Findings Of Fact Mill-It Corporation is a Florida Corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Ben Guzman, a stipulated member of a recognized minority group, is the President of the Petitioner Corporation. Additionally, Mr. Guzman owns 26 percent of the stock. The other stockholders are James E. Quinn (24 percent), Myrna Bortell (26 percent), and Edward T. Quinn, Jr., (24 percent). Ms. Bortell is also a member of a qualified minority. The Petitioner Corporation was formed in August, 1983. The first three months of its existence was spent obtaining the necessary licenses, permits, loans, and equipment. Mr. Guzman was primarily responsible for these activities. During this time period, Mr. Guzman was required to return to Chicago, his former home, to undergo surgery on his arm. During his absence, he delegated minimal authority to Edward T. Quinn, Jr., in order that the Corporation could continue to operate. During Mr. Guzman's absence, he maintained control of the Corporation through frequent telephonic communications with Mr. Quinn. Just before Mr. Guzman was required to go to Chicago for the surgery, Mill-It Corporation had taken delivery of its milling machine. The machine had been in the possession of Mill-It Corporation for only one week and Mr. Guzman had not had an opportunity to run the machine prior to his departure. Mr. Guzman relied on Mr. Quinn because they had known each other for approximately 25 years and Mr. Guzman was aware of Mr. Quinn's knowledge of the road building business and the necessary steps to establish Mill-It Corporation as a viable business in Florida. Mr. Guzman returned to Florida for the onsite inspection by an agent of the Respondent, but he was still under a doctor's care and was on various types of medication for pain. Mr. Guzman returned to Chicago for additional medical treatment following the onsite inspection, and he did not return to Florida until January, 1984. In January, 1984, Mr. Guzman began to completely learn the operation and mechanics of running and maintaining the milling machine and he assumed the complete responsibility for overseeing all the projects of the milling operation. Mr. Guzman originally relied upon the expertise of Edward T. Quinn, Jr. in the field of bidding, but Mr. Guzman always supplied the necessary figures and data for the bid. Mr. Guzman hired Edward T. Quinn, Jr., as his sales representative and estimator. After the brief learning period, however, Mr. Guzman began to totally supervise the bidding procedures and began directing Mr. Quinn to attend various bid lettings with the figures supplied by Mr. Guzman. At the time of the onsite inspection, Mill-It Corporation had completed only its organizational phase of becoming a business entity. In fact the milling machine was such a recent acquisition that during the onsite inspection Mr. Guzman had not had time to learn the technical aspects of the operation and mechanics of the machine. After the onsite inspection, Mr. Guzman assumed responsibility for operation of the milling machine and supervising the overall performance of the job. Additionally, James Quinn also operated the machine. Mr. Guzman has the authority to hire and fire employees, sign checks, correspond on behalf of the corporation, enter into contracts, and purchase equipment on behalf of the corporation. Cancelled payroll and vendor's checks, correspondence to and from the company, bonding contracts, insurance contracts, and corporate documents were all signed by Mr. Guzman. All major business decisions are made by Mr. Guzman after considering the advise of the other officers and stockholders. All day-to-day decisions are made by Mr. Guzman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Mill-It Corporation's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: RUSSELL H. CULLEN, JR., ESQUIRE P. O. BOX 1114 ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32701 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 PAUL A. PAPPAS, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
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
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of JEDI Enterprises, Inc., for certification as a minority business enterprise be APPROVED. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas G. Brown, Esquire Florida National Bank Bldg. 301 First Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mark A. Linsky, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue Whether Gwenda J. Haas-Amey has control of the management and daily operations of Barton S. Amey Company, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Barton S. Amey Company, Inc., began operating in November, 1983. The Petitioner is a Florida corporation. The primary business of the Petitioner is the construction and renovation of commercial buildings. Gwenda J. Haas-Amey and Barton S. Amey are the only stockholders of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are husband and wife. Mr. Amey holds a bachelor's degree and master's degree in building construction. Mr. Amey holds a class-A contractor's license from the State of Florida. He is the qualifying agent of the Petitioner. Mr. Amey has over 10 years of experience in construction prior to the formation of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey holds a B.S. degree, a master's degree and a doctorate degree in early childhood education. Dr. Haas-Amey has taken 30 hours of courses in administration at the doctorate level. Dr. Haas-Amey is not licensed in construction and has no direct work experience in construction prior to 1983. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are directors of the Petitioner. They have been the only directors of the corporation. Mr. Amey is the president of the Petitioner. Mr. Amey has always been the president of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey is the secretary/treasurer of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas- Amey has always been the secretary/treasurer of the Petitioner. From November, 1983, until approximately April 1986, Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey each owned 50 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. In approximately April, 1986, Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey decided that Dr. Haas-Amey would own 60 percent of the stock of the Petitioner and Mr. Amey would own 40 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey first testified that she decided how the stock would be owned. Dr. Haas-Amey later testified that the decision as to the ownership of the stock was made by the directors of the Petitioner. No evidence was presented to explain how 10 percent of the stock of the Petitioner was transferred from Mr. Amey to Dr. Haas-Amey, i.e., gift, sale, exchange, corporate reorganization, redemption. Also in April of 1986, the directors appointed Dr. Haas-Amey as chief executive officer of the Petitioner. No evidence was presented to explain what the legal duties or powers of the chief executive officer of the Petitioner are, i.e., by-laws, articles of incorporation, minutes of directors' meetings. Dr. Haas-Amey did testify that the president reports to the chief executive officer. In June of 1986 the request for certification as a minority business enterprise was filed by Dr. Haas-Amey. The request is based upon Dr. Haas- Amey's minority status as a woman and her ownership of more than 51 percent of the stock of the Petitioner. In the request for certification there was no indication that Dr. Haas-Amey is the chief executive officer of the Petitioner. It is only indicated that she is the secretary of the Petitioner. Section VI(1) of the request for certification includes the following request: Minority owners Possess Control over the Management and Daily Operation of the Business Identify the person(s) responsible for the day to day management and operation of the company. List the major responsibilities for each person after their name. In response to Section VI(1) of the request, the following answer was given: Dr. Gwenda J. Haas-Amey - public relations, marketing, personnel, bidding review Barton S. Amey - estimating, bidding/negotiations, production. Either Dr. Haas-Amey or Mr. Amey can sign checks on the Petitioner's accounts. Both have signed checks. Dr. Haas-Amey signs most of the checks. The Petitioner does not own much equipment. Dr. Haas-Amey has purchased a copier and a warehouse for the Petitioner. She is also purchasing a dump-lift truck for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey's knowledge of the construction business has been obtained as a result of her marriage to Mr. Amey for the past 9 and a half years and 3 and a half years working for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey's knowledge of business has been obtained in part from her experience as the manager of two day-care centers. The Petitioner's business has grown since Dr. Haas-Amey became more active in the business. Dr. Haas-Amey works full-time for the Petitioner and has no other full-time employment. Mr. Amey is the technical construction expert of the Petitioner. Prior to April, 1986, Mr. Amey made the construction decisions and Dr. Haas-Amey made the management decisions for the Petitioner. After April, 1986, Mr. Amey still makes many of the construction decisions. Although Mr. Amey testified that generally Dr. Haas-Amey does not consult with him or vice versa, the weight of the evidence proves that they do consult with each other. When questioned about specific instances, Mr. Amey testified that they consulted. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey consult with other persons working for the Petitioner, including the secretaries, sub-contractors, laborers and field supervisors. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey spend about the same amount of time in the Petitioner's office and in the field. The vast majority of their time is spent in the office. The Petitioner's office is located in Dr. Haas-Amey's and Mr. Amey's residence. Dr. Haas-Amey owns the residence. Mr. Amey is a co-signor of the mortgage on the residence. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey review daily progress reports from the field and verify whether progress payments should be made. Since the 60-40 split of the stock of the Petitioner, Dr. Haas-Amey has signed contracts on behalf of the Petitioner. Prior to the split of stock, Mr. Amey signed, as president of the Petitioner, sub-contractor agreements and owner/contractor agreements on behalf of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey reviews requests for bids, looks at competitors and decides whether to submit a bid. Mr. Amey estimates the cost of projects to be bid on. Dr. Haas-Amey reviews Mr. Amey's cost estimates and can make adjustments. Dr. Haas-Amey then submits the bid and conducts any negotiations. Dr. Haas-Amey negotiates with sub-contractors and decides who to hire and fire. The Petitioner has two part-time secretaries. They do the typing for the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey interviewed persons applying for the secretarial positions. Dr. Haas-Amey made the ultimate decision on who was hired. Mr. Amey testified that a Mr. Hicks was hired as a field supervisor by the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey interviewed Mr. Hicks and the other applicants. Mr. Amey testified that Dr. Haas-Amey made the ultimate decision to hire Mr. Hicks. The problem with this testimony is that Mr. Hicks was hired in August of 1985. This was before the stock of the Petitioner was held 60-40 and before Dr. Haas-Amey was elected as the chief executive officer of the Petitioner. At that time the stock was owned 50-50 and Mr. Amey was the president of the Petitioner. The evidence did not prove that Dr. Haas-Amey controls the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory or services, the financial affairs of the Petitioner or the Petitioner's business accounts or that she has the authority to hire and fire. The Board of Directors of the Petitioner controls (has the power or right to act) the purchase of goods, equipment, business inventory and services, the financial affiars of the Petitioner and the Petitioner's business accounts, and has the authority to hire and fire. Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey are members of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner. Although Dr. Haas-Amey has been making some of the decisions concerning these corporate functions, she has done so as one of two directors of the Petitioner. A single director does not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the entire Board of Directors. Therefore, her decisions have been made either with the tacit approval of the other director of the Petitioner, Mr. Amey, or her decisions were invalidly made because they were not made with the approval of both directors of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey has knowledge of the finanical structure of the Petitioner. Dr. Haas-Amey has the capability, knowledge and experience necessary to make some decisions with regard to commercial construction. The evidence did not prove that Dr. Haas-Amey has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major aspects of the Petitioner's business.
Recommendation Based upon on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3954 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance or of Fact Number Reason for Rejection 1 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 41. 2 RO 24. 3 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 41. 4 RO 37, 39 and 40. Dr. Haas-Amey does have knowledge of the financial structure of the Petitioner (see RO 42) but the weight of the evidence does not support a finding of fact that she controls the financial affairs of the Petitioner. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 23 and 41. 7 RO 23. 8 9, 10 and 12 Hereby accepted. These proposed findings of fact are too 11 broad. See RO 43. RO 9. 13 RO 29. 14 RO 36 15 RO 37. 16 17 Not supported by evidence. RO 17. the weight of the 18-19 RO 28. 20 RO 38. 21 Irrelevant. 22 Not supported by evidence. the weight of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 RO 3-4 and 15. 2 RO 2. 3 RO 3 and 14. 4 RO 5-7. 5 RO 8 and 10. 6 RD 11. 7 RO 12-13. 8 RO 15 and 17. 9 RO 19-20. 10 RO 21-22. 11 Hereby accepted. 12 RO 30-31. 13 RO 23. 14 15 RO 33. The home/office is not by Dr. Haas-Amey and Mr. Amey. RO 36. "owned" 16-17 RO 35. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sandar E. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee L. Haas, Esquire Baxter, Rinard and Winters, P.A. Post Office Drawer 2636 Clearwater, Florida 33517
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
Findings Of Fact Anthony Charles Fabian, a journeyman electrician, is the president of Fabian's Electrical Contracting, Inc. (FEC). Mr. Fabian owns 51 percent of the stock in FEC. FEC was incorporated in 1984 and since that time has been continuously engaged in the electrical contracting business. Although FEC shares office space with other business entities, it is an independent business operation not affiliated with any other business. In 1987, FEC applied for and received certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Mr. Fabian has at all times maintained he is entitled to MBE status as a Hispanic American. Mr. Fabian was born in Tampa, Florida and lived in a Hispanic neighborhood there until he was six years old. During the time he resided in Tampa, Mr. Fabian's neighbors, family, and friends used Spanish as their predominant language. The family culture was Cuban as was that of the area where the family resided. At age six Mr. Fabian moved from Tampa to Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Fabian later moved from Pensacola to Tallahassee mid-way through his sixth grade school year. School mates in Pensacola and Tallahassee called him various ethnic nicknames, all related to his Hispanic ancestry. Such names included: "Julio," "Taco," "Spic," "El Cubano," and "Cuban Wheatman." Other than an affection for Cuban food, Mr. Fabian currently has no cultural practices to tie him to his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian does not speak Spanish. Mr. Fabian does not reside in a predominantly Hispanic community. Mr. Fabian does not practice the religious faith of his progenitors. Mr. Fabian does not instruct his child in any Cuban cultural practice. Mr. Fabian does not know of any Spanish cultural practice that came to him from his family. Mr. Fabian has never been refused work because of his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian's mother has no Hispanic progenitors. Mr. Fabian's father, also born in Tampa, Florida, has the following ancestors: his father (Mr. Fabian's grandfather) was born in Spain, his mother (Mr. Fabian's grandmother) was born in Key West. Mr. Fabian's grandmother, Anna Rodriguez Fabian, (who Mr. Fabian spent time with in Tampa) spoke Spanish and claimed Cuban heritage as both of her parents had immigrated from there to Key West. For this reason, Mr. Fabian maintains he is a Cuban from Tampa. None of Mr. Fabian's grandparents was born in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean. He has never claimed otherwise. Sometime after FEC obtained certification as a MBE, the Department adopted what is now codified as Rule 60A-2.001(8), Florida Administrative Code. Such rule defines "origins" as used in Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to mean that a Hispanic American must substantiate his cultural and geographic derivations by at least one grandparent's birth. In July, 1992, when FEC submitted its recertification affidavit, the Department notified Mr. Fabian that he had failed to establish that at least one of his grandparents was born in one of the applicable geographic locations. Accordingly, Mr. Fabian was advised his request for recertification would be denied. Approximately eleven other persons have been denied minority status because they were unable to substantiate origin by the birth of a grandparent. Of those eleven, none had been previously certified. FEC is the only formerly certified MBE which has been denied recertification because of the rule. However, when FEC was granted certification in 1987 it was not based upon the Department's agreement that Mr. Fabian met the statutory definition of a Hispanic American. Such certification was issued in settlement to the preliminary denial of certification since the word "origins," as used in the statute, had not as yet been defined by rule. Additionally, the recertification of FEC was based upon Department error and not an acceptance that Mr. Fabian met the "origins" test. Finally, in 1991, the Department cured the rule deficiencies to create parallel requirements for certification and recertification for MBE status. When FEC submitted it recertification affidavit under the current rule, the request was denied. Mr. Fabian has been aware of the Department's position regarding his requests for certification from the outset. The Department promulgated the "origins" rule in response to a number of applications for MBE status from persons with distant relations or ancestors within the minority classifications. The necessity for an "origins" rule was demonstrated since the Department needed a clear standard which staff and the public could recognize as the dividing line for who would and would not qualify as a Hispanic American, and since the purpose of the program is to provide preferences in contracting to businesses run by individuals who have been disadvantaged. The standard devised afforded a narrowly drawn, recognizable criterion. In deciding to use the grandparent test, the Department looked to outside sources. Since there was no legislative history resolving the "origins" issue, the Department sought guidance from dictionary definitions and statutory uses in other contexts. In promulgating the rule, the Department gave notice to outside sources, including groups listed in the publication Doing Business in Florida, such as the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Commerce, small business development centers, community development corporations, local minority business certification offices, and the Minority Business Advocate's office. At the public hearing conducted for the purpose of receiving input regarding the grandparent test, no one offered opposition to the "origins" definition. Mr. Fabian is not a black American as defined in Section 288.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's recertification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 28th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6777 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 25, 28 through 31, 33 through 41, 43, 44, 46 through 50, 60, 64, and 70 are accepted. The first sentence in paragraph 8 is accepted. With regard to the second sentence it is accepted that the neighbors et al enjoyed Cuban food and cultural aspects but spoke Spanish. No proof was submitted that a language of "Cuban" was spoken by the community. The last sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant, otherwise the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as an incomplete statement of fact which, of itself, is insufficient to stand without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. With regard to paragraph 27 it is accepted Mr. Fabian has 16 years of experience, otherwise rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as not supported by the evidence or irrelevant. Mr. Fabian does have a phone number whether that number is listed in the telephone book is not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 45 are accepted. It is also accepted that Lewis & Thompson have used other minority subcontractors. Whether they "regularly" use them is irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as comment or argument. With regard to paragraph 52, it is accepted that Mr. De La O did not visit a job site; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 53, 54, and 55 are accepted as the applicable law of this case, not fact. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 57 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; the definition also applies to other minorities. Paragraph 58 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 63 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 67, 68, and 69 are rejected as irrelevant or incomplete statements. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary or repetitive. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 17 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first, second, sixth and seventh sentences are accepted; the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. The second and third sentences of paragraph 11 are accepted, the first rejected as recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins Gwendolyn P. Adkins Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cindy Horne Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Suite 307 Knight Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland Acting General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and agreements of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The costs and attorney fees sought by BTST in the amount of $2,344, are adequately substantiated and constitute reasonable costs and attorney fees for the representation of BTST in DOAH Case No. 88-3885. DOAH Case No. 88-3885 resulted in a Final Order granting recertification as a minority business enterprise to BTST. Therefore, BTST was a prevailing party in that case. The underlying agency action that resulted in DOAH Case No. 88-3885, was a Department letter of July 18, 1988, to BTST which notified BTST that its application for recertification was denied, stated the reasons for denial, and advised BTST of its right to request a hearing if it was dissatisfied with the Department's decision. The Department's letter of July 18, 1988, "initiated" the subsequent formal administrative proceedings. Business Telephone systems of Tallahassee, Inc., is a "small business party." The Department of General Services has the responsibility to certify and recertify minority business enterprises. The Department has developed a procedure which is followed by the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office in processing applications for certification and recertification. Upon receipt of an application, the entire business file is assigned by the supervisor of certification activities to an eligibility examiner, frequently referred to as a "reviewer." The reviewer conducts a desk audit and review, searches the Division of Corporation records, and by letter requests any items omitted from the application. The applicant then has 30 days in which to respond by sending the requested information to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistant Office. After receipt of requested additional information, the reviewer schedules an on-site interview with applicants whose eligibility for MBE status cannot be determined immediately. After the on-site review, the reviewer listens to the tape recording of the interview and completes the on- site review questionnaire form. At this point, all documents and on-site interview responses are reviewed by the eligibility examiner for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to grant or deny certification or recertification. The supervisor of certification activities reviews the recommendation and all materials related to the business for the purpose of either concurring or questioning the recommendation. The file is then referred to the coordinator of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office for independent review. If the recommendation is for denial of MBE certification or recertification, the file is forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel for review of all documents, information, recommendations and findings by a staff attorney. By memorandum to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, the staff attorney will either concur in the recommendation or raise legal questions. In the case of concurrence, a letter of denial is prepared. Legal questions about the potential denial are generally resolved by discussion with all involved staff persons. BTST, a company principally engaged in sales, installation, and service of telephone systems and equipment, filed an application for recertification as a Minority Business Enterprise on April 13, 1988. The application was assigned to Stephen Johnson, an eligibility examiner of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office. The initial recommendation to deny recertification of Petitioner was made by Stephen Johnson. Stephen Johnson received training by the Department in minority business enterprise certification and recertification review during his tenure at DGS. As the first step in the review process, Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner, performed a desk audit of the application, noting changes in ownership, management, daily operations, and domicile of the company. He also conducted a document search of State of Florida corporate records which revealed different corporate ownership than that which BTST stated in the application and different composition of the Board of Directors of three non- minority members and two minority members. Upon request of the eligibility examiner, additional documents were submitted by BTST. These documents named Mr. William Nuce as president and treasurer of BTST, listed a Board of Directors composed of one minority person and three non-minority persons, and included a BTST lease agreement signed by William Nuce as President of BTST and attested by Nancy Nuce, Secretary of BTST. An amendment to the lease dated May 4, 1988, was signed in the same manner. Upon review by the eligibility examiner and his supervisor of the information submitted by BTST, changes in the business raised the question of whether a minority person controlled the management and operations of the business. The application for recertification revealed that two of the three women owners of BTST "no longer performed any duties for the company." The minority owner who left the company possessed significant technical knowledge about the telephone systems business which in previous certifications of BTST had been a dispositive factor in the determination. William Nuce had not been working full-time for the company until January 1988. Until that time, the company had been run by three women, one being an out-of-state resident. With the concurrence of his supervisor, the eligibility examiner scheduled an on-site visit to BTST for the purpose of acquiring a new description of how the business operated and to establish whether the applicant owner was eligible for MBE certification. The on-site interview was tape recorded During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce, the minority owner of BTST, made statements which were considered significant by DGS minority certification reviewers. Mrs. Nuce explained decision-making by her husband William Nuce and herself at BTST as "It is really a partnership." In response to the question, "Is anyone considered a supervisory person?", Mrs. Nuce stated, "Well, I guess Bill would be." Then she was asked, "Is he the installer supervisor?" and Nancy Nuce replied, "Yeah, I would say so." Continuing the on-site interview, in response to the question, "[W]ho employed Don?" Mrs. Nuce replied, "We both went to Jacksonville to where Don lived and interviewed Don in Jacksonville and we discussed it on the way back and when we got back Bill called him and offered him the job." She also said that William Nuce had invested "almost twice" as much as she had in the business. The occupational license issued by the City of Tallahassee was in the name of William Nuce. Concerning a truck which was the only large piece of equipment of the business, Mrs. Nuce said, "Bill signed the guarantee on it." Mrs. Nuce had never received a salary from BTST. During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce confirmed the composition of the Board of Directors as having four members, one minority person and three non-minority persons. After this on-site interview, the eligibility examiner came back to his office, listened to the interview tapes, and reviewed his notes. He came to the conclusion that the minority owner of BTST did not have the capability, knowledge, and experience required to make the critical decisions in that the company heavily relied on Mr. Nuce's 20 years of experience in the installation and servicing of telephone systems, rather than Mrs. Nuce's limited prior experience and training in the bookkeeping area. The eligibility examiner further relied, as a basis for denial, on the fact that the Board of Directors at the time of the decision to deny recertification were Nancy' Nuce; William Nuce, a non-minority person; Peggy Ingram, a non-Florida resident (and therefore a non-minority person); and Don Ingram, a non-minority person. The corporate bylaws indicated that a majority of the directors legally controlled the management of the company. Since Mrs. Nuce was the only director who was a minority, the eligibility examiner concluded that, pursuant to the statutes, Mrs. Nuce did not have the legal authority to control the corporate Board of Directors and, therefore, the business of thee corporation.. After consultation and review of the BTST file, Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims, the Labor Employment and Training Manager of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, reached the tentative decision to deny the recertification application of BTST. At the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST, Ms. Nims was the Labor Employment and Training Manager in the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office and the supervisor of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. She had been with DGS since March of 1986. Her duties included supervision of the professional staff who conducted eligibility reviews of applications, assistance in eligibility determinations, advising the coordinator, supervision of staff involved in retention of records, preparation of documents, and preparation of the monthly MBE Directory. In evaluating the application for recertification of BTST, Marsha Nims reviewed the application and supporting documentation, the Desk Review and Audit by Stephen Johnson, the additional documents obtained by Stephen Johnson from Business Telephone Systems of Tallahassee, Inc., the Bylaws of BTST, the memo from Stephen Johnson to Marsha Nims, the reviewer's case management log, the on- site review questionnaire form and comments completed by Stephen Johnson, the denial recommendation drafted by Stephen Johnson, and the file of BTST on which previous certification had been based. Marsha Nims relied upon the information about BTST complied by the eligibility examiner. She had no reason to doubt the credibility of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. At the time of the decision to deny recertification to BTST, Marsha Nims was familiar with the Florida Statutes which governed certification and recertification of minority business enterprises as well as Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, which the Department promulgated to implement the statutes. Marsha Nims was familiar with the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and the related Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. She concluded that the corporate structure analysis and the determination of lack of control over the management and daily business operations was consistent with the legal conclusions established in prior Department Final Orders denying certification. Following review by Ms. Nims, the entire BTST file described in Finding of Fact Number 15 was referred to Carolyn Wilson-Newton, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Officer Coordinator. Mrs. Wilson-Newton was the person charged with making the final decision to grant or deny certification and recertification to applicants. At the time of the decision to deny recertification, Mrs. Wilson- Newton was familiar with the Florida Statutes which govern certification and recertification of minority business enterprises, Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, and the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Carolyn Wilson-Newton concurred with the recommendations of Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims to deny recertification as set forth in the denial recommendation prepared by Stephen Johnson, and made the decision to deny minority business enterprise recertification. The proposed denial was approved by Sandra Allen, an attorney in the General Counsel's Office with previous experience in review of minority business enterprise decisions. The denial letter was mailed to the applicant on July 18, 1988. Although BTST prevailed in Case No. 88-3885, it is important to note that some of the evidence presented at the formal hearing in that case was substantially different from the information furnished to DGS prior to the July 18, 1988, denial letter. Some of the differences resulted from new developments (such as eleventh-hour stock purchases and changes in the corporate provisions regarding directors). Other differences resulted from more careful and precise descriptions than had been furnished earlier. Four competent, experienced MBE certification reviewers for DGS concluded that the information in the possession of the Department at the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST was sufficient to warrant denial of recertification of the Petitioner. The denial of recertification had a reasonable basis in fact at the time of the decision. This is especially true when note is taken of the fact that BTST's corporate provisions regarding directors at the time of the decision were essentially the same as corporate provisions which had been the basis for denial of certification in other Department final orders.
The Issue Whether Florida Moving Systems, Inc. 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 Claudia Deneen and Thomas B. Deneen, husband and wife, and another partner purchased the applicant company with joint funds in 1988. Subsequently, the business was incorporated and the name changed to Florida Moving Systems, Inc. Prior to the time of the incorporation of the business, David P. Astolfi bought out the original partner and obtained a 25 percent share in the incorporated business. Claudia Deneen, Thomas B. Deneen and David P. Astolfi presently serve as the Directors of the applicant corporation. Neither Thomas B. Deneen nor David P. Astolfi qualify for classification as a "minority." In 1992, Claudia Deneen obtained her husband's stock in the corporation without consideration, but for prior services rendered. Claudia Deneen now holds 75 percent of the outstanding stock in her name. While Claudia Deneen was out on maternity leave in 1992, Thomas Deneen ran the business. Claudia and Thomas Deneen, as well as David Astolfi each have authority to individually sign business checks. Astolfi who serves as Vice President for Sales, is paid $1100 weekly, Thomas Deneen who serves as President, is paid $1500 weekly. Claudia Deneen who serves as Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer, and chief purchasing agent, is paid $1000 weekly when money is available. Both Claudia and Thomas Deneen signed and guaranteed the business leases. All three Directors, Claudia and Thomas Deneen and Astolfi, share common ownership in a similar business called Florida Distribution Systems, Inc. which is housed adjacent to the applicant. Thomas Deneen signs 90 percent of applicant's payroll checks. Business decisions are made jointly by all directors. Claudia Deneen is the chief purchasing agent for the corporation and maintains control over the purchase of goods, equipment and services. She also participates in the hiring and firing of personnel and the setting of all employment policies. Petitioner's offer of proof, consisting of business letters or recommendation, all recommended both Claudia and Thomas Deneen as a team, not individually.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application for Minority Business Certification filed by Florida Moving Systems, Inc. on January 17, 1994, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of September, 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 1st day of September, 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 did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-13. COPIES FURNISHED: Claudia Deneen Vice President and Secretary/Treasurer 4317 Fortune Place West Melbourne, Florida 32904 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 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
