Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING vs. MARY CARTER, 88-001402 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-001402 Latest Update: Sep. 30, 1988

Findings Of Fact As Needed Temps, Inc., Respondent, provides temporary employees to various businesses. Respondent is not licensed under Chapter 493. Respondent Mary E. Carter is president of Respondent. She is also the director of operations for SOS Security, Inc., whose principal place of business is at the same location as that of Respondent. SOS Security, Inc. holds a Class "B" license. In August, 1987, David Christy, who was a drywall laborer, was working temporary jobs that Respondent had found for him. On August 8 or 9, 1988, Respondent assigned him to SOS Security, Inc., which placed Mr. Christy as a security guard at a local bicycle racetrack. While working as a security guard, Mr. Christy wore the guard uniform of SOS Security, Inc. Mr. Christy was not a licensed security guard. SOS Security, Inc., which billed its customer for the security service, paid Respondent for Mr. Christy's services, and Respondent paid Mr. Christy. At least one other individual entered into a similar arrangement with Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. Willy Dorsey, whose security guard license had expired in 1986, was paid by Respondent and SOS Security, Inc. at different times for security work that he performed during an unspecified year. These incidents were not isolated. Respondent invoiced SOS Security, Inc. a total of over $13,000 in three invoices from March 20, 1987, through May 8, 1987, for "providing guard service."

Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1402 1-2. Rejected as not finding of fact. 3-10. Rejected as recitation of evidence and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mary E. Carter President As Needed Temps, Inc. 6239 Edgewater Drive Suite N-5 Orlando, Florida 32810 Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of State 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 =================================================================

Florida Laws (2) 120.57120.68
# 3
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING vs L AND D SECURITY, INC., 91-008253 (1991)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Panama City, Florida Dec. 20, 1991 Number: 91-008253 Latest Update: Sep. 18, 1992

Findings Of Fact At all material times, respondent has held a registered Class "B" Security Agency License, No. B86-00092, a Class "DS" Security Officer School/or Training Facility License, No. DS90-00069, a Class "D" Security Officer License, No. D85-2333, a Class "DI" Security Officer Instructor License, No. DI88-00012, and a Class "MB" Manager Security Agency License, No. MB86-00105. At all pertinent times, respondent provided security services to various non-governmental clients in Bay County, Florida, and also furnished security services to its only governmental client, the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, more than 100 miles from respondent's offices. From January 21, 1991, to June 30, 1991, respondent employed J. C. Barnwell, Terrell Barnwell, Larry Burks, Michael Dicks, Robert Pompey and Darrell L. Smith, none of whom held security officer licenses. They all worked as security officers at the Federal Correctional Institution in Leon County, and did no other work for respondent.

Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Isler & Banks, P.A. P.O. Drawer 430 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Jim Smith, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-2 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250

Florida Laws (3) 493.6102493.6118493.6301
# 4
KARL HARRY WILSON vs. DIVISION OF LICENSING, 82-000825 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000825 Latest Update: Aug. 23, 1982

Findings Of Fact The proceeding came on for hearing on the Petitioner's application for an armed security guard license. The Respondent, Department of State/Division of Licensing, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over the licensing and regulation of security guards. The Respondent, on February 15, 1982, served notice on the Petitioner that it intended to deny his application for license, the Petitioner requested a hearing and the cause was set for hearing as delineated in the notice. Upon timely convening the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 28, 1982, the Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned and the Respondent and the Respondent's witness remained in the hearing room for approximately one hour in hopes that the Petitioner might appear. The Petitioner failed to appear. The undersigned entered on the record the fact of the Petitioner's default and the fact that all concerned remained in the hearing room awaiting the Petitioner's arrival for approximately one hour. Thereupon the hearing was adjourned.

Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Karl Harry Wilson be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Karl Harry Wilson Aquarius Restaurant Aquarius Condominium Route A1A 2751 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Stephan Nall, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Hazelton, Director Division of Licensing Department of State Winchester Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 5
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING vs ALERT SECURITY SERVICES AND CHRISTOPHER J. MARAIA, 94-000486 (1994)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:St. Petersburg, Florida Jan. 27, 1994 Number: 94-000486 Latest Update: Jul. 27, 1995

The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents' Class B, Class D, Class G and Class MB security licenses should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of private security guards and guard agencies in Florida. Respondent held a Class B Security Agency license, a Class D Security Officer license, a Class G Statewide Firearm license, and a Class MB Security Agency Manager license, all issued pursuant to and under the restrictions contained within the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Though the Class B Security Agency license was issued in the name of Alert Security Services, in reality, Respondent Maraia was the proprietor and operator of the agency under the license. Peter F. Walker was employed as the assistant manager of the 7 - 11 convenience store in Indian Shores, Florida on July 21, 1993. About 11:30 PM, that evening, he observed Respondent in the store about 8 to 20 feet away, wearing his security guard uniform shirt with khaki shorts. A patch on the shoulder of the shirt bore the logo, "Alert Security." As another customer was checking out, Mr. Walker heard a gunshot and then something hitting the floor. At this point, only Mr. Walker, his customer, and the Respondent were in the store. When Walker asked the Respondent about it, Respondent replied that a customer had come up behind him and was trying to take Respondent's weapon from the holster he had stuck in the waistband in the back of his shorts. Respondent claimed that when this happened, the clip from the weapon fell to the floor and one round in the clip went off. Later on, however, Respondent claimed the weapon had dropped and fired when it hit the floor. As Mr. Walker remembers it, however, he heard the shot before anything hit the floor. Patrolman Angela Cole had just pulled into the 7 - 11 parking lot late on the evening of July 21, 1993 when she heard a pop - as if someone had run over a bottle. She checked around the area and seeing nothing unusual, went into the store where she saw the clerk and the Respondent, whom she knew. Respondent was wearing a security badge and carrying a 9 mm weapon in plain view. When Cole spoke with Respondent and asked him why he wasn't in proper security guard uniform, because his dress that evening was not consistent with his usual security uniform, he indicated he was not feeling well. In response to her inquiry regarding the noise she had heard, and why he had the weapon in plain view, Respondent claimed he had dropped his weapon and he and the clerk were joking about it. At this point, however, Respondent seemed nervous and didn't want to discuss the matter further. Also about the same time, Patrolman Vance Nussbaum, of the Indian Shores Police Department entered the store to see Respondent, who had his 9 mm weapon in plain view and was wearing a security badge, engaged in conversation with the store clerk. The pistol was in a holster tucked into Respondent's pants in the back. Nussbaum took hold of the gun and shook it and then chastened Respondent for poor gun safety. At that point, Respondent indicated someone had just hit the magazine release on the weapon and the magazine fell to the floor. That individual was no longer in the area, however. Taken together, it is clear that on the evening in question, Respondent's 9 mm pistol, which was in his possession at the time, was somehow discharged. No report of this weapon discharge was ever filed with the Division, however. On May 23, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to the Holiday Villas II in Indian Shores. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw June Hawks, who he knew to be a part-time security guard employed by Respondent, on duty in the resort's parking lot after a fire alarm had been sounded. This same activity was also observed, the following day, by E. D. Williams, Chief of the Indian Shores Police Department who presumed Ms. Hawks was working for Respondent. Chief Williams drew this conclusion because he had seen Respondent doing this work at the resort the night before and assumed the same firm was still in charge. On August 2, 1993, Officer Nussbaum responded to a call to a Pick-Kwick in Madiera Beach based on a call about a drunk individual which call had come in to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from an individual who described himself as Chris "Myers", a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. It is found that Chris "Myers" is, in actuality, the Respondent, Christopher Maraia, who had represented himself as a reserve police officer. This call was sent out to street units for response, thereby impacting on police operations in the area. When Nussbaum arrived at the scene, he observed Respondent, fully dressed in the uniform of a security guard, with patches, badge and weapon, in the company of a Madiera Beach Police Officer. At one time, Respondent had been a reserve officer with the Indian Shores Police Department but that status had terminated in December 1992. Keith Stillwagen had been employed by Mr. Maraia, off and on, for several years, but worked for him primarily as a security guard at the 34th Street Food Lion market in St. Petersburg between January and March, 1993. He was hired by Mr. Maraia personally, and the identification card Maraia issued to him bore Maraia's signature and license number. This employment was not reported to the Division as required. These allegations were investigated by Gary Floyd, an investigator with the Department of State, who initially interviewed Respondent regarding the alleged hiring of Ms. Hawks and Mr. Stillwagen. In a sworn statement to the investigator, Respondent indicated Alert Security Services had hired Stillwagen on weekends from January to March, 1993, and had also employed Hawks on holidays between April and June, 1993. He admitted that the firm did not notify the Department of State about the hirings and could give "no good reason" for failing to do so as required. In another sworn statement given to Investigator Floyd, Respondent indicated he had worked at Holiday Villas II on July 21, 1993 and had, while out of uniform but wearing a badge on his belt, visited a nearby 7 - 11 store. He admitted that at the time he had a 9 mm pistol with him and it had accidentally discharged when he dropped it. Respondent denied anyone had grabbed for the weapon. He did not report the discharge. On August 9, 1993, Floyd took a third statement from Respondent in which he admitted making the call about the drunk and initially indicating he was a reserve police officer with the Indian Shores Police Department. He acknowledged this was not a true statement in that he had not held that status for a year and a half at the time. The following day, August 10, 1993, Respondent reiterated his statement to Floyd that he had been at the 7 - 11 when leaving a duty station and claimed he was not in uniform at the time. While he may not have been in full uniform, other credible evidence of record indicates he was dressed in a uniform shirt which bore the patch of his security guard; was displaying a security officer's badge; and was armed. It is so found.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case, dismissing Counts II and IV of the Administrative Complaint, but finding Respondent, Maraia, guilty of Counts III, V and VI thereof and Respondent, Alert Security Services, guilty of Count I. It is also recommended that the Class "D", "G", and "MB" security licenses held by Respondents, Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. be revoked; that the C lass "B" license held by Respondent, Alert Security Services, be suspended for one year; and that Respondents jointly and severally pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of March, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Stop 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Christopher J. Maraia, Sr. Alert Security Services 15518 Redington Drive, Redington Beach, Florida 33708 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Florida Laws (5) 120.57493.6112493.6115493.6118493.6305
# 6
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING vs ETTION A. HEATH, 97-005403 (1997)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Nov. 19, 1997 Number: 97-005403 Latest Update: Mar. 16, 1998

The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.

Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the holder of a Class "D" security guard license (license number D94-13786). He has been licensed since November 16, 1994. From April 3, 1996, through and including November 24, 1996, Respondent was employed as security guard by Delta Force Security (Delta), a business which provides security services. Ermelindo Onativia is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, the owner and manager of Delta. Among Delta's clients during the period of Respondent's employment was Motor World, an automobile dealership in Plantation, Florida. On the weekend of November 23 and 24, 1996, Respondent's assignment was to provide security services at Motor World. His shift was to begin at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 23, 1996, and end at 5:00 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1996. Onativia met Respondent at Motor World at the beginning of Respondent's shift on November 23, 1996, and reminded Respondent to "punch the time clock" when he made his rounds at the dealership. After conversing with Respondent, Onativia left the dealership. Onativia returned to Motor World at 2:00 a.m. on November 24, 1996, to check on Respondent. Respondent, however, was not there. He had left his assigned post without obtaining Onativia's permission to do so. Onativia remained at the dealership until 5:00 a.m. At no time during the period that he was at the dealership did he see or hear from Respondent.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing him on probation for a period of one year, subject to such conditions as the Department may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1998.

Florida Laws (3) 120.569120.57493.6118
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING vs ROBERT D. WINGARD, W-B WINGARD BROWN, SECURITY ENFORCEMENT SPECIALISTS, 89-005307 (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Punta Gorda, Florida Sep. 29, 1989 Number: 89-005307 Latest Update: Dec. 27, 1989

The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be disciplined for allegedly operating various security services without a license as charged in the administrative complaint.

Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 25, 1989, petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division), received by mail from an anonymous source a copy of a business card reflecting the name of respondent, Robert D. Wingard, and another individual, and indicating that respondent provided the following services: "Executive & V. I. P. Protection, Undercover Investigation, Alarm Technology, Bonding & Courier Work." The card further represented that Wingard held "Lic. No. 34882-809099." The card listed Wingard's address as 4419 Melbourne Street, Punta Gorda, Florida. After receiving the card, a Division investigator, Daniel J. Cabrera, interviewed respondent in Punta Gorda on May 11, 1989. During the course of the interview, respondent acknowledged to Cabrera that he operated a private investigative service, performed the services of a private investigator, operated a security guard agency and performed the services of a security guard, all under the name of Security Enforcement Specialists. However, Wingard maintained he had all necessary licenses from the state. According to Charlotte County records, Wingard applied for and was issued an occupational license by that county on June 18, 1988. The administrative complaint has used that date as the date on which Wingard commenced providing the above services. An examination of Division records indicated that Wingard did not hold those licenses needed to operate the services described in finding of fact 2. Therefore, all services being provided by Wingard were performed without the proper licensure from the state.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the administrative complaint issued against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander 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 27th day of December, 1989.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57120.68477.029
# 8
NAVARRO GROUP, LTD., INC. vs BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 01-002498BID (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Jun. 27, 2001 Number: 01-002498BID Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2001

The Issue The issue for determination is whether the intended action by Respondent to award RFP 21-203T for Security Guard Services to Intervenor is improper.

Findings Of Fact Respondent wanted to procure security guard services for its various schools, centers, departments, buildings and/or compounds in order to protect its equipment and property from damage or theft. Consequently, on March 19, 2001, Respondent issued RFP 21-203T (RFP), entitled "Security Guard Services," with a contract period from October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2004. The RFP required all proposals to be submitted by 2:00 p.m. on April 24, 2001. At the time of the hearing, the security guard services were being provided by Petitioner under a contract awarded through a previous procurement, RFP 98-146T. The contract was to expire on September 30, 2001. The RFP contains Sections 1 through 9 and Attachments A through F.1 Section 2, entitled "Introduction," provides that the scope of services included, but were not limited to, the requirements contained in the Articles of Agreement, which is Attachment A. Additionally, the said Section set forth the major sites that may be covered under the contract of the RFP, which were described as Group 1 and Group 2. Proposers to the RFP were permitted to offer their security guard solutions to existing and future school sites. Respondent selected the Group 1 facilities consisting of eight school sites for the RFP. Further, Section 2 provides that Respondent reserves "the right to increase or decrease its stated requirements under the hours of coverage for the number of security personnel, location and/or hours from time to time at the hourly rate quoted"; and provides the hours of coverage for each site. Section 3, entitled "Information to be Included in the Submitted Proposal," contains several subsections. Subsection 3.5 requires certain information to be submitted by a proposer with the proposal or within three days of request. Subsection 3.7 requires a proposer to validate its minimum eligibility. Subsection 3.71 requires a proposer to submit a copy of its Florida's security guard services license and submit the license number on the Cost Proposal Sheets Additional Information, which is Attachment B. Subsection 3.8 requires a proposer to show its experience and qualifications through certain submissions. Subsection 3.8.13 requires a proposer to provide a security solution that includes additional security guards and/or hours that differs from the individualized security solution based on a single security guard at the specified sites in the hours of coverage in Section 2. Subsection 3.8.15 requires a proposer to provide an individualized security solution for specified sites based on the information obtained from the attendance of the mandatory site visits. Subsection 3.8.16 requires proposers to "prepare and submit with their proposal, an individualized, concise delineation of their recommendation to protect and secure . . . property on the sites listed in Section 2 . . . ." Additionally, Subsection 3.816 requires the recommendation to "include all personnel, their hours and equipment that proposer intends to provide . . . (i.e. contract (road) supervisor(s), number and level of guards, radios, cars, off-street motorized carts, etc.). Address each group listed on the Cost Proposal Sheets separately." Section 3.10, Cost of Services, requires the prices quoted by a proposer to be "all inclusive and represent security guard services at existing sites and any future identified sites" and requires a proposer to "complete Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets, for both Group 1 and 2 and provide an itemized breakdown of the total cost for each site and a total cost for each group." Section 3.10 provides further that the "fundamental responsibilities of the awardee(s) will be to provide the services listed in Articles of Agreement, Attachment A." Section 7 is entitled "Evaluation of Proposals." Subsection 7.1 provides for the evaluation by Respondent's Evaluation Committee of proposals which meet or exceed the minimum eligibility requirements in Section 3.7. The following four categories and maximum points, totaling 100 points, are to be used by the Evaluation Committee: Experience and Qualifications--a maximum of 15 points; Scope of Service Provided--a maximum of 40 points; Minority/Women Business Participation--a maximum of 20 points; and Cost of Services Provided--a maximum of 25 points. Subsection 7 confers broad discretion upon the Evaluation Committee. Subsection 7.2 confers upon the Evaluation Committee the "sole discretion" as to how many of the top-ranked proposers, based on the scoring, it may recommend to be awarded the RFP; as to whether a short list of top-ranked proposers should be established for further consideration and how many should be on the short list; and as to whether to reject all proposals. Subsection 7.4 reserves to the Evaluation Committee the right to negotiate any term, condition, specification or price with the short list proposers. Subsection 7.5 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and Respondent the right to ask clarifying questions after the proposals have been opened, and to interview all or any of the proposers. Subsection 7.5 further reserves to the Evaluation Committee the right to make its recommendations solely on the proposals submitted by the proposers. Section 8 is entitled "Special Conditions." Subsection 8.8 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and/or Respondent the right to waive irregularities or technicalities in proposals received. Section 9 is entitled "General Conditions." Subsection 9.371 reserves to Respondent the right to request additional information, reject any or all proposals that do not meet all mandatory requirements, or reject all proposals received. Subsection 9.37.3 provides for the rejection of a proposal if it fails to conform to the rules or requirements contained in the RFP and provides examples for which rejection may be made, one of which at Subsection 9.37.3.5 provides, among other things, for rejection when a proposal is incomplete, or contains irregularities which make the proposal incomplete, indefinite, or ambiguous as to its meaning. Subsection 9.45 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and/or Respondent the right to waive irregularities or technicalities in proposals. Attachment A, paragraph numbered 2, reserves to Respondent the right to "increase, decrease, delete hours and/or locations." Associated thereto, the said paragraph further provides that "additional locations or additional guards at existing locations shall be furnished at the price quoted on Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets." Additionally, the said paragraph reserves to Respondent the right to "choose which pricing group will be used in the evaluation process and sites requiring services during the term of the contract" and to "add, delete or make changes to any guard requirement, including hours of coverage, post location, numbers of posts, number of guards, etc." Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets, also reserves several rights to Respondent. Per Attachment B, Respondent has the right to reject all or any of the sites of Group 1 and Group 2, to modify all or any of Group 1 and Group 2, to make an award based on the hourly cost(s) submitted by the proposers, or to reject all proposals and either make the award in total or any portion of the RFP in-house if it is in the best interest of Respondent. Additionally, Attachment B requires proposers to submit, "in accordance with all terms, conditions, specifications and requirements," their annual all-inclusive total cost for each site in Group 1, the annual all-inclusive total cost for all the sites in Group 1, and, as an attachment to the RFP, an itemization of costs for certain specified items for each site in Group 1. The referenced attachment to the RFP is to include, but not be limited to, the itemized breakdown for the costs at each site for the following: number of contract (road) supervisors and their hourly cost; number and level of guards proposed and their hourly cost for each level; total number of coverage hours required; and equipment proposed. Further, Attachment B requires the proposers to list the level (category) of their proposed unarmed security guards and their hourly cost and to list the hourly cost of their unarmed contract (road) supervisors. Some proposers sought clarification of the RFP. As a result, on April 12, 2001, Respondent issued Addendum Number 1 to the RFP, which consists of written responses to proposers' questions and of the provision of a replacement page for the RFP. The replacement page contains minor changes to the RFP. Petitioner did not submit any questions for clarification. Section 9.24 of the Special Conditions of the RFP permits the filing of bid specification protests. However, no bid protest, regarding specifications contained in the RFP or Addendum Number 1, was filed. On April 24, 2001, nine proposals were submitted to Respondent's Purchasing Department. The proposers were Petitioner; Intervenor; Chi-Ada Corporation; Command Security Corporation; 50 State Security Services, Inc.; Gabriel Security of Florida, Inc.; Kemp Security & Investigative Services; Metro Security Services; and Pronto Security, Inc. Evaluation of the proposals was performed by Respondent's Evaluation Committee, which consisted of five members. Each member either possessed knowledge of security guard services or had knowledge of the sites to be guarded. The Evaluation Committee made a recommendation to Respondent for the award of the RFP. The Evaluation Committee first met on May 3, 2001. Prior to the meeting, the members of the Evaluation Committee were provided copies of the proposals submitted, the RFP, Addendum No. 1, score sheets, and cost analysis worksheets. Further, they were provided other evaluation documents relating to categories and point allocations, which correspond to experience and qualifications, scope of services, cost of services, and Minority/Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) participation. Prior to the meeting, the members read and understood the RFP and the proposals. Technical staff from the Purchasing and W/MBE Departments were available to the Evaluation Committee at the meeting to provide technical support. As to scoring, Petitioner is challenging the scoring for the Cost of Services Provided category found at Section 7.1 of the RFP. Furthermore, Petitioner is not seeking to have any proposer disqualified or found to be non-responsive. Each member of the Evaluation Committee, as directed, used the score sheets in the analysis of the proposals. The score sheets correspond to the four categories found at Subsection 7.1 of the RFP. In scoring the proposals, each member of the Evaluation Committee evaluated the proposals, applying the evaluation criteria in the RFP to the materials provided to him or her, as well as using the presentations made by the technical staff. Each of the four categories was scored separately and independently. No category is interconnected with the scoring for another category. Prior to the meeting, no discussion was had amongst the members as to the method to be used for scoring. The same scoring method was used for each category. The RFP contained no method of scoring, other than the allocation of points found at Section 7 of the RFP. The members of the Evaluation Committee decided on the method of scoring. They independently used their own best judgment and sound discretion in the scoring. The method decided upon and used was that each member would independently score each proposer on each category, using the maximum number of points in Section 7; the proposer with the highest overall all-inclusive cost for a category would be allocated the lowest number of relative points and the proposer with the lowest overall all-inclusive cost would be allocated the highest number of relative points; the points allocated for a category to a proposer would be totaled and averaged; and the average number of points for a proposer would be the total and final score for a proposer for that category. The members of the Evaluation Committee scored the Cost of Services category of the proposals based on the annual all-inclusive total cost submitted by each proposer, using the scoring method devised by the members. Section 7.1 of the RFP provides that the maximum number of points for the Cost of Services category is 25, thereby providing a range of points from 0 to 25. Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $779,431.53. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost includes the number of guards, road supervisors, vehicles, hourly rates, and hours of coverage. The points allocated to Petitioner for the Costs of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 5 points each; one member allocated 8 points; and one member allocated 3 points. Petitioner received an average of 5.2 points. Petitioner's points for the Cost of Services category is 5.2. Petitioner received the lowest number of points for the Cost of Services category of all the proposers and, therefore, received the lowest score for that category. The lowest score means that Petitioner, amongst all the proposers, submitted the highest annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category. The points allocated by each member to Petitioner are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. Intervenor's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $440,279.75. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. At hearing, evidence was presented that, due to a clerical error, Intervenor had omitted the cost of road supervisors from its annual all-inclusive total cost. The members of the Evaluation Committee were unaware of this clerical error when they evaluated Intervenor's proposal. The members of the Evaluation Committee considered Intervenor's annual all-inclusive total cost to include the number of guards, road supervisors, vehicles, hourly rates, and hours of coverage and evaluated the proposal as such. At hearing, Intervenor stated that it would be bound by the annual all-inclusive total cost as submitted and, therefore, the road supervisors would be included in the total cost submitted. Consequently, no harm has been shown to have occurred as a result of the omission. Additionally, Intervenor failed to provide an itemized breakdown of all its guards and hours of coverage in Attachment B of the RFP. However, Petitioner is not seeking to disqualify Intervenor's proposal as being non-responsive. Regardless, Intervenor's proposal does contain, albeit in Attachment B, the number of security guards and hours of coverage for each site in Group 1, and the number of road supervisors. The hourly rate for guards and road supervisors are in Attachment B. Therefore, even though the information is not itemized, all the information needed is contained in Intervenor's proposal. Hence, the lack of itemization is not a material deviation and is considered waivable. The points allocated to Intervenor for the Costs of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 20 points each and two members allocated 25 points each. Intervenor received an average of 22 points. Intervenor's points for the Cost of Services category is 22. Intervenor received the highest number of points for the Cost of Services category and, therefore, received the highest score for that category. The highest score means that Intervenor submitted the lowest annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category. The points allocated by each member to Intervenor are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. Petitioner also finds fault, regarding another proposer, Metro Security Services (Metro), in the scoring by the Evaluation Committee in the Cost of Services category. Metro's proposal as to an annual all-inclusive total cost is only on an hourly rate basis, not the total cost. In order to obtain an annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category, the Evaluation Committee, themselves, performed calculations using the hourly rate submitted by Metro. The Evaluation Committee took the total number of hours of coverage for one guard and multiplied that number by the $10 per hour rate submitted by Metro, which produced the annual all-inclusive total cost for Metro. Based upon the number calculated to be the annual all-inclusive total cost, the Evaluation Committee allocated points to Metro. The points allocated to Metro for the Cost of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 12 points each, one member allocated 15 points, and one member allocated 14 points. Metro received an average of 13 points. Metro's points for the Cost of Services category is 13. Metro's points are more than Petitioner's points in the Cost of Services category, which means that Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost is more than the annual all-inclusive total cost calculated by the Evaluation Committee for Metro. Metro was not considered for award of the RFP. Metro received the sixth highest ranked total score. Metro is not challenging Respondent's intended award of the RFP to Intervenor. Metro has not sought to intervene in this proceeding, and Petitioner cannot represent the interest of Metro in the instant case. The action by the Evaluation Committee of calculating and scoring Metro's annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category was reasonable, rational, and fair. Their action is not shown to be and is not considered materially affecting or significantly impacting the scoring or the process of the RFP. Metro provided the information needed for the Evaluation Committee to evaluate Metro's proposal in the Cost of Services category. The points allocated by each member to Metro are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. Even assuming that the Evaluation Committee should not have calculated the annual all-inclusive total cost for Metro using Metro's hourly rate, Metro was not considered for award of the RFP. Furthermore, Metro was the only proposer for whom the Evaluation Committee performed this calculation. Because of the action by the Evaluation Committee, no benefit was shown to inure to Intervenor and no detriment was shown to inure to Petitioner. Additionally, Petitioner finds fault as to another proposer, Chi-Ada Corporation (Chi-Ada), in the scoring by the Evaluation Committee in the Cost of Services category. At the May 3, 2001, meeting of the Evaluation Committee, its members were informed by the technical staff of Respondent's Purchasing Department that Chi-Ada had not submitted proof of licensure required by the RFP but that Chi- Ada was providing proof of licensure by mail. The RFP permitted additional information to be provided, upon request by Respondent, after submission of proposals. The Evaluation Committee proceeded to evaluate Chi-Ada's proposal. Chi-Ada's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $510,963.60. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. The points allocated to Chi-Ada for the Cost of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: two members allocated 25 points each, two members allocated 20 points each, and one member allocated 21 points. Chi-Ada received an average of 21.2 points. Chi-Ada's points for the Cost of Services category is 21.2. Subsequently, Chi-Ada was found to be non-responsive for the failure to provide the proof of licensure. Chi-Ada had failed to provide a copy of its Florida's security guard services license, as required by Subsection 3.7 of the RFP, within three days of the request from Respondent's Purchasing Department. The action of the Evaluation Committee proceeding to evaluate Chi-Ada's proposal was reasonable, rational, and fair. Their action is not shown to be and is not considered materially affecting or significantly impacting the scoring or the process of the RFP. The points allocated by each member to Chi-Ada are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration. After scoring of the proposals, the Evaluation Committee voted to recommended that Intervenor be awarded the RFP as the responsive responsible bidder, having received the highest total number of points in the scoring. On May 23, 2001, the Evaluation Committee met again to reconsider the points allocated to Petitioner regarding the M/WBE Participation category. The Evaluation Committee assigned additional points to Petitioner in the M/WBE Participation category for workplace diversity. On May 24, 2001, the proposed recommendation and tabulation were posted. The proposed recommendation is to award the RFP to Intervenor. The scoring tabulation, indicating the total points out of 100 points allocated to each proposer for all categories is a follows: Chi-Ada--55.2 points; Command Security Corporation--58.8 points; 50 State Security Services, Inc.--54.2 points; Gabriel Security of Florida, Inc.--42.6 points; Kemp Security & Investigative Services--64 points; Metro Security Services--55 points; Petitioner--69.2 points; Pronto Security, Inc.--44 points; and Intervenor--76.6 points. At first, Petitioner filed a notice of protest with Respondent. Subsequently, Petitioner also filed a formal written protest. Chi-Ada filed a combined notice of protest and formal written protest with Respondent. Respondent's Bid Protest Committee, in accordance with statute and rule, attempted to resolve the protests by mutual agreement. Through separate noticed public hearings, the Bid Protest Committee considered the protests. As to Chi-Ada, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest. The Bid Protest Committee determined that Chi-Ada failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria of Subsection 3.7 of the RFP by failing to provide proof of its licensure and was, therefore, a non-responsive bidder. As to Petitioner, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest and upheld the recommendation to award the RFP to Intervenor. Petitioner timely requested the referral of its protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Neither Petitioner's nor Intervenor's standing is in dispute.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order awarding to Security Services of America, L.L.C. the contract under Request for Proposals (RFP) for Security Guard Services, RFP 21-203T. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2001.

Florida Laws (2) 120.569120.57
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer