The Issue Whether Respondent, Andrew T. Edgemond, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against Respondent's land surveyor's license.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers, with the responsibility to license, regulate, and discipline land surveyors in the State of Florida. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed land surveyor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number LS 0002347. Respondent was initially licensed as a land surveyor in 1971 and has practiced land surveying in Plant City, Florida for more than twenty years. On or about March 22, 1989, Respondent was contacted by a client who requested that Respondent prepare a survey specifying the location of certain mono form boards. Mono form boards are temporary structures and are not fixed improvements, although they may be used to indicate where fixed improvements will be located. The client indicated that the survey was needed immediately because the client was to have a slab of concrete poured before the next morning. Prior to conducting the survey, Respondent asked his client for a legal description of the property on which the form boards were located. The client provided Respondent with a copy of a building permit which contained a reference to a preliminary plat. Respondent then went to City Hall in Plant City, Florida where he obtained a preliminary plat which included the property on which the form boards were located. After leaving the City Hall, Respondent went to his office to determine where the property was located. In researching the files in his office, Respondent found a boundary survey which included a property line which was coincident with the property the client had asked him to survey. Having obtained the building permit, preliminary plat, and the boundary survey, Respondent went into the field to measure the location of the form boards. Upon returning to his office, Respondent prepared a survey which indicated the location of the mono form boards. The survey, dated March 22, 1989, was signed and sealed by Respondent. On the survey was the following: "SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY" "FOR BUILDING PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY" The survey drawing contained a preliminary description as follows: PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION Lot 22 of WALDIN LAKE UNIT 55 as per "Preliminary Plat" on file in City Engineers office, City of Plant City, Florida. Respondent made the decision to designate the survey a specific purpose survey after he reviewed Rule 21HH-6.002, Florida Administrative Code. After reviewing the various types of surveys outlined in the rule, Respondent concluded that a survey done solely to provide a client with the location of mono form boards that were already in place came within the definition of a specific or special purpose survey. A specific or special purpose survey is one that is performed for specified purposes and does not come within the definition of other types of surveys outlined in Rule 21HH-6.002, Florida Administrative Code. The specific purpose survey allows the surveyor to perform a survey that meets the client's particular need. However, a specific purpose survey may not be used to circumvent the law and must conform to the minimum technical standards. The Department's position is that a specific purpose survey was inappropriate in the instant case. Moreover, even if a specific purpose survey was appropriate, the Respondent's survey failed to meet the minimum technical standards. With regard to the type of survey performed by Respondent, the Department's expert witness, Lewis Kent, testified that Respondent's use of the specific purpose survey in this case was improper. Although this was his opinion, Mr. Kent candidly admitted that he was not sure what Respondent was requested to do by the client. Mr. Kent further testified that standard practice requires that boundary surveys be performed prior to new construction. Apparently, Mr. Kent believed that the situation in this case involved new construction. Based on that belief, he concluded that Respondent was obligated to perform a boundary survey. Notwithstanding this conclusion, no authority was cited for this proposition. In fact, evidence was presented that the Plant City Building Department did not require a boundary survey as a condition of issuing a building permit for commercial projects, such as the proposed project of Respondent's client. At one point, Mr. Kent stated that the Respondent was required to perform a boundary survey of the entire 1,539.523 acre tract, even though the tract had already been surveyed. During the course of his testimony, Mr. Kent retreated from this position and indicated that Respondent was not obligated to retrace the entire tract, but should have retraced enough of the tract to tie his survey to a legal corner. Notwithstanding the Department's position that the specific purpose survey was inappropriate in this case and that Respondent should have performed a boundary survey, its expert witness testified that a boundary survey was not the only way to locate the mono form boards. During his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Kent indicated that perhaps the type of survey that Respondent should have performed was a "construction layout survey" as that term is defined in Rule 22HH-6.002 (6)(c), Florida Administrative Code. In regard to the second allegation, the Department asserted that even if the survey was appropriately designated a specific purpose survey, the survey failed to meet the minimum technical standards. Specifically, the Department alleged that Respondent's specific purpose survey failed to include an adequate legal description and a legend which included abbreviations used in the drawing. According to the Department's expert witness, the legal description on Respondent's specific purpose survey failed to meet the minimum technical standards in that the description on the face of the survey referred only to a preliminary plat, which by its very nature is subject to change. However, at the time Respondent prepared the specific purpose survey, the subdivision had not yet been platted. The Department's position is that the minimum technical standards required that the survey include a phrase describing the legal metes and bounds, and show the location of the mono form boards in relation to a boundary line. According to the Department's expert, as presently drawn, another surveyor could not reproduce this survey without first obtaining a copy of the preliminary plat referred to on the survey. Richard Hinson, the expert witness for Respondent has been a licensed land surveyor in the State of Florida since 1982. During that time, Mr. Hinson has performed several hundred boundary surveys in Plant City, Florida and over a hundred surveys for building permit purposes. The testimony of Mr. Hinson conflicted directly with the testimony of Mr. Kent. It was Mr. Hinson's testimony that in the instant case, a specific purpose survey is appropriate. Based on what Respondent's client requested, a measurement showing the location of the mono form boards, the survey was appropriately designated a specific purpose survey. The Department asserted that, at a minimum, Respondent was obligated to do a boundary survey of Lot 22. However, in this situation, a boundary survey of preliminary Lot 22 would have made no difference in the location of the mono form boards because Lot 22 did not exist when Respondent prepared the survey. With regard to the preliminary description on the survey, based on Mr. Hinson's opinion, the specific purpose survey prepared by Respondent meets the minimum technical standards. While the survey does not recite or go back to a corner for the description, the description given is that it relates to the preliminary plat. With respect to the use of a specific purpose survey, Mr. Hinson's opinion was that, in this case, it was appropriate for Respondent to perform a specific purpose survey to measure the location of form boards. This opinion was based on two factors, both of which were present in this case. First, prior to performing the survey, the surveyor must have reviewed the following: a boundary survey, a building permit with a legal description describing Lot 22 according to a preliminary plat, and a copy the preliminary plat showing Lot 22. Second, the surveyor must have determined that the preliminary plat was rendered out of the boundary survey. In this case, prior to performing the specific purpose survey, Respondent utilized a boundary survey of the tract, which included Lot 22 as shown on the preliminary plat, and determined that the preliminary plat was rendered from that survey. After assuring himself that the preliminary plat was rendered from the boundary survey which he reviewed, Respondent went to the site and proceeded to measure and draw the location of the mono form boards in his field notes. Respondent's survey shows Lot 22 and notes that this is a preliminary description based on a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is referenced on the survey. The drawing, which depicts the location of the mono form boards, measures the distance from the boundary of Lot 22 to Old Sydney Road and to Sydney Road. The drawing also measures the distance of the mono form boards from the boundary lines of Lot 22. The accuracy of these measurements were undisputed by the Department. Based on Mr. Hinson's opinion, Respondent's decision to designate the survey in the instant case as a specific purpose survey was appropriate. Also, with respect to the preliminary description that appears on the face of the survey, the survey meets the minimum technical standards. The specific purpose survey prepared by Respondent fails to meet the minimum technical standard set forth in Rule 21HH-6.003(5), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that the abbreviations used on the drawing be noted within a legend on the face of the drawing. In this case, the abbreviations used on the survey are not noted on a legend or anywhere else on the survey. No evidence was presented to indicate that the specific purpose survey performed by Respondent inaccurately depicted the location of the mono form boards. Neither was evidence presented which even claimed to indicate that the survey prepared by Respondent failed to comply with the client's request. Respondent has been a licensed land surveyor in the State of Florida for twenty-four years, and there is no evidence that he has been subjected to disciplinary action on any prior occasion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Land Surveyors and Mappers, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 472.033(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $250.00 RECOMMENDED that Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 29th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1159 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Statutes, (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4-5. Accepted. 6. Accepted and incorporated. 7-9. Accepted. 10. Rejected as statement of rule. 11. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. 12. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. 14. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15. Rejected as argument. 16. Accepted and incorporated. 17-18. Accepted. 19. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20. Rejected as argument. 21-22. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted except at time of survey the lots were preliminary. Rejected as argument. 26-27. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 28. Accepted except statement that Respondent was obligated to retrace part of the survey is rejected. 29-31. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Accepted. 34-35. Rejected as argument. 36. Accepted. 37-40. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41. Accepted. 42-43. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as conclusion of law. 46-48. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated. Unsupported by record evidence. 3-7. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary. 1-3 of page 2. Rejected as conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mark W. Reagan, Esquire P.O. Box 321028 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Stephen Phillips Kilmon, committed the violations alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on January 25, 2007, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged in Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, with the duty, among other things, of regulating the practice of land surveying and mapping. At the times material to this proceeding, Stephen Phillips Kilmon, is and was a licensed Florida Surveyor and Mapper, having been issued license number LS 5439. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Kilmon was doing business as ViaLink, Inc., a licensed surveyor business, having been issued license number LB 6648. Mr. Kilmon's address is 2010 Northeast 122 Road, North Miami, Florida 33181. Mr. Kilmon obtained his license in January 1995. Before obtaining his license and beginning in 1980, he obtained experience in surveying, mapping, civil engineering, computer aided design drafting, and information management systems, which ultimately led to his licensure. The Fiddler's Creek Project. 951 Land Holdings, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "951"), through Holes Montes & Associates (hereinafter referred to as "Holes Montes"), was engaged in the development of a housing/golf course project in Naples, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Fiddler's Creek Project"). A portion of the Fiddler's Creek Project was being constructed by Atlantic Civil, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "ACI"). Among other things, ACI was engaged in the excavation of several lakes and the creation of an upland golf course in a wetlands' area. ACI was, however, having difficulty completing the excavation of the lakes due to apparent back-fill which was preventing ACI from achieving the contracted depth of -18 feet National Geiodetic Vertical Datum 1929. Mr. Kilmon described the problem as follows: . . . each lake became mysteriously back- filled to a depth of -14 feet, National Geiodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29) virtually overnight not allowing ACI to achieve reaching their contract depth of -18 NGVD29 for the bottom of any lake. The analogy is like digging a small hole in the sand a the beach near the water only to watch it fill with more sand and water each time you scoop out the material. The result of ACI's futile efforts to achieve and maintain -18 NGVD29 for any lake caused an over-excavation in cubic yards per lake, long before ACI could finish cutting out the lake pattern or design template. ACI filled its construction site limits to more than 110% of the cubic yards HMA [Holes Montes & Associates] designed for it, yet only completed 75% of the lakes final design template. ACI sought reasonable contract relief from 951 in achieving the unattainable contract required -18 NGVD29 lake bottom depth due to the natural back- fill of liquid sand conditions below the initial 4~6 feet of cap rock, and 951 refused. ACI's position then became that 951 was taking advantage of its contractor to force excessive extraction of "free" fill material for 951 at the unfair expense of ACI. . . . ACI then made the attempt hiring ViaLink to identify the approximate best known volume of excavated "fill" material placed onsite from the lakes, and to be paid according to material type cubic yard unit cost, rather than by the contract method of lake dredge percent complete. Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Involvement of ViaLink, Inc. and Mr. Kilmon in the Fiddler's Creek Project. As a result of the foregoing described problem, ACI hired ViaLink, Inc., and Mr. Kilmon to provide services described by Mr. Kilmon, in pertinent part, as follows: My initial role as Surveyor/Mapper for ACI was to monitor the mysterious back-filing of sandy material during the dredging process after reaching -18 NGVD29. I performed numerous measurements immediately following the backhoe digging, and recorded depths reaching the -18 NGVD29. . . . My second involvement came several months later. At this time I was requested by ACI to perform a survey which captures a topographic surface (less the hydrographic surfaces of the lakes, surveyed by HMA) in the form of a digital terrain model (DTM) of the contracted construction limits out to, and including the bordering lands matching to existing conditions beyond the ACI construction site limit for that moment in time. . . . My third and next involvement on this project site came when ACI informed me that their informal negotiations with 951 felt [sic] through at trying to convey the understanding of the amount of material already placed onsite exceeding the contracted and design intended volume for the ACI construction site limits. I was asked by ACI to contact HMA directly to compare my "ViaLink" DTM topographic surface . . . to the HMA DTM surfaces maintained on their computer systems . . . . From this point on legal counsel for both sides took over the control for resolution between ACI vs. 951, which sent everyone into court. . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Ultimately, the parties turned to the courts to resolve their dispute. During this litigation process, Mr. Kilmon prepared what he titled a "Specific Purpose Survey Surveyor's Report" (hereinafter referred to as the "Surveyor's Report"). Petitioner's Exhibit 4. The Surveyor's Report was prepared in response to a subpoena from counsel for 951 and had to be prepared quickly: MR. KILMON: Because it was an evolutionary process -- ever since we were first hired to go and work on the site, the Judge said, "Wrap it up." That was exactly what he said, "Wrap it up," and he said "Wrap it up" because the other counsel on the other side was seeing that this evolution here of survey work was actually producing something, that I was actually able to recreate this [Digital Terrain Model] that they were hiding. I was actually able to come up with it again and actually produce a number. They cut it, and they go the Judge to say, "Okay, let's produce what he has, let's see what he has" My client said, "Please, you've got to say something. They've drawn a line in the sand and we're not allowed to cross it anymore. We have to come up with something." . . . . MR. KILMON: That was the first piece I gave them because of that subpoena, and that was the May 30 disk. . . . And then I ended up submitting the final version of it that I ran out of time with, and well, here you go, it's the last version. So I complied is all I did. I complied. . . . Transcript, Vol. II, Page 215, Lines 15-25, Page 216, Lines 1-4, and Page 217, Lines 6-12. The Surveyor's Report. The Surveyor's Report, dated July 10, 2002, and addressed to the president and CEO of ACI, states that it involves "Professional Forensic Surveying & Mapping Services; Earthwork Analysis" for the Fiddler's Creek Project. The Surveyor's Report contains the following "Mission Statement": Develop a stratum within a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) having two (2) surfaces for comparison; (a) compile an existing conditions surface (Surface 2[SRF2]) observed and recorded by Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc. (HMA) and their sub- consultants at the time Atlantic Civil, Inc. (ACI) began construction, and (b) compile a final surface (Surface 3 [Srf3]) observed hydrographically by HMA and topographically by ViaLink, Inc (ViaLink) at the time the ACI was terminated, less any areas even partially filled by others, though completed by ACI. Perform a calculation within the DTM which determines the amount of "FILL" material placed on the Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, Stage l (the "Site") by Atlantic Civil, Inc. between Srf2 and Srf 3. Methods of volume calculations include "Average End Area" by contract, and "Prismoidal" in support as a backup check calculation in verification. The Surveyor's Report also lists the data relied upon by Mr. Kilmon, many of the rules that govern the practice of surveyors and mappers, and information concerning the calculation of the amount of fill removed by ACI in its efforts to excavate the lakes made by Mr. Kilmon. The Surveyor's Report also included a compact disc (hereinafter referred to as the "CD"), which contained "AutoCAD drawing files depicting a Digital Terrain Model ('DTM')." The Digital Terrain Model (hereinafter referred to as the "DTM"), a digital representation of data, is, according to the Department, a "map." Petitioner's Exhibit 5. The CD contained "AutoCAD drawing files depicting a Digital Terrain Model (DTM)." A printed depiction of the Digital Terrain Model (hereinafter referred to as the "DTM"), contained on the CD was printed and admitted in evidence. It was never Mr. Kilmon's intention to prepare a "quantity survey" as those terms are defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.002(8)(h), or provide a "map" with his report. As to the type of report he intended to issue, Mr. Kilmon testified, in part, as follows: I was left with a partial, if you will, quantity survey, and it's uncertified data, and I didn't want anyone to take off with an assumption, by just reading the title of my report, that there was some sort of real quantity surveying going on here. That’s why you have a specific purpose survey is when you have things that are really out of whack from what's normal for a survey type, slowing everything down. Making people take a look at the title, specific purpose survey, was my judgment call. I wanted to make everybody, including the public, know that right off the top of the bat, you're not going to see this as a quantity. You're going to have to break it down and understand what the data is that made the number. Transcript, Vol. II, Page 220, Lines 16-25, and Page 221, Lines 1-5. Mr. Kilmon recognized that to issuing a quantity survey or map was not appropriate for two reasons: First, some of the data he had available to him was unverified data from Holes Montes; and Second, he did not have all of the data necessary to complete an accurate quantity survey. As Mr. Kilmon further explained his intention during his testimony at hearing, agreeing "in part" with a question as to whether he had concluded that a quantity survey was not appropriate because of inappropriate data he had: . . . . The other part is that the end- all answer of what would be the quantity on that surface, because we didn't have enough data, not just uncertified, but we didn't have enough data to tell where every bit of fill was on that surface. There is no way to know that the end-all number would be. It's simply, as I put in my certification, the best-known number, and the reason is because we're just trying to determine whether or not it's in the 700, 600, a thousand cubit yard range, or are we talking about the 400,000 cubic yard range that the contractor got paid for. Is it worth another look at reevaluating with better cooperation from the other surveyor to get certified data and maybe look at their actual DTM, you know, to get to the bottom of this? Transcript, Vol. II, Page 218, Lines 22-25 and Page 219, Lines 1-12. In addition to styling his report as a "Specific Purpose Survey Surveyor's Report," rather than a quantity survey, Mr. Kilmon warned the reader of the uncertainty of some of the data he had relied upon. On page 14 of the Surveyor's Report, under the heading "Reviewed Survey Data" he identifies the following "Surveyor's and Mappers providing surveying data for review" (see also, page 1): Hole Montes & Associates, Inc. (HMA), . . .as the surveying and mapping consultant or agent to the Fiddler's Creek Developer (FCD), including aerial photogrammetry sub- consultants employed, though their identities are not disclosed. ViaLink, Inc. (ViaLink) . . . as the surveyor and mapping consultant to ACI. On January 24, 2001 the undersigned Surveyor and Mapper formally made a request of HMA and the FCD through ACI for a copy of specific survey instruments, in digital and hardcopy formats, to expedite the review of the Fiddler's Creek Ste, as identified above. To date no signed and sealed, or certified field notes, survey maps, sketches, or surveyor's reports, of any kind have been provided for evaluation. Further, HMA and the FCD insist all survey related information available from there [sic]file has been proffered for review. While originally requested of HMA and the FCD certain forms of helpful raw and finished survey product(s) developed by HMA (and/or it [sic] sub-consultants) and the FCD have if [sic] fact been withheld from this review. Examples being lawfully prepared certified plats of public record, their respective certified boundary surveys, and control surveys signed and sealed. Other examples of withheld survey information include all controlled aerial photogrammetry products observed at the time ACI was terminated. Certified survey data contained in the attached DTM to date is limited to that portion of information provided by this firm, ViaLink, Inc. All other survey data provided for this DTM review is NOT certified, and does not meet the Minimum Technical Standards (MTS) of Chapter 61G17-6 of the Florida Administrative Code as required by Florida Law. The lack of certification does not invalidate the accuracy of the survey data, just its backing. (Emphasis added). The Surveyor's Report, page 14, goes on to advise that there are "three(3) surfaces" contained within the CD's DTM and warns the following with regard to "Surface No. 1": "Surface No. 1 (Srf1) being simply the "Contract Surface" reportedly created by a mystery aerial photogrammetrist developing planimetrics and derived three-dimensional spot elevations as a sub-consultant to HMA in and about a Fiddler's Creek pre- construction Site. " Beginning at the bottom of page 14 and continuing on to page 15, the Surveyor's Report describes where more specific data concerning all three surfaces was obtained, the accuracy or lack thereof of the data, and whether the data is certified. Much of the data listed is acknowledged to be of "unknown" accuracy and to lack certification. Finally, on pages 25 and 26, under the heading "Surveyor's & Mapper Notes," Mr. Kilmon noted the following concerning the inadequacy of data used in the report: 4.) This SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY & MAP SURVEYOR'S REPORT is the direct result of geometric calculation, in large part due to the availability of qualified data provided by others, but without any certification of the responsible surveyor and mapper. . . . . 8.) Under Florida Law, this firm, ViaLink, Inc., and the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper can not certify survey information provided by others when the survey is not conducted under the direct supervision of the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper. Therefore this firm, ViaLink, Inc., and the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper will not assuming [sic] any liability; for information provided by others used in this SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY for Earthwork Analysis. Mr. Kilmon goes on to make the following ultimate findings in the Surveyor's Report: 10.) It is this undersigned Surveyor & Mapper's certain opinion that the earthwork calculation which determined a FILL quantity of 688,080 cubic yards of material reflects an extremely conservative volume of material placed onsite by ACI for the area known as Phase 2A, Stage 1. Additionally, extreme measures have been taken to exclude any and all areas of Srf3 were even in part FILL was placed by others. These pocketed areas of partial FILL formerly reflected within SRF3 have been extensively sought out and totally removed by ACI personnel having direct personal knowledge of the site prior to any construction by ACI. Aerial photography taken by Aerophoto, Inc., on 07/15/1999 independently supports these efforts depicting the same identified regions of partial FILL. The result of this additional effort to meet and/or exceed the Mission Statement of this Surveyor's Report now actually benefits the FCD. Omitted partially filled regions by ACI and others are now not claimed by ACI in any way, but are instead 100% credited to the FCD. 11.) It is the undersigned Surveyor & Mapper's certain opinion that HMA conducted its surveying practices with the positive intension to reflect the actual conditions of Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, State 1 topographic and hydrographic surfaces, as no evidence was found to the contrary. 12.) The Average End Area computed total FILL quantity of 688,080 represents FILL to form higher uplands regions and placed in lakes, and may contain a variety of earth materials from rock to sand. On the last page of the Surveyor's Report is the following note: Not Valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed surveyor and mapper. Further this Surveyor's Report is not valid without the original CD-ROM displaying the original signature of this same undersigned Surveyor & Mapper. As noted, supra, a CD was provided by Mr. Kilmon with the Surveyor's Report. The DTM contains a large "N" with an arrow at the bottom. Under this symbol is the following identifying information: Specific Purpose Survey Fiddler's Creek, Phase 2A, Stage 1 (NAD 83/99 FL E. 901 & NGVD 29) Mr. Kilmon did not intend for the DTM to be a "map." Toward this end, he notes the following in the Surveyor's Report on page 26 under the heading "Surveyor's & Mapper Notes": "This is NOT a BOUNDARY SURVEY." Consistent with his intent to only prepare a "report" and not a "report and map", Mr. Kilmon consistently refers to the Surveyor's Report throughout the report (except for what appears to be typographical error), as a "Specific Purpose Survey & Map Surveyor's Report." He does not refer to the report as a "Specific Purpose Survey and Map." To the extent that it is considered a "map," the DTM does not contain the information required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003 alleged to be missing in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Mr. Kilmon signed and sealed the Surveyor's Report under the following "Surveyor's Certification:" THIS IS TO CERTIFY that this SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY & MAP SURVEYOR'S REPORT is the result of compiled topographic and hydrographic data in part provided by others for the limited purpose of calculating best known "FILL" quantities as mentioned in the Mission Statement herein. I FURTHER CERTIFY that this SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY & MAP SURVEYOR'S REPORT meets or exceeds the evaluation, analysis, and result finding accuracies established by the Minimum Technical Standards as set forth by the Florida Board of Surveyors and Mappers in Chapter 61G17-6.0052, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Chapter 472.027 of the Florida Statutes. Summary Findings. The ultimate issues of fact in this case are whether the Surveyor's Report constitutes a "quantity survey" and whether the DTM is a "Map." Credible expert witnesses for the Department and Mr. Kilmon gave inconsistent testimony on these issues. Ultimately, as to the first question, whether the Surveyor's Report constitutes a "quantity survey," the testimony of the Department's expert witnesses was more convincing. It is concluded that the Surveyor's Report, regardless of what Mr. Kilmon named it, is a quantity survey, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.002(8)(h) and (j), as "a survey to obtain measurements of quantity." The Surveyor's Report comes within this definition: First, the Surveyor's Report is a "survey", which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003(8) as "the orderly process of determining facts of size, shape, identity, geodetic location, or legal location by viewing and applying direct measurement of features on or near the earth's surface using field or image methods. . . ."; and Second, the survey, by admission of Mr. Kilmon at hearing and on the face of the Surveyor's Report, was intended to obtain and report a measurement of quantity even if only a rough estimate thereof. While Mr. Kilmon did qualify his calculations and openly disclosed the shortcomings of the data relied upon, the bottom line is Mr. Kilmon concluded that "[i]t is this undersigned Surveyor & Mapper's certain opinion that the earthwork calculation which determined a FILL quantity of 688,080 cubic yards of material reflects an extremely conservative volume of material placed onsite by ACI for the area known as Phase 2A, Stage 1." The second issue, as to the proper characterization of the DTM, is more difficult to resolve. The Department's experts unequivocally characterized the DTM as a map. Mr. Kilmon's expert testimony emphasized the issue of whether a map was required rather than whether the DTM was a map. While it seems that the DTM is nothing more than a depiction of data during an intermediate step in the process of manipulating that data, it would not be reasonable to reject the testimony of the Department's experts. It is, therefore, found that the DTM is a map. The Department's witnesses did not, however, prove clearly and convincingly that the DTM is the type of map for which the information specified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003 is required. Mr. Kilmon's expert, on the other hand, testified convincingly that the DTM is not a map to which the standards and requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G17-6.003(3) apply.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Board enter a final order finding that Stephen Phillips Kilmon committed the violation described in this Recommended Order, issuing a written reprimand, and requiring that he pay a fine of $500.00 within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric R. Hurst Charles F. Tunnicliff Assistants General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Stephen Phillips Kilmon 2010 Northeast 122 Road North Miami, Florida 33181 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Morrison, Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors And Mappers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not Petitioner correctly responded to Case VI on Part II of the Land Surveyors Examination, and if so, whether he should have received a passing grade.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the Petitioner and his demeanor while testifying, depositions and other documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, Garland R. Hardwick, was a candidate for the Land Surveyors Examination administered October 29 and 30, 1901. Case VI, a legal description, constituted a portion of the examination given on October 30, 1981. (Testimony of Petitioner) Case VI required the examinee to prepare a legal description of the portion of a road right-of-way which cut across a lot within a platted subdivision for inclusion in a right-of-way deed. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and the deposition of David Gibson, page 8) The examinee was further asked to "calculate any quantities needed." The credit given for Case VI was 20 points. As drafted, Case VI called for certain calculations to be performed by the examinee. The type of calculations required depended on the description provided, i.e., metes and bounds or strip conveyances. A strip form of conveyance required description and calculation of the center line. (Gibson deposition, pages 11-12) A portion of the credit given on Case VI was for calculations. If a strip form description were used in Case VI, the minimum calculations required for credit were those of the arc length (center line) and the radius. If these minimum calculations were not performed by an examinee having prepared a strip form or center line description, no credit was given to the examinee. (Deposition of Gibson, pages 14-19) Petitioner's response to Case VI is a strip or center line description. Petitioner did not calculate or describe the distance along the arc of the center line, or the right-of-way as it cut across the lot in question. Petitioner therefore received no credit on Case VI for calculations. (Testimony of Petitioner [TR pp 6-8] and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2) David Gibson, an examination consultant who was solely responsible for the drafting and grading of Case VI, gave his expert opinion that the required calculations of examinees preparing a strip, or center line description, were consistent with the standards of the profession. (Gibson deposition, page 16) PETITIONER'S POSITION During the hearing, Petitioner related that no calculations or descriptions of the distance along the arc of the center line for Case VI were needed, and in support thereof, referred to examples of strip descriptions filed within Report 4, Metes and Bounds Descriptions by Fant, Freeman and Madson, a book referred to on the suggested book list provided to examinees. petitioner cited Cases 33 and 37 within the above-referred text as being examples similar to Case VI on the examination. The sample description given in Case 33 provides calculations and distances along the center line of the right-of-way. (Testimony of Petitioner, TR pages 6, 8, 15-20, and Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Further, Petitioner points to the fact that in the event of a dispute the boundary line of the adjoining lot would control over the distance of the center line of the right-of-way. Case 33 of the above referred reference book appeared similar to Case VI of the subject examination. (Testimony of Petitioner, TR p. 16) In that example, center line distances are calculated and "would enable the surveyor to locate this strip . . . help him maintain the identity of this parcel or strip." (Petitioner's testimony TR p. 17) Case number 35 and others referred to during the hearing by Petitioner (save Case 33) were, at best, limited in similarity and would not require a different result. (TR p. 20)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Board of Land Surveyors, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request and the relief sought to the effect that he be awarded a passing grade on the Land Surveyors Examination administered to him on October 29 and 30, 1981. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 8th day of February, 1983.
The Issue Whether or not Respondent has violated Sections 472.033(1)(a), and (h), and 455.227(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21HH-2.001(3) and 21HH-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, by failure to comply with a valid Final Order of the Board of Professional Land Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged, in conjunction with the Board of Professional Land Surveyors, with the responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Chapters 455 and 472, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent Bertin C. Tash was licensed as a professional land surveyor in the State of Florida, holding license number LS 0002292. By Final Order entered December 31, 1985, the Board of Professional Land Surveyors issued a Final Order in case number 0049353 (previously DOAH Case No. 85-0285), a prior disciplinary action against Respondent. Among other terms of that Final Order, Respondent was placed on probation for twenty-seven months and further was required during the course of that twenty-seven month probation to: ... submit 25 surveys representative of his land surveying practice which shall be accompanied by field notes and record plats to the board for its review. Additional information regarding the surveys may be requested. Five surveys shall be submitted within three months from the filing of this final order; thereafter, five surveys shall be submitted at six month intervals during the period of probation. Respondent shall attend the first available continuing education seminar in his area on the minimum technical standards within 12 months from the filing of this order or as soon after as possible. Evidence of Respondent's attendance and successful completion of the course shall be furnished to the board through the proctor or instructor of the continuing education course... (Emphasis supplied.) It is noted that although the "certificate of service" for the copy of the Final Order admitted in evidence as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 3 is unsigned, Respondent admitted receipt thereof, that no appeal was taken therefrom, and that he understood the terms of the Final Order. Twenty-seven months from December 31, 1985 would fall on April 1, 1987. Twelve months from December 31, 1985 would fall on January 2, 1986. Respondent initially complied with the Final Order by submitting two sets of five surveys, the second in December, 1986. However, some type of dispute arose between Respondent and the Board's monitor of Respondent's probation about whether the monitor could require corrections to be done by Respondent to those surveys already submitted and about whether or not Respondent could be required to submit his field notes for the surveys. Respondent seems to have resisted the clear language of the Final Order (see emphasized language in Finding of Fact No. 4, supra) upon a personal belief that these requirements were unconstitutional, invaded his privacy, or exposed him to ethical charges by his clients. There is nothing in the record, to support this ideation of Respondent, and eventually, Respondent altered his position. Respondent did not submit any further surveys until November, 1988 after the instant case was already in progress, at which time he had modified some of his views with regard to field notes. He then attempted to comply with the Final Order by submitting corrected surveys. However, in error, he sent these surveys not to the Board, but to the attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation where they were retained. This submittal was considerably beyond the April 1, 1987 probationary period and whether considered corrections of the second five surveys or an additional five surveys would not constitute the twenty-five surveys required by the prior Final Order. The Respondent failed to complete a seminar on minimum technical standards between the entry of the Final Order on December 31, 1985 and the date of formal hearing on December 14, 1988. Petitioner submitted proof that such courses were available in West Palm Beach, Respondent's hometown, on May 20, 1987, and in adjoining Broward County on May 21, 1988. Clearly, neither of these courses was available to Respondent during the probationary time frames set out in the Final Order and Findings of Fact Nos. 4 and 5 supra. Petitioner submitted no proof of the availability of other such courses during the appropriate time frames, but it appears undisputed that these were the only qualifying courses "in his area" and that the Board would have accepted Respondent's late completion of either course as his compliance with the continuing education requirement in the Final Order. The Board even went so far as to reserve space for Respondent at the May 21, 1988 course in Broward County. Respondent's testimony that he was too ill to attend the May 30, 1987 course is unrefuted. Respondent's testimony that he had, no private means of transportation to the May 21, 1988 course is also unrefuted but he did not show unavailability of public transportation. Moreover, Respondent testified that until the date of formal hearing, he had resisted, upon grounds of his personal ethical ideation, the concept of learning from, or submitting himself to critiques by, any local professionals who conducted continuing education seminars in land surveying.
Recommendation That the Board of Professional Land Surveyors enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of two counts of violating Section 472.003(1)(h) Florida Statutes, and imposing a three-month suspension of Respondent's license, subject to an extension of such suspension to a maximum of one year or until Respondent completes the continuing education course required by the prior Final Order, whichever comes first, and imposing thereafter three years' probation to follow immediately upon the lifting of the suspension, during which three years' probation Respondent shall be required to submit an appropriate number of surveys to be determined by the Board for review by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3108 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's PFOF: 1-5 are all accepted. Respondent's PFOF: PFOF 1 discusses the nature of several exhibits and objections ruled upon in the course of formal hearing, does not constitute a relevant or material proposed fact and is not dispositive of any issue at bar. The same subjects are addressed within the RO at FOF 3-4 and 8 to the degree they impinge on this proceeding. PFOF 2 is rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 8 to the degree it comports with the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. PFOF 3 is accepted in part in FOF 6. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, and not comporting with the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. PFOF 4,5,7 and 8 are rejected as mere argument of position or legal argument. PFOF 6 is accepted in part in FOF 7. The remainder of the proposal is rejected as immaterial or mere argument of position or legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bertin C. Tash 5100 Spruce Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-2846 Allen Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Land Surveyors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the placement of a window in a sleeping room at Elsie Miller Convalescent Home, Inc., d/b/a Elsie Miller Manor (Elsie Miller), an Adult Congregate Living Facility, violates Chapter 400 or Chapter 553, Florida Statutes. This case came to hearing based upon a peculiar set of circumstances. Initially on December 12, 1984, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Office of Licensure and Certification, cited Elsie Miller for a deficiency, stating that "Bedroom No. 3 is not provided with a window to the outside for ventilation and light." By letter dated February 11, 1985, Elsie Miller disagreed with the deficiency, citing reasons for the disagreement, and requested a formal hearing on the deficiency. On February 28, 1985, HRS sent a letter to Elsie Miller reiterating the deficiency and denying a waiver for the window in question. Therein, HRS told Elsie Miller that it could appeal the deficiency determination. By letter dated March 12, 1984, Elsie Miller requested a hearing to appeal the decision in the February 28, 1985, letter, without specifying whether it appealed the actual finding of deficiency or the denial of a waiver. The matter was then forwarded to Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer. At no time did HRS issue a Notice of Violation or any other document that would serve as an administrative complaint, nor did HRS seeks to impose sanctions for the alleged violation. Presumably, an administrative complaint would have eventually been issued if Elsie Miller had done nothing to correct the alleged deficiency. Under this set of circumstances, a formal hearing was convened, after which the parties recognized and agreed that the matter was in fact not ripe for hearing. However, to avoid the time and expense of gathering the witnesses and parties at some future time, the parties instead stipulated that the formal hearing should proceed as if an Administrative Complaint has been filed, that HRS would take final agency action based on this Recommended Order, and that this proceeding would conclusively address the issue of whether the window complies with Chapter 400 and Chapter 553 as incorporated by reference in Section 400.444. Petitioner presented the testimony of Jim Valinoti, together with one exhibit. Respondent presented the testimony of Earnest J. Miller, Jr., together with three exhibits. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as permitted by law. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. To the extent that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted are in accordance with the Findings, Conclusions and views submitted herein, they have been accepted and adopted in substance. Those findings not adopted are considered to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the competent or credible evidence.
Findings Of Fact Elsie Miller Convalescent Home, Inc., d/b/a Elsie Miller Manor, is the owner and licensee of a licensed Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) located at 1914-21st Street, Vero Beach, Florida. It has been so licensed since 1974 and houses twenty residents. In 1984 Elsie Miller remodeled its facility by enclosing a screened porch to make a dining room and adding a new screened porch outside of the dining room. A building permit was obtained from the City of Vero Beach. Pursuant to that building permit, the City of Vero Beach approved the plans and inspected the construction to determine whether the project was in compliance with the building codes of the City of Vero Beach. The window in Bedroom #3 previously opened onto the screened porch. After remodeling it opens into the dining room a few feet from the new screened porch. ACLF facilities must have their licenses renewed yearly. Elsie Miller's license was renewed in October, 1984, after the remodeling was completed. On December 12, 1984, Jim Valinoti, a Fire Protection Specialist for HRS, conducted an annual licensure survey. He cited Elsie Miller for a deficiency for the window in Bedroom #3 because it did not open "to the outside for ventilation and light." This allegedly violated Section 2001.1 of the applicable building code. Mr. Valinoti's interpretation of Section 2001.1 as it refers to windows opening to an approved open space is that the window must open into a space open to the outside. Bedroom #3 has two exit routes in addition to the window, but has only the one window which opens onto the dining room. In order to move the window to open to the outside, Elsie Miller would have to move two patients, tear out walls and reshape two bedrooms. There is adequate light and ventilation with the current placement of the window. The dining room is connected to the screened porch by an entire wall of glass and sliding glass doors. The window is approximately three feet from the plate glass window and light and ventilation are adequate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order determining that Elsie Miller Convalescent Home, Inc., d/b/a Elsie Miller Manor is not deficient and is not in violation of Section 2001.1(b) of the Southern Building Code as it relates to the window in Bedroom #3. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: K. C. Collette District IX Legal Counsel 111 Georgia Avenue, 3rd Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Charles E. Garris 2205 14th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Leslie Mendelson, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel- Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The matters in dispute in this cause concern the attempts by Petitioner to achieve licensure in the State of Florida as a registered land surveyor, pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, and through Rule 21HH-3.01, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Respondent asserts that Petitioner has not met the necessary prerequisites in Section 472.013, Florida Statutes, to allow him to stand the licensing examination. Moreover, Respondent has not allowed Petitioner to gain licensure by endorsement as defined in Subsection 472.015 (3) , Florida Statutes. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to licensure by endorsement or in the alternative, to stand the examination, leading to his licensure by testing. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Petitioner testified in this cause and offered two exhibits which were received. Respondent presented a composite exhibit which is constituted of file materials related to the Petitioner's application for licensure and responses to the application request.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a retiree from the United States Army, having served 22 years, commencing in 1955. During his service, he obtained military occupational specialties related to the field of surveying in the artillery branch. This experience included occupational training given to Petitioner and examinations of his skills following that training; practical surveying work, and instructional work by Petitioner performed for the benefit of other trainees. This work experience included surveying activities in Florida while in the military. Those surveying duties were military assignments. Material related to Petitioner's training and job performance is generally set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 are further statements related to the Petitioner's military occupational specialties. Petitioner has made application to be licensed as a land surveyor in Florida in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. Through this process, it is Petitioner's desire to be accepted for licensure through the endorsement process or be given the opportunity to sit for the examination. Respondent is unwilling to accent Petitioner as a candidate for licensure by endorsement. In this connection, he did not establish his successful completion of an examination identified in Subsection 472.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, or that he holds a valid license from another jurisdiction within the meaning of Subsection 472.015(3)(b) , Florida Statutes. After reviewing Petitioner's application, Respondent through correspondence dated September 10, 1982, denied Petitioner's reguest for licensure by examination premised upon the fact that Petitioner's land surveying experience was not verified by a registered land surveyor who had employed or supervised Petitioner's work. In addition, the letter of denial of licensure indicated that the applicant's file was not complete in that it failed to account for work experience following Petitioner's retirement from the armed services in 1976. (In the course of the hearing, it was established that Petitioner has not practiced land surveying following his retirement.) Notwithstanding his considerable experience, Petitioner has failed to submit by application and/or in the course of the final hearing, documentation which would verify that Petitioner has gained his experience in the field of surveying as a sub- ordinate to a land surveyor as defined in Subsection 472.005(3), Florida Statutes. His documentation did not identify that Petitioner's supervisors or commanders were land surveyors as previously defined and Petitioner did not establish in the hearing that his superiors were land surveyors, as defined. As a consequence, Petitioner failed to provide references from land surveyors setting forth the quality and character of his duties and responsibilities while under the land surveyor's supervision. After receiving the letter of denial of the application, Petitioner made a timely request for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. This matter was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and received by that Division on October 18, 1982. An initial hearing date was established for December 8, 1982, and was continued to allow for the negotiations between the parties. The case was subsequently reset for final hearing on March 16, 1983, the date the final hearing was conducted.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner certification as a Florida firefighter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a resident of Ohio, requested to qualify for the Florida Minimum Standards Equivalence Examination, based on his experience, to become a Florida firefighter. Petitioner's request effectively "challenged" the exam and requested an exemption from attending the Florida Minimum Standards Course. Petitioner could have taken the Florida Minimum Standards Course. If he had taken the course, he may have had an opportunity to review video tapes and other instructional materials which are available but not a required part of the basic curriculum. Instead, Petitioner elected to furnish Respondent with his out-of-state firefighter credentials. Subsequently, Respondent granted Petitioner the requested exemption. Prior to taking the examination, Respondent's staff accurately informed Petitioner about the scope, structure and subject matter of the test during numerous telephone calls. On at least ten occasions, Respondent's staff described the test to Petitioner and told him how to prepare for it. Respondent's staff specifically told Petitioner that he should study the International Fire Service Training Association Manual (IFSTA Manual). As to part one of the practical portion of the exam, Petitioner knew that Respondent would test him on the breathing apparatus, the one and three quarter-inch hose and nozzle operation, and the twenty-four foot ladder evolution. Respondent told Petitioner that he needed to know how to perform all skills set forth in the IFSTA Manual because Respondent randomly selects six different sections of tasks to test on part two of the practical examination. The six skill sections which are picked for part two remain unknown to anyone in advance of the test regardless of whether he is out-of-state or in-state applicants. These skills are chosen by Respondent's Field Representatives in their offices at the Florida State Fire College prior to going to a testing site or for testing at the Florida State Fire College. The two parts of the practical examination are of equal worth. An examinee begins with 100 points and points are deducted for deficiencies throughout the exam. Candidates are required to achieve a score of at least seventy (70) points in order to pass the practical examination. Petitioner took his Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination on April 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner's final score on the April 28, 1997, Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination was twenty-five (25) points, which was not a passing score. Candidates are allowed one retest of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest if they are not successful on their initial test. Petitioner chose to take the test again on July 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Respondent's Field Representative administered part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest to Petitioner. Petitioner did not take part two of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. He chose to quit after realizing that his score on part one was so low that he could not pass the retest as a whole. After deciding not to take part two in the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest, Petitioner approached Field Representative Bill DePauw to tell him that he was quitting. Petitioner was not attired in the mandatory minimum safety gear, but in civilian clothes. At that time, Mr. DePauw was in the process of testing another examinee. Mr. DePauw told the Petitioner he needed to talk to Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor. Petitioner then approached Mr. McCall and informed him that he would not be taking part two of the retest. Mr. McCall asked Petitioner to leave the testing grounds because Petitioner was being loud and disruptive to the applicants testing or waiting to be tested. Further, once an applicant decides not to continue, he is no longer allowed in the testing area. Petitioner informed Mr. McCall, both on the field and in Mr. McCall's office, that the Florida exam and the process were "chicken." Petitioner lost seventy-five (75) points on part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. The maximum allowable deduction for part one of fifty (50) points was deducted from Petitioner's part one score. Therefore, Petitioner's final score on the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest administered on July 28, 1997, was fifty (50) points, which is not a passing score. Applicants are assigned a number during orientation. From that time on, the applicants are referred to only by that number to ensure impartiality. The applicant's name is attached to the number after the exam, sometimes several days later. The examiner makes up a package of exams, numbers the packets, and then circles six (6) skills at random in each packet. No names are applied to the packets and the numbers are not assigned to the examinees until the day of testing. The Field Representatives are required to give an orientation prior to each Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination on the day of the exam. The orientation consists of walking the applicants through each section of part one. The Field Representatives use the same form check-off sheet during each orientation to ensure that each candidate is given the same orientation. The Field Representatives use a scoresheet to grade the applicants which is a guide to simplify the scoring process. The numeric values on the scoresheet are negative points deducted from an applicant's raw score of 100 points. The Field Representatives only make deductions when the applicant does not follow the required procedure for performing the evolution. Petitioner admits that the point deduction is correct for exceeding the required time on the breathing apparatus evolution. Petitioner admits that he had to go back to the loop during the hose and nozzle evolution to fix the kinks in the hose line. Additionally, he took a couple of steps backwards while he was pulling the hose line. Walking backwards occurs when a candidate takes two steps or more backwards, walking in the opposite direction from where he is looking. There are no warnings issued for walking backwards during the certification examination. Petitioner admits that the deduction for exceeding time during the hose and nozzle evolution was correct. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner struggled during the ladder evolution. He lacked control of the ladder at all times during the demonstration. All of the deficiencies which Petitioner admits to amount to a total of 35 negative points as the least possible point deduction. That equals a score of 65 without Petitioner even having taken part two. A score of 65 is not a passing score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Bill Nelson in his capacity as State Fire Marshal enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a Certification of Compliance as a Florida Firefighter. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul Appleton 13500 Shaker Boulevard, No. 102 Cleveland, Ohio 44120 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Narcisco J. Ramirez, held land surveyor license number LS0002779 issued by petitioner, Department of professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors. Respondent currently operates a land surveying firm known as South Atlantic Services of Florida, Inc. located at 7350 Southwest 41st Street; Miami, Florida. Respondent received a two year degree in civil engineering from City College of San Francisco in 1969 and has worked for various firms as a land surveyor in the Miami area since 1971. He has been a registered land surveyor in Florida since July, 1975. In March, 1984, respondent was contacted by a real estate salesman and requested to perform a "boundary survey" and "sketch" of a parcel of land owned by one M. P. Smith McNiely. The land in question involved various lots, including Lots 23, 25-30, 34-36 and 38 located in a subdivision known as DeSoto Heights which lies adjacent to Southwest 304th Street, Southwest 105th Terrace, and Southwest 168th Street in Dade County, Florida, just north of the City of Homestead. The property was to be sold, and the survey was intended to assist the seller in determining a sales price on the property. Ramirez interpreted the request to mean that only a "preliminary sketch" would be initially done, and if requested by the owner, a "complete survey" would be performed at a later date. He was paid $650 for the initial work, and expected an additional fee of $2,500 to $3,000 for the complete survey. According to Ramirez, a preliminary sketch is not as accurate as a complete survey, has substantially less information, may contain errors, and does not require a certification by the surveyor that it meets all required professional standards of surveying. Ramirez assigned the field work to an employee named Roberto Collado, who no longer lives in Florida. The field work consisted of determining the property corners, and providing a sketch to the real estate salesman. Ramirez did not certify that minimum technical standards had been met but did sign and seal the drawing on March 22, 1984. At the same time he provided the following certification: I HEREBY CERTIFY: that the attached sketch of survey represents a recent survey made under my direction, and is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. There are no encroachments unless shown thereon. Ramirez also added the following in bold lettering: NOTE: BOUNDARY SURVEY ONLY. No elevations secured or any other featured at the owners representative s request. A short time later, Frank Makowski, also a registered land surveyor and a former professional colleague of Ramirez some ten years earlier was contacted by an attorney (David Liebman) who was handling the sales transaction of McNiely's property. The closing was being held up because Ramirez's survey reflected a house sitting on both lots 36 and 37. Makowski was requested to verify the encroachment onto lot 36, and to ascertain the true location of the property boundaries. Makowski initially contacted Ramirez and requested a copy of his sketch and field notes. These were supplied by Ramirez, who gave no indication to him that the work was only "preliminary" in nature. Makowski then sent out a field team to survey the property. It found that the west boundary on the Ramirez survey was actually thirty-three feet off, which caused the purported encroachment on lot 36. The sketch made by Ramirez was deficient in a number of respects as established by uncontradicted expert testimony. To begin with, the parties have stipulated that the survey did not comply with the minimum technical standards for land surveying as set forth in Chapter 21HH- 6, Florida Administrative Code. These include Rules 21HH- 6.03(1), (2), (4), (6)-(8), (12), (18)-(20), and 21HH- 6.06(1), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the administrative complaint. For example, it contained no certification, did not reflect all bearings and angles, and monumentations were not set. In short, the Ramirez survey technique and procedure was not in conformance with the procedure required by generally accepted and prevailing standards of land surveying. Moreover, even though it was identified as a "boundary survey;" expert testimony established that the project was indeed a survey within the meaning of the term and it had to meet such technical standards or plainly provide a disclaimer to indicate that such standards were not met. In September, 1983, respondent was engaged by an engineering firm to "secure ground elevations along the above property (Southwest 168th Street and Southwest 192nd Avenue, Dade County) and then relate said elevations to a Dade County Bench Mark," and to "prepare a sketch of survey showing said existing ground elevations." For this he was to be paid $150. The property was owned by Alfred and Linda Wilson. Ramirez first obtained by telephone a bench mark on September 30, 1983; from the Dade County Surveying Department and then sent a field crew to complete the task. The bench mark he selected was across a canal and some three-quarters of a mile from the property in question in an area with heavy undergrowth. This made an accurate measurement more difficult to perform. The accuracy of vertical control surveys (elevations) is essential since this determines whether a parcel of land must have fill added in order to install a septic tank and well. It also affects the flood insurability of a home. Such surveys are subject to the minimum technical standards of the profession, as adopted by agency rules, unless the survey is a "specific purpose survey." In that event the same must be clearly stated on the face of the survey. In this case Ramirez, merely noted on the face of the sketch: "preliminary sketch, only elevations are included in this sketch of survey, no horizontal distances were measured nor controls set and distances shown along the sketch are for location purposes only." He also certified that "the elevations shown refer to a National Vertical Geodetic Datum of 1929, Bench Mark, were secured by us under my direction and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Ramirez considered the project to be a "special purpose sketch" and therefore did not believe he had to certify that minimum technical standards had been met. Indeed, he conceded that such standards had not been met in preparing the documents. Makowski was requested to perform a survey on the Wilson property on June 12, 1984 to verify the accuracy of Ramirez s survey. He found the actual elevations to be approximately two feet lower than those reflected on Ramirez's sketch. 2/ The accuracy of Makowski's findings was corroborated by a survey previously performed by another surveyor in 1979. That survey, which is a public record on file with the Dade County Subdivision Control Department, indicated that because of the property's low elevation, fill was required to meet flood criteria. Through the testimony of Makowski and another expert land surveyor, James E. Beadman, it was established without contradiction that Ramirez's work failed to comport with minimum technical standards of the land surveying profession. For example, Ramirez had insufficient field notes, he used too few turning points, and did not perform a loop closure. Further, there is no bench mark description or certification by Ramirez on the survey, and Ramirez used a Linker rod to transfer elevations from one bench mark to another in contravention of accepted standards. Had Ramirez desired to qualify his elevation survey in accordance with agency rules, he should have identified his survey as a topographic survey and indicated that improvements were not located. By calling it an elevation survey, Ramirez did not change its true character of being a topographic survey. Rule 21HH-6.06, Florida Administrative Code, requires that when a survey is not performed, a surveyor should "state that such sketch is not a survey" on the face of the sketch. All other surveys must meet minimum technical standards, and by signing and sealing the drawings, a surveyor certifies as such. Ramirez justified his work in the McNiely project as being simply preliminary in nature. If he conducted a complete survey at a later time, he would then obtain more information, and correct any errors present on the initial drawings. Similarly, he viewed the Wilson survey as a special purpose sketch," and one not requiring compliance with minimum technical standards. Ramirez has performed hundreds of surveys in the past fifteen years; and there is no evidence of any formal disciplinary action having been instituted against him for negligence or misconduct. Both surveys were eventually performed in an accurate manner by Makowski. There were no complaints filed against Ramirez by either client. The complaint herein stems from Makowski who reported the alleged violations to petitioner after reviewing Ramirez's work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as set forth in the conclusions of law portion of this orders and that he be fined $1000 and placed on two years probation. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 7th day of August, 1985.
The Issue Whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services, the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and is the procuring agency in this proceeding. Petitioner's Notice of Protest and its Amended Petition were timely filed. The services being procured were advertised as the "Continuing Services Contract for Materials Testing and Geotechnical Services Request for Proposals." The procurement sought to secure the services of a prime consultant to support Respondent's District 5 by providing professional services in the fields: soil exploration; geotechnical exploration testing; highway material testing; foundation studies; pavement evaluation; and construction materials sampling, testing, and reporting. Due to the nature of the services to be provided, the RFP contemplated that the prime consultant would have to use sub-consultants for certain services. Each proposer was required to list the sub-consultants it would use and identify the fields of work the sub-consultants would perform. There were no challenges to the specifications of the RFP. Petitioner, Intervenor, and Ellis were the three shortlisted firms and submitted proposals, which included a "Project Related Information Package." All three members of the TEC made an affirmative finding that all three proposers are qualified to perform the required services as the prime consultant. Roger Schmitt, Kathy Gray, and Jeremy Wolcott acted as the TEC, and performed the evaluation and scoring of the technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP. All three are professional engineers. There was no issue as to whether the evaluators were qualified to serve in that capacity. The TEC was charged with evaluating the materials submitted by the three proposers in accordance with the RFP (Joint Exhibit 1) and Procurement Topic 375-030-002-i, styled Acquisition of Professional Services (Joint Exhibit 4). The responses could be awarded a maximum of 100 points. A maximum of 30 points could be awarded under the heading: "Management Plan." A maximum of 15 of those 30 points could be awarded under the subheading: "What is your Management Plan for this Contract." A maximum of 15 of those 30 points could be awarded under the subheading: "Explain your ability to provide services in a timely and effective manner." A maximum of 30 points could be awarded under the heading: "Geotechnical Services." A maximum of five of those 30 points were to be awarded under the subheading: "Describe how you will provide Geotechnical support for Design." A maximum of 25 of those 30 points could be awarded under the subheading: "Describe your approach to providing PDA [pile driver analysis] testing and engineering." A maximum of 40 points could be awarded under the heading: "Construction Materials Testing and Evaluations." A maximum of ten of those 40 points could be awarded under the subheading: "What qualified technicians (including qualified Pre-Stress inspectors) are available for this contract and what Certifications do they currently hold? (See scope of services for qualifications list.)" A maximum of 20 of those 40 points could be awarded under the heading: "What is your plan for staffing, oversight activities, recruitment, and training of VT [verification technician] asphalt plant technicians? How do you plan to manage the program to make sure the asphalt plants are staffed without disruption to construction and to keep costs in check?" A maximum of ten of those 40 points could be awarded under the subheading: "Describe your experience, commitment to turnaround time and internal review process for performing pavement survey evaluations. Describe how you propose to manage the program for Maintenance of Traffic, lane closures, and meeting the Department production for coring." Mr. Barker is a professional engineer and a professional geologist. He is a director and vice president of Petitioner. He was actively involved with preparing the proposal submitted by Petitioner. Mr. Barker is a former employee of Respondent, having served as the District Materials Engineer for Districts 1 and 7 until he moved to Petitioner five years ago. Frank Smith is the consultant project manager for District 5 for Materials Research. Mr. Smith also assigned the performance grade associated with the most recent contract between Petitioner and Respondent for District 5 materials testing. Mr. Smith gave Petitioner a score of 4.7 out of a possible 5 points. Each TEC member scored each proposer pursuant to the terms of the RFP. After the three TEC members scores were compiled, Intervenor had a total score of 263 points (for an average of 87.67), Petitioner had a total score of 262 points (for an average of 87.33), and Ellis had a total score of 257 points (for an average of 85.67). The TEC ranked Intervenor first, Petitioner second, and Ellis third. Respondent's selection committee decided to award the RFP to Intervenor based on the rankings of the TEC. Ms. Gray is a 23-year veteran with Respondent's District 5. She has served on many evaluation committees during her employment with Respondent. She reviewed the RFP before it was issued, and she participated in determining what entities should be shortlisted. Ms. Gray is very familiar with Intervenor and Petitioner. Ms. Gray read all information submitted by the three proposers, with the exception of certain employee resumes, before assigning scores to any response. Her scoring reflects her evaluation of the strength of each response as compared with the other responses. MANAGEMENT PLAN As reflected above, under the subheading "Management Plan for Contract," a proposer could be awarded a maximum of 15 points. For that category, Ms. Gray awarded Intervenor a score of 15, while awarding Petitioner a score of 10. In determining Petitioner's score for "Management Plan for Contract", Ms. Gray made the following notations on the scoring form: Good overall Plan and Project Manager. Since we will only have two CSC Materials and Research contracts in the future, the potential for conflict of interest problems is a bigger concern than in the past. Universal has the highest conflict of interest risk of the three firms. Universal has a preference for maximizing the use of in-house resources even when qualified sub-consultants are available and closer to the job. Their approach would be stronger if the welfare of the project was the highest priority. The Firm only committed to 10% DBE [Disadvantaged Business Enterprise] participation.[3] It was reasonable for Ms. Gray to conclude that Petitioner's response to the RFP stressed its in-house capabilities. Mr. Smith gave advice to the TEC. Prior to the review, Mr. Smith related to the TEC members that Mr. Barker had, in the past, expressed a strong preference on the part of Petitioner to use in-house resources rather than sub-consultants when it could. It was reasonable for Ms. Gray to rely on Mr. Smith's advice, particularly when she was familiar with Petitioner and the way Petitioner operated. It was reasonable for Ms. Gray to consider the three proposers' potential for conflict of interests in scoring their proposals. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray's scoring for this category, as compared with the other proposals, was arbitrary or capricious. ASSIGNMENT OF SUB-CONSULTANTS The Scope of Services, which is attached to joint exhibit 1 as exhibit A, provides at page nine: The assignment of dynamic pile testing/analyses personnel to projects shall be at the sole discretion of the District Geotechnical Engineer. As noted above, Ms. Gray is the District Geotechnical Engineer. Ms. Gray testified that she has been instructed not to tell prime consultants what sub-consultant to use for any services, including PDA. Mr. Schmitt explained that the foregoing provision is used to provide Respondent the authority to prohibit a prime consultant from using an unqualified sub- consultant. Because of this policy, Ms. Gray could not order the prime consultant to use a sub-consultant instead of using its in-house resources. Mr. Barker testified that Petitioner had been asked by District 5 project managers to use certain sub-consultants for certain work. He further testified that Petitioner has never refused such a request, even if it had to add a sub-consultant to its list of sub-consultants. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Ms. Gray had ever asked Petitioner to use a particular sub-consultant. APPROACH TO PDA As reflected above, under the subheading "Approach to providing PDA testing and engineering," a proposer could be awarded a maximum of 25 points. For that subheading Ms. Gray awarded Petitioner a score of 20 while awarding Intervenor a score of 25. In determining Petitioner's score for "Approach to providing PDA testing and engineering," Ms. Gray made the following notations on the scoring form: Universal has expressed a strong preference for using in-house PDA resources; however, their small in-house staff does not meet all the scope requirements and is not located in the District. They have reluctantly used sub-consultants in the past, but it is not clear how committed they are to using the most qualified and efficient resources available. Some firms are more cooperative in this area. In scoring this subheading, Ms. Gray considered Petitioner's response, which emphasized its in-house capability to do PDA as required by the RFP. Ms. Gray was concerned that Josh Adams, the person Petitioner identified as the employee responsible for the in-house performance of PDA, was not qualified to perform PDA services. After describing its in- house resources for performing PDA, including equipment, Petitioner's response included the following (at page 3 of Joint Exhibit 2): PDA testing field services and all corresponding analyses/recommendations are performed by our in-house staff (Josh Adams) or by our subconsultants [sic] RS&H, CS, GRL, F&GE of AFT. Our subconsultants [sic] can provide additional equipment and have performed PDA for numerous FDOT projects. Ms. Gray was familiar with three of the proposed sub- consultants and considered the three to be qualified. At the time of the technical evaluation and at the time of the formal hearing, Josh Adams did not have the qualifications to conduct the PDA required by the RFP and could not perform the services for Petitioner on an in-house basis. Mr. Adams had recently joined Petitioner's employment to replace an employee who had previously done the PDA work for Petitioner. Petitioner's proposal did not discuss Petitioner's future plans for Mr. Adams or how it intended to develop in-house capability to perform PDA work. Intervenor's response to the PDA inquiry indicated that in addition to one other sub-consultant (URS), which Ms. Gray considered to be qualified, it would use the three qualified sub-consultants to perform the PDA services identified by Petitioner. Intervenor does not have in-house capability to perform the required PDA services. Ms. Gray deducted points from Petitioner under the subheading "Approach to providing PDA testing and engineering" because of its "reluctance" to use sub-consultants and because it failed to include URS as a sub-consultant. Ms. Gray's use of the term "reluctance" was not supported by the evidence. While there was sufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner had a strong preference to use its in-house resources when it could, there was insufficient evidence to establish Petitioner's "reluctance" to use sub-consultants when necessary. Her testimony explained that her concern was Petitioner's strong preference to use in-house resources, when the use of a sub- consultant would better serve the interests of District 5. She was of the opinion that Petitioner's failure to include URS as a sub-consultant signaled that Petitioner was not as committed as the other proposers to using sub-consultants. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray's scoring for this category, compared with the other proposers, was arbitrary or capricious. CERTIFICATIONS As reflected above, under the subheading "Qualified technicians and what Certifications do they currently hold," a proposer could be awarded a maximum of 10 points. Ms. Gray awarded Petitioner a score of 8 while awarding Intervenor a score of 10. In determining Petitioner's score for that subheading, Ms. Gray made the following notations on the scoring form: Universal has many qualified technicians. However, it is not clear what they will do for Prestress inspectors. Their Qualified Personnel matrix shows one good sub- consultant we are familiar with, but the other two Prestress technicians listed are based outside the District and we have no experience with them. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray's scoring of this subheading, compared with the other proposals, was arbitrary or capricious. ASPHALT PLANT TECHNICIANS As reflected above, under the subheading "plan for staffing, oversight activities, recruitment, and training of VT asphalt technicians", a proposer could be awarded a maximum of 20 points. Ms. Gray awarded Petitioner a score of 15 while awarding Intervenor a score of 18. In determining Petitioner's score for that subheading, Ms. Gray made the following notations on the scoring form: Universal has a good group of qualified Asphalt VT technicians. However, it appears supervision of the program is planned to be by the general Contract Manager, who is not Plant Certified. Other firms have a stronger Asphalt Plant VT Quality Assurance oversight plan. Although the RFP did not specifically address "Quality Assurance," the term "oversight activities" is sufficiently broad to encompass "Quality Assurance." There is no requirement for the supervisor to be "Plant Certified." Petitioner failed to establish that it was inappropriate for Ms. Gray to consider whether the supervisor was plant certified in comparing proposals. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Gray's scoring of this subheading, compared with the other two proposals, was arbitrary or capricious. BIAS There was no evidence that Ms. Gray was biased in favor of or against any proposer. Ms. Gray based her evaluation of Petitioner on the basis of the criteria established by the RFP using her background and experience dealing with the proposers. There was no evidence that the methodology she employed in weighing the merits of the three proposals was improper. Respondent's selection committee acted reasonably in selecting the consultant (Intervenor) that the TEC ranked first.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order that denies Petitioner's bid protest and upholds the award of the procurement to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 24th day of October, 2011. 1 Two members of the TEC (Ms. Gray and Mr. Wolcott) ranked Intervenor in first place. 2 In its Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent explained that the initial petition was dismissed by Respondent because it did not conform to pleading requirements and there was no bond filed. The Order of Dismissal entered by Respondent gave Petitioner a deadline to file an amended petition and a protest bond. Petitioner thereafter met that deadline, Respondent referred Petitioner's Amended Petition to DOAH, and this proceeding followed. 3 Petitioner's Amended Petition did not raise an issue as to DBE participation. COPIES FURNISHED: Deanna Hurt, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ananth Prasad, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Gerald B. Curington, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thomas H. Justice, III, Esquire Thomas H. Justice III, P.A 1435 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite A Orlando, Florida 32814 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire Williams, McMillian, P. A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
