The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner is qualified for designation and certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact At the hearing, it became apparent that the reasons for denial were principally lack of independence and affiliation with a non-qualifying company. The parties stipulated to the following: Ms. Wendy Stephens, President and Secretary of WPS and sole stockholder WPS, possess the authority to, and does in fact, exercise complete control over the management, daily operations and corporate affairs of WPS. Ms. Stephens possesses the technical capability, managerial qualifications and expertise to operate WPS. The following facts were proven at hearing: Ms. Stephens is a white, female and is qualified as a minority person under the statute. In 1991, Charles Perry, Ms. Stephen's father and a white male, provided $7,000 for start up capital and a lease of 3 acres on his farm to house Alachua Greenery, a wholesale/retail nursery which Wendy Stephens began with assistance from Perry. Ms. Stephens has never made payments on the aforementioned lease. Charles Perry and Wendy Stephens were the sole stockholders in Alachua Greenery, each holding 50 percent of the shares in the corporation. Perry has contributed nothing more to the operation of the corporation, and has never exercised any control over the corporation, although he was initially a director. WPS is a Florida corporation, domiciled and doing business in the state. WPS is worth less than $3,000,000 and has three employees. Ms. Stephens is and always has been the sole stockholder of WPS, and has served as its President and Secretary since its incorporation. Ms. Stephens husband, Gary Stephens, was once a director of WPS upon the advice of counsel; however, he exercised no control over the corporation and resigned as a director on April 12, 1996. Gary Stephens sold a Bobcat tractor to Wendy Stephens upon which he has deferred payments. This Bobcat is used by WPS and Alachua Greenery. Gary Stephens has no other financial or other interest in WPS or Alachua Greenery. WPS was formed for the purpose of engaging in the retail landscaping business, which is a logical business expansion from the wholesale nursery business. WPS has engaged in the retail landscaping business for several customers. WPS shares equipment, land, vehicles, and employees with Alachua Greenery. There is no evidence that WPS, which has performed a number of contracts, has been a conduit of money to Alachua Greenery. On May 13, 1996, Perry gifted his share of Alachua Greenery to Wendy Stephens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for minority business status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-0023 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. References to numbered paragraphs in Petitioner's findings includes all letter subparagraphs unless otherwise noted. PETITIONER'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1,2 Statement of Case Paragraph 3 Irrelevant Paragraphs 4-6 Statement of Case Paragraph 7a Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7b Subsumed in Paragraph 6 Paragraph 7c Subsumed in Paragraphs 6 & 8 Paragraph 7d Contrary to best evidence Paragraph 7e Irrelevant Paragraph 7f Subsumed in Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7g Irrelevant Paragraphs 7h,i Paragraph 7 Paragraphs 7j,k,l Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraphs 7m,n,o,p Paragraph 4 Paragraph 7q Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7r Paragraph 11 Paragraphs 7s,t Irrelevant RESPONDENT'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraph 3 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 6 Not necessary Paragraph 7,8 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 9 Not necessary COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire Peter A. Robertson and Associates 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Veronica Anderson, Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Action Wire & Cable Corporation should be certified as a minority business enterprise by the Respondent, pursuant to Section 288.703(1) and (2), Florida Statutes and the applicable rules implementing the statute.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1993, the Petitioner company was started in New York but incorporated in the State of Florida. Rosemarie Branciforte and Janet Monaco were two of the original incorporators as minority stockholders and three non- minority males held the majority of the stock. The two women incorporators were not named to the original Board of Directors. At the time of the incorporation, 100 shares of stock were issued as follows: Bert Polte-40 shares, Frank Kleeman-40 shares, Janet Monaco-10 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-5 shares, and Ken Barry-5 shares. The company began operations out of the home of Monaco and Branciforte in New York, who contributed their knowledge and labor without compensation. Janet Monaco was appointed President and Rosemarie Branciforte was selected as Vice President-Sales & Marketing. Two of the male stockholders from Germany (Polte and Kleeman) contributed $2,000 which was used for the purchase of fax and computer equipment. Polte and Kleeman are listed as Regional Sales Managers and reside in the Federal Republic of Germany. On December 29, 1993, Ken Barry, one of the original stockholders, returned his 5 shares to the corporation. On January 1, 1994, at its annual meeting, the corporation voted to redistribute the shares among its stockholders, as follows: Janet Monaco-26 shares, Rosemarie Branciforte-25 shares, Bert Polte-25 shares, and Frank Kleeman-24 shares. This was based on the contribution of space in the women's house for the corporate offices and supplies, the assumption of risk and the operation of the company by Monaco and Branciforte without compensation. Monaco and Branciforte were also elected as sole directors of the company, with Monaco as Chair. In April, 1994, the company relocated to Florida and filed its application for certification with the Commission. In October, 1994, the corporate records were amended to reflect that Monaco and Branciforte were the sole directors of the corporation. As sole directors and chief operating officers of the company, the women owners perform the following: Develop and maintain the customer base, both in the United States and overseas; determine who to sell to depending on credit worthiness; develop market plans, advertising campaigns and mailings; promote the company at trade shows and community organizations; control bookkeeping; control all monies (including distribution of year end profits; sign all long term leases; select and maintain working relationships with vendors; and sign as guarantors on vendor accounts, as needed. Polte and Kleeman, stockholders in Petitioner, are owners of a wire and cable distribution business in Europe. As such, they have made a market for Petitioner's American wire in Europe and provide European wire to Petitioner for sale in the U.S. Sales generated by Polte and Kleeman account for approximately 15 percent of Petitioner's sales in Europe and 11 percent of products imported by Petitioner for distribution in the U.S. For their services, Polte and Kleeman receive an annual stockholders' dividend from the profits of the corporation, which has been designated as a "management fee" in the corporate books. Their combined ownership of stock in the corporation amounts to 49 percent. Monaco and Branciforte, both American women, are 51 percent owners of the corporation. The gross sales of the company was approximately $350,000 in 1993, $700,000 in 1994 and $500,000 to date in 1995. In 1995, Petitioner sold approximately $180,000 of material through its European sales managers and purchased approximately $27,000 from them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Action Wire & Cable Corporation on April 27, 1994, be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner submitted in letter form proposed findings of fact. However, it contained, in paragraph form, comments on the evidence and argument which can not be specifically ruled upon. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 4 (in part), 5, 7 (in part), 8 (in part), 9. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 3, 4 (in part) 7 (in part), 8 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 6, 8 (in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Rosemarie N. Branciforte Vice President-Sales & Marketing Action Wire & Cable Corporation 4802 Distribution Court, Unit 2 Orlando, Florida 32822 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Senior Attorney 107 West Gaines Street 201 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Crandall Jones Executive Administrator Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the proposed decision of the Department of Health (Department) to award a contract to the Intervenor, Chauncey Group International and Experior Assessments, LLC (Chauncey Group), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, or policies of the Board of Health (Board), or the specifications of RFP-DOH00- 015 (RFP).
Findings Of Fact The Board of Nursing is a state board which regulates the practice of nursing in the state. The Department of Health is the state Department which, among other things, is charged with the provision of general health services to the citizens of the state. ASI is a corporation with headquarters in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. The Chauncey Group is located in Princeton, New Jersey. Both ASI and the Chauncey Group have experience in administering tests to determine whether applicants may be designated certified nursing assistants. The Board determined that it required the development and administration of its nursing assistant certification program competency examination in accordance with applicable federal and state guidelines for the development of valid, reliable, and legally defensible examinations. It further determined that this could best be accomplished by contracting with a private vendor. The Board designated Dr. Ruth Stiehl as its representative for the preparation of the RFP. The Board employed the services of the Department in the preparation and evaluation of the RFP. Jim Brewer, a purchasing analyst for the Department, was designated administrative lead in the preparation of the RFP. Eunice E. Filar, an employee of the Department, was the person who was in charge of assembling the RFP. Dr. David Paulson, the Department's Manager for Testing Services, was her supervisor. The RFP required written questions to be submitted before March 28, 2001, and set the mandatory pre-proposal conference for April 11, 2001. It provided that additional questions identified at the pre-proposal conference would be answered by email or fax until April 18, 2001. Proposals were due at 2:00 p.m. on May 9, 2001, according to Subsection 2.10 of the RFP, or 2:00 p.m. on May 10, 2001, according to Subsection 2.4 of the RFP, and Jim Brewer. The addendum of April 7, 2001, stated that they were due on May 10, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. That time and date, being the last, is the time and date which is operative. Proposals were to be evaluated beginning May 15, 2001. Evaluation training was on May 23, 2001, and was conducted by Juan Trujillo, a psychometrician with the Department. Evaluation training had originally been scheduled for May 16, 2001, but had to be cancelled because Mr. Trujillo was ill. The proposals were submitted in boxes which were opened by Jim Brewer on May 10, 2001. This was reflected by a document signed by Mr. Brewer and Diane Harper. The proposed services portion was reviewed first. The cost proposal was not opened until on or about May 24, 2001. Section 5 of the RFP provided instructions to prospective offerors. It included such information as to the composition of the title page, required a brief narrative indicating the responder's understanding of the project, addressed mandatory requirements, and addressed other matters. Subsection 5.4, specifically addressed mandatory requirements. The section listed 11 mandatory requirements and recited that the failure to comply with each and every mandatory requirement would render a bid non-responsive and that non- responsive bids would not be evaluated. The requirements included such things as the number of copies of the proposal required to be submitted, whether or not the submission was in the required format, and whether the submission included sample scheduling and administration manuals as provided elsewhere in the RFP. Subsection 5.4.3 was a mandatory requirement which read as follows: "Was the bid accompanied by a surety bond or certified check as specified in 2.12." Subsection 2.12, recited, in part, as follows: "All proposals shall be accompanied by a surety bond or certified check in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the submitted bid price's annual total and conditioned upon successful offeror submitting the specified performance bond within ten (10) calendar days following notice of award, in the form and manner required by the offeror. Failure by an offeror to provide the required bid guarantee in the manner stated, shall cause the proposal to be considered non-responsible [sic] to this solicitation." Department personnel certified mandatory criteria compliance on May 18, 2001. The signatures of Ms. Filar and Dr. Paulson on the form entitled "Part 1: Proposal Mandatory Criteria (amended)" indicated that both responders had met the mandatory requirements. When the proposals were submitted, the business relationship between Chauncey Group International and Experior Assessments, LLC., was in the nature of joint adventurers. Each provided the Department with a cover sheet reflecting that they were separate business entities and each entity signed the mandatory forms required by the RFP but, in fact, they had joined together to provide the service sought. There was no prohibition in the RFP against responses from partners or joint adventurers. In a letter dated May 30, 2001, the Chauncey Group informed Jim Brewer that the ownership structure had changed and that Chauncey Group International had purchased 100 percent of Experior Assessments, LLC. Mr. Brewer testified that he did not view this to be of any consequence and he did not consider this to be a supplemental response to the RFP. The letter did not give the Chauncey Group an advantage over ASI. The check which was provided to the Department for the joint venture was provided only by Experior Assessments, LLC. This was done despite ambiguous and inappropriate email advice from Jim Brewer that, "Yes, vendors responding as partners to our RFP should each submit a bond. The bond could represent each vendor's responsibility or share as long as this is clearly defined in the proposal." The advice from Mr. Brewer was contrary to the requirements of RFP Subsection 2.12. It was also contrary to the RFP because the time for asking questions of the Department, and receiving answers, had expired. However, this did not give the Chauncey Group any advantage and, in fact, the Chauncey Group failed to make the submission as suggested by Mr. Brewer. The check, submitted by Chauncey Group International was in the proper amount, and included funds from both Chauncey Group International and Experior Assessments, LLC. This submission complied with RFP Subsection 2.12 because there was only one proposal from the two entities, despite the submission of two cover sheets. Consequently, the certification by Ms. Filar and Dr. Paulson, that both responders met the mandatory requirements, was correct. Once it was determined that mandatory requirements had been met, then the four other major areas addressed in the RFP could be evaluated. This is provided by Subsection 6.3. These other areas were proposed services, which had a weight of 45.1 percent; reference checks, which had a weight of 9.9 percent; minority vendor participation, which had a weight of 5.1 percent; and cost, which had a weight of 39.9 percent. The proposed services portion of the RFPs was evaluated by Rosemarie Erwin, Cheryl O'Donoghue, Betty Hurley, Raquel Bassett, and Carrie Harris. The evaluators used a form entitled, "Revised RFP Evaluation Criteria-for CAN Services." They were not permitted to see the cost proposals. The proposed services portion of the evaluation could have generated up to 615 points for each proposer. All of the forms used by the proposed service evaluators were dated May 23, 2001. The last proposed service evaluation was turned in on May 31, 2001. The evaluators' background experience and knowledge of the areas and requirements of the RFP were sufficient; the evaluators were qualified, fair, and experienced. The evaluators arrived at varying conclusions, as would be expected. None of the evaluators' scores were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the requirements of the RFP. The reference checks were accomplished by Lee Skinner, a psychometrician who was an employee of the Department. The reference checks could have generated as many as 135 points for each proposer. The reference checks resulted in ASI attaining 125.6 points and the Chauncey Group receiving 118.3 points. The minority vendor participation was evaluated by Dr. Paulson, Mr. Brewer, and Ms. Filar on May 25, 2001. Neither the Chauncey Group nor ASI properly completed the minority vendor participation form. No points for minority vendor participation were awarded to either proposer. The minority vendor portion could have generated up to 70 points for each proposer. The cost proposals were evaluated by Dr. Paulson and Ms. Filar on May 25, 2001. The cost proposals could have generated up to 545 points for each proposer. The ASI cost proposal was zero for the line which stated: "5. Per applicant cost for written examination in Spanish (excluding audio tape)." Located by the zero in the space provided were two asterisks which were repeated below the authorized signature line. The sentence following the two asterisks stated as follows: "Please note: Spanish examinations are provided in oralformat [sic] only and include a test booklet." Subsection 3.9.5 of the RFP states, "Administer both a written portion and a skills-demonstration portion of the examination to eligible candidates." Subsection 3.9.5b of the RFP, at the tenth bullet, or "k" if the alphabet is continued after "b," states that the responder must, "Provide a Spanish language examination to a candidate requesting the translated exam. (Currently a Spanish written, oral and skills demonstration examination are provided at no additional cost)." ASI's response in the proposed services portion, at Subsection 4.5.K, which corresponds to Subsection 3.9.5b (tenth bullet) of the RFP, stated as follows: "ASI will continue to provide a written, oral and skills demonstration examination in Spanish when requested in advance by the candidate. A candidate who wants to take examination in Spanish must indicate such on their application and submit the appropriate fee. Under our current contract, ASI answered the State's additional needs by providing bilingual Nurse Aide Evaluators (over 15% of all Florida NAEs speak Spanish), allowing candidates to take the written and skills examinations in Spanish." ASI's response to item 5 in the cost proposal was not responsive because it provided only for oral examinations, and quoted no cost figure. Clearly, what was being solicited was the cost for written examinations. This resulted in the Chauncey Group's receiving ten more points in the cost category than ASI. The cost proposal figures, and the results of all of the other evaluations were put into a computer program by Ms. Filar and Dr. Paulson. The computer program generated the final results. Ms. Filar and Dr. Paulson were not, as previously noted, on the team which evaluated the proposed services. Ms. Filar and Dr. Paulson did not refer to the proposed services portion of ASI's response when addressing the cost proposals and they were not required to do so. Though it is clear what Richard Soule, vice-president of business development for ASI, meant to say in the cost proposal, the response must be evaluated only on what it actually says. On June 4, 2001, Dr. Paulson, by memorandum, forwarded the result of the evaluations to the Board. The memorandum had an attachment entitled "Evaluation of Proposals for RFP #DOH00- 051." The attachment elucidated the evaluation methodology used and provided details as to how the results were obtained. At a public meeting of the Board on June 13, 2001, the memorandum with the attachment was discussed. Ms. Filar was there to answer questions. Questions by board members were posed to Ms. Filar and she responded to them. A motion was made to award the contract as recommended by Dr. Paulson's memorandum with attachment and the motion was passed unanimously. The Board issued a Notice of Intent to award the contract to the Chauncey Group, five days later on June 19, 2001. The attachment considered by the Board reported that the Chauncey Group received a total of 1101.5 points and that ASI received 1060.9 points and asserted that the Chauncey Group was the winner. The point total was incorrect because in arriving at that figure, the attachment reported that the Chauncey Group received 125.6 on the reference checks and that ASI received 118.3. As noted above, it should have reflected that ASI received 125.6 and that the Chauncey Group received 118.3. Correcting this error, by adding 7.3 points to ASI's total, and deducting 7.3 points from the Chauncey Group score, results in final scores of 1094.2 for the Chauncey Group, and 1068.2 for ASI. This error alone would not affect the outcome of the recommendation to award the contract to the Chauncey Group or the Board's decision. However, the span between the scores, 26, is less than the 70 points which might have been awarded for minority vendor participation. As noted above, Dr. Paulson, Mr. Brewer, and Ms. Filar decided not to award points to either responder in the case of minority vendor participation. The standard for obtaining minority vendor participation points was set forth in the RFP as Part IV as the "Minority Vendor Participation Form." This form required the following: "(1) the name of the offeror company; (2) a statement as to whether or not the offeror qualified as a minority vendor; (3) a statement as to whether or not the offeror planned to use a minority business as a subcontractor; (4) the name and address of the subcontractor; and (5) how the minority subcontractor was to be used. In the case of ASI, Part IV, the "Minority Vendor Participation Form," was properly completed except for the question, "How do you plan to use the minority vendor." This question was not answered at all in the Part IV form. Even though Part IV was the only place in the RFP in which minority vendor participation was noted, the form itself is presented as an evaluation tool. There was no requirement that responders complete the form so long as the information was provided. Accordingly, it was of no consequence where the information was reported. ASI responded to the question as to how they would utilize minority vendors in Subsection 4.5.C of their technical response. This response was buried deep in ASI's proposed services response, and its location caused the Department to miss it entirely. Nevertheless, it is responsive and should have been considered for what it was worth. In the case of the Chauncey Group, Part IV, the "Minority Vendor Participation Form," was not provided at all. Instead, a document entitled Minority Business Enterprises was included. It provided the name of the offeror company, the Chauncey Group. The submission failed to note whether the Chauncey Group was or was not a qualifying minority vendor, although the overall context of the submission made it clear that the Chauncey Group was not a qualifying minority vendor. The submission stated that the Chauncey Group, was, "negotiating in good faith with the Minority Business Enterprise vendors listed below, and will select one to use on this contract." This responded to the requirement that the offeror plan to use a minority business as a subcontractor. The names and addresses of the proposed subcontractors were provided. The Chauncey Group met the final requirement by explaining that the minority vendor selected would provide printing and mailing services. As noted above, 70 points were available for minority vendor participation. There were no standards provided in the RFP for awarding points in this category. The efforts of both proposers were so minimal in the area of minority vendor participation that it was not arbitrary for the Department to assign no points in this category. Subsequently, the Department properly informed the Board that neither proposer received any points for minority vendor participation. The error which changed the point totals, involving the reference checks, doe not change the fact that the Chauncey Group received the most points. The Board was correct when it decided to issue a Notice of Intent to award the contract to the Chauncey Group.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the contract be awarded to the Chauncey Group. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Jeffrey L. Frehn, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, 12th Floor Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Douglas A. Mang, Esquire Wendy R. Wiener, Esquire Mang Law Firm, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ruth R. Stiehl, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Amy Jones, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted certification as a Minority Business Enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dora Industries, Inc. (Dora Industries), was started in 1989 by Sandra Roth (Roth), an American woman. Roth owns all of the company. Initially, Dora Industries bought janitorial and maintenance products from other companies and sold the products as a distributor. Roth graduated from Hunter College with a degree in graphic arts. From 1979 to 1985, she worked for Union Carbide in North Carolina doing research for the chemical division. She was later placed in charge of dealing with third world countries on ways to use chemicals in agriculture. In 1986, Roth went to work for Gold Coast Chemical Corporation (Gold Coast Corporation), which was owned by Eli Finkleberg. Her role at Gold Coast Corporation included doing the paperwork necessary for registering the chemicals manufactured by Gold Coast Corporations with the appropriate regulatory agency. In 1989, Roth formed Dora Industries and married Eli Finkleberg. Dora Industries purchased some of its products from Gold Coast Corporation. Due to ill health, Eli Finkleberg put Gold Coast Corporation up for sale in 1993. The company was advertised for sale in trade magazines. Using funds which Roth had acquired from the dissolution of a previous marriage, she purchased the manufacturing operations of Gold Coast Corporation in 1993. The purchase price was $96,000, which consisted of $47,091 in cash and the remainder in the assumption and payment of certain leases and contracts. In addition, Roth agreed to renegotiate the lease of the real property on which Gold Coast Corporation was housed to include the costs of clean up for hazardous materials which were found in the ground underneath the Gold Coast Corporation warehouse. The landlord attributed the presence of the hazardous materials to Gold Coast Corporation. The estimated cost of the clean up was not to exceed $200,000. The inventory of Gold Coast Corporation was not included in the sale. However, the inventory remained in the warehouse previously occupied by Gold Coast Corporation and was handled for Gold Coast Corporation by Dora Industries d/b/a Gold Coast Chemical Products (Gold Coast Products). After the inventory was sold Gold Coast Corporation no longer sold any products and has not actively sold chemicals for the last two years. Currently Dora Industries is manufacturing chemical cleaning products, distributing its own products and the products of other companies, and exporting products. Eli Finkleberg is the treasurer and a salaried employee of Dora Industries. His responsibilities include interviewing applicants for sales positions, running the sales division of the company, overseeing the sales manager, and supervising the office staff. His annual salary is approximately $35,000. Due to his poor health, he works between four and six hours a day. Jerome Berman is the general manager in charge of operations for Dora Industries. Mr. Berman owned and ran a chemical company for 23 years prior to coming to work for Dora Industries. His responsibilities include ordering all materials and supplies used in the production of and resale of industrial supplies, hiring and firing of all warehouse and distribution personnel, complying with governmental regulations, bidding, and supervising the warehouse and productions. Mr. Berman's annual salary is $57,000. Both Mr. Berman and Mr. Finkleberg have the authority to sign checks on the Dora Industries account. Mr. Berman's authority is limited to $5,000. Roth is responsible for making major purchases for the business such as a telephone system which she recently acquired. Roth employs a chemist who is responsible for the formulas used in the manufacture of the chemical products. This is the third chemist which Roth has employed since she started Dora Industries. Some of the formulas are given to Dora Industries by the suppliers of the raw materials, and some formulas are developed by the chemist. Roth does not have the expertise to develop formulas but she does have the expertise to manufacture a batch of products using a formula. Each day Roth discusses the sales and operations with Mr. Finkleberg and Mr. Berman, respectively. In the hiring of sales personnel, Roth meets the applicants which have been interviewed by Mr. Finkleberg and makes the final decision on who to hire. Roth has delegated the hiring of the hourly wage personnel in the warehouse to Mr. Berman. According to Berman, he advises Roth who he intends to hire in case she should have an objection. Mr. Berman has to report the reasons that he fires personnel to Roth. Roth did the bidding for the company before Mr. Berman was hired. Mr. Berman follows a set formula of cost plus a percentage of profit in the bidding process and requests permission from Roth before making any significant deviations from the formula. Eli Finkleberg owns Trout and Associates, which is a telemarketing firm selling cleaning chemicals to companies outside of Florida. Trout and Associates has one full-time employee and one part-time employee. The full-time employee is housed in an office in the building occupied by Dora Industries. Trout and Associates buys some of its products from Dora Industries for resale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorenzo Ramunno, Esquire 1882 North University Drive Plantation, Florida 33322 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle Southeast 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle Southeast 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for certifying persons as minority business enterprises. Petitioner applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. Petitioner is a minority business enterprise within the meaning of Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes. 1/ Petitioner is a small business concern, domiciled in Florida, and organized to engage in commercial transactions. Petitioner is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Ms. Sandra A. Pichney, vice president, and by Mr. D.B. Young, president. Petitioner engages in the roof consulting business. Ms. Pichney owns 51 percent of Petitioner's outstanding stock. Ms. Pichney is a member of a minority group for purposes of Chapter 288. The remaining 49 percent of Petitioner's outstanding stock is owned by Mr. Young. Mr. Young is a licensed architect. No professional license is required for Petitioner to engage in the business of roof consulting. Petitioner has all of the occupational licenses required to engage in the commercial transactions required to conduct its business. Ms. Pichney has 16 years experience in the roof consulting business. Ms. Pichney controls the daily management and operations of Petitioner's business. Ms. Pichney: manages and operates the office; and is responsible for payroll, accounts receivable, and general financial matters. Ms. Pichney conducts field visits, estimates jobs, reviews projects, and rewrites specifications. Ms. Pichney is the person who signs checks for Petitioner in the ordinary course of Petitioner's trade or business. Mr. Young is authorized to sign checks but only signs checks in emergencies. Ms. Pichney hires and fires personnel. Ms. Pichney consults with Mr. Young, but the ultimate responsibility is born by Ms. Pichney. Ms. Pichney reviews specifications and design work for specific projects and makes amendments where appropriate. Original specifications and design work are prepared by Mr. Young and other personnel. Mr. Young, and other personnel, can be terminated by Ms. Pichney without cause. Mr. Young can be terminated as an employee at any time by Ms. Pichney, without cause. Mr. Young has no employment agreement or shareholder agreement with the company. The board of directors are comprised of Ms. Pichney and Mr. Young. Any director may be dismissed by a majority of the shareholders. As the majority shareholder, Ms. Pichney can terminate Mr. Young, as a director, without cause. Ms. Pichney and Mr. Young receive salaries and monthly draws. Although salaries are equal, monthly draws and dividends are distributed in proportion to the stock ownership of each shareholder. Ms. Pichney has exclusive use of the company car. Ms. Pichney's stock ownership has increased over the last two years because Mr. Young has been unable to attend to the demands of Petitioner's business due to Mr. Young's divorce. Ms. Pichney has properly reported the increase in stock ownership, for purposes of the federal income tax, and has, and will, pay the requisite income tax on her increased stock ownership. Ms. Pichney and Mr. Young consult with each other in making significant decisions in the ordinary course of Petitioner's business. However, the ultimate responsibility for those decisions is born by Ms. Pichney.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 22nd day of July, 1995.
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was incorporated in July 1992. Petitioner is a graphic design firm specializing in strategic, market-driven design. Petitioner conducts market analysis of a client and, only after defining the corporate identity of the client, engages in the development of suitable graphic design. Mary Francis Weathington is the president and chief executive officer of Petitioner. Her experience in communications began in 1980 as a technical writer and editor. From 1989-92, Ms. Weathington served as an account supervisor for an advertising firm. In this role, Ms. Weathington supervised all junior account executives, developed marketing plans, presented proposals to clients, and communicated client needs to agency staff. Ms. Weathington started Petitioner with John LoCastro, who had worked with her at the advertising agency during the same period of time. Mr. LoCastro was responsible for concept development, management, and design direction at the advertising agency. A third person, David Miller, was also involved with the formation of Petitioner. Mr. Miller served as secretary and treasurer, Mr. LoCastro as vice president, and Ms. Weathington as president. Until December 31, 1993, when Mr. Miller resigned from Petitioner, the three principals each owned 50 shares of the 150 issued shares of Petitioner. The capital contribution of each principal was valued at $4500. When he left the company, Mr. Miller transferred his stock to Petitioner in a transaction that required him to pay money to the company due to its thin capitalization and performance. At the same time, Ms. Weathington purchased two more shares. In the summer of 1994, Ms. Weathington bought three more shares and Mr. LoCastro's wife bought two shares. Presently, Ms. Weathington owns 55 shares, Mr. LoCastro owns 50 shares, and Mrs. LoCastro owns two shares. Petitioner has not issued other shares. Petitioner's board of directors consists of Ms. Weathington, her husband, Mr. LoCastro, and his wife. However, Mr. Weathington is a nonvoting director. Besides the two principals, Petitioner employs only one other fulltime employee, an office manager who is responsible for answering the phone, bookkeeping, proofreading, and handling miscellaneous clerical duties. Petitioner also employs, as needed, freelance graphic designers. Petitioner has recently employed a freelance copywriter. In a small company like Petitioner, there is necessarily some sharing of responsibilities in order to secure and produce design work and ensure that payables and receivables are properly managed. However, there are clear areas of responsibility for Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. As his resume states, Mr. LoCastro is "[r]esponsible for overall creative management, with an emphasis on creative development, planning and design." He is in charge of visual graphics and does nearly all of the computer graphics work, unless it is assigned to a freelancer. Ms. Weathington is responsible for marketing in two respects. First, she markets for Petitioner. She has brought a large majority of the clients to Petitioner and continues to remain responsible for their use of the company. Second, Ms. Weathington assists the clients in developing advertising and design programs that will effectively market the products and services of the clients. Ms. Weathington conducts market research of a client's needs and prepares advertising and design strategies to maintain and enhance the client's business. Ms. Weathington also is chiefly responsible for the management and administration of Petitioner. The office manager's bookkeeping duties are performed under the supervision of Ms. Weathington, who handles personnel, purchasing, planning, and accounting. Although the signatures of both principals are required on checks over $500, this requirement reflects security concerns and does not have a bearing on the division of responsibilities between Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. Although Mr. LoCastro is responsible for the in-house visuals, Ms. Weathington is responsible for copywriting, which is performed in-house nearly in its entirety. Each principal has been required to guarantee personally the debt of Petitioner. But, given the greater assets of Ms. Weathington, the financial risk is actually borne by her, not Mr. LoCastro. Petitioner's lender would not have made the loan on Mr. LoCastro's guarantee alone, but would have on Ms. Weathington's guarantee alone. Ms. Weathington's control of Petitioner is evidenced in other respects. Petitioner pays for a cellular telephone for her, but not Mr. LoCastro. The marketing brochure prepared by Petitioner features Ms. Weathington in a superior role to the subordinate roles of Mr. LoCastro and Mr. Miller. Ms. Weathington's indispensable contribution to Petitioner is documented by gross sales figures for 1993, during which, for personal reasons, she was unable to work in the spring and fall. When she returned to work in the summer, gross sales increased from less than $10,000 per month to over $50,000 per month. When she left work again in the fall, gross monthly sales fell again to the $20,000 level. Profits have also increased by 16 percent since Ms. Weathington's return.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for minority business enterprise certification. ENTERED on January 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 24, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 8, 9, and 12: adopted, although based on the facts and not a claimed concession or absence of dispute. 22: adopted, except that the evidence showed only that gross revenues went down during Ms. Weathington's absences. Nothing in the record addressed net earnings or profits during these periods. Remaining proposed findings: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1 (first sentence): adopted. 1 (remainder)-4 (except for last sentence): rejected as subordinate. 4 (last sentence): adopted. 5-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 10: to the extent not subordinate, adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and recitation of evidence. 20 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 20 (second sentence): rejected as legal argument. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the implication that, as a practical matter, Mr. LoCastro's guarantee represents as real a financial risk as Ms. Weathington's guarantee. 22 (first sentence): adopted. 22 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Increased sales does not mean increased profits, and nothing in the record indicates increased profits. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John S. Derr Bush & Derr, P.A. 2874-A Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 Attorney Cindy Horne Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be certified by Respondent as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (Jupiter), is an environmental testing laboratory established in October 1995. The services performed by Jupiter include testing samples of water, oil, soil, and waste water in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency standards. Jupiter also tests for inorganic and organic compounds by mass spectrography and gas chromatography. Jupiter is owned 70 percent by Glynda Russell, a female, and 30 percent by her husband, Edward Dabrea, who is a non- minority. Prior to forming Jupiter, Ms. Russell had not worked in a laboratory such as Jupiter. Her work experience had been in real estate and selling women's apparel. According to Ms. Russell she did gain some knowledge and experience in environmental testing because she was a customer of testing laboratories while she was in the real estate business. She became familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency's requirements while she was investigating environmental impacts when she was a realtor. Mr. Dubrea has a degree in earth science (geology) and has done post graduate studies in geoscience (organic geochemistry). He has extensive work experience in environmental testing laboratories. Both Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea are jointly liable for a $50,000 loan from the Small Business Administration and a $15,000 line of credit. Ms. Russell has also incurred debt of over $100,000 on her personal credit card for Jupiter's expenses. The company has three equipment leases which Ms. Russell signed and indicated she was personally liable. Ms. Russell also signed the lease for the space occupied by the business. Ms. Russell is the president of the corporation. Her duties include directing all marketing, sales, and financial operations. She is responsible for recruiting and hiring personnel, maintaining state certifications, prioritization of work flow (sample pick-up, sample log-in and report generation), bid pricing, selection of subcontracting laboratories, customer service and purchasing of supplies. Mr. Dabrea is the Technical Director for the company. In addition to working for Jupiter, he does freelance research. His resume states that his work at Jupiter includes the following: Planned and organized all technical details for new laboratory, including equipment requirements and analytical supplies. Received and setup instrumentation, performs necessary calibrations. Coordinates information with Laboratory Director and QA/QC Officer. Develops new methods and provides research assistance to clients with unusual assessments. Coordinates between laboratory and governmental agency to ensure compliance. Submits performance evaluation studies to E. P. A. for certification on quarterly basis. Responsible for ensuring adequate instrument capacity for continued growth of the company. Cliff Ross, a non-minority, is the Laboratory Director and works part-time for Jupiter. Start-up funds for Jupiter were contributed by Ms. Russell and Mr. Dabrea. Ms. Russell contributed $25,000 in cash, and computer equipment worth approximately $8,000. Mr. Dabrea contributed an $11,000 truck and $5,000 in computer equipment. Ms. Russell contributed 67 percent and Mr. Dabrea contributed 32 percent. Jupiter is certified in certain categories of environmental water testing by the State of Florida, Department of Health, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. In order to acquire such certification, tests must be performed in the laboratory by qualified technical personnel with the proper educational credentials. In order to acquire the certification for Jupiter, the tests were performed by Mr. Dabrea and Mr. Ross. Ms. Russell is not technically or educationally qualified to perform the tests required for certification. It is not necessary to have the certification to operate an environmental laboratory, but many companies acquire the certification as a marketing tool. Ms. Russell indicated in her response to the denial of her certification that "current market conditions make it all but impossible to get work without it." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Ms. Russell can perform the extractions. Once the extractions are done for certain types of testing, the testing is automated. She cannot do chromatography. The Quality Assurance Director for Jupiter is Pamela Shore-Loeb. Her duties include responsibilities for all quality assurance and quality control requirements to ensure continued State of Florida laboratory certifications and project management to a growing client list. She, along with Ms. Russell, developed the quality assurance manual used by the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner, Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc., meets the requirements of Rule 38A-20.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, but does not meet the requirements of Rules 38A- 20.005(3)(c), (d)1, 4 and (6) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the final order should deny Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Glynda E. Russell, President Jupiter Environmental Laboratories, Inc. 220 Venus Street, Suite 16 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue for determination at final hearing was whether Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise pursuant to Section 287.09451, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 38A- 20, Florida Administrative Code, by the Office of the Supplier Diversity of the Department of Management Services.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation seeking certification in the field of "Sales and Installation of Network and Telephone Cabling" under the minority status of female-owned company. Fifty-one percent of Petitioner's stock is owned by Cynthia Martin, a white female, and 49 percent is owned by her husband, a white male. Until shortly before submitting its application, Petitioner corporation had previously operated as a sole proprietorship under the ownership of Keith Martin. The majority of the assets of Petitioner came from the previous sole proprietorship when Petitioner was formed. According to Mrs. Martin's testimony and payroll information submitted by Petitioner, Keith Martin received twice the salary of Cynthia Martin. Cynthia Martin is a full-time employee of the State of Florida. There is no evidence of employment for Keith Martin other than with Petitioner. The corporate documents in evidence reflect that since incorporation Cynthia Martin has been vice-president and secretary of the corporation, while Keith Martin has been president and treasurer. Petitioner's checks may be signed by either Keith Martin or Cynthia Martin and only one signature is required on each corporate check. Petitioner's Articles of Incorporation provide that the number of directors shall be determined in the By-Laws. The initial directors were Keith Martin and Cynthia Martin. The By- Laws provide that the corporation shall be managed by two directors, and that the number of directors may be increased only by amendment of the By-Laws. Also, a majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. This provision of the By-Laws has not been changed. At the organizational meeting of Petitioner, Keith Martin was elected president and treasurer, and Cynthia Martin was elected vice- president and secretary. No other documents were introduced into evidence reflecting any changes to the articles of incorporation or the By-Laws. The documentation submitted by Petitioner, and prepared by Cynthia Martin, consistently reflect Keith Martin as the president of the company and Cynthia Martin as vice-president. Cynthia Martin's duties include bookkeeping and performing administrative functions. Keith Martin's duties include the installation of cabling for local area networks and phone systems, picking up goods to be used on contracts, preparing daily timesheets and generating the paperwork necessary for billing clients, preparing quotations for clients, consulting with clients to determine needs, installation of phone systems and providing sales, service, and repair for clients. Cynthia Martin's duties for Petitioner are performed on her days off from her full-time employment, and on nights and weekends. The fact that Cynthia Martin owns 51 percent of the stock of Petitioner is important at stockholder meetings. At such meetings, she is entitled to one vote for each share owned, thereby allowing her to control stockholder meetings and effectively determine the directors of the company. The company is managed by the directors, while the day-to-day operations are managed by the officers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Office of Supplier Diversity enter a final order denying Tele-Net Communications, Inc.'s, application to be a certified minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 25th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: O. Earl Black, Jr., Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Cynthia Martin Tele-Net Communications, Inc. Post Office Box 11784 Jacksonville, Florida 32239 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Windell Paige, Director Office of Supplier Diversity Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
