Findings Of Fact Gainesville Review of Issues and Trends for Self-Action, Inc. (GRITS or Respondent) conducts research under contract with the State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Employment and Training (Petitioner). GRITS original contract covered fiscal year (FY) 1980 (October 1, 1979 - September 30, 1980). It is now in its second contract year (October 1, 1980 - September 30, 1981). Funds are provided by the CETA program to the Governor of Florida who administers these funds through Petitioner. As a non-profit organization, GRITS is not required to pay social security taxes on its employees or deduct FICA from their pay. Rather, participation is optional. Petitioner provided this information to GRITS by letter dated January 17, 1979. No deductions from payroll were made during the FY 1980 contract year, nor did GRITS pay any funds to the Internal Revenue Service, which collects social security taxes. Throughout FY 1980 and the first two months of FY 1981, GRITS monthly reports of financial transactions (MRFT) required by the contracts showed FICA payments totalling $3,037.13 ($2,524.43 in FY 1980 and $512.70 in FY 1981). These payments had not, in fact, been made. Respondent's Executive Director, Jan McPherson, had transferred $1,209.92 of the purported FY 1980 FICA payments to a second checking account that was not disclosed to Petitioner, but was later discovered through an audit of cancelled checks. Ms. McPherson used this second account as a source of travel funds for three of her trips costing $577. She contends the trips were program related, but replaced the $577 after Petitioner's critical audit report. Use of these funds for travel was inconsistent with the stated purpose of the account, which was to hold FY 1980 FICA funds pending disposition, and because travel occurred in FY 1981. Further, the travel reports submitted covering these periods omitted any reference to the trips in question. Petitioner also points out that purchase of 300 checks for use in this second account was inconsistent with its stated purpose as an FICA holding account. However, 300 checks is a minimum purchase for a new account and Respondent was unaware of counter check arrangements which would have obviated the need for this large number of checks. Petitioner charges that a conflict of interest or apparent conflict of interest existed in the contract by which GRITS retained B & E Janitorial Services. The contract service began on December 1, 1979, while Mr. Don Ethridge, co-owner of B & E, was serving as Treasurer of GRITS and as a member of its board of directors. Although Mr. Ethridge subsequently resigned from GRITS and did not personally negotiate terms, the execution of this contract created a conflict of interest.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner decline renewal of its annual contract with Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 24th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 117, Montgomery Bldg. 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Janice McPherson Executive Director Project SUCCESS 3432 North Main Street, Suite II Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Issue The issues in this case are the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2007);1 whether Petitioners are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what amount should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Each of the 14 Petitioners filed separate rule challenges, challenging the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 and challenging eight statements of policy of the Board of Pharmacy, which statements had not been adopted as rules. Prior to the filing of his or her rule challenge, each Petitioner had graduated from a pharmacy school located outside the United States and had taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been issued Intern Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but two of the Petitioners had submitted an application to be admitted to the professional licensure examination. Those applications had been denied. All Petitioners, including the two Petitioners who had not submitted an application, had applied to the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver to allow them to sit for the professional licensure examination. The Board of Pharmacy denied each Petitioner’s application for a variance or waiver. Each Petitioner had been represented by The Health Law Firm in their applications for a variance or waiver and wanted The Health Law Firm to continue to represent them in the rule challenge. When asked why the Petitioners had contacted The Health Law Firm to represent them, an attorney for The Health Law Firm stated: I think they have a network where word just gets around. And they-–I believe they even had some sort of list serve or Web site where they had all noted that they were being treated unfairly, and so they knew each other. And maybe our name got out on that or something. But they-–they all seemed to know each other-–seemed to know each other. Additionally, The Health Law Firm had sent out letters soliciting the foreign pharmacy graduates to join the rule challenge. An attorney for The Health Law Firm was not sure whether the letter had been posted on the web site for the foreign pharmacy graduates. In several of the invoices submitted by The Health Law Firm, there was a charge of $20.00 for a “[t]elephone conference with client’s colleagues who are in the same situation and interested in filing petitions for waivers and joining the rule challenge.”2 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the representation of Petitioners by The Health Law Firm do not demonstrate that it was a coincidence that Petitioners just happened to pick The Health Law Firm to represent them in the rule challenges. The Health Law Firm decided to file 14 separate petitions instead of one petition with 14 petitioners. The reason for the filing of the separate petitions was to increase the amount of attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Given the inexperience of attorneys at The Health Law Firm with rule challenges and the difficulty in understanding the speech of Petitioners, who received their pharmacy training in countries other than the United States, The Health Law Firm felt that it was not economically feasible to pursue the rule challenge for $15,000.00. Petitioners had a common goal, i.e. to be allowed to sit for the professional licensure examination. The wording of each of the petitions was essentially the same except for the names of the individual Petitioners. Because the issues were the same for all the rule challenges, the rule challenges were consolidated for final hearing. No final hearing was held in the consolidated cases. The parties agreed that, based on the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, there were no disputed issues of material fact and agreed to file proposed final orders addressing each party’s position regarding the application of the law to the stipulated facts. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and Petitioners were determined to prevail on the issue of the invalidity of the existing rule. On the challenge to the Board of Pharmacy’s policy statements, four statements were determined to meet the definition of a rule. The Board of Pharmacy conceded in the parties’ pre-hearing stipulation that the instructions in the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination, directing applicants not to apply prior to obtaining all the required internship hours, constituted a non-rule policy. On August 1, 2008, in response to its concession that some of the statements or policies at issue were invalid non-rule policies, the Board of Pharmacy had published, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly, a Notice of Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy approved changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 26.2031, eliminating the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination Committee (FPGEC) requirement, incorporating by reference the Foreign Graduate Examination Application, and stating the time frames for the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes, the portion of the petitions dealing with the statements on which the Board of Pharmacy did not prevail was abated pending the rulemaking process. Petitioners did not prevail on four of the policy statements they challenged. These were the policy statements which the Board of Pharmacy contested. Based on the invoices submitted, the parties attempted to settle the case. Essentially, the Board of Pharmacy had started rule development which eliminated the requirement in the existing rule which caused it to be invalid and which dealt with the unpromulgated rule issues that the Board of Pharmacy had conceded in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Petitioners wanted to be able to sit for the National Association of Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). All Petitioners who had a Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination pending on August 21, 2008, were approved by the Board of Pharmacy to sit for the NAPLEX and the Florida version of the MPJE. Thus, by August 21, 2008, those Petitioners had reached their goal. The impediment to settling the cases was the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Petitioners. There was no undue delay by the Board of Pharmacy or anything which could be attributed to the Board of Pharmacy as needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. The Board of Pharmacy correctly contended that the amount of fees requested by Petitioners was unreasonable. The Partial Final Order entered in the underlying rule challenges held that Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The Board of Pharmacy was not substantially justified in promulgating the challenged rule in the underlying case and did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed to warrant the promulgation of the challenged rule. The Board of Pharmacy did not demonstrate that the statements which constituted unpromulgated rules are required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. Each Petitioner entered into a contingency fee contract3 with The Health Law Firm to represent him or her in a rule challenge. The parties have agreed that the hourly rate of $350.00 per hour for the services of George F. Indest, III, Esquire, is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The parties have agreed that some of the hourly rates being claimed for the other attorneys and employees of The Health Law Firm are reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those fees are $200.00 and $150.00 per hour for the associate attorneys, $80.00 per hour for the paralegals, and $70.00 per hour for the legal assistants. There were a few entries in the invoices made by senior attorneys for whom the rate charged is $300.00 per hour. Based on the rates charged for the senior partner and the associate attorneys, an hourly rate of $300.00 for a senior attorney is reasonable. The names of the attorneys and staff and the respective hourly rate amount for each are listed below. In discussing the reasonableness of the fees claimed in the various invoices, the attorneys and staff will be referred to by their initials as listed in the invoices. Initials Name Hourly Rate GFI George F. Indest, III, Senior Partner $350.00 MLS Michael L. Smith, Senior Attorney $300.00 JK Joanne Kenna, Senior Attorney $300.00 TJJ Teresa J. James, Attorney $200.00 MRG Matthew R. Gross, Attorney $150.00 JP Justin Patrou, Law Clerk $100.00 GJ Gail Joshua, Senior Paralegal $80.00 PD Pamela Dumas, Litigation Clerk $80.00 SF Sandra Faiella, Paralegal $80.00 RS Rebecca Simmons, Paralegal $80.00 AE Alexa Eastwood, Legal Assistant $70.00 SE Shelly Estes, Legal Assistant $70.00 The amount of fees claimed by each Petitioner for representation by The Health Law Firm for the rule challenge is listed below. These amounts are based on the individual invoices and the first consolidated invoice:4 Name Amount Vipul Patel $15,212.36 Miriam Hernandez $15,683.36 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $11,469.36 Valliammai Natarajan $5,074.36 John H. Neamatalla $11,215.36 Samad Mridha $13,650.36 Se Young Yoon $12,292.36 Saurin Modi $10,093.36 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $11,764.36 Mijeong Chang $12,528.36 Nabil Khalil $10,272.36 Hadya Alameddine $5,313.36 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $4,585.36 Anand Narayanan $4,218.36 Total $143,372.04 Sandra Ambrose testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioners. Her opinion is that the amounts claimed are based on a reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation of the rule challenge. However, Ms. Ambrose has never represented a client in a rule challenge. It was Ms. Ambrose’s opinion that the difficulty in the cases was a result of the number of Petitioners not the issues to be litigated. Having reviewed all the invoices submitted in these cases, the undersigned cannot credit Ms. Ambrose’s testimony that the fees are reasonable. The Board of Pharmacy argues that the amount of fees and costs should be limited to the amount expended in the petition brought by the first Petitioner, Vipul Patel. The expert who testified for the Board of Pharmacy did not give a definite amount that he considered to be a reasonable fee in these cases. Prior to the final consolidation of all 14 rule challenges, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its services and costs by individual Petitioner. After all 14 rule challenges were consolidated, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its time and costs via a consolidated invoice. The undersigned has painstakingly reviewed all the invoices that were submitted to support Petitioners’ claims for fees and costs in the rule challenges and finds the fees requested are not reasonable. On May 15, 2008, the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2733RX contained the following entry for MRG. “Review/analyze final order. Strategize regarding final order.” The final order appears to be related to a petition5 for a waiver or variance before the Board of Pharmacy, and the entry is deleted. This conclusion is supported by the entry in the invoice dated May 29, 2008, relating to a telephone conference with the client relating to a re-petition for waiver. In Case No. 08-2730RX, there is an entry on May 27, 2008, for .10 hours for MRG, but no service is listed. That entry is deleted. On June 6, 2008, MRG entered .50 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX. The entry stated: “Continue preparing rule challenge and waiver.” The Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners in four of these cases before the Board of Pharmacy on June 10, 2008, on their petitions for a wavier or variance. The invoice does not delineate the amount of time that was spent on the rule challenge and the amount of time that was spent on the waiver cases. Therefore, the time is divided equally and .25 hours in each case is charged toward the rule challenge. 23. On June 9, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .30 hours for each case, which stated: “Prepare letter to Division of Administrative Hearings forwarding Petition for Rule Challenge to be filed.” The letter which accompanied the petitions in these cases stated: Dear Clerk: Attached for filing, please find a separate Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Agency Rule and the Invalidity of Agency Policy and Statements defined as Rules, for each of the individuals listed below: Miriam L. Hernandez Mirley Aleman-Alejo Se Young Yoon John H. Neamatalla Valliammai Natarajan Md. A. Samad Mridha Thank you for your assistance in this matter. For this letter, Petitioners are claiming 1.8 hours or $630.00. This is not reasonable. On the same date, GFI prepared a similar transmittal letter in Case No. 08-2728RX and listed .3 hours, which is a reasonable amount for the preparation of such a letter. Thus, the preparation of the transmittal letter on June 9th for Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX is reduced to .3 hours, which is prorated to .05 hours for those cases. The senior partner in The Health Law Firm claims 23.6 hours during June 3 through 5, 2008, for the following service which was entered on the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2730RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2733RX, and 08-2824RX. Conduct legal research, review statutes, cases (approximately 28 cases reviewed and analyzed) and two (2) different Florida Administrative Law legal treatises regarding rule challenges and challenging agency statements not adopted as rules, in order to properly prepare Petition for Formal Rule Challenge in case. Research legal issues including administrative agency rules exceeding authority granted in statutes, retroactive applications of agency rules, adding requirements to licensure requirements through administrative rules when those requirements are not contained in the statute. Review Rules of Procedure and Chapter 120 to determine contents of Rule Challenge Petition. Begin reviewing and revising draft for Rule Challenge in case. (Note: Only pro-rata portion of this time charged to each case.) The total amount of fees claimed for this research is $8,260.00. GFI testified that he had never done a rule challenge prior to filing the petitions in the instant cases. His fees for research due to his lack of knowledge of the basics of a rule challenge should not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy. A reasonable amount of time for his research is four hours. Thus, the amount for this legal research prorated among the ten cases for which it was listed is .4 hours. On July 19, 2008, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .60 hours in ten of the rule challenges for reviewing the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings for February 8 and April 5, 2008, and preparing a notice of filing the Transcripts with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Six hours to review the Transcripts and prepare a notice of filing is not reasonable. Three hours is determined to be a reasonable amount of time for this task, and that amount is prorated among the ten cases in which the charge was made. On June 10, 2008, members of The Health Law Firm attended a Board of Pharmacy meeting at which they represented foreign pharmacy graduates who had petitioned the Board of Pharmacy for a waiver or variance. In Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-3298RX, and 08-2733RX, the senior partner listed .90 hours for each case for preparation for the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting. The preparation related to the petitions for variances or waivers and should not be assessed for the instant cases. For June 10, 2008, JP listed .70 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2823RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2821RX, and 08-2733RX for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. For June 10, 2008, GFI entered 1.4 hours for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. The entries for attending the Board of Pharmacy meeting related to the petitions for waivers and should not be assessed in the instant cases. For June 19, 2008, the senior partner made the following entry in the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX: Travel to Boca Raton to meet with other health care lawyers and discuss issues in common on these cases and others. Discuss legal strategies that worked in the past and legal strategies to be avoided. Return from Boca Raton. Each entry was for one hour, for a total of eight hours claimed for a trip to Boca Raton, which equates to $2,880.00. Based on the entry, it seems that the trip included discussions of other cases that The Health Law Firm was handling or that other attorneys were handling. Additionally, there was no rationale for having to travel to Boca Raton to discuss the issues, and fees for such travel should not be awarded. A reasonable amount of time for discussion of the case with other attorneys by telephone would be .80 hours. The prorated amount of time for each case listed is .10 hours. On May 27, 2008, SF made a .30-hour entry in Case No. 08-2824RX for reviewing the agenda of the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting as it related to the client in Case No. 08-2824RX. The entry related to the client’s petition for a waiver, which was heard at the June 10th meeting and should be deleted. On May 30, 2008, in Case No. 08-2824RX, SF made a .40-hour entry for drafting a letter to client with retainer agreement. The entry is clerical and should be deleted. On June 18, 2008, an entry was made in the invoice in Case No. 08-2731RX, which stated: “Telephone call from husband of our client indicating that they want us to close this matter and that they do not wish to pursue it any further; follow-up memorandum to Mr. Indest regarding this.” Charges continued to be made to the client through July 16, 2008. Based on the entry to the invoice on June 18, 2008, no further charges should have been made to the client except for the filing of a voluntary dismissal of the rule challenge for the client. However, no voluntary dismissal was filed. Based on the absence of any further charges to the client after July 18, 2008, it is concluded that the client did wish not to proceed with her rule challenge. Any charges by The Health Law Firm after June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2731RX will not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy as it relates to the rule challenge. On June 19, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in ten of the cases: “Review June 10, 2008, Board of Pharmacy Agenda. Telephone conference with Court Reporter, Ms. Green, ordering transcript of the June 10, 2008, meeting.” An hour for reviewing an agenda and ordering a transcript is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and such time is prorated to the ten cases in which it is charged. 33. On June 20, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2823RX and 08-2824RX, TJJ made a .80-hour entry which stated: “Prepare draft motion for consolidation.” No motion was ever filed and would not have been necessary since the parties had agreed at the pre-hearing conference that the rule challenges would be consolidated. The time for this service should be deleted. 34. On July 10, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in several of the cases: “Review prehearing instruction orders and amended orders to determine respondent’s deadline to serve discovery responses.” The entry is duplicative of services provided by MRG on July 8, 2008, and should be deleted. 35. On July 15, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2729RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, TJJ had .40 hours for a total of 4.00 hours for the following entry: Prepare Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Discovery and assemble and copy documents to be attached to Motion. Prepare facsimile coversheets and transmit the Motion to the attorney for the Board of Pharmacy, Ms. Loucks, and to the clerk for the Division of Administrative Hearings. The copying, preparing facsimile coversheets, and transmitting the motion are clerical tasks. The entries are reduced to .20 hours due to the clerical nature of the tasks, which leaves a total of two hours for preparing a simple motion to compel. The time for the preparation of the motion to compel is not reasonable and is reduced to .10-hour for each entry. On July 22, 2008, the last Order consolidating all the cases was filed. The Order consisted of four paragraphs. On July 29, 2008, TJJ entered .10 hours in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08- 2730RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3510RX, 08-3488RX, 08-3347RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, and 08- 2821RX, and each entry stated: “Review order of consolidation filed on July 22, 2008, for common information needed for all cases.” Thus, Petitioners are claiming a total of 1.3 hours or $260.00 to review a four-paragraph Order of Consolidation. This claim is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time to review the Order was .10 hours, and the time shall be prorated among the cases for which it was claimed at .08 hours each. On July 24, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in ten of the cases which stated: Telephone conference with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal, First District to find out the start time of oral arguments on Custom Mobility (rule challenge case). Request information from clerk regarding how to listen to oral arguments online. Observing this oral argument will allow us to better prepare our case for possible appeal. First, a one-hour telephone conversation with the Clerk of District Court of Appeal to ascertain the time for an oral argument and to learn how to listen to oral arguments online is not reasonable. Second, it is not reasonable to charge the Board of Pharmacy with a call to the District Court of Appeal in the instant cases, even if the amount of time for the call had been reasonable. The one-hour charge for $200.00 for a telephone call is deleted. On July 30, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in 13 of the rule challenges. The entry stated: “Listen to oral arguments presented before District Court of Appeals, First District, in Custom Mobility case (rule challenge case).” The oral argument was not related to the instant rule challenges and should not be charged to the Board of Pharmacy. The 1.3 hours or $260.00 claim for listening to an oral argument is deleted. On August 4, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Joint Motion for Abeyance and Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Cases in Abeyance. Calendar deadlines regarding same.” The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the simple motion and Order is not reasonable. Calendaring is a clerical task. The time for this service is reduced to .01 hours for each entry. On August 5, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Respondent’s Objections and Responses to Petitioners’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Respondent’s Objections to Petitioners’ Second Set of Requests for Admissions.” The objections were that the interrogatories and requests for admissions exceeded 30. The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the pleadings is not reasonable. The time for this service is reduced to .04 for each entry. Petitioners had scheduled the depositions of Rebecca Poston and Daisy King for July 18, 2008. On July 17, 2008, Petitioners filed notices canceling the depositions. On July 17, 2008, PD entered .10 hours in ten of the rule challenges for the following entry: Telephone conference with Accurate Stenotype Reporters regarding cancellation of depositions of Daisy King and Rebecca Poston on July 18, 2008 and delay transcription of depositions of Erika Lilja and Elizabeth Ranne due to potential settlement. It is not reasonable to charge an hour to cancel depositions with the court reporter. A reasonable amount of time would be .10 hours, which is prorated to the ten cases to which it is charged. PD prepared the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. Poston and the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. King. Entries were made in ten of the cases for time for preparing the notices. The total time for preparing the two notices by PD was 1.45 hours. The time is not reasonable. A reasonable time to prepare two notices of canceling depositions would be .40 hours, which is prorated among the ten cases in which it was charged. One of the issues on which Petitioners did not prevail in the rule challenges was the issue of retroactive application of the rule. There are entries totaling 3.4 hours for JP for preparation of a memorandum dealing with the retroactive application of a rule issue. GFI entered .30 hours for the same issue. The time relating to the retroactive application issue is deleted. On April 19, 2008, MRG entered .20 hours each in several cases, which related to the rule challenge and retroactive application issue. That time is reduced by half. On May 6, 2008, MRG made .60-hour entries in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, which showed the preparation of three sections of the petition. One of the sections dealt with the retroactive application issue, and the entries are reduced by .20 hours for that issue. The invoices demonstrated that a considerable amount of time was charged for legal assistants and paralegals. Much of this time was for clerical tasks. SE is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a legal assistant. The majority of the entries by SE dealt with the photocopying, labeling, organizing, indexing, and filing documents. These services performed by SE are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. RS is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant. The majority of the entries in the invoices for RS deal with receiving, reviewing, labeling, indexing, scanning, summarizing, and calendaring pleadings and orders that were received in the cases. These services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2732RX, and 08-2733RX each claimed .30 hours for RS for the following service on April 30, 2008: Received and reviewed letter from Department of Health regarding our Public Records Request dated April 28, 2008 relating to client’s case. Index document for filing and scanning for use of attorneys at hearing. However, .90 hours for reviewing and indexing a letter is not reasonable and is clerical in nature. On June 17, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX, RS entered .60 hours for preparing, copying, and sending a letter to the client forwarding a copy of the Order of Assignment. That entry is reduced to .30 hours, since at least half of the time appeared to be for clerical tasks. AE, who is identified as a legal assistant in Petitioners’ exhibits, has numerous entries in the invoices for receiving, indexing, filing, calendaring, and providing pleadings and orders to clients. Those services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-2728RX, PD, identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal, made entries on June 16 and June 25, 2008, for .30 hours each. These entries were to update the litigation schedule with the hearing date. The entry is clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. SF, who is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant, made an entry for .30 hours in Case No. 08-2728RX on June 26, 2008, and in Case No. 08-2732RX on June 11, 2008, for forwarding orders to the client. An entry was made on July 10, 2008, in Case No. 08-2728RX and on June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX for .30 hours for processing the retainer package. Additionally, SF had entries for organizing and filing transcripts and orders. Such services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-3488RX, SF made a .30-hour entry on June 30, 2008, for updating the parties list and document file and a .50-hour entry on June 26, 2008, for completing opening procedures. In the same case, SF made two entries on July 7, 2008, for a total of 1.5 hours for preparing a retainer package and sending it to the client. These tasks are clerical. On June 24, 2008, SF made the following .30-hour entry in 11 of the cases: “Finalize and forward Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing to client in this matter.” These entries are deleted; as they represent clerical tasks and an unreasonable amount of time to finalize a motion for continuance for which GFI had charged 1.1 hours for preparing the motion. In several cases JP, identified as a law clerk, made entries on July 15, 2008, for .30-hour for creating, numbering, and copying exhibits. Such service is clerical. On July 30, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy regarding filing and Service of Petitioners’ Fourth Set of Request to Produce and Second Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.6 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time to prepare such documents is .50 hours, and the time is prorated among the 13 cases. On July 28, 2008, PD made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Notice of Filing Videotaped Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. Prepare draft of Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne. However, 1.3 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare two notices of filing depositions. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and that amount is prorated among the 13 cases. On June 17, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in each of the 11 cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy, regarding filing and service of Petitioners’ First Set of Request to Produce, Petitioners’ First Set of Request for Admissions and Petitioners’ First Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time is .50, which is prorated among the 11 cases. 58. On June 21, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX, there is a .30-hour entry for SF for finalizing and forwarding a petition for formal hearing to the Department of Health for filing. This entry does not appear to be related to the rule challenges and is deleted. In Case No. 08-3298RX, MRG made an entry of .50 hours for a telephone conference regarding the date of rule challenge and petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing dealt with the client’s petition for waiver and should not be included. Thus, the entry is reduced to .25 hours. After all the cases were consolidated The Health Law Firm began to make entries for all cases in the first consolidated invoice. On July 28, 2008, GFI made an entry of 2.8 hours, which related exclusively to the issue of retroactive application of the rule. This entry is deleted. RS made entries in the first consolidated invoice for August 12, 14, 28, and 29, 2008, and September 2, 5, 10, and 18, 2008, relating to filing, indexing, copying, and forwarding documents. There are similar entries for SF on August 26, 2008, and September 4 and 9, 2008, and for AE on September 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. PD had entries for reviewing, organizing, and indexing documents on September 4, 8, 11, and 17, 2008, and October 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. There were numerous entries in August 2008 relating to a Board of Pharmacy meeting on August 21, 2008, in which the Board of Pharmacy heard motions for reconsideration of orders denying Petitioners’ petitions for waivers. Those entries are related to the petitions for waiver and not to the rule challenges. Although, The Health Law Firm makes reference to a settlement agreement in which the Board of Pharmacy agreed to grant the waivers, there was no settlement agreement of the rule challenges because the parties proceeded to litigate the issues by summary disposition. Thus, the references to attending and preparing for the August 21, 2008, Board of Pharmacy meeting as well as advising the clients of the outcome of the meeting on August 20 and 21, 2008, are deleted. Additionally, an entry by MRG on August 20, 2008, which included reviewing the August 21st agenda is reduced to .75 hours. On August 25, 2008, MRG made an entry which included a telephone conference with Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Ms. Ranne regarding Mr. Bui. Mr. Bui is not a Petitioner, and the entry is reduced to .55 hours. Based on the invoices, it appears that Mr. Bui and Ms. Ranne were also foreign pharmacy graduates seeking waivers from the Board of Pharmacy. On August 29, 2008, MRG made another entry which included the preparation of an e-mail to Mr. Bui. The entry is reduced to two hours. On August 6, 2008, MRG made a 1.80-hour entry which included preparing e-mail to Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Mr. Sokkan regarding the rule challenge and settlement negotiations. Neither of these persons is a Petitioner; thus, the entry is reduced to .60 hours. On August 28, 2008, TJJ made a 3.60-hour entry for researching and preparing Petitioners’ second motion to compel discovery. No such motion was filed. Thus, the entry is deleted. Another entry was made on September 2, 2008, which included, among other things, the revision of the motion to compel. That entry is reduced to .80 hours. On August 8, 2008, MRG made a 1.00-hour entry which included a telephone conference with Ms. Alameddine regarding her passing the MPJE and being licensed in Michigan. Those issues relate to the petition for reconsideration of the waiver. The entry is reduced to .50 hours. On September 4, 2008, TJJ made a .80-hour entry for preparing a letter to Mr. Modi regarding his approval to take the examination, a 1.00-hour entry dealing with Mr. Lakshminarary’s application, a .90-hour entry dealing with Petitioner Narayanan’s application, a .70-hour entry dealing with Mr. Shah’s application, and a .60-hour entry dealing with Ms. Hernandez’s application. The entries deal with the petitions for a waiver and are deleted. On September 4, 2008, MRG made an entry which included, among other tasks, time for determining if the Board of Pharmacy had sufficient funds to pay Petitioners’ attorney’s fees. This entry is reduced to two hours. On October 10, 2008, MRG made a 1.20-hour entry which included, among other things, analyzing pleadings to determine if persons who were not Petitioners should file petitions for attorney’s fees. The entry is reduced to .60 hours. On July 16, 2008, MRG and JP made entries in ten of the cases for traveling to Tallahassee and attending the depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. The total hours for MRG was 16.9 hours and for JP the total was 17 hours. These total hours are reduced by ten hours each for travel time. On August 12 and 13, 2008, MRG made entries which included travel time to attend Board of Pharmacy meetings.6 Those entries are reduced each by one hour to account for travel time. The following is a listing of the amount of hours and dollar amount for fees, which are considered to be reasonable for the rule challenges. Individual and First Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 146.10 $350.00 $51,135.00 MLS 3.70 $300.00 $1,110.00 JK 1.40 $300.00 $420.00 TJJ 80.13 $200.00 $16,026.00 MRG 210.16 $150.00 $31,824.00 JP 37.80 $100.00 $3,780.00 PD 39.053 $80.00 $3,124.24 SF 16.80 $80.00 $1,344.00 GJ .40 $80.00 $32.00 RS 1.3 $80.00 $104.00 $108,899.24 The Partial Final Order found that Petitioners were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, the issue of entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was not an issue that was litigated in the instant fee cases. The issue of whether Petitioners were entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, were entitlement issues which were litigated in the instant fee cases.7 Most of the charges dealing with the petitions for fees and costs are related to the amount of fees that are to be awarded and not to the entitlement to fees. In Petitioners’ second consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 4), there is a two-hour entry by MLS on November 3, 2008, for research of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. This entry is deleted since the issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, had already been determined. The following entries in the second consolidated invoice relate to the litigation of the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 11-5-08 GFI 6.90 hours 11-6-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-6-08 GFI 7.40 hours 11-7-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-7-08 MLS 1.00 hour 11-7-08 JCP 7.00 hours 11-8-08 JCP 1.00 hours 11-8-08 GFI 7.10 hours 1-26-09 GFI 1.00 hour 2-9-09 GFI .60 hours 2-10-09 GFI .30 hours 2-12-09 GFI .60 hours 2-17-09 GFI .30 hours 2-17-09 GFI .60 hours 2-19-09 GFI .60 hours The following entries were made in the second consolidated invoice for clerical tasks performed by paralegals and legal assistants: 11-3-08 RAS .30 hours 2-9-09 RAS .30 hours 2-10-09 RAS .30 hours 2-12-09 ACE .40 hours The issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was a small portion of the litigation relating to attorney’s fees and costs. The major areas of litigation dealt with the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded. The invoices do not specifically set forth the amount of time that was spent on the issue of entitlement to fees on statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Based on a review of the pleadings in these fee cases and a review of the invoices submitted for litigation of attorney’s fees and costs, it is concluded that ten percent of the time should be allocated to the issue of entitlement to fees. The percentage is applied to the fees after the fees listed in paragraphs 76, 77, and 78, above, have been deleted. Thus, the following entries in the second consolidated invoice are reduced to the following amount of hours: 11-1-08 JCP .26 hours 11-3-08 MLS .10 hours 11-4-08 MLS .40 hours 11-8-08 JCP .32 hours 12-22-08 GFI .04 hours 12-30-08 MLS .03 hours 1-7-09 GFI .02 hours 1-14-09 GFI .04 hours 1-15-09 GFI .07 hours In the third consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 5), the following entries relate to the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 3-4-09 SME 4.80 hours 3-4-09 GFI 1.20 hours 4-3-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-7-09 GFI .50 hours 4-7-09 GFI .60 hours 4-7-09 GFI .30 hours 4-8-09 GFI 4.20 hours 4-8-09 GFI 1.00 hour 4-9-09 MRG 1.50 hours 4-9-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-11-09 GFI .60 hours 4-15-09 GFI 4.40 hours On April 14, 2009, GFI made an entry which included time for travel to the expert witness’ office. The entry is reduced by .75 hours for travel time. Ten percent of the time not excluded or reduced above related to the issue of entitlement of fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The following entries are reduced to that percentage: 3-31-09 GFI .05 hours 4-1-09 GFI .20 hours 4-6-09 GFI .19 hours 4-6-09 GFI .03 hours 4-7-09 MRG .05 hours 4-7-09 GFI .07 hours 4-7-09 GFI .19 hours 4-7-09 GFI .27 hours 4-9-09 GFI .10 hours 4-13-09 GFI .50 hours 4-14-09 GFI .48 hours 4-14-09 GFI .275 hours The following is a list of the fees in the second and third consolidated invoices which are related to entitlement of fees pursuant to Florida Statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Second and Third Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 2.525 $350.00 $883.75 MLS .43 $300.00 $129.00 MRG .05 $150.00 $7.50 JCP .32 $100.00 $32.00 $1,052.25 With the exception of the costs related to the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings of April 8 and 9, 2008, and June 10, 2008, Respondent, as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, does not dispute that the amounts of costs set forth in the invoices submitted by Petitioners are fair and reasonable.8 The cost of the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8 and 9, 2008, was $1,476.00. The cost of the Transcript of the Board of Pharmacy meeting on June 10, 2008, was $524.00. At the final hearing, the Board of Pharmacy’s objection appeared to be based on the timing of the payment of the court reporter’s fees related to the transcribing of those meetings. The Transcripts were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the issuance of the Partial Final Order. Thus, the costs of the transcribing of the Board of Pharmacy meetings are properly included in the amount of costs to be awarded to Petitioners. The amounts of the costs claimed for the rule challenges in the individual and first consolidated invoice are reasonable. The costs incurred by Petitioners for the rule challenges as set forth in the individual and first consolidated invoices are listed below: Name Amount Vipul Patel $1,773.62 Miriam Hernandez $1,801.41 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $1,213.80 Valliammai Natarajan $321.17[9] John H. Neamatalla $1,118.72 Samad Mridha $975.12 Se Young Yoon $1,097.07 Saurin Modi $1,168.75 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $1,119.24 Mijeong Chang $1,213.16 Nabil Khalil $961.32 Hadya Alameddine $464.60 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $509.71 Anand Narayanan $461.87 The total amount of costs to be awarded for the challenge to the existing rule and to the policy statements is $14,199.56. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the second consolidated invoice. The second consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $2,096.12. Therefore, the costs for the second consolidated invoice are reduced to $209.61,10 which represents the amount attributable to litigation of entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the third consolidated invoice. The third consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $580.62. Therefore, the costs for the third consolidated invoice are reduced to $58.06,11 which represents the amount attributable to litigating the entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. Petitioners incurred costs in the litigation of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Petitioners retained an expert witness, Sandra Ambrose, Esquire. Ms. Ambrose’s fee relating to the issue of attorney’s fees is $5,200.00. Her fee is reasonable; however, Ms. Ambrose’s testimony was related to the amount of the fees not to the entitlement to fees and are, therefore, not awarded as part of the costs. The total costs to be awarded for the litigation of the fees is $267.67.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a certified public accountant licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, having been licensed in 1961. The Petitioner is seeking licensure as a certified public accountant in Florida pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.308(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21A-29.01(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that is, he seeks licensure in Florida by endorsement based upon his Pennsylvania licensure without the necessity for taking the Florida examination. At the time of the Petitioner's initial licensing in the State of Pennsylvania in 1961 he met Florida's requirements in the areas of education and experience. The Petitioner currently holds a valid license in Pennsylvania and is licensed in other states. The Board of Accountancy reviewed the Petitioner's application and determined that he met the Florida requirements for education and experience and that he was administered the same examination in Pennsylvania in 1961 that was administered in Florida in 1961, the uniform certified public accountancy examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The Board determined, however, in its non-final order, that the Petitioner did not receive grades on that examination administered in Pennsylvania that would have constituted passing grades in Florida and denied his application. The rules of the Board require that an applicant for licensure as a certified public accountant receive a grade of 75 or above on all parts of an examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. See Rule 2IA-28.05(2)(3), Florida Administrative Code. The rules in effect in 1961 also required that a grade of 75 or above be received on all four subjects of the examination in order to achieve licensure in Florida. See Rules of the State Board of Accountancy Relative to Examinations and the Issuance and Revocation of Certificates, Rule 1(f). See also Section 473.10, Florida Statutes (1961). The requirement that applicants for licensure by endorsement receive grades on all four areas of the AICPA Exam of 75 or better has been enforced in Florida since the 1930's and has been a requirement embodied in the rules of the Board since 1949. In February, 1961, the Pennsylvania Board of Accountancy, pursuant to a resolution enacted for insular reasons of its own, determined to accept as passing the Petitioner's and other candidates' scores in the Law and Practice portions of the AICPA licensure examination, even though those grades were below the score of 75. The Board thus deemed that the Petitioner passed the examination for purposes of licensure in Pennsylvania with a score of "75" by fiat, even though in fact the Petitioner did not receive an actual score of 75 in those two subject areas as determined by the AICPA which administered and graded the examination. The acceptance of the lower grade on the part of the Pennsylvania Board was not done pursuant to a regrading of the Petitioner's exam in an attempt to correct mistakes or errors in the AICPA's finding regarding his score, but was rather simply due to an arbitrary determination by the Pennsylvania Board that for the Petitioner and certain other Pennsylvania applicants the lower grade in that particular instance would be considered as passing. The Petitioner had no knowledge that the Pennsylvania Board had taken this action in arbitrarily upgrading his scores on two portions of the exam so that he passed the entire exam until he began his application process with the Florida State Board of Accountancy in September, 1980. During its investigation of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement, the Florida Board of Accountancy ascertained that the Petitioner had in fact received grades of 65 in the Law and Practice pertions of the Uniform AICPA Examination which were then subsequently arbitrarily raised by resolution of the Pennsylvania Board. The Florida Beard has at no time accepted as passing grades for a licensure examination those grades by applicants of less than 75 on the AICPA examination. It is true that prior to the Florida Board's becoming aware, in 1973, of the fact that Pennsylvania had arbitrarily raised some grades of its applicants, it did in fact accept some similarly situated candidates for licensure by endorsement in Florida. After becoming aware at that time of this arbitrary grade-raising process, the Board has consistently refused licensure to applicants from other states who actually received less than 75 on the AICPA Examination as determined by the AICPA. For considerations of equity and fairness the Board did, however, allow candidates who had already been licensed in Florida by endorsement prior to the Board's becoming aware of this anomaly to retain their licenses. Since the Petitioner failed to meet the AICPA examination requirement of a grade of 75 or better on all portions of the examination which was set forth and adopted in the Florida rules and statutes in effect at the time of his licensure in Pennsylvania in 1961, his request for licensure by endorsement was denied by the Board's non-final order on December 8, 1980.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the denial of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement by the Board of Accountancy of the State of Florida be upheld and that the petition be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent repay $216 in grant funds expended in a manner inconsistent with Department regulations. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1982, 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 22nd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Suite 117-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Agnes Miramontes 301 North Oklahoma Street Bonifay, Florida 32425
Findings Of Fact On September 21, 1987, petitioner, Terrell Oil Company (TOC), filed an application for renewal of its certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) with respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT). TOC had been previously certified as a DBE for a two-year period commencing in January 1986. After reviewing the application, DOT advised TOC by letter dated January 20, 1988, that its application had been denied on the grounds the firm "(did) not appear to be performing a commercially useful function nor (was) it an independent business entity as required by D. O. T. Rule 14-78.05, Florida Administrative Code." 2/ The letter of denial precipitated this proceeding. Later correspondence from DOT on February 8, 1988, advised TOC that its existing certification would remain in effect until this proceeding was concluded. According to its original application dated September 21, 1987, TOC was established on February 5, 1986, and engaged in the business of "oil-gas- petroleum products." Its offices were then located at 1908 West Cass Street, Tampa, Florida. The application identified Grady F. Terrell, Jr., a black man, as being the sole stockholder in the firm, its president and chairman of the board. Other directors included Richard W. Gilliam, a white man, and Walter Scott, a black man. The application represented that Terrell served as president and treasurer of TOC while Gilliam held the positions of vice president and secretary. The application reflected also that Terrell and Gilliam shared the power in the areas of policy making, financial decisions, job estimating, bidding and supervising field operations and that Terrell alone had the power to dismiss employees and sign checks. Finally, the application represented that the corporation owned no equipment, it had earned $14,000 in calendar year 1986, Terrell had invested $6,000 of his own money in the firm, and it had two full-time and two cart-time employees. After receiving the original application, two DOT employees made an on- site investigation of the business and conducted an interview with Terrell on October 20, 1987. They found no sign on the building at 1908 West Cass Street indicating that TOC occupied the premises, but they were directed by the landlord to a small 8' x 10' rear corner office. During the interview, Terrell was asked for copies of TOC business contracts but had none. Also, he did not have any cancelled checks, insurance coverage or bonding at that time. Terrell stated he had no employees so no insurance was needed. He represented further that he was "self-employed" by TOC and devoted 100% of his time to that endeavor. When the parties reviewed the application item by item and found several discrepancies or incorrect responses, Terrell agreed to amend his application in the presence of the DOT representatives. As amended, the application reflected that Terrell, Gilliam and J. Anthony Belcher, a white man, were the current directors, the firm had one full-time (Terrell) and no part- time employees, Terrell, Gilliam and Belcher served as president, vice-president and treasurer, respectively, while William V. Gruman, a white man and attorney, served as secretary, and there were no written, oral or tacit agreements concerning the operation of the firm between any persons associated with the firm. Terrell denied that Belcher worked for Belcher Oil Company (BOC), a large oil concern, and described him as a retired individual serving as an independent consultant for TOC. As to Gilliam, Terrell described him as an independent contractor who worked on a 100% commission basis and solicited business for the firm. During the same interview, Terrell represented that the $6,000 investment in capital was actually a loan from a local bank and denied that TOC owned or leased any equipment. Terrell could offer no proof that the firm had earned $14,000 in 1986 and indicated the firm had no projects underway. He described his business as being a broker of gasoline, diesel fuel and motor oil and that other persons supplied and delivered the fuel. According to Terrell, business transactions were conducted in the following manner. He first determined the market price of fuel from BOC, his principal supplier, and based upon that price, submitted a bid on a job. If TOC was successful, Terrell made a telephone call to BOC requesting that the fuel be delivered to the buyer. Through BOC, Terrell was able to purchase fuel two percent below the "rack" rate. TOC then added a percentage of profit to its sales price. In actuality, TOC never had physical possession of the fuel and, accordingly, needed no equipment to engage in this activity. At the same inspection, the DOT personnel confirmed through reading the firm's bylaws that each of three directors had one full vote, regardless of the number of shares held. Thus, the two white directors could outvote Terrell on any TOC decision. Also, a quorum of the directors could convene a meeting and theoretically conduct business without Terrell's knowledge. On November 23, 1987, or a little over a month after the DOT visit was made, TOC adopted a corporate resolution authorizing any one of the three directors to execute binding contracts on behalf of TOC. Thus, either of the two white directors had the authority to enter into contracts without Terrell's approval. A copy of the resolution has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 12. Shortly after the above resolution was approved, Gilliam and Belcher were given the opportunity to each purchase 19% of TOC's stock while Gruman was allowed to purchase the remaining 2%. This meant the three white officers now owned 40% of the stock while Terrell owned the remaining 60%. On December 1, 1987, TOC and BOC entered into an agreement whereby TOC agreed to buy fuel and petroleum products from BOC for resale to customers, and in return, BOC extended TOC a $200,000 line of credit. The agreement has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 1. Under the agreement, TOC's invoices to customers had to be approved by BOC, and the customers were required to remit moneys due for fuel to a special bank account controlled by BOC. That firm then sent its invoices to the bank and was paid out of the proceeds. The remainder in the account was for the use of TOC. This agreement was negotiated on behalf of TOC by Belcher, whose family once owned BOC, and until 1987 served as a consultant to that oil company. Because of numerous concerns raised during the October 10 visit, DOT continued its investigation of TOC. Besides learning about the above resolution, stock sale and agreement, DOT obtained various corporate records of T0C, including tax returns, cancelled checks, records of fuel sales and applications for minority certification with other governmental entities. Through its investigation, DOT uncovered the fact that Terrell did not devote 100% of his time to TOC as he had earlier claimed but had been employed as a car salesman by Crown Pontiac in St. Petersburg, Florida, on a full-time basis since July 1987. Indeed, Terrell worked there more than fifty hours per week. Contrary to Terrell's representation, authority to sign TOC checks had been delegated to Gilliam who had done so on numerous occasions prior to and after the application was submitted. As to Terrell's contention that TOC owned no equipment, the firm's corporate income tax return indicated it purchased a small tank truck in 1986 and carried the same on its books. The claim that Terrell alone controlled the business was refuted by the firm's corporate records which reflected that the two white board members could effectively control all management decisions and run the business on a day-to-day basis. DOT learned also that, although TOC had five customer accounts in 1988, of which four came from the private sector, the fifth account was with Hillsborough County, a governmental entity, and comprised more than 99% of its total business. In addition to the DOT application, TOC has sought minority business status from the City of St. Petersburg, the City of Orlando, Hillsborough County, Broward County and the federal government. A review of these applications revealed a maze of conflicting information submitted to the respective agencies. For example, Terrell represented to Hillsborough County that one Noble Sissel (a black man) was TOC's vice-president, secretary, treasurer and board member when in fact Sissel never held any of those positions. Terrell represented to Hillsborough and Broward Counties that TOC had two full-time employees while the amended DOT application reflected that TOC had only one. Further, Terrell gave conflicting answers to the various agencies as to the equipment owned by TOC and the purported gross receipts of the firm. In order to perform a commercially useful function, a DBE must manage and perform at least 51% of its work. In other words, the firm cannot subcontract out more than 49% of its business. Also, there is a requirement that a DBE's principal customers be entities other than governmental agencies in order to perform a commercially useful function. Through testimony and admissions of its officers, TOC acknowledged that it was merely acting as a broker. In industry parlance, this means that TOC did all its work by telephone, obtained a seller and buyer and then obtained a common carrier to deliver the product. As such, TOC never took physical possession of the product on its own equipment since it owned none, and it was not responsible for the movement of the product from the terminal to the customer. Further, since TOC purchased virtually all of its fuel from BOC, and under an agreement customer checks went directly to that firm, TOC was, in essence, conducting a broker operation for BOC. Therefore, TOC was not performing a commercially useful function. At hearing, Gilliam was TOC's only witness, and he attempted to establish TOC's entitlement to certification. Besides pointing out that Terrell was a black man and the majority shareholder in the firm, Gilliam attempted to show that Terrell actually controlled and ran the business. Also, he attempted to demonstrate the commercially useful function of the firm by the fact that 80% (4 out of 5) of TOC's five accounts are nongovernmental customers. Although not reflected on the amended or original applications, Gilliam acknowledged that TOC owns one 1200 gallon truck capable of making fuel deliveries. Gilliam contended further that Terrell had made an initial contribution to the corporation of $120,000 of his own funds. However, no proof of this claim was submitted. Given the overwhelming contradictory evidence of record, and the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of TOC representatives, Gilliam's testimony is not accepted as being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Terrell Oil Company for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of November 1988.
The Issue Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2009), the issue is whether Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) properly determined that Petitioner Maximus Health Services, Inc.'s (Maximus) reply to Invitation to Negotiate 0904 (ITN 0904) was non-responsive for failure to meet mandatory criteria.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 2006, the Florida Legislature required the AHCA to implement Medicaid Reform. Medicaid Reform was intended to empower consumers to take an active role in their health care decisions. To serve that purpose, the Legislature required the AHCA to contract with a choice counseling/enrollment broker to provide Medicaid services in Broward, Duval, Nassau, Clay, and Baker counties. ITN 0904 sought to procure an enrollment broker for a three-year contract. It was released on March 9, 2009. The resulting contract is worth in excess of $30 million dollars from June 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011. ITN 0904 consisted of a series of attachments, including the following in relevant part: (a) Attachment C contained “Special Conditions"; (b) Attachment E provided “Evaluation Criteria”; and (c) Attachment G set forth "Required Certifications." The mandatory requirements of ITN 0904 were announced at Section C.7 of ITN 0904 as follows: C.7 Mandatory Requirements: The State has established certain requirements with respect to responses submitted to competitive solicitations. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate futurity) in this solicitation, indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the solicitation requirement, provides an advantage to one respondent over another, or has a potentially significant affect of the quality of the response or on the cost to the state. Material deviations cannot be waived. The words "should" or "may" in this solicitation, indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such desirable feature (sic) will not in itself cause rejection of a response. Section C.13 set forth the required certifications as follows in pertinent part: Required Certifications: The following certifications, contained in Attachment G, are required and must be submitted with the response: * * * Certification Regarding Terminated Contracts - certifying the vendor (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) has not unilaterally and willfully terminated any previous state or federal contracts for cause within the past five (5) years. FAILURE TO SUBMIT ATTACHMENT G, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS, SIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS OR CAVEATS, WILL RESULT IN THE REJECTION OF A PROSPECTIVE VENDOR'S RESPONSE. Section C.14 described the proposal guarantee as follows in relevant part: Proposal Guarantee: The original technical response must be accompanied by a proposal guarantee payable to the State of Florida in the amount of $260,000. The respondent must be the guarantor. Section C.38 contains general instructions for response preparation and submission as follows in pertinent part: The solicitation response shall consist of the following parts: A. Transmittal Letter This letter is mandatory . . . . The following documentation shall also be included with the transmittal letter: Proposal Guarantee, as required in Section C.14. Signed Attachment G, Required Certifications, as required in Section C.13. Signed Attachment L, Attestation of No Conflict, attesting that the vendor has no conflict of interest as described in Section C.31. FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE MANDATORY TRANSMITAL LETTER, INCLUDING ITEMS 1-3 ABOVE, WILL RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL. In Attachment E of ITN 0904, AHCA set forth the evaluation criteria it would use to assess the merits of responses. In Section E.1, the Agency announced that it would review mandatory criteria as follows: E.1 Review of Mandatory Criteria The Procurement Office will evaluate responses to this solicitation against the mandatory criteria found in Part I, Mandatory Criteria. Responses failing to comply with all mandatory criteria will not be considered for further evaluation. Part I is entitled Technical Response Mandatory Criteria. It is a checklist of some of the mandatory requirements of ITN 0904 and states as follows in relevant part: This evaluation sheet will be used by the Agency for Health Care Administration to designate proposals as "responsive" or "non- responsive". If the answer to any of the questions in the table below falls in to the "No" column, the proposal will be designated as "non-responsive" and will not be considered for further evaluation. QUESTIONS YES NO A. Does the response include a transmittal letter, signed by an individual having authority to bind the vendor, containing the following information, as outlined in Section C.38.A? The proposal guarantee, as specified in Section C.15 (sic)of this solicitation; ? A signed Attachment G, Required Certifications, as specified in Section C.13 of this solicitation; ? Attachment G is a form for all required certifications, including but not limited to the following: Certification Regarding Terminated Contracts I hereby certify that my company (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) has not unilaterally or willfully terminated any previous contract prior to the end of the contract with a state or the federal government and has not had a contract terminated by a state or the federal government for cause, prior to the end of the contract, within the past five years. Signature of Authorized Official Date On July 30, 2008, after receiving questions from interested vendors, AHCA issued an Addendum No. 1 to ITN 0904. The purpose of the addendum was to provide clarification and additional information, to make changes to certain attachments, and provide AHCA's response to questions received from prospective vendors. The addendum included the following statement: To the extent this Addendum gives rise to a protest, failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The following pertinent questions and answers were included in Addendum No. 1: Question 1: Pursuant to Attachment A.9 and Attachment C.13, please clarify whether the certification relates to the vendor terminated a contract or the government agency terminated a contract, or two different certifications. Answer: Please see Attachment G, Required Certifications, as referenced in Attachment C.13. This certification relates to the vendor (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) unilaterally or willfully terminating any previous contract prior to the end of the contract with a state or the federal government, and to the vendor having a contract terminated by a state or the federal government for cause prior to the end of the contract, within the past five years. * * * Question 8: Attachment C.13 - Please clarify whether the bidder will be disqualified if there is even one instance where a government contract was terminated for cause in the past 3 years. Answer: Respondents must submit a signed certification (Attachment G) in order to be considered responsive. Maximus admits that it asked Question 8 and received the answer set forth above. Maximus did not challenge any of the specifications in ITN 0904 after issuance of Addendum No. 1. Bruce Caswell, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Maximus, signed the required certifications on Attachment G on August 24, 2009. On the following page, Mr. Caswell included information about a terminated contract involving its parent company, Maximus, Inc., as set forth below. AHS, Maximus, and Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI) submitted replies to ITN 0904 on or about August 24, 2009. AHCA opened the replies that same day and forwarded them to AHCA's Procurement Officer, Barbara Vaughan. Ms. Vaughan had the responsibility to determine compliance with ITN 0904's "Technical Response Mandatory Criteria," using the checklist set forth above. Ms. Vaughan has been AHCA's Procurement Administrator since April 2009. She does not have knowledge and experience in all the technical areas for which AHCA may procure services. During the hearing, Ms. Vaughan did not know what an enrollment broker service is. She did not read the technical responses to ITN 0904. She only examined whether the responses included the mandatory items on the checklist. Sometime in September 2009, Ms. Vaughan determined that Maximus had submitted a non-responsive proposal because it included information regarding a contract that the State of Connecticut terminated with Maximus, Inc. Specifically, Maximus included the following additional information following its certification on Attachment G: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR ITN ATTACHMENT G As noted in the form on the previous page, we certify that MAXIMUS Health Services has not terminated any contract or been terminated prior to the end of the contract term during the past five years. Since, MAXIMUS Health Services is a subsidiary of MAXIMUS, Inc. we offer information about the parent company with respect to this certification. Of the thousands of contracts held by MAXIMUS, Inc. during the past five years, there is one incident of relevance. In this situation, in 2007, a MAXIMUS, Inc. contract to provide an updated criminal justice information system was terminated by the State of Connecticut prior to the end of the contract term after the primary subcontractor of MAXIMUS, Inc. abandoned the project. MAXIMUS, Inc. is disputing the State's termination and has sued its primary subcontractor. Mr. Caswell decided to include the forgoing exception or caveat following his certification because he understood that Maximus, Inc., as Maximus' parent company, was an affiliate and he did not want any misunderstanding. Mr. Caswell's interpretation of the word "affiliate" is consistent with the definition applied by AHCA in its review of the Technical Response Mandatory Criteria. At the hearing, Mr. Caswell, testified regarding the Connecticut contract. According to Mr. Caswell, Maximus, Inc., found itself in a position where it was unable to deliver on a contract for an integrated criminal justice solution with the State of Connecticut due to the mal-performance of its subcontractor. Mr. Caswell stated that Maximus, Inc., then moved to terminate the contract for convenience pursuant to the contract's terms; however, the State of Connecticut rejected Maximus' termination for convenience. Mr. Caswell admitted that the State of Connecticut then terminated the contract for cause and filed suit against Maximus, Inc., in approximately November 2007. Maximus is defending itself and suing its former sub-contractor in that on-going litigation. The State of Connecticut has alleged damages of $6.5 million dollars in their claim against Maximus, Inc. As a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Maximus, Inc., had annual revenues of approximately $717 million during the most recent fiscal year. The company has no debt and $87 million of cash on hand. The Connecticut dispute is less than one percent of the company's annual revenues. The following facts are undisputed: (a) Maximus has performed thousands of contracts without cancellation; Maximus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Maximus, Inc.; Maximus, Inc., is a leading provider of health and human services and consulting and program management services primarily to state governments; (d) Maximus, Inc., offers Medicaid-managed care enrollment brokerage services for thirteen states around the country, serving nearly 15 million Medicaid beneficiaries; and (e) Maximus performs enrollment broker contracts for several states. These facts do not make the Connecticut litigation immaterial considering AHCA's clear intent in drafting ITN 0904 relative to terminated contracts. The mandatory requirement for a certification regarding terminated contracts, without exceptions or caveats, was a reasonable specification because, as Mr. Caswell testified, disputes like the one between Connecticut and Maximus, Inc., are common in the industry. Ms. Vaughan correctly interpreted the language of ITN 0904 when she concluded that no explanation of a terminated contract involving a vender or its affiliates was allowed by the solicitation. Therefore, Ms. Vaughan did not forward Maximus' proposal for scoring by the evaluation team. In comparing Maximus' submission to the mandatory requirement for a proposal guarantee to the checklist included in Attachment E, Ms. Vaughan determined that Maximus' submission was responsive. She reached this conclusion even though Maximus' proposal guarantee was not in its own name as required by Section C.14. Instead, Maximus included a "Bid Bond" guaranteed by Maximus, Inc. The bond identifies Maximus, Inc., as Principal, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, as Surety, and AHCA, as Obligee. The bond erroneously states that Maximus, Inc., has submitted a bid for Solicitation Number AHCA ITN 0904, Florida Medicaid Enrollment Broker Services. The bond then goes on to describe its terms and conditions. There is no mention of the Surety guaranteeing performance by any subsidiary or affiliate of Maximus, Inc., or specifically by Maximus. Ms. Vaughan made her decision to reject Maximus’ bid just a week or two after bid openings, sometime in September 2009. However, AHCA did not announce its bid decision as it related to Maximus at that time. Instead, AHCA announced the rejection of Maximus after it announced the intended award of contract to AHS. The notice of Maximus' rejection followed an evaluation of responses by AHS and PSI, a negotiation session with AHS and PSI, and a subsequent negotiation session with AHS, who then provided the best and final offer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302-7742 Rachic Avanni Wilson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 David W. Nam, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William E. Williams, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Justin Senior, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas W. Arnold, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On July 15, 1992, respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), issued a document entitled "Solicitation of Offers For Legal Service Contracts-Child Support Enforcement Program" inviting legal firms or attorneys to submit proposals for providing legal services and representation of HRS in matters involving child support enforcement cases throughout the State of Florida for a nine-month period beginning on October 1, 1992, and ending on June 30, 1993. Although the solicitation was for services in all counties of the State, this case involves only the solicitation of services for representation in those counties within HRS District II that comprise the Second Judicial Circuit (Circuit). They include Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty and Wakulla Counties. The solicitation provided that three contracts would be awarded within the Circuit, one for Gadsden and Liberty Counties, the second for Leon and Jefferson Counties, and the third for Franklin and Wakulla Counties. The solicitation called for written offers to be filed with the HRS District II office in Tallahassee by August 17, 1992, and for all such offers to be opened the following day. Thereafter, the offers would be evaluated by a review committee whose role was to make a recommendation to the District II administrator. The administrator would then have the responsibility of making a "final decision" to accept an offer and award a contract with an anticipated award date of September 1, 1992. Finally, in paragraph XVIII of the document, HRS reserved the right "to reject any or all offers received, or to cancel this solicitation, regardless of evaluation, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the department." A total of seven law firms in the Circuit filed proposals in response to the solicitation. They included petitioner, Smith and Thompson, P.A., and intervenor, Knowles and Randolph, both of whom are minority firms located in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner and intervenor filed proposals for each of the three pairs of counties within the Circuit although intervenor's proposal for Gadsden and Liberty Counties was technically nonresponsive and was therefore not considered. Both petitioner and intervenor have previously provided services for HRS under similar contracts and both are considered to be technically competent to perform the work. By certified letters dated September 2, 1992, HRS advised each of the law firms filing proposals that it had decided to reject all offers and instead to implement a pilot program to provide in-house legal services in the Second Judicial Circuit. No other explanation was given. The letter granted each firm a point of entry to contest that decision. Thereafter, petitioner and intervenor timely filed notices of intent to protest the decision. However, by letter dated September 10, 1992, HRS advised petitioner and intervenor that its prior letter was in error and that instead "the decision of the department to reject all the responses to our recent solicitation of offers for the 2nd Judicial Circuit cannot be the subject of a protest". Even so, on September 18, 1992, petitioner filed a written protest and request for a hearing. This request was ultimately forwarded by HRS to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). On November 10, 1992, intervenor was authorized to participate herein as a party. In its order of October 27, 1992, transmitting the request for hearing to DOAH, HRS stated in part that: Since there was no bid award ... there can be no protest of an award. Neither can a right to a bid protest proceeding be created by mistake, whether by HRS or otherwise.... Simply put, no bid protest can be permitted under these circumstances. The action of the agency in rejecting all offers and deciding instead to provide legal services through in-house employees rather than through contract attorneys is agency action as that term is understood in the context of Chapter 120. Petitioner may be entitled to a determination as to whether or not that action was an appropriate exercise of agency discretion. For this reason the pleading filed by petitioner (bid protest) will be considered to be a request for an administrative hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, for the purpose of testing that determination. Prior Contracts for Child Support Services To place this controversy in perspective, it is necessary to review certain events surrounding the award of the contracts in prior years. Petitioner, or individual members of the firm, had held the HRS contract to provide child support enforcement services in Leon and Gadsden Counties during the years 1979 to 1989. The firm is considered to be competent and reliable and was characterized by one District employee as being the "best" of all contract firms in the state. In May 1989, HRS solicited proposals for the following fiscal year and in July 1989 received three proposals, including ones from petitioner and the law firm of Welch, Munroe and Whitley (WMW). In September 1989, the contract was awarded to WMW. It is fair to draw an inference that because Whitley was a former law partner and roommate of the Governor's general counsel, Munroe's wife was the Governor's chief cabinet aide, and an HRS employee had helped the firm complete its bid package, there may have been some favoritism in awarding the contract to that firm. The contract ran from October 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Because of problems by WMW in fulfilling the terms of the contract, the contract was terminated by HRS in April 1990. By then, Whitley had become a member of another Tallahassee law firm, Barrett, Bajoczky, Hoffman and Harper (BBHH). Just prior to terminating the contract, HRS found a serious backlog of cases and knew that, in order to process this backlog, an experienced law firm would have to provide the services for the remainder of the contract year. Accordingly, HRS requested that petitioner provide such services. At the same time, however, the HRS program administrator insisted that, as a condition to receiving the contract, petitioner must sign a joint venture agreement with BBHH wherein it agreed to share its fees with that firm because of Whitley's association. Petitioner reluctantly agreed to do so and executed such an agreement on May 7, 1990. The contract was then awarded to petitioner. Under the terms of the agreement, petitioner was obligated to give 26% of total attorney and paralegal fees to BBHH in return for BBHH providing "secondary legal services required by the child support contract". During the remainder of the contract, all warrants were issued to petitioner who deposited the warrants and then issued a check to BBHH pursuant to their agreement. As it turned out, however, BBHH was never sent any case files and performed no work under the contract to earn its fees. Recognizing that it could obtain the new contract for 1990-91 only by continuing to split fees with BBHH, petitioner made a "business decision" to submit a joint response with BBHH to the new solicitation. The previously executed joint agreement remained in effect. In July 1990, a proposal for the contract year 1990-91 was filed in the name of both firms, and the contract for Leon and Gadsden Counties was thereafter awarded to petitioner and BBHH. Petitioner submitted invoices for work performed to HRS and all warrants were thereafter issued by HRS in the names of both firms. However, after obtaining BBHH's endorsement, the checks were deposited in petitioner's bank account, and petitioner then issued a check to BBHH. Although BBHH was supposed to provide "secondary legal services" to earn its 26% of fees, the firm was never sent any case files and it performed no services during the year. Even so, petitioner was obligated to pay $80,000 to BBHH pursuant to their agreement. It should be noted, however, that petitioner exceeded the goals established by HRS under the contract and performed all work in a competent and professional manner. Further, there is no evidence that HRS paid more than was required for the services performed by petitioner. Rather, petitioner's income was reduced by the amount of payments made to BBHH. Petitioner has never taken any legal action against BBHH for failing to perform under the contract. When BBHH declined to perform any work under the contract, petitioner began voicing oral (but no written) complaints about its arrangement to various HRS personnel, all at the District program administrator level or lower, but received no help. It was told by one District employee that he was sorry but it was something they would have to live with given the circumstances. When a new administration took office in January 1991, which was midway through the contract year, petitioner again complained and eventually its complaints caught the ear of the new Governor's inspector-general. It also asked that the joint contract be terminated. After an investigation was conducted by the inspector- general, in which petitioner fully cooperated, a highly critical report was issued on May 29, 1991, and the HRS program administrator was immediately terminated from employment. The matter was then referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for possible federal criminal violations, and thereafter the FBI launched an investigation of the contracts. The federal investigation still remains pending. Although petitioner is not now a target or subject of the investigation, it was once a subject of the investigation and is still a part of the overall investigation. In addition, its members have been given use immunity for their testimony. There has also been fairly widespread newspaper coverage of the investigation, and it is fair to say the investigation gained some public notoriety. Even so, petitioner was allowed to complete the contract year and since July 1991 has continued to provide services for HRS in Leon and Gadsden Counties under an interim contract scheduled to expire on December 1, 1992. Post-1991 Events Leading Up to the 1992-93 Contract As early as the spring of 1991, the HRS Secretary had recommended to the Governor that HRS be allowed to consider an in-house program as an alternative to using contract attorneys. There was also a desire to make the competitive process more cost-effective, free of political considerations, and open to minority participation. This desire was reinforced by the findings in the inspector-general's report. In December 1991 the Governor first expressed an interest in HRS conducting an in-house pilot program and to compare the results of that program with the results being obtained under the various contracts. This interest was founded at least in part on financial considerations since the program involves total annual federal and state expenditures of more than $18 million. At the direction of the Governor and HRS Secretary, in January 1992 a blue ribbon committee began exploring the possibility of HRS performing legal services in-house, and, as noted previously, to develop a new solicitation that was more cost-effective, competitive, free of conflict of interest, and open to minority participation. However, due to a press of time, the committee was unable to sufficiently study the in-house issue so as to incorporate that into the 1992-93 solicitation. Even so, there were on-going, informal discussions by various HRS personnel, including the Secretary, regarding an in-house pilot program prior to the solicitation of offers in dispute here. Further, based on several conversations with the Governor, the Secretary was under the impression that the Governor was "adamant" about implementing such a program. HRS often uses District II as a location for pilot programs because of its proximity to the Tallahassee headquarters and its ideal urban-rural mix. In addition, the Second Judicial Circuit is the only judicial circuit wholly within District II. This meant that HRS would be dealing with only one "set" of judges and thus better results could be obtained in a pilot study. Finally, the excellent work rendered by petitioner on prior contracts provided a good point of comparison for a pilot program. The Evaluation Process After the proposals were filed, on August 18, 1992, an HRS evaluation committee opened the proposals and began its evaluation. The proposals were evaluated on both a technical and cost (but not ethical) basis, and a total score was given to each bidder. Pursuant to the terms of the solicitation, the firm with the highest score would be ranked first. The evaluation committee was made up of four District II employees. After reviewing the proposals, the committee voted to recommend that petitioner be awarded the contracts for all six counties since petitioner's proposals had a higher total score than those submitted by the other firms. Intervenor was ranked second in Leon, Jefferson, Franklin and Wakulla Counties. However, its proposed cost was around 25% higher than that of petitioner. The rankings and scores are reflected on petitioner's exhibit 5 received in evidence. The committee's recommendation, including those for the other counties within the District, was reduced to writing in the form of a report and was given to Dr. John M. Awad, District II administrator. On August 27 and 28, 1992, or after the committee report was prepared, meetings were held in the HRS general counsel's office regarding the contract in issue. Four HRS lawyers attended the meeting. There was a concern over the fact that even though petitioner was the highest ranked contractor, it was a part of the FBI investigation. In addition, one attorney represented to the others that he had been told by the Governor that the contract should not be awarded to petitioner because of that investigation and the Governor's desire to implement an in-house program. The same attorney expressed the view, although unsubstantiated, that petitioner may have had inside information in preparing its proposal. Accordingly, the attorneys discussed alternatives available to the agency in the event it decided not to award the contract to petitioner. One attorney concluded that the agency would not be able to give a valid reason for refusing to award the contract to petitioner, the highest ranking contractor, and thus it should reject all offers and go with a pilot program. Accordingly, it may be inferred that HRS legal counsel's subsequent recommendation to reject all bids was based primarily on legal counsel's inability at that point in time to articulate a valid reason for rejecting petitioner's proposal. These concerns were then presented to Dr. Awad. After he received the committee's recommendations, Dr. Awad awarded contracts for all counties except those within the Circuit. As to those counties within the Circuit, he did not sign off on the recommendation and execute a contract since he says he desired to first ascertain whether the agency intended to implement an in-house pilot program within the Circuit. Although he did not say so, it can be inferred that Dr. Awad's decision to not award the contract was based at least in part on his conversations with District counsel and his awareness that the top bidder was associated with contracts under active federal investigation. Accordingly, he called a meeting for Tuesday, September 1, 1992, to address this issue at the District level. Also, on August 31, 1992, Dr. Awad instructed Mr. William J. McEvoy, the District program administrator, to prepare cost figures for doing an in-house pilot program in the Second Judicial Circuit. This was the first knowledge that Mr. McEvoy had that HRS was considering a pilot program for the 1992-93 contract year. Using information derived from the various proposals as a benchmark, Mr. McEvoy developed a proposed first year cost based on the assumption that HRS could perform the work by hiring three staff attorneys and six support staff. This study, which was prepared over the course of an afternoon, was then given to Dr. Awad on September 1, 1992. It reflected an annualized cost in the first year of $402,599.00 but projected lower costs in the following years. These costs approximated or were slightly lower than the costs proposed by petitioner and were 25% lower than the next highest bidders. However, until the pilot program is actually run, a true comparison of costs cannot be made. A second meeting concerning the contract was held on September 1, 1992. Attendees were Dr. Awad, the HRS Secretary, four HRS staff attorneys, and perhaps an HRS assistant secretary. At that time, a concern was expressed to the Secretary that petitioner was a part of an investigation by the FBI. One HRS attorney advised the participants that, because of the pending investigation of the HRS contracts and petitioner's association with those contracts, and a desire to implement an in-house program, the Governor did not wish the contract to be awarded to petitioner. The participants also discussed the cost and feasibility of implementing an in-house program, the time frame for doing so, and the perameters of the program. At that point, the driving force to go in- house with the services was the fact that the highest ranking contractor was associated with prior contracts being investigated by the FBI. A decision was then made by the Secretary to reject all proposals, withdraw the solicitation, and implement an in-house pilot program within the Circuit beginning on December 1, 1992. As stated by him at hearing, the Secretary rejected petitioner's offer because of his concern with not only the contractor's integrity, but also the integrity of the process as a whole. More specifically, he was concerned with the fact that $80,000 of state funds had been paid to BBHH for doing no work and he questioned the propriety of awarding a contract to a firm under active investigation by the FBI. The associated decision to reject all offers and initiate a pilot program was premised on the notion that (a) the second highest ranking firms submitted proposals having substantially higher costs than petitioner, (b) projected first year in-house costs were equal to or less than that proposed by petitioner, and (c) the Governor had asked that an in-house program be given priority. Accordingly, the Secretary decided to reject all bids and withdraw the solicitation of offers. It is noted that under paragraph 10.b., Part 74, Appendix G of Chapter 45, Code of Federal Regulations, HRS is required to give consideration to the "contractor integrity" in making an award. Thus, even though HRS did not correlate its concern over the contractor's integrity with the above federal regulation until this point in the process, the reliance on the regulation as a reason to reject a contractor was still valid and appropriate. In other words, since there was always a concern with the federal investigation, the fact that HRS did not initially discover that a federal regulation supported its theory was not a fatal flaw in the decision- making process. Finally, the undersigned has rejected as being unsubstantiated the contention by petitioner that an HRS attorney favored another contractor obtaining the award and thus improperly influenced the agency's decision. Is the Solicitation a Bid? The contract in question is funded primarily with federal funds and is thus subject to relevant federal regulations, one of which requires that the contract be awarded through a competitive process. Therefore, even though HRS is exempt from the competitive sealed bid and proposal requirements of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, when procuring outside legal services, the federal regulations require a competitive process. Accordingly, in soliciting offers from law firms, HRS was obliged to use a competitive process akin to that required under chapter 287. In that vein, it prepared a document which called for sealed competitive bids (offers) from prospective contractors, provided for a competitive evaluation and ranking by an independent committee, and further provided that the contract would be awarded to the highest ranking contractor. In addition, paragraph IX of the solicitation of offers provided that in the event a participant wished to file a protest to an award, it must do so within seventy-two hours after receiving "notice of contract award or intended contract award" and must then file a "formal written notice of protest" within ten days thereafter. The same document also provided that if protests were filed, the agency would seek to informally resolve the dispute within seven calendar days, and if a protest was not resolved by mutual agreement, the protestant was entitled to a formal hearing before DOAH. These procedures essentially track the procedures for resolving bid disputes that are codified in Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the undersigned has rejected the contention by HRS that the process used herein does not fall within the ambit of a bid dispute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent dismissing the protests of petitioner and intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 92-6440BID Petitioner: 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 2. Rejected as being unnecessary. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 17. 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 8-11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 12. Partially adopted in finding of fact 12. 13-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 15. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 16-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 19. Rejected as being argument. 20. Rejected as being irrelevant. 21-24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 14. 25. Rejected as being irrelevant. 26-27. Partially adopted in finding of fact 14. 28. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. 29. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. 30-32. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. 37-42. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 43. Rejected as being unnecessary. 44. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 45-48. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 49. Partially adopted in findings of fact 5 and 6. 50-57. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 58-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 63-71. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 72. Rejected as being uncorroborated hearsay. 73-74. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 75. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 76-77. Rejected as being irrelevant. 78. Partially adopted in finding of fact 12. 79. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 80. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. Respondent: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 6-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 12. 15. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 16. Rejected as being unnecessary. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 19-21. Rejected as being unnecessary. 22. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 23-32. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 33-37. Partially adopted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. 43-44. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 45. Rejected as being unnecessary. 46. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 47-57. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 58. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 59-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 63. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 64-65. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8.. 66-78. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 79-83. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 84. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. 85-87. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in findings of fact 15 and 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 92-93. Partially adopted in finding of fact 17. 94. Partially adopted in findings of fact 16 and 17. 95-96. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 97. Partially adopted in finding of fact 16. 98-99. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 100-101.Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 105-106.Rejected as being unnecessary. 107. Rejected as being cumulative. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, not supported by credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 W. Crit Smith, Esquire 1530 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32308 Harold M. Knowles, Esquire 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
