STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HURST AWNING, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-2297BID

) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

and )

)

ACCURATE ALUMINUM, INC., )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on May 20, 1994, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida before J. Stephen Menton, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stuart Gold, Esquire

Sax, Willinger & Gold

8180 North West 36th Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166

For Respondent: Thomas Duffy, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

For Intervenor: Richard Johnson, Jr.,

qualified representative Accurate Aluminum, Inc.

4760 128 Street Road

Opa Locka, Florida 33054 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented in this case is whether the Respondent Department of Transportation's proposed award of Bid No. FE2494Z2 to the Intervenor, Accurate Aluminum, Inc., should be upheld.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In late January of 1994, the Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT" or the "Department"), issued an Invitation to Bid for

contracts to supply storm shutters for Zones 1 and 2 of the Florida Turnpike. Petitioner, Hurst Awning, Inc. ("Hurst"), submitted a bid for both of the contracts as did Intervenor, Accurate Aluminum, Inc. ("Accurate"), and at least one other company. On March 3, 1994, FDOT posted its Bid Tabulation indicating its intent to award the contract for Zone 1 to Hurst and the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. As discussed in more detail in the Findings of Fact below, Hurst challenged the proposed award of the Zone 2 contract (the "Contract") to Accurate claiming that the bid submitted by Accurate should not be accepted because it was "nonresponsive" to the bid request. On April 7, 1994, Hurst timely filed a formal written protest of the proposed award of the Contract to Accurate. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings which noticed and conducted a hearing pursuant to Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

Prior to the hearing, Richard Johnson, Jr., the manager of Accurate, filed a letter dated May 6, 1994 stating Accurate's desire to become a party to the case. Hearing Officer Michael Parrish, who was initially assigned to the case, sent Mr. Johnson a letter dated May 11, 1994 explaining the procedure for becoming a party. The case was transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer who conducted the hearing on May 20, 1994 as scheduled. Accurate filed a written Petition to Intervene dated May 18, 1994. That Petition was not received by the undersigned Hearing Officer prior to the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, Richard Johnson, Jr. appeared on behalf of Accurate and requested that Accurate be granted intervenor status. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent objected and Accurate was allowed to participate fully in the proceedings.

At the hearing, Hurst presented the testimony of three witnesses: Joseph Sanchez, sales and production manager for Hurst; Mary Bailey, the FDOT purchasing agent for the Florida Turnpike; and John Vecchio, the FDOT contract engineer for the Turnpike. Hurst offered six exhibits into evidence, all of which were accepted without objection.

FDOT recalled Mary Bailey and also presented testimony from two other witnesses: John McPherson, a consultant for FDOT regarding Florida Turnpike facilities construction; and Richard Johnson, Jr., manager of Accurate. FDOT did not offer any exhibits into evidence.

Accurate questioned some of the witnesses called by the other parties, but did not call any witnesses of its own and did not offer any exhibits into evidence.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed recommended orders within the timeframe established at the conclusion of the hearing. Accurate did not submit any proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. A ruling on each of Petitioner's and Respondent's proposed findings of fact is included in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:

1. In January of 1994, FDOT issued an Invitation to Bid ("ITB") for contracts FE2494Z1 and FE2494Z2 to provide storm shutters for the FDOT

   facilities in Zones 1 and 2 of the Florida Turnpike. The ITB was entitled "Storm Shutters, Removable, Manufacture, Furnish and Install."

   
   

2. Prospective bidders for the contracts were provided with a packet which included General Conditions, Special Conditions, Specifications and General Special Provisions.

   
   

3. The General Conditions set forth the procedures for submitting and opening the bids. The Specifications called for custom-sized removable storm shutters and detailed the materials and installation procedures that were required.

   
   

4. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in the Special Conditions, Section 1.0, entitled "Description", and in the Specifications, Section 1.0, entitled "Scope of Work":

   
   

   Work under this contract consists of providing all labor, materials, equipment, tools and incidentals necessary to manufacture, furnish and install galvanized steel storm panels and accessories for all of Zone 1 & Zone 2 buildings and locations as identified in the building listing listings document, see Exhibit "A" Zone 1 & Exhibit "A" Zone 2.

   
   

5. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in Special Conditions Section 8.1, entitled "Required Documents":

   
   

   Bidders are required to complete and return the State of Florida "Invitation to Bid" form as well as the bid sheet(s). These forms must be signed by a representative who is authorized to contractually bind the bidder.

   All bid sheets and the "Invitation to Bid" form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope.

   
   

6. At a mandatory pre-bid conference on February 17, 1994, the Department's representatives were available to answer questions regarding the bid package. During the pre-bid conference, John Vecchio of the Department orally advised the prospective bidders that they should return the whole bid package, including the specifications, when they submitted their bid. No written amendment to this effect was issued.

   
   

7. The bids were opened on March 3, 1994 in Fort Lauderdale. Bids were received for each contract from at least three bidders, including Accurate and Hurst. The apparent low bidder for both contracts was Broward Hurricane Panel Co. ("Broward"). Prior to the bids being posted on March 28, 1994, Broward's bid was determined to be nonresponsive and Broward was therefore disqualified.

   
   

8. After Broward was disqualified, Accurate was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 2 and Hurst was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 1. Hurst's bid for the contract for Zone 2 was $85,000. Its bid for the Contract for Zone 1 was $36,000. Accurate's bids for the contracts were $84,854.82 and

   $36,287.16, respectively.

9. Hurst was awarded the contract for Zone 1 and that decision has not been challenged. At the same time the Department announced the award of the Contract for Zone 1 to Hurst, the Department announced its intent to award the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate.

   
   

10. Hurst timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest of the proposed award of the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Initially, FDOT raised as a defense that Hurst had not posted a protest bond as required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes. At the hearing in this matter, FDOT conceded that Hurst had subsequently posted a protest bond which had been accepted by FDOT.

    
    

11. Hurst contends that Accurate's bid should have been deemed nonresponsive because Accurate does not have the ability to "manufacture" the specified product in its own facility. The 2 inch corrugated shutter required by the ITB has to be shaped on a special type of machine that rolls, presses and forms the metal. Hurst owns and maintains at its Opa-Locka facility a rolling mill capable of forming the panels to the bid specifications.

    
    

12. Accurate is in the business of supplying the types of products sought by the ITB in this case. However, Accurate does not own the kind of machine necessary to shape the metal. The evidence established that for many years, Accurate has had a continuing business relationship with a local subcontractor, Shutter Express, that rolls, presses and forms raw material supplied by Accurate in accordance with Accurate's specifications. Shutter Express has the capability of fabricating shutters with a 2 inch corrugation in accordance with the ITB.

    
    

13. Accurate is equipped to attach the headers and sills, drill the necessary holes, complete the assembly and install the final product.

    
    

14. The ITB in this case did not preclude subcontracting any or all of the work specified. While the description of the work in the ITB includes the term "manufacture", this reference should not be read to mean that only those companies that were able to fabricate the entire product at their own facility could properly respond to the ITB. There is no logical justification for such a narrow interpretation. Only a few companies have the ability to completely fabricate the shutters on their own property. At the prebid conference, there was discussion amongst the prospective bidders about subcontracting the fabrication work and the FDOT representatives did not raise any objections to such an arrangement. It was widely understood by the parties present at the

    pre-bid conference that the Department was not interpreting the ITB in the restrictive manner now urged by Hurst. Such a reading of the ITB would have precluded from the bidding process a number of companies such as Accurate that routinely supply and install shutters.

    
    

15. Hurst also contends that the bid proposal submitted by Accurate should be deemed nonresponsive because Accurate failed to include the entire ITB with its proposal in accordance with the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference. Hurst's proposals included the entire ITB. As discussed below, Accurate's proposal did not include the entire ITB. FDOT determined that all essential pages were included in Accurate's response and the evidence did not establish that this conclusion was arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent.

16. Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions of the ITB provided:

    
    

    ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No

    additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and affect and are inapplicable to the bid.

    
    

17. As noted above, at the prebid conference held on February 17, 1994, an FDOT employee told all prospective bidders to return the entire bid package when making their submittals. This request that the entire bid package be returned was simply meant as a protection for the bidder to ensure that all the necessary documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications were submitted. Other than those documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications, FDOT had no interest in having the remaining portion of the ITB submitted with a proposal.

    
    

18. Accurate's submittal contained every document required by Section 8.1 of the Specifications. Accurate's proposal did not contain pages 3 through 12, 14, 15 and 17 through 20 of the ITB, but did include pages 1 and 2, 13, 16, 21 and 22 along with a signed Form PUR 7068 and a signed acknowledgment of Addendum

1. In other words, the submittal contained a signed and completed Bidder Acknowledgment, completed Bid Price Forms for Zones 1 and 2, a signed copy of Addendum #1, a completed copy of the Ordering Instructions, and a signed, but not notarized, statement regarding public entity crimes. 1/

   
   

   1. In addition to the "REQUIRED DOCUMENTS," set forth in Section 8.1 of the Specifications and quoted in Findings of Fact 6 above, the ITB included Section 8.2, "PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES STATEMENT" which provides:

      
      

      Any person submitting a bid or proposal in response to this invitation should execute the enclosed form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(A), FLORIDA STATUTES,

      ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES, including proper check(s) provided, and submit it with the bid/proposal or within 72 hours of the bid opening.

      
      

   2. Page 7 of the ITB provided in pertinent part:

      
      

      10.0 BID PREFERENCE

      
      

      IDENTICAL TIE BIDS - Preference shall be given to businesses with drug-free workplace programs. Whenever two or more bids which are equal with respect to price, quality and service are received by the State or by any political subdivision for the procurement of commodities or contractual services, a bid received from a business that certifies that it had implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. . . .

      Accurate's proposal did not include a certification that it was a drug-free workplace in accordance with this provision. However, such a certification is only used by the Department as a tie-breaker. In other words, in the event of identical bids, any firm with a drug-free workplace would get preference. Since there were no tied bids in this case, certification was totally irrelevant.

      
      

   3. When the bids were opened, Mary Bailey, the contracts administrator for the Department, noticed that Accurate's submittal was thinner than the others and asked Accurate's representative, Richard Johnson, about the remaining pages. Mr. Johnson replied that the other pages were in his truck and offered to retrieve them. Ms. Bailey told him there was no need to do so.

      
      

   4. Section 10 of the General Conditions in the bid package provides as follows:

      
      

      As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved...to reject any and all bids or waive any minor

      irregularity or technicality in bids received...

      
      

   5. It does not appear that Accurate has obtained any competitive advantage as a result of its failure to include the entire ITB with its bid proposals.

      
      

   6. Even if the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference are deemed to have modified the ITB so that the entire bid package should have been submitted, Accurate's failure to include the entire ITB with its response should be considered a minor technicality, pursuant to Section 10 of the General Conditions cited above, that can and should be waived in evaluating the responsiveness of the bid.

      
      

   7. Similarly, the failure to have the Form PUR 7068 notarized may have rendered Accurate's bid proposals incomplete, but not necessarily nonresponsive. This oversight can be easily corrected without giving Accurate a competitive advantage.

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

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

      
      

   9. The purpose of competitive bidding was explicated in Hotel China & Glassware Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 130 So. 2nd 78, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), where the court stated as follows:

      
      

      Competitive bidding statutes are enacted for the protection of the public. They create a system by which goods or services required by public authorities may be acquired at the lowest possible cost. The system confers upon both the contractor and the public authority reciprocal benefits, and exacts from each of them reciprocal obligations. The bidder is assured fair consideration of his offer, and is

      guaranteed the contract if his is the lowest

      and best bid received. The principal benefit flowing to the public authority is the opportunity of purchasing the goods and services required by it at the best price obtainable. Under this system, the public

      authority may not arbitrarily or capriciously discriminate between bidders, or make the award on the basis of personal preference.

      
      

   10. Competitive bidding statutes should be construed to advance their purpose and to avoid their being circumvented. Webster v. Belote, 103 Fla. 976,

       138 So.2d 721 (1931). The purpose of competitive bidding is "to secure the lowest responsible offer." Air Support Services International, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 614 So.2d 583, 584 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1993).

       
       

   11. FDOT is authorized to solicit bids for the construction and maintenance of roads designated as part of the State Highway System and any supporting facilities and associated buildings. FDOT is authorized to award contracts pursuant thereto to the lowest responsible bidder. See Sections

       337.02 and 337.11, Florida Statutes. The advertising and awarding of competitive bids is governed by Chapters 283 and 287, Florida Statutes and rules adopted by the Department of Management Services. Section 337.02(1), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   12. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, establishes a statutory framework for resolution of protests arising from the contract bidding process.

       
       

   13. The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Department of Transportation

       v. Groves-Watkins, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988) sets forth the standard for review in this case. "[T]he hearing officer's sole responsibility is to ascertain whether the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly." Groves-Watkins, supra, 530 So.2d at 914. See also, Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 423 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Couch Construction Company v. Department of Transportation, 361 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Brothers, Inc., 586 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

       
       

   14. State agencies are afforded great latitude in making decisions concerning competitive bidding. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1982). As a public agency, the Department "has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids for public improvements and its decision, "when based on an honest exercise of [its wide] discretion, will not be overturned by a court even if it may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons may disagree." Id. at 507. "[T]he scope of the inquiry [in a bid protest proceeding] is limited to whether the purpose of competitive bidding has been subverted." Fort Howard Co. v. Department of Management Services, 624 So.2d 783, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

       
       

   15. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing is on the party seeking to prove the affirmative of a proposition to produce competent substantial evidence that it is entitled to relief. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1993). In this case, the burden is on the Petitioner to present evidence that the Department's decision to award the contract to Accurate was fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. The evidence presented did not meet this standard.

   16. The term "manufacture" was not defined in the bid documents. Petitioner suggests that the use of this term in the ITB mandates that a bidder must control all aspects of the process that converts raw material into finished shutters. This interpretation is overly restrictive, especially since there was no prohibition in the ITB against subcontracting.

       
       

   17. The evidence established that, even though Accurate did not have the ability to completely fabricate the entire product in its own facilities, it was regularly engaged in the business of supplying products such as those specified in the ITB. Accurate had an ongoing arrangement with a local company that had the machines necessary to fabricate the shutters described in the ITB. Allowing Accurate to subcontract some of the fabrication work does not in any way subvert the purposes of competitive bidding. Indeed, the goals of the bidding process are furthered by an interpretation of the ITB which allows more bidders to compete. The purpose of competitive bidding, i.e., receiving the lowest responsible offer, "is best served by construing the bid requirements, if at all reasonable, in a way that would give all bidders the opportunity to compete." Air Support Services International, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 614 So.2d 583, 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

       
       

   18. Petitioner suggests that Accurate submitted an irregular or nonresponsive bid because all pages of the ITB were not included in its proposal. Even if the verbal directions at the pre-bid conference to submit the entire ITB package with a proposal are deemed to supplement the written instructions contained in the ITB, the failure to comply with the verbal directions does not necessarily render Accurate's bid nonresponsive. The test for measuring whether a deviation in a bid proposal is sufficiently material to destroy its competitive character is whether the variation affects the bid by giving the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. Harry Pepper and Associates, Inc. vs. The City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In other words, not every deviation from the bid specifications and instructions is material. "It is only material if it gives the bidder a substantial advantage over the other bidders and thereby restricts or stifles competition." Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Department of General Svcs.,

       493 So.2d 50,52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). These decisions are consistent with the rules of the Department of Management Services governing competitive bidding. Rule 60A-1.002(13), Florida Administrative Code gives agencies the right to waive minor irregularities in the purchase of contractual service or commodities. Rule 60A-1.001(31) defines a "minor irregularity" as "[a] variation from the . . . terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid/proposal, or give the bidder or offeror an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or offerors, or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency."

       
       

   19. Accurate's bid, submitted in a sealed envelope, contained all of the pertinent documents necessary to evaluate Accurate's proposal: a signed and completed State of Florida "Invitation to Bid" form as well as two bid sheets. While the public entity crimes form was not notarized, the bid specifications made the inclusion of the form optional by instructing bidders that they "should" include the form. Moreover, Section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes only requires that such a form be filed prior to contracting, not prior to bidding. Similarly, inclusion of the form concerning a drug-free workplace was also not essential. The Form clearly provides that participation is voluntary and only comes into play in the event that identical or tied bids or proposals are received. See Section 287.087, Florida Statutes.

   20. The Department did not act fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in accepting Accurate's bid without the entire ITB package. The reason for requesting the entire bid package to be returned was simply to protect bidders. The material in the ITB that was not returned by Accurate was surplusage and had no use to the Department. Moreover, at the bid opening, Accurate's representative offered to retrieve the pages that were not included with Accurate's bid, but was informed that those pages were unimportant.

       
       

   21. It should be noted that "a party protesting an award to the low bidder must be prepared to show that the low bid was deficient, but must also show that the protestor's own bid does not suffer from the same deficiency." Intercontinental Properties, 606 So.2d at 384. It appears that Hurst did not submit the public entity crimes form with its bid. Thus, even if Accurate's bid is deemed to be nonresponsive, arguably the Department would have to reject both of Hurst's bids as well.

       
       

   22. In conclusion, FDOT should waive the minor omissions in Accurate's bid proposal in order to obtain the lower contract price offered by Accurate.

"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. vs. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 606 So.2d 380, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also, Overstreet Paving Co. vs. Department of Transportation, 608 So.2d 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). While the difference between the bids submitted by Accurate and Hurst was relatively minor, the integrity of the bidding process should be preserved and Hurst's challenges should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid submitted by

Accurate to be responsive and dismissing the challenge filed by Hurst.

DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida.

J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of June 1994.

ENDNOTE

1/ It appears that Hurst failed to submit a notarized Form PUR 7068 with its proposal. Thus, if Accurate's proposal is found to be non-responsive, arguably Hurst's should also be deemed non-responsive.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-2297

Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Adopted in substance in the Preliminary Statement.

2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1, 3, and 4.

3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5.

4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6.

5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8.

6. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 7.

7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15 and 18.

8. Adopted in pertinent part in Findings of Fact 5.

9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12 and 13.

10. Adopted in substance in Findings o f Fact 11.

11. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14.

12. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 through 15.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1.

2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4.

3. Rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 14.

4. The first sentence is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. The remainder of this proposal is rejected as unnecessary. The subject matter is addressed in Findings of Fact 14.

5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 19.

6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16.

7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6 and 17.

8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8.

9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15 and 18.

10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18 and 20.

11. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21.

12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15 and footnote 1.

13. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11.

14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12 and 13.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg.

605 Suwannee St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Stuart Gold, Esquire Suite 100

8180 Northwest 36th Street Miami, Florida 33166

Judy Rice, Esquire Department of Transportation

Turnpike Office, Suite 100, MS-98 1211 Governor's Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Mary Bailey John McPherson

Florida's Turnpike, Purchasing Office Post Office Box 17870

Plantation, Florida 33318-7870

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: 94-002297BID

Orders for Case No: 94-002297BID