STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GOLDEN ISLES OF FLORIDA, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-4394BID

) THE FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF ) AND THE BLIND, )

)

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

FLORIDA TRAILS, INC., )

d/b/a ANNETT BUS LINES, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James W. York, held a formal hearing in this cause on July 23, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John Gary Baker, Esquire

Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, Florida 32011

For Respondent: Charles S. Ruberg

Assistant General Counsel Department of Education State Board of Education The Capitol - Suite 1701

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

For Intervenor: Eric Annett, President

Florida Trails, Inc., d/b/a Annett Bus Lines

2905 State Road 17 North

Sebring, Florida 33870 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Whether Petitioner, has established by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent improperly and unlawfully engaged in collusion with the Intervenor prior to the preparation and issuance of Respondent's 91-20 Invitation to Bid (ITB 91-20).

2. Whether Petitioner has established that, as a result of the alleged collusion, ITB 91-20 was drafted in such a manner as to unfairly limit competition among prospective bidders and, in fact, constituted a scheme to show favoritism in the bidding process by drawing certain specifications in the ITB such that only one bidder can qualify.

   
   

3. Whether Petitioner has established that certain specifications the Respondent included in the ITB are overboard and unreasonable to the extent that the inclusion of such specifications in ITB 91-20 constitutes agency action which is arbitrary, capricious, and subverts the integrity of the public procurement process.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This cause arises out of the issuance of ITB 91-20 by the Florida School For The Deaf And The Blind for the provision of bus transportation for its students.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding by timely filing a petition formally protesting the specifications contained in ITB 91-20.

Intervenor filed a timely motion to intervene and said motion was granted. Respondent filed two separate prehearing motions; a Motion for Sanctions and a Motion in Limine. The Motion for Sanctions is addressed in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order. Respondent's Motion in Limine sought to exclude evidence at the final hearing intended to show that the disputed specifications are invalid on grounds other than that the specifications are unduly restrictive and/or exclude all prospective bidders except the Intervenor. Respondent's Motion in Limine was denied prior to the commencement of the final hearing.

At the final hearing in this proceeding Petitioner presented the testimony of Eric Annett, John Thorpe, and Frank O'Neil. Respondent presented the testimony of Fred Lesswing, Ralph Angell, Francis L. Kimbrough and Frank O'Neil. Intervenor offered no witnesses.

Petitioner offered three exhibits which were accepted without objection.

Respondent offered three exhibits. Respondent's exhibit 1, a copy of ITB 91-20, was admitted without objection. Respondent's exhibits 2 and 3 are copies of Parts 385 and 396 of the regulations of the United States Department of Transportation. Respondent's exhibits 2 and 3 were admitted over the Petitioner's objections that the exhibits were irrelevant. Intervenor offered no exhibits.

Petitioner and Respondent each submitted timely proposed recommended orders including proposed findings of fact. Intervenor did not submit a proposed recommended order. The recommended orders proposed by Petitioner and Respondent have been considered and utilized in the preparation of the Recommended Order.

Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact contained in each proposed recommended order are included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

In this Recommended Order, references to exhibits will be designated by the parties who introduced the exhibit followed by the number of the exhibit e.g.: Respondent's Exhibit 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Background

1. The Florida School for the Deaf and Blind (School) is a residential school, located in St. Augustine, Florida, which serves a student body consisting of sensory impaired students ranging from 3 to 21 years of age. These students are hearing impaired, vision impaired or students who have such impairment(s) in addition to other disabilities. The student population of the School comes from throughout Florida.

   
   

2. Prior to 1991, dormitories at the School operated on a seven day per week basis during the school year. Since the school is a residence school, when its dormitories are closed, students who reside throughout the state must be transported to their homes and returned when the dormitories reopen. Prior to 1991, the transportation required for students to and from their homes was limited to the beginning and end of the school year and for approximately six or seven times during the school year for holidays and vacations.

   
   

3. Bus transportation for students of the School can present significant problems and potential problems. In addition to problem areas normally encountered when transporting children long distances, the pick up and delivery of disabled students must be carefully coordinated with parents and guardians because these students cannot be simply picked up and deposited at predetermined bus stops.

   
   

4. The School must be sensitive to the special needs of their students when contracting for bus services. In addition to other criteria, the School must require that bus drivers employed by prospective bidders be well experienced, knowledgable of the routes, dependable, and demonstrate appropriate temperament. In addition, it is especially important to the School that buses providing transport be well maintained not only for safety but for dependability. Delays in transportation present serious coordination problems for the School.

   
   

   The Previous Bid Protest: Bid X

   
   

5. Petitioner has alleged that a collusive relationship exists between the School and the Intervenor, Florida Trails, Inc., d/b/a Annett Bus Lines (Annett). Petitioner alleges that Annett and the Respondent conspired to eliminate the Petitioner as a qualified bidder by including two specifications in ITB 91-20. These specifications are worded as follows:

   
   

   CONTRACTOR EXPERIENCE: It is required that each bidder (contractor) submitting a BID provide written proof of a minimum of five (5) years experience in the bus transportation service industry with at least three (3) of those years in bus charter services. Adequate written proof shall include but not be limited to: copies of letters of reference; copies

   of corporate records; tax bills; copies of state licenses. Respondent's, Exhibit 1.

   Bus Features: Contractor shall certify in writing that all buses offered within the terms of the contract will have operating HVAC systems, restrooms, and a full complement of

   luggage compartments. Contractor should further certify that all bus restrooms will be equipped with inside/outside door locks, wash basins or sanitizing material for personal use, air conditioning and lighting. The Contractor should also certify in the BID that all contract buses will be equipped with cellular phones for FSDB staff use en route. It shall be certified within the BID that buses offered for contractual services shall hold a "satisfactory" rating from the United States Department of Transportation. Copies of such U.S. DOT certifications shall be included in the Bid. Respondent's Exhibit 1 (emphasis supplied).

   
   

   Petitioner alleges that the "collusive relationship" between Annett and the School began during a prior contractual relationship between those parties.

   
   

6. By way of background, Annett was awarded a contract to provide bus transportation for students of the School in July of 1990. This contract provided that Annett would transport students of the School at the beginning and end of the school year and for six or seven specified holiday weekends during the school year.

   
   

7. In the fall of 1990 the School was required to absorb budget cuts and, as a consequence, made the decision to close dormitories on weekends. This decision created the need for additional student transportation during the school year that the School had not anticipated at the time of the original bid and contract award.

   
   

8. When the School made the decision to close its dormitories on weekends, it determined that a new bid process was necessary in order to award an additional contract to provide for the added transportation necessitated by the increase in closing of the dorms. This invitation to bid (ITB) was designated "bid X".

   
   

9. At the time the School issued the ITB for bid X, Annett took the position that the original contract covered all transportation for the entire school year, including the unanticipated additional trips which were necessitated by the closing of the School dorms on weekends.

   
   

10. Petitioner, Golden Isles of Florida, Inc., (Golden Isles) was the apparent successful bidder during the bid process relating to bid X. Annett filed a bid protest in which Annett essentially challenged the specifications of bid X. Annett's protest challenging the bid X specifications was dismissed as untimely. The dispute between Annett and the School, regarding whether its pre- existing contract to provide transportation for students covered the added weekend trips, was not resolved in the untimely protest to the specifications of bid X.

    
    

11. In its untimely protest to bid X, Annett filed a document which included the following language:

    
    

    The bidder 'Golden Isles' has changed names in the last year; until approximately a year ago, the company was Golden Isles Coaches,

    Inc., a Georgia Corporation with IMC-MC 157480; now, the company is Golden Isles Coaches of Florida, a Florida Corporation with ICC-MC 157480; Golden Isles Coaches does not have a satisfactory rating with the U.S.

    D.O.T. (emphasis in the original)

    
    

12. As part of its protest to "bid X," Annett also submitted a document in which Annett represented that it was the only bidder who held a "satisfactory" rating from the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. D.O.T.). This document further asserts that the U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory rating "is required [in order for a motor carrier] to be considered for Government business," and "is required before a company can be considered for U.S. military movements."

    
    

13. During the time pending resolution of Annett's protest to the bid X specifications, Annett provided the added weekend transportation contemplated by bid X and received added compensation for such transportation.

    
    

14. Approximately six days after Annett filed its protest to "bid X," Eric Annett, President of Annett, met with John Thorpe, purchasing agent for the School. The only purpose of this meeting was to discuss whether the protest to bid X could be resolved.

    
    

15. In March of 1991, both Eric Annett and Mr. Thorpe attended a meeting at the Board of Trustees for the School, called to take final agency action regarding the Annett protest to bid X.

    
    

16. Other than the meetings described above, Mr. Annett and Mr. Thorpe did not meet in person during the time period pertinent to Petitioner's allegation of "collusion." Mr. Annett and Mr. Thorpe had several telephone conversations during the time periods pertinent to Petitioner's allegations. During these telephone conversations there was no discussion regarding any future invitations to bid to be issued by the School. Mr. Annett and Mr. Thorpe have not discussed whether the School intended to use any prior suggestions regarding future bid specifications that Annett may have made.

    
    

17. Petitioner has failed to prove that Mr. Annett ever discussed the five year experience requirement at issue in this case with Mr. Thorpe or with any other representative of the School prior to the preparation of ITB 91-20.

    
    

18. Prior to the preparation of ITB 91-20, Mr. Annett did send a copy of a letter written by Annett's insurance carrier to the business manager of the School. This letter described the importance of a U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory safety rating.

    
    

19. It is more likely than not that the idea for inclusion of the requirement of a U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory rating in the specifications of ITB 91-20 originated with the prior suggestions, comments, and correspondence from Annett to the School. Petitioner has failed to prove, however, that any improper or collusive relationship exists or ever existed between Annett or any of its representatives and any representative of the School.

    
    

20. Petitioner has also failed to prove that any specification contained in ITB 91-20 was adopted for the specific purpose of disqualifying the Petitioner as a potential responsive bidder.

21. The specification in ITB 91-20 which requires a U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory rating encompasses standards similar to those covered elsewhere in the ITB. For instance, a separate provision in the ITB requires that the bidder certify that contract drivers are properly licensed, trained and supervised and requires certification that the bidder maintains the U.S. D.O.T. required written drug policy for drivers. Respondent established, however, that the U.S.

    D.O.T. rating requirement provides a mechanism for independent verification of standards where the other specifications rely substantially on representations made by the bidder. The above-described overlap in specifications does not render any provision of the ITB redundant, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.

    
    

22. Petitioner has failed to prove that the inclusion of the five year experience requirement in the disputed bid specifications resulted from any action or influence of Annett or any representative of Annett. Petitioner also failed to establish on the record in this case that the experience requirement does, in fact, disqualify Petitioner as a responsive bidder to ITB 91-20.

    
    

    The United States Department of Transportation Satisfactory Rating

    
    

23. The U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory rating is based on the degree of compliance with U.S. D.O.T. safety fitness standards that a motor carrier demonstrates. To meet the safety fitness standard, the carrier must show that it has adequate safety management controls in place which function effectively to ensure acceptable safety requirements in order to reduce risks associated with specific problem areas which include: (a) commercial driver's license standards violations; (b) inadequate levels of financial responsibility; (c) the use of unqualified drivers; (d) improper use and driving of motor vehicles; (e) unsafe vehicles operating on the highways; (f) nonreporting of accidents; (g) the use of fatigued drivers; and (h) inadequate inspection, repair, and maintenance of vehicles. 45 CFR Part 385.5.

    
    

24. Factors considered in determining a motor carrier's qualification for a satisfactory safety rating from the U.S. D.O.T. include; (a) adequacy of management controls; (b) frequency and severity of regulatory violations; (c) frequency and severity of driver/vehicle regulatory violations (identified in roadside inspections); (d) number and frequency of out-of-service driver/vehicle violations; (e) increase or decrease in similar types of regulatory violations discovered during safety or compliance reviews; (f) frequency of accidents; and

    (g) the number and severity of violations of state safety rules, regulations, standards, and orders applicable to commercial motor vehicles and motor carrier safety that are compatible with Federal rules, regulations and standards. 45 CFR Part 385.7.

    
    

25. As a general proposition, the D.O.T. cannot give an intrastate carrier a safety rating. U.S. D.O.T. jurisdiction over an intrastate carrier is limited to such carriers involved in transporting hazardous materials. Therefore, otherwise qualified intrastate carriers who might wish to respond to ITB 91-20 would be disqualified because such carriers do not have, and cannot obtain, the required U.S. D.O.T. rating.

    
    

26. The process for obtaining and maintaining a satisfactory safety rating from the U.S. D.O.T. primarily involves the auditing of records maintained by the motor carrier in question. These audit inspections are conducted by special agents employed by the U.S. D.O.T.

27. Once a motor carrier submits a written request to the U.S. D.O.T. to be inspected for the purpose of obtaining a satisfactory safety rating, the carrier will, in most cases, be inspected for that purpose within approximately six months.

    
    

28. Prior to the change in its corporate ownership, Petitioner had the

    U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory rating which is required in the specifications of ITB 91-20. The Petitioner does not now have the required satisfactory rating. Frank O'Neil, an employee of Petitioner, testified that the Petitioner meets the requirements for a U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory rating and that Petitioner applied for a satisfactory rating in June 1991. Mr. O'Neil's testimony in this regard is credible and is accepted.

    
    

29. The representatives of the School involved in preparing the specifications for the disputed ITB included the Director of Student Life, the Transportation Director, the person in charge of information systems, the Purchasing Agent and the Business Manager. The Purchasing Agent (Mr. John Thorpe) and the Business Manager (Mr. Fred Lesswing) testified at the final hearing in this cause. There is no testimony from the other members of the ITB preparations group on the record in this proceeding. 1/

    
    

30. The requirement that a responsive bidder to ITB 91-20 possess a U.S.

    D.O.T. satisfactory safety rating provides the School with assurance that the bidder is in compliance with legitimate and important safety regulations. Through the U.S. D.O.T. inspection program, this assurance is provided to the School from an objective and independent source.

    
    

31. The Petitioner has failed to prove that the action of the School, in including the requirement that bidders responding to ITB 91-20 possess the U.S.

    D.O.T. satisfactory rating, was either arbitrary or capricious, or that the inclusion of this bid specification undermines the integrity of the public agency procurement process.

    
    

    The Experience Requirement

    
    

32. Prior to the preparation of the ITB challenged in this case, the School experienced a bid process in which it was determined that the lowest bidder had little experience and that such experience was limited to transporting tourists on short trips in a small and concentrated area of central Florida. This situation and other problems with prior bidders prompted representatives of the School to attempt to rewrite the bid specifications for ITB 91-20 so as to strengthen and clarify the experience requirement.

    
    

33. Petitioner has established that reasonable persons might differ as to the clarity and meaning of the wording of the experience requirement in the disputed ITB. Reasonable persons might also differ with respect to the extent of experience which should be required of a responsive bidder in this case. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the experience requirement is arbitrary and capricious or that the requirements undermine the integrity of the competitive bidding process.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

    1. Jurisdiction

       
       

34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Section 120.53(5) and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

    1. Respondent's Motion for Sanctions

       
       

35. In its Motion for Sanctions, Respondent argues that Petitioner's Formal Written Protest was filed (1) without reasonable inquiry and (2) without a reasonably clear legal justification for its filing. Therefore, Respondent contends, the Petitioner's protest was filed for a frivolous purpose within the meaning of Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Florida Statutes.

    
    

36. In order to award sanctions against Respondent, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, the record in this proceeding must demonstrate that the Formal Written Protest was filed for an "improper purpose." Mercedes Lighting and Electrical Supply, Inc. v. State Department of General Services, 560 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Respondent does not certify, by signing a Formal Written Protest, that reasonable inquiry has been made as to the factual basis for the pleading. Id. The record in this case does not support a finding that Petitioner filed its protest for an improper purpose and Respondent's Motion for Sanctions is denied. 2/

    
    

    1. The Burden of Proof

    
    

37. Petitioner has the burden of proof to prove the allegations in its petition by a preponderance of substantial competent evidence. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

38. In order to prevail in this case, Petitioner must prove that the Respondent, by including the two disputed specifications in the ITB, acted in a manner which is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise subverts the purpose and intent of competitive bidding by State agencies. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1982). The purpose and intent of the competitive bidding process required of public agencies in this State is to prevent public officials from showing favoritism to vendors and to secure fair competition, on equal terms, to all prospective bidders. Id.

    
    

39. In this case the Petitioner alleges that Respondent and the Intervenor had a collusive relationship and conspired to draft the challenged specifications in such a manner as to permit only one bidder (Intervenor) to qualify or, in the alternative, that the bid specifications unreasonably and unduly restrict the number of qualified bidders, thereby subverting the integrity of the competitive bidding process.

    
    

40. Where a public agency prepares bid specifications as part of a scheme to permit only one bidder to qualify, such conduct constitutes an unlawful abuse of discretion. Moyes Printing Company v. Flowers, 154 So.2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). In this case, however, Petitioner concedes in its proposed recommended order that it failed to prove that any collusive or conspiratorial relationship exists between any official of the Respondent or any representative of the Intervenor.

    
    

41. Petitioner argues that, even absent proof of collusion in this case, the challenged specifications are drawn in such a manner as to unreasonably and unduly limit the number of bidders. Where competitive bidding is required of public agencies, bid specifications drawn in a manner which unduly limit the number of responsive bidders tend to increase public costs, discriminate among vendors, and promote favoritism, thereby subverting the competitive bidding process. See, City of Opa-Locka v. Trustees of the Plumbing Industry Promotion Fund, 193 So.2d 29 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966).

42. In this proceeding, Petitioner has established that the challenged bid specifications do limit the number of prospective qualified bidders. In effect, the requirement that responsive bidders responding to ITB 91-20 possess the U.S.

    D.O.T. satisfactory rating limits prospective bidders to motor carriers who engage in interstate transportation of passengers. However, Petitioner did not meet its burden to prove that this specification unduly limits prospective qualified bidders. Based upon the record in this proceeding and at this time in this specific bidding process, there is no basis to conclude that the challenged specifications contained in ITB 91-20 limit the bidders qualified to participate to the extent that the competitive bidding process is subverted.

    
    

43. At best, Petitioner has established that reasonable persons might differ as to the appropriateness of the U.S. D.O.T. satisfactory safety rating requirement and the effect of the requirement on the quality of the bid process at issue in this case. Petitioner also established that the wording of the challenged experience requirement contained in ITB 91-20 might be susceptible to more than one interpretation and that reasonable persons may disagree as to the amount of experience that should be required of the prospective bidder. In order to prevail, however, Petitioner must meet its burden to prove that the specifications are arbitrary and that the inclusion of one or both of the challenged requirements constitute an abuse of agency discretion.

    
    

44. Petitioner concedes that some experience requirement is appropriate as a bid specification in this case but asserts that the challenged specification is over broad, therefore unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. Likewise, Petitioner asserts that the satisfactory rating requirement is "unduly restrictive" therefore also void on the basis that the requirement is arbitrary and capricious.

    
    

45. An arbitrary act is one that is not supported by the facts or by logic. Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, at 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The record in this case establishes that the Respondent grounded its decisions regarding inclusion of both contested specifications on a reasonable and good faith belief that the requirements would enhance the efficient, cost effective, and safe transportation of the students of the school.

    
    

46. A public body has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids such as the one at issue in this proceeding. The agency's decision, when based upon an honest exercise of its discretion will not be set aside even if it may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons may disagree. Capelletti Brothers v. State Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Petitioner has failed to prove that the Respondent has abused its discretion in preparing ITB 91-20 or that the School acted arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting to challenged specifications.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest to Respondent's Invitation Bid No. 91-20.

DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES W. YORK, 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 8th day of August, 1991.

ENDNOTES

1/ In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that, prior to the issuance of the disputed ITB, "none of the persons involved in the drafting of the specifications knew or understood what a satisfactory safety rating required of the prospective bidder. First, this contention does not provide a completely accurate assessment of the testimony adduced at the Final Hearing and, assuming that such characterization is accurate, since the testimony of all members of the group that prepared the specifications is not in the record, Petitioner's contention could not be supported in any event.

2/ In Mercedes, the Court provided as an example of "improper purpose"; a situation where a pleading is filed for the purpose of causing a lengthy delay in the administrative process where such delay would benefit the party filing the pleading while damaging the party's competitors. Id. at f.n. 5. The record in this case does not reflect such conduct on the part of this Petitioner.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted.

1. Rejected, to the extent that the first paragraph is conclusory and essentially argument which is addressed in the Conclusions of Law portion of the Recommended Order. Paragraphs a., b. (with subparts 1-4), and c. are hereby accepted.

   
   

   Note: Petitioner's second proposed finding of fact number 5 (apparently a typographical error in Petitioner's proposed recommended order) is rejected as conclusory. This proposed finding of fact is further addressed in finding of fact 21 in the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. Rejected, to the extent that the first paragraph is conclusory, not supported by the record, and is essentially argument which is addressed in the Conclusions of Law portion of the Recommended Order. Paragraph a.(1) is hereby accepted; paragraph a.(2) is rejected because it is not supported by the record. The argument contained in subparagraph a.(2) to this proposed finding of fact is further discussed in footnote 1 in the Recommended Order. Subparagraph a.(3) is rejected as conclusory and not supported by the record. Subparagraph a.(4) is hereby accepted. Subparagraphs a.(5),(6) and (7) are rejected as conclusory and

argumentative. The conclusions and argument contained in subparagraph a.(7) is addressed in the Conclusions of Law portion of the Recommended Order.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in finding of fact 1 of the Recommended Order.

   
   

2. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in finding of fact 2 of the Recommended Order.

   
   

3. Proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in finding of fact 7 of the Recommended Order.

   
   

4. Proposed finding of fact 4 is adopted in finding of fact 3 of the Recommended Order.

5-7. Proposed findings of fact 5-7 are hereby accepted.

8. Proposed finding of fact 8 is adopted in finding of fact 5 of the Recommended Order.

9-11. Proposed findings of fact 9-11 are hereby accepted.

12. Proposed finding of fact 12 is adopted in material part in findings of fact 22 and 23 in Recommended Order.

13-15. Proposed findings of fact 13-15 are hereby accepted.

16. Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in material part in finding of fact 19 of the Recommended Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

John Gary Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, FL 32011

Charles S. Ruberg Assistant General Counsel Department of Education State Board of Education The Capitol - Suite 1701

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400

Eric Annett, President Florida Trails, Inc., d/b/a

Annett Bus Lines

2905 State Road 17 North

Sebring, FL 33870

Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. IN THIS CASE THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED THAT EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER MUST BE FILED NO LATER THAN 5:00 P.M. ON AUGUST 22, 1991. 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: 91-004394BID

Orders for Case No: 91-004394BID