suite PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

C. Alan Lawson, Esquire Jonathan Sjostrom, Esquire

215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Douglas L. Jamerson, Commissioner Department of Education

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education

The Capitol, PL-08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

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 10 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 the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 94-001475BID

Orders for Case No: 94-001475BID