Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony received at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Power Line Engineering, Inc. was originally formed in 1983 by Roger Sloan, who initially held 100 percent of the stock. The business of the corporation is the installation of overhead power lines and street lights. In August of 1986, approximately 52 percent of the corporation's stock was transferred to LaVerne Sloan, Roger Sloan's wife, and 10 percent was transferred to Scott Austin. Roger Sloan retained the remainder of the shares. The testimony was unclear as to how many directors the corporation has, and no documentary evidence was offered at the hearing. Roger Sloan is the president, Scott Austin is the vice-president and LaVerne Sloan is the secretary/treasurer of the corporation. It appears that these three individuals are also the sole directors of the petitioner. Roger Sloan is the chief estimator and does most of the public relations work for the company. He solves problems in the field and does cost estimating for bids. Most of the equipment owned by the company was purchased by him prior to August of 1986. Scott Austin is in charge of the field work and he consults with Roger Sloan if there are problems in the field. He also helps with the bid work. It is his view that he and Mr. and Mrs. Sloan are partners in running the company. LaVerne Sloan is the general manager in the office. While the company uses an accountant for the book work, she signs all the checks, except during emergencies, and all purchases are approved by her. She also makes decisions as to whether union or nonunion employees are utilized on jobs. However, if there are problems with employees in the field, Mr. Austin and Mr. Sloan make the decision regarding their retention. LaVerne Sloan assembles the bid packages and does some public relations work for the company. She is a full-time employee for the petitioner. The evidence was unclear as to the amount of time, if any, that LaVerne Sloan was employed by the petitioner prior to August of 1986. Roger Sloan, LaVerne Sloan and Scott Austin talk together each day and discuss what has happened that day with respect to the business. While the application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise was not offered into evidence, LaVerne Sloan stated that she applied in September of 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: LaVerne Sloan Power Line Engineering, Inc. Post Office Box 671 Plant City, Florida 33566 Sandra E. Allen Department of General Services Office of General Counsel Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Parson & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Overhead Door Company of Tampa Bay (Parsons & Associates), is a Florida corporation, having been incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida in March, 1992. The principal place of business for Parsons & Associates is 5134 W. Idlewild, Tampa, Florida. The Petitioner corporation engages in the business of the sale, installation, and repair of overhead doors, both residential and commercial. The corporation has ten (10) full-time employees and one (1) part-time employee. The only stockholders of the Petitioner corporation are: Gail Parsons, the minority owner; and her son-in-law, Robert Briesacher. Gail Parsons owns eighty (80 percent) of the stock of Parsons & Associates. Robert Briesacher, who is not a minority, owns the remaining twenty (20 percent) of the Petitioner corporation. Gail Parsons was the incorporator of Parsons & Associates when it was initially incorporated. She also is its President. Robert Briesacher is the Vice-President. Prior to the incorporation of Parsons & Associates, Gail Parsons, who has a Bachelor of Business Administration degree, worked for the Better Business Bureau. Robert Briesacher had previous experience in the overhead door business, having worked for Overhead Door Company of Clearwater. Briesacher, who at the time was engaged to marry Parsons's daughter, learned from Overhead Door Corporation (the manufacturer) that the manufacturer intended to establish a distributorship in Tampa. Briesacher told Parsons about it. While Briesacher had the knowledge and experience to successfully sell, install, and repair both residential and commercial overhead doors, he had no money to invest in the business opportunity and had no experience running his own business. Thinking that she might be able to help her daughter and future/present son-in-law, and herself, by combining her capital and business and financial skills with his knowledge and technical skill in the automatic door business, Parsons suggested to Briesacher that they go into business together. He readily agreed, and the pursued the opportunity with the manufacturer. Parsons incorporated the business, registered the fictitious name, compiled the business plan, developed the cash flow projections (with Briesacher's help), found the office/warehouse space (which the manufacturer had to approve), and negotiated, executed, and personally guaranteed the lease agreement and negotiated the Distributorship Agreement with the manufacturer. Briesacher provided none of the initial start-up monies for the Petitioner. Gail Parsons is the financial interest holder in the corporation, having made all the initial contributions to capital ($38,000), as well as making all the personal loans to the corporation thereby accepting all the financial risk. Parsons personally guaranteed the promissory note, the credit agreement, contracts required to be personally guaranteed and the warehouse lease. The Distributorship Agreement is a standard Overhead Door Corporation agreement common to all distributors nationwide. It is customary for a manufacturer like Overhead Door Corporation to offer a distributor incentives-- like yellow page advertisement, signage, and telephone numbers--in order to gain market penetration. In the case of Parsons & Associates, Overhead Door supplied a telephone number (the number Overhead Door previously had bought from the prior distributor in Tampa), a year's worth (about $10,000) of yellow page advertising, and some signage. The total fair market value of the incentives to Parsons & Associates was approximately $31,000, but the marginal cost to the manufacturer was less. In the initial months of operation of the business, Gail Parsons had to rely on Briesacher and the first employee they hired, Charles Martin, who worked under Briesacher at Overhead Door of Clearwater, to teach her what she had to know about the technical aspects of the business. She had to learn about the Overhead Door products and the basics of how to install them. This knowledge, which she quickly acquired, soon enabled her to take service orders, schedule the orders, supervise the day-to-day activities, perform trouble-shooting over the telephone and handle all of the sales calls. Meanwhile, Robert Briesacher was in the field with Martin installing and servicing Overhead Doors. Briesacher currently corresponds with the factories on product orders, schedules and supervises the installers, and takes the physical inventory. Commercial bidding is only one portion of the total corporate sales, which includes residential new construction, residential service and residential retrofit. Over ninety-five (95 percent) percent of the business of Parsons and Associates is handled over the telephone from the office where Parsons spends virtually one hundred (100 percent) percent of her time. Parsons is personally responsible for the majority of the residential sales, including negotiating and contracting with contractors, and negotiating and entering into the agreement to provide installation services for Home Depot door sales. Business from negotiating, estimating, and bidding on contracts in the field is a relatively small portion of the company's overall revenues. Gail Parson is involved in the interviewing of prospective employees, including Martin and Charles Jarvis. She confers with Briesacher, but she alone controls hiring and firing. She possesses the knowledge to evaluate employee performance and has demonstrated her supervisory authority and evaluation skills in exercising her authority to fire an employee. Actually, it is not difficult to evaluate the performance of installers: service calls on warranty work and customer complaints generally tell her all she needs to know. The Petitioner/corporation has both commercial and residential outside sales persons who prepare bids for the Petitioner. The minority owner, Gail Parsons, establishes the geographic and profit margin parameters, which ultimately control the bidding process. She inspects all bids prior to executing the contracts, thereby further controlling who, where and under what terms the Petitioner corporation does business. In fact, Parsons recently rejected an accepted bid and cancelled the job because it was too far from Tampa. While both Gail Parsons and Robert Briesacher are authorized to sign checks for Parsons & Associates, Briesacher has signed less than five checks, out of the thousands of checks written. Parsons and Briesacher draw the same salary. However, their salaries are commensurate with the work they perform for the company. Parsons has chosen the salary levels; Briesacher does not even know what Parsons's salary is. Parsons also is entitled to an 80/20 split of any future distributions as a result of the operation of the company. Briesacher has the use of a company truck, while Parsons does not. However, Briesacher is a part-time installer and service man, while Parsons is not. All installers/service technicians at Parsons and Associates have the use of company trucks, not just Briesacher. Currently, in addition to controlling the entire corporation and making all of the business decisions, Gail Parsons sets inventory parameters, purchases the inventory, sells doors in the showroom, knows the purchased products, is responsible for accounts receivable, handles the payroll, and assists in the scheduling and supervising of the installers.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1268 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found; the rest is accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected to the extent that it implies that Briesacher has no financial interest. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected, as contrary to facts found, to the extent that it implies Parsons knew it all from the start and that Parsons "supervised" Briesacher and Martin installing and servicing doors; in fact, there was a learning curve. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 8.-11. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 3.-4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected in part as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (She makes sales and trouble- shoots, and is no longer just learning those aspects of the business.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, except for actually installing and servicing doors, Parsons also does the same jobs as Briesacher to some extent, and some of Briesacher's functions are ministerial in light of Parsons's management decisions. Penultimate sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; he proposed "piece-work" but Parsons participated in the final decision. (Since it is standard in Florida, it was not a difficult or controversial decision.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, "joint responsibility" should not be construed to mean "equal authority." Parsons has the final say.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, while Parsons's knowledge and skill does not exceed the others' in the area of installing and servicing doors, she has enough knowledge to control the business. The characterization "very broad" in the last sentence is rejected as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, again, while Parsons's knowledge and skill does not exceed the others' in the area of installing and servicing doors, and while she does not personally install and service doors, she has enough knowledge to control the business. 10.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Again, while Parsons and Briesacher, and other employees, share responsibilities, Parsons has the knowledge necessary to control the business and has dominant control over the business. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan D. Kaplan, Esquire 6617 Memorial Highway Tampa, Florida 33615 Wayne H. Mitchell, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel Suite 312, Ninth Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner is qualified for designation and certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact At the hearing, it became apparent that the reasons for denial were principally lack of independence and affiliation with a non-qualifying company. The parties stipulated to the following: Ms. Wendy Stephens, President and Secretary of WPS and sole stockholder WPS, possess the authority to, and does in fact, exercise complete control over the management, daily operations and corporate affairs of WPS. Ms. Stephens possesses the technical capability, managerial qualifications and expertise to operate WPS. The following facts were proven at hearing: Ms. Stephens is a white, female and is qualified as a minority person under the statute. In 1991, Charles Perry, Ms. Stephen's father and a white male, provided $7,000 for start up capital and a lease of 3 acres on his farm to house Alachua Greenery, a wholesale/retail nursery which Wendy Stephens began with assistance from Perry. Ms. Stephens has never made payments on the aforementioned lease. Charles Perry and Wendy Stephens were the sole stockholders in Alachua Greenery, each holding 50 percent of the shares in the corporation. Perry has contributed nothing more to the operation of the corporation, and has never exercised any control over the corporation, although he was initially a director. WPS is a Florida corporation, domiciled and doing business in the state. WPS is worth less than $3,000,000 and has three employees. Ms. Stephens is and always has been the sole stockholder of WPS, and has served as its President and Secretary since its incorporation. Ms. Stephens husband, Gary Stephens, was once a director of WPS upon the advice of counsel; however, he exercised no control over the corporation and resigned as a director on April 12, 1996. Gary Stephens sold a Bobcat tractor to Wendy Stephens upon which he has deferred payments. This Bobcat is used by WPS and Alachua Greenery. Gary Stephens has no other financial or other interest in WPS or Alachua Greenery. WPS was formed for the purpose of engaging in the retail landscaping business, which is a logical business expansion from the wholesale nursery business. WPS has engaged in the retail landscaping business for several customers. WPS shares equipment, land, vehicles, and employees with Alachua Greenery. There is no evidence that WPS, which has performed a number of contracts, has been a conduit of money to Alachua Greenery. On May 13, 1996, Perry gifted his share of Alachua Greenery to Wendy Stephens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for minority business status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-0023 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. References to numbered paragraphs in Petitioner's findings includes all letter subparagraphs unless otherwise noted. PETITIONER'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1,2 Statement of Case Paragraph 3 Irrelevant Paragraphs 4-6 Statement of Case Paragraph 7a Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7b Subsumed in Paragraph 6 Paragraph 7c Subsumed in Paragraphs 6 & 8 Paragraph 7d Contrary to best evidence Paragraph 7e Irrelevant Paragraph 7f Subsumed in Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7g Irrelevant Paragraphs 7h,i Paragraph 7 Paragraphs 7j,k,l Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraphs 7m,n,o,p Paragraph 4 Paragraph 7q Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7r Paragraph 11 Paragraphs 7s,t Irrelevant RESPONDENT'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraph 3 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 6 Not necessary Paragraph 7,8 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 9 Not necessary COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire Peter A. Robertson and Associates 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Veronica Anderson, Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for certification as a Women Business Enterprise be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Diann Criss Atkinson, Qualified Representative Shurly Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 15267 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Aguiar Defense, Inc. was incorporated April 14, 1987, in Florida, with Geny DaSilva Aguiar-Slaughterbeck, the President, owning all of the stock. William S. Slaughterbeck was named Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Ms. Aguiar- Slaughterbeck subsequently assigned 50 shares (10 percent) of the stock to David E. Knutson when he joined the company. Knutson was made a Vice- President as is William Slaughterbeck. Geny Aguiar-Slaughterbeck was born in Brazil and holds a BS degree in Business Administration from the University of Southern California. She is married to William S. Slaughterbeck. William S. Slaughterbeck has had some 20 years experience in obtaining and administering government contracts, principally in the procurement of material phases of these contracts. He acted as consultant to Petitioner in obtaining its first large contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce to provide, install and service eighty computer installations. David E. Knutson's experience is primarily in aviation; however, he has some financial experience and computer experience. To finance the formation of Aguiar Defense, Geny Aguiar-Slaughterbeck converted two IRA accounts to cash, borrowed some $5,000 on her automobile, converted two mortgages to cash and used credit cards to purchase office furniture and other pre- incorporation expenses. Her total investment in Petitioner is approximately $24,000. Before submitting a bid on the Commerce Department computer contract, Geny DaSilva Acquiar-Slaughterbeck consulted with her husband and Donald Sayban who was employed by Tandy Corporation at a Radio Shack outlet. Sayban provided advice on the type of equipment needed to meet the bid specifications, and prices were obtained on the components needed to fulfill the contract. A large portion of the bid was prepared by William Slaughterbeck who was unemployed at the time and is eminently familiar with bidding on contracts to supply government agencies with equipment and materials. When the Commerce Department contract was awarded to Aguiar Defense, Ms. Aquiar-Slaughterbeck obtained financing from a local bank with the assistance of the owner of the company supplying most of the components needed to assemble the computer stations; Sayban and Knutson traveled to the sites to install and put the computers in operation; and the travel costs for these installations were financed by Knutson who was subsequently reimbursed by Aguiar Defense. Sayban's travel expenses were paid by Aguiar Defense, but his compensation came from the commissions he received on the computer equipment he sold to Aguiar Defense. Prior to starting Aguiar Defense, Ms. Aguiar- Slaughterbeck served as a part-time school teacher, a distributor for Shaklee Products and a distributor of water treatment equipment and chemical sales. Chemical cleaning products were sold to McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, and door-to-door sales of water treatment equipment were made. When Aguiar Defense was incorporated, these latter two activities were continued as part of the Aguiar Defense operation. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that Mrs. Aguiar-Slaughterbeck has final authority in deciding which government contracts to bid on, the hiring and firing of all personnel and all financial decisions. No evidence to contradict this testimony was presented. Petitioner obtains most of its information on available contracts on which bids are being solicited from Commerce Business Daily which contains a daily list of government procurement invitations, contract awards, subcontracting leads, sales of surplus property and foreign business opportunities (Exhibit 3). The By-Laws of Petitioner (Article V, Section 2), provide that the President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the decisions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. Article III, Section 9, of the By-Laws provides that any director may be removed, with or without cause, by a vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at an election of directors. Article II, Sections 1 and 2 of the By-Laws of Petitioner provide for an annual meeting of the shareholders on May 4 of each year and for special meetings when called by the President, the Board of Directors or when requested in writing by the holders of not less than 10 percent of the shares entitled to vote at the meeting. Directors are elected by the shareholders with each shareholder entitled to one vote for each share of stock held. Article II, Section 11 of the By Laws provides that any action that may be taken by the shareholders at an annual or special meeting may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice or without a vote, if consent in writing, setting forth the actions so taken, is signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the minimum number of votes that would be necessary to authorize or to take such action at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted. As the holder of ninety percent of the stock, Geny DaSilva Aguiar- Slaughterbeck has control over the Board of Directors by the power to elect or remove any Director by so voting her shares; and the power to effect any corporate decision, even without a meeting of the shareholders or Board of Directors as noted in finding 14 above. No evidence was submitted to indicate that Geny DaSilva Aguiar- Slaughterbeck is a mere figurehead and that the operations of Petitioner are controlled by one who does not qualify as a minority owner. Petitioner is a corporation employing less than 25 persons and having a net value of less than $1,000,000.
The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in proposing to award to Intervenor, The Weitz Company, Inc., a contract for Project No. DGS-88114000.
Findings Of Fact On February 18, 1992, Respondent Department of General Services issued its Invitation to Bid on Project No. DGS-88114000, the construction of the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center. The bid package contained a copy of the Department's Advertisement for Bids, together with the bid specifications, evaluation criteria, and criteria for award of the contract. The Department's Advertisement for Bids identified the project, advised that sealed bids would be received and opened at 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 1992, stated that the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation would be posted at 4:00 p.m. on that same date, and contained the following language: MINORITY PROGRAM: In accordance with Florida Statute 287.057(6), at least 21 percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with DGS certified minority business enterprises. If 21 percent is not attainable, the Division of Building Construction will recognize Good Faith Efforts by the Bidder. The Bidder is advised to review these requirements in the Section B-13B "Employment of and Reporting of DGS Certified Minority Business Enterprises Participation" immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. Page 2 of the bid package was the Invitation to Bid form letter which contained the identical language as that quoted above. Section B-13B found on page 14 of the bid package under Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: B-13B EMPLOYMENT OF AND REPORTING OF DGS CERTIFIED MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PARTICIPATION Florida Statute 287.042 and the Department of General Services Rules 13-8 and 13-9, encourages the employment of and requires the reporting of DGS Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) participation in state contracting. The Department has as its goal to spend twenty-one percent (21 percent) of construction contracts with DGS certified minority business enterprises. The overall goal for construction contracts are as follows: 4 percent Black Americans 6 percent Hispanic Americans and 11 percent American Women The Division Director of the Division of Building Construction recognizes the need to take affirmative actions to insure that Minority and Women business enterprises and minority and women employees are given the opportunity to participate in the performance of the Division of Building Constructions' construction programs. This opportunity for full participation in our free enterprise system by traditionally, socially and economically disadvantaged persons is essential to obtain social nd [sic] economic equality and improve the functioning of the State economy. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Division of Building Construction to foster and promote the full participation of such individuals and business firms in the State's building construction program. The Contractor, by bidding on this Contract, acknowledges his understanding and support for the social policy herein stated and pledges to fully cooperate with the State in the implementation of this policy, and further to exert a good faith effort to solicit and obtain the participation of such individuals and firms as subcontractors, suppliers and employees on this Contract. Prior to the execution of a contract, the bidder shall provide the following information on his contract or subcontracts for all DGS certified minority business firms to be utilized on the project: * * * Contractor's Schedules of Values and Requests for Partial Payments shall also reflect the payments made to each MBE subcontractor, using the name, minority vendor code, type of business and amounts. The contractor shall make a good faith effort to use services or commodities of minority business enterprises by: Attending any presolicitation or prebid meetings that were scheduled by the division to inform minority business enterprises of contracting and subcontracting opportunities; Advertising in general circulation, trade association, and/or minority-focus media concerning the subcontracting opportunities; Providing written notice to a reasonable number of specific minority business enterprises that their interest in the contract was being solicited in sufficient time to allow the minority business enterprises to participate effectively; Following up initial solicitations of interest by contacting minority business enterprises or minority persons to determine with certainty whether the minority business enterprises or minority persons were interested; Selecting portions of the work to be performed by minority business enterprises in order to increase the likelihood of meeting the minority business enterprise goals, including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units to facilitate minority business enterprise participation; Providing interested minority business enterprises or minority persons with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract or the availability of jobs; Negotiating in good faith with interested minority business enterprises or minority persons, not rejecting minority business enterprises or minority persons as unqualified without sound reasons based on a through [sic] investigation of their capabilities; and Effectively using services of available minority community organizations; minority contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority business enterprises or minority persons. Prior to the issuance of the Invitation to Bid, the St. Lucie County Democratic Executive Committee directed a letter to Governor Lawton Chiles concerning the high rate of unemployment in the construction industry in the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County area. That letter requested that language be included in the invitation for bids for the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center specifying that priority be given to the available resident work force, first, from within the city of Fort Pierce and, second, from within St. Lucie County. That correspondence reached the Department of General Services, with the result that the following language was included within the bid specifications on page 14a: B-13C EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL LABOR, SUBCONTRACTORS AND MATERIAL SUPPLIERS The procurement by General Contractors and Sub- contractors of persons for skilled and unskilled worker positions, the sub-contracting by General Contractors for Sub-contractor services and the purchase by General Contractors and Sub-contractors of materials, equipment, supplies and services is highly encouraged to the maximum extent possible, to be from persons residing within or businesses located within Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie County. A Pre-bid Conference was conducted on February 28, 1992. The Minutes from the Pre-bid Conference reflect that Addendum No. 1 to the bid specifications provided to potential bidders a copy of the Department's Minority Business Enterprise Construction Directory listing DGS-certified minority business enterprises as of December 1991. Those Minutes also contain the following entry: Highlights of front-end of Project Manual * * * Page 14, Paragraph B-13B for reporting minority participation stipulates 21 percent goal: 4 percent Black 6 percent Hispanic 11 percent American Women Contractors must thoroughly document their good effort. Procedure for documenting good effort can be obtained from Susan Hodge. * * * K. Page 89 - Post Bid Qualifications: Form is to be completed and submitted within 7 days after Bid Opening. A few of the lowest Bidders will probably be required to submit this form. At 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 1992, the Department received and opened eleven bids for the construction of the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center. Two of those bids were from Petitioner D. I. C. Commercial Construction Corp. (hereinafter "D.I.C.") and from Intervenor The Weitz Company, Inc., (hereinafter "Weitz"). At 3:00 p.m. on March 12 the Department posted its Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation. That Bid Tabulation reflected that The Weitz Company of West Palm Beach submitted the lowest bid, in the amount of $5,545,800, and that D.I.C. Commercial Construction of Fort Pierce submitted the second lowest bid, in the amount of $5,553,600. The Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation further provided as follows: This is to advise you that the Division of Building Construction, Department of General Services, State of Florida, Has recommended that the contract for the referenced project be awarded to the firm of: THE WEITZ COMPANY, INC. in the amount of $5,545,800.00, accepting the BASE BID AND ALTERNATE #1 AND #2, determined to be the lowest acceptable qualified bid. Any bidder disputing the contract award recommendation must file . . . . Written notice of protest within seventy-two (72) hours after posting of this notice. A formal written protest by petition in compliance with Rule 13-4.12, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, within ten (10) days after the date on which he filed the notice of protest. * * * The Executive Director of the Department of General Services, State of Florida plans to act on the above recommendation after expiration of the seventy-two (72) hour notice period. That proposed bid award took into consideration only the amount bid by each of the eleven bidders. In making its proposed bid award, the Department gave no consideration to its bid specifications that required the inclusion of at least 21 percent participation by subcontractors who were DGS-certified minority business enterprises (hereinafter "MBEs"), and which "highly encouraged to the maximum extent possible" the use of "persons residing within or businesses located within Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie County." On March 16, 1992, D.I.C. timely filed its Notice of Protest to the proposed award of the contract to Weitz. On March 26, 1992, D.I.C. timely filed its Formal Notice of Protest to that proposed bid award. Since the Weitz bid did not achieve the required 21 percent MBE participation, Weitz was required to submit documentation of its "good faith effort" to the Department along with other post-award qualification documentation. Weitz submitted its "good faith effort" documentation on March 16, 1992. Although the Department was aware that a Notice of Protest had been filed on March 16, the Department commenced its "good faith effort" review on March 17, 1992. Weitz's good faith submittal recited that it had achieved a total DGS- certified MBE participation of 13.6 percent in its attempt to reach the goal of at least 21 percent. Of the required classes of 4 percent Black Americans, 6 percent Hispanic Americans, and 11 percent American Women, Weitz reported it had achieved 3.2 percent, 8.9 percent, and 1.5 percent respectively. One of the MBEs included within the percentage of Hispanic Americans was improperly included since that minority subcontractor is an Asian subcontractor, which is a different certification classification and not one of the types of minorities specifically required to be included in this project. That Asian subcontractor represented almost one-half of the Hispanic participation claimed by Weitz. Accordingly, Weitz failed to achieve the required overall percentage and failed to achieve the required percentage in any of the three categories. Weitz's submittal also showed that it had included within its achieved percentages of participation subcontractors who were not yet DGS-certified, by listing three of those subcontractors under the heading of "pending minority certification." Although one of those did become certified by the time of the formal hearing in this cause, the other two have never applied for certification. Although the bid specifications use the language DGS-certified MBE subcontractors for inclusion in the 21 percent participation requirement, it is clear that D.I.C., Weitz, and the Department believed that the bid specifications meant certified or certifiable. The Department's policy is that the MBE must be certified by DGS, not on the date of bid submittal, but by the time that the Department enters into the construction contract with the prime contractor. It is also clear that the Department began tracking the efforts of Weitz's subcontractors to become certified by DGS and became involved in the certification process for Weitz's subcontractors who were not yet DGS-certified. Although Weitz had received 21 bids from DGS-certified MBEs, it chose to use the bids of only five. The bids of the others were rejected because Weitz had made the prior determination that it would use the bid of a DGS- certified MBE only if that subcontractor submitted the low bid for that particular portion of the work. In other words, Weitz's focus was on submitting the lowest possible bid rather than on submitting a bid which included the required MBE participation goal. On the other hand, when D.I.C. received and reviewed its bid package, it made the determination that the Department's requirement of at least 21 percent minority participation was easily achievable. Accordingly, D.I.C. did not prepare any "good faith effort" documentation since the bid specifications clearly stated that the Department would consider good faith efforts only if the 21 percent goal were not attainable. D.I.C. made the decision that it would include the required percentage, both overall and in each individual category, in its bid submittal and that, if it could not, it would simply not submit a bid on this construction project. D.I.C. included in its bid the bids of MBE subcontractors who it believed were either DGS-certified or certifiable for a total participation of 26.5 percent. Included within that overall participation D.I.C. exceeded the required percentage for Black Americans, exceeded the required participation for Hispanic Americans, and fell barely short of meeting the required participation for American Women. After D.I.C. filed its Notice of Protest, although the Department freely communicated with Weitz and Weitz's subcontractors in the Department's efforts to certify those subcontractors to be used by Weitz who were not certified, the Department ceased communication with D.I.C. and D.I.C.'s subcontractors. Further, the Division of Building Construction of the Department commenced and continued in its efforts to review Weitz's "good faith" submittal. The Department further rejected communication from the supervisor in its own Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office regarding the Department's good faith efforts review. When conducting its good faith review, the Department looked only at the documentation submitted by Weitz. It made no effort to ascertain if there were things that Weitz could have done that Weitz chose not to do. Further, in conducting its good faith effort review, the Department reviewed Weitz's documentation under the belief that there was no specific MBE goal for this project. The Department's belief that there was no required MBE participation for this project, contrary to the bid specifications, was based upon the fact that the Legislature had given the Department a goal of at least 21 percent minority participation with the breakdown for the three categories of MBEs listed in the bid specifications as an overall Department goal. Although not disclosed in the bid specifications, the Department looked to meet its goal through the totality of its construction contracts and not pursuant to any individual contract. By March of 1992, the Department had already exceeded its statutorily-imposed goal by 140 percent for that fiscal year. Further, it was the Department's policy and practice to include in its reports to the Legislature concerning whether the Department had met its own statutorily- imposed MBE participation goal the participation of all minority subcontractors in all of the Department's construction contracts without regard to whether those subcontractors were DGS-certified by the time that the Department entered into those construction contracts with the prime contractors. In reviewing Weitz's good faith efforts, the Department utilized the criteria set forth in the bid specifications. It looked at each of the eight criteria listed in the bid specifications and then looked at the documentation submitted by Weitz to ascertain if there had been an effort to comply. The first criterion considers whether the contractor attended presolicitation meetings scheduled by the agency to inform minority business enterprises of the subcontracting opportunity. Since the Department held no such meeting regarding this construction project, none of the bidders could have met this criterion. The second criterion relates to advertising in general circulation, trade association, and/or minority-focus media. Weitz ran an ad one time only on Sunday, March 1, in the Palm Beach Post and in the Fort Lauderdale News/Sun- Sentinel. Weitz placed no other ads. The third criterion requires providing written notice to a reasonable number of specific minority business enterprises that their interest is being solicited in sufficient time to allow them to participate effectively. Weitz sent 98 letters throughout the state of Florida to MBEs listed in the Department's December 1991 directory. That letter was dated February 25, 1992. The fourth criterion requires following up initial solicitations by contacting MBEs or minority persons to determine with certainty whether they are interested. Weitz sent a follow-up letter dated March 4 to the same 98 addressees as its prior letter. The fifth criterion requires selecting portions of the work to be performed by MBEs to increase the likelihood of meeting the MBE goals, including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units to facilitate MBE participation. Weitz's documentation reflected that the work of several trades had been broken down into smaller units. The sixth criterion requires providing interested MBEs or minority persons with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract or the availability of jobs. The advertisement placed by Weitz gave no information other than that it was seeking bids from certified MBEs for construction of the Regional Service Center in Fort Pierce, that the bid deadline was March 12, and that plans were available for review at Weitz's office in West Palm Beach. The first letter sent by Weitz advised the recipient of the square footage of the project, that Weitz might assist subcontractors on their bonding requirement, and that plans were available for review at Weitz's office in West Palm Beach and at local plan rooms, or full sets of plans and specifications could be purchased from Weitz at a price of $300 a set. The letter further gave the names of two persons at Weitz's office who could be contacted. The follow-up letter sent by Weitz contained the same information. The seventh criterion requires negotiating in good faith with interested minority business enterprises or minority persons and not rejecting them as unqualified without sound reasons based upon a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The Weitz documentation contained a statement saying that it had not rejected any minorities as being unqualified. The eighth criterion requires effectively using services of available community organizations; minority contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority business enterprises or minority persons. Weitz sent letters to six organizations in the state of Florida stating that it was seeking proposals for the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center, that it had contacted those companies listed in the December 1991 directory, that plans were available for review at Weitz's office in West Palm Beach and at local plan rooms, and that the recipients should refer any known interested persons to Weitz. It is clear that Weitz made an effort to obtain minority participation. It did not, however, use its "best ability and effort" to obtain minority participation. Weitz's efforts did result in the receipt of a substantial number of bids from DGS-certified MBEs. It does not, however, appear that Weitz used its best effort to assist interested MBEs to participate in the construction project since it did not use any subcontractor's bid unless it was the low bid. Weitz's documentation contains a copy of each of the letters sent to the 98 businesses in the state of Florida and also contains some notations of telephone contact between Weitz and some MBEs. The documentation does not support the proposition, however, that Weitz used its best efforts to work with individual MBEs to solicit their interest; to ascertain with certainty their level of interest; to make the plans and bid specifications available to them; to organize the scope of work into smaller units, if necessary, to enable MBEs to effectively participate in the bidding process; and, most importantly, to utilize bids received by those MBEs. Although the bid specifications specifically stated that the minority participation was to be at least 21 percent and, if that 21 percent was not attainable, the Department would consider good faith efforts, the Department made no independent determination of whether 21 percent DGS-certified MBE participation on this project was attainable. Contrary to the language of the bid specifications, the Department interpreted the criteria to be a requirement that the bidder either attain 21 percent or submit good faith efforts. Since Weitz was the apparent low bidder by price, and since Weitz did not achieve the 21 percent participation, the Department assumed that such level of participation could not be attained and that Weitz could instead submit its "good faith effort." Although a provision was specifically written into the bid specifications for this project that the bidders were encouraged to use local labor from the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County areas, the Department developed no criteria by which to judge whether the bidders attempted to comply with that bid specification. Additionally, the Department failed to review the bids received for this construction project to see if efforts had been made to include local labor. In essence, this bid specification was ignored by the Department. Although Weitz included in its "good faith effort" submittal a statement that it would utilize local labor by using its own employees, Weitz is located in West Palm Beach, not in St. Lucie County or in Fort Pierce. Although Weitz further included a statement that it might utilize up to twelve companies located in that area, the Department made no determination as to the number of qualified companies located there. The Department was not aware of the fact that Weitz had solicited only by letter two DGS-certified subcontractors in St. Lucie County and only three DGS-certified subcontractors in surrounding counties. On the other hand, D.I.C. had expended extensive efforts to involve businesses in the Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County area. Although Weitz attached to its Petition to Intervene in this proceeding a list of St. Lucie County firms which were encouraged to submit bids and a list of other firms who employ a majority of St. Lucie County employees on projects located in Fort Pierce which were encouraged to submit bids, those documents were never presented to, or considered by, the Department when it evaluated Weitz's bid. Section B-21 of the bid specifications provides, in essence, that the contract would be awarded to the bidder submitting the lowest bid. Weitz's bid was slightly lower than that of D.I.C.--a difference of $7,800 on bids of over five and a half million dollars. D.I.C.'s bid could have been $60,000 lower if it had not sought to comply with the 21 percent MBE requirement set forth in the bid specifications. Its bid would have been lower if it had, like Weitz, rejected all bids from DGS-certified MBE subcontractors who were not also the lowest bidder in that particular trade. D.I.C.'s belief that the Department would require compliance with all provisions in the bid specifications caused D.I.C.'s bid to be higher than that of Weitz, which placed emphasis on the lowest price rather than the lowest price plus effective effort at meeting the MBE participation specification. By focusing on one bid specification and not on all of the bid specifications, the Department gave Weitz an unfair advantage over other bidders. By allowing Weitz to submit "good faith effort" rather than comply with the 21 percent minimum participation requirement, the Department, in essence, allowed Weitz to make a subjective determination that the 21 percent requirement was not attainable. It was the Department's duty under the bid specifications to make its own objective determination that the 21 percent bid specification was not attainable before the alternative consideration of "good faith effort" became relevant to the bid award recommendation. The Department could have, for example, looked at the other bids submitted to see if the other bidders had attained the 21 percent participation requirement. Under the Department's approach, i.e., relying solely on Weitz's representation and considering only Weitz's bid, it is possible that the other bidders attained the 21 percent requirement and that only Weitz did not comply with that bid specification. The Department's procedure rendered the 21 percent bid specification meaningless, which fact was not known in advance by all of the bidders. By failing to determine whether the goal for MBE participation set forth as a bid specification was attainable, the Department failed to determine whether Weitz had complied with all bid specification requirements. Accordingly, the Department did not in fact make a determination that Weitz was a responsive bidder by meeting all bid specifications. Further, the Department made no determination in fact as to whether any of the other bidders, including D.I.C., were responsive to the Department's own bid specifications. Accordingly, there has been no determination that Weitz, or any other bidder, is the lowest responsive bidder. Similarly, the Department made no determination as to whether Weitz had complied with Section B-13C of the bid specifications which provided that bidders were "highly encouraged to the maximum extent possible" to utilize persons residing within or businesses located within Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. D.I.C., with offices in Fort Pierce, submitted a bid which included 67 percent local participation. Weitz, with offices in West Palm Beach, submitted a bid representing that it would utilize its own employees for 15 percent of the contract (a different bid specification) and represented that it would probably utilize up to a dozen local companies. Since it is clear that Weitz solicited subcontractors from all over the state of Florida, Weitz made no showing that it had attempted "to the maximum extent possible" to utilize persons and businesses from Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. Additionally, Weitz's single advertisement in the two newspapers chosen by it does not show an intent to obtain local participation since the Fort Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel is not sold in either Fort Pierce or St. Lucie County and the Palm Beach Post is obtainable in Fort Pierce only at 7-11 convenience stores and in newspaper vending machines. The Department made no determination as to whether Weitz, or any other bidder, was responsive to this bid specification. Further, the Department did not advise bidders that it might not enforce this bid specification in the same manner that the Department did not advise all bidders that it might not enforce the 21 percent bid specification. In short, the procedures utilized by the Department in evaluating the bids submitted for this project did not afford fair and equal review of all bids submitted. Further, Weitz was given a competitive advantage by the Department's determination that Weitz should be given the bid award based solely on the Weitz bid being the lowest submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered rejecting all bids on Project No. DGS- 88114000 for the Fort Pierce Regional Service Center. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2370BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 7-14, 17, 20, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 43, 45-48, and 55 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 6, 15, and 18 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 16, 21-28, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42, 49-52, and 54 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 19 and 53 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 31, 32, 41, and 44 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, and 37 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 5, 6, 20, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 38-41 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 10, 12-14, and 34 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 15, 16, 18, 30, and 32 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 23 has been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 10 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 7, 12, 15, and 16 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 200 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Bruce G. Alexander, Esquire Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell Suite 1900 515 North Flagler Drive Post Office Box 024626 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler & Long, P.A. Post Office Box 839 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and agreements of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The costs and attorney fees sought by BTST in the amount of $2,344, are adequately substantiated and constitute reasonable costs and attorney fees for the representation of BTST in DOAH Case No. 88-3885. DOAH Case No. 88-3885 resulted in a Final Order granting recertification as a minority business enterprise to BTST. Therefore, BTST was a prevailing party in that case. The underlying agency action that resulted in DOAH Case No. 88-3885, was a Department letter of July 18, 1988, to BTST which notified BTST that its application for recertification was denied, stated the reasons for denial, and advised BTST of its right to request a hearing if it was dissatisfied with the Department's decision. The Department's letter of July 18, 1988, "initiated" the subsequent formal administrative proceedings. Business Telephone systems of Tallahassee, Inc., is a "small business party." The Department of General Services has the responsibility to certify and recertify minority business enterprises. The Department has developed a procedure which is followed by the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office in processing applications for certification and recertification. Upon receipt of an application, the entire business file is assigned by the supervisor of certification activities to an eligibility examiner, frequently referred to as a "reviewer." The reviewer conducts a desk audit and review, searches the Division of Corporation records, and by letter requests any items omitted from the application. The applicant then has 30 days in which to respond by sending the requested information to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistant Office. After receipt of requested additional information, the reviewer schedules an on-site interview with applicants whose eligibility for MBE status cannot be determined immediately. After the on-site review, the reviewer listens to the tape recording of the interview and completes the on- site review questionnaire form. At this point, all documents and on-site interview responses are reviewed by the eligibility examiner for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to grant or deny certification or recertification. The supervisor of certification activities reviews the recommendation and all materials related to the business for the purpose of either concurring or questioning the recommendation. The file is then referred to the coordinator of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office for independent review. If the recommendation is for denial of MBE certification or recertification, the file is forwarded to the Office of the General Counsel for review of all documents, information, recommendations and findings by a staff attorney. By memorandum to the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, the staff attorney will either concur in the recommendation or raise legal questions. In the case of concurrence, a letter of denial is prepared. Legal questions about the potential denial are generally resolved by discussion with all involved staff persons. BTST, a company principally engaged in sales, installation, and service of telephone systems and equipment, filed an application for recertification as a Minority Business Enterprise on April 13, 1988. The application was assigned to Stephen Johnson, an eligibility examiner of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office. The initial recommendation to deny recertification of Petitioner was made by Stephen Johnson. Stephen Johnson received training by the Department in minority business enterprise certification and recertification review during his tenure at DGS. As the first step in the review process, Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner, performed a desk audit of the application, noting changes in ownership, management, daily operations, and domicile of the company. He also conducted a document search of State of Florida corporate records which revealed different corporate ownership than that which BTST stated in the application and different composition of the Board of Directors of three non- minority members and two minority members. Upon request of the eligibility examiner, additional documents were submitted by BTST. These documents named Mr. William Nuce as president and treasurer of BTST, listed a Board of Directors composed of one minority person and three non-minority persons, and included a BTST lease agreement signed by William Nuce as President of BTST and attested by Nancy Nuce, Secretary of BTST. An amendment to the lease dated May 4, 1988, was signed in the same manner. Upon review by the eligibility examiner and his supervisor of the information submitted by BTST, changes in the business raised the question of whether a minority person controlled the management and operations of the business. The application for recertification revealed that two of the three women owners of BTST "no longer performed any duties for the company." The minority owner who left the company possessed significant technical knowledge about the telephone systems business which in previous certifications of BTST had been a dispositive factor in the determination. William Nuce had not been working full-time for the company until January 1988. Until that time, the company had been run by three women, one being an out-of-state resident. With the concurrence of his supervisor, the eligibility examiner scheduled an on-site visit to BTST for the purpose of acquiring a new description of how the business operated and to establish whether the applicant owner was eligible for MBE certification. The on-site interview was tape recorded During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce, the minority owner of BTST, made statements which were considered significant by DGS minority certification reviewers. Mrs. Nuce explained decision-making by her husband William Nuce and herself at BTST as "It is really a partnership." In response to the question, "Is anyone considered a supervisory person?", Mrs. Nuce stated, "Well, I guess Bill would be." Then she was asked, "Is he the installer supervisor?" and Nancy Nuce replied, "Yeah, I would say so." Continuing the on-site interview, in response to the question, "[W]ho employed Don?" Mrs. Nuce replied, "We both went to Jacksonville to where Don lived and interviewed Don in Jacksonville and we discussed it on the way back and when we got back Bill called him and offered him the job." She also said that William Nuce had invested "almost twice" as much as she had in the business. The occupational license issued by the City of Tallahassee was in the name of William Nuce. Concerning a truck which was the only large piece of equipment of the business, Mrs. Nuce said, "Bill signed the guarantee on it." Mrs. Nuce had never received a salary from BTST. During the on-site review, Mrs. Nuce confirmed the composition of the Board of Directors as having four members, one minority person and three non-minority persons. After this on-site interview, the eligibility examiner came back to his office, listened to the interview tapes, and reviewed his notes. He came to the conclusion that the minority owner of BTST did not have the capability, knowledge, and experience required to make the critical decisions in that the company heavily relied on Mr. Nuce's 20 years of experience in the installation and servicing of telephone systems, rather than Mrs. Nuce's limited prior experience and training in the bookkeeping area. The eligibility examiner further relied, as a basis for denial, on the fact that the Board of Directors at the time of the decision to deny recertification were Nancy' Nuce; William Nuce, a non-minority person; Peggy Ingram, a non-Florida resident (and therefore a non-minority person); and Don Ingram, a non-minority person. The corporate bylaws indicated that a majority of the directors legally controlled the management of the company. Since Mrs. Nuce was the only director who was a minority, the eligibility examiner concluded that, pursuant to the statutes, Mrs. Nuce did not have the legal authority to control the corporate Board of Directors and, therefore, the business of thee corporation.. After consultation and review of the BTST file, Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims, the Labor Employment and Training Manager of the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, reached the tentative decision to deny the recertification application of BTST. At the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST, Ms. Nims was the Labor Employment and Training Manager in the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office and the supervisor of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. She had been with DGS since March of 1986. Her duties included supervision of the professional staff who conducted eligibility reviews of applications, assistance in eligibility determinations, advising the coordinator, supervision of staff involved in retention of records, preparation of documents, and preparation of the monthly MBE Directory. In evaluating the application for recertification of BTST, Marsha Nims reviewed the application and supporting documentation, the Desk Review and Audit by Stephen Johnson, the additional documents obtained by Stephen Johnson from Business Telephone Systems of Tallahassee, Inc., the Bylaws of BTST, the memo from Stephen Johnson to Marsha Nims, the reviewer's case management log, the on- site review questionnaire form and comments completed by Stephen Johnson, the denial recommendation drafted by Stephen Johnson, and the file of BTST on which previous certification had been based. Marsha Nims relied upon the information about BTST complied by the eligibility examiner. She had no reason to doubt the credibility of Stephen Johnson, the eligibility examiner. At the time of the decision to deny recertification to BTST, Marsha Nims was familiar with the Florida Statutes which governed certification and recertification of minority business enterprises as well as Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, which the Department promulgated to implement the statutes. Marsha Nims was familiar with the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and the related Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. She concluded that the corporate structure analysis and the determination of lack of control over the management and daily business operations was consistent with the legal conclusions established in prior Department Final Orders denying certification. Following review by Ms. Nims, the entire BTST file described in Finding of Fact Number 15 was referred to Carolyn Wilson-Newton, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Officer Coordinator. Mrs. Wilson-Newton was the person charged with making the final decision to grant or deny certification and recertification to applicants. At the time of the decision to deny recertification, Mrs. Wilson- Newton was familiar with the Florida Statutes which govern certification and recertification of minority business enterprises, Chapter 13-8, Florida Administrative Code, and the relevant Final Orders of the Department of General Services and Recommended Orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Carolyn Wilson-Newton concurred with the recommendations of Stephen Johnson and Marsha Nims to deny recertification as set forth in the denial recommendation prepared by Stephen Johnson, and made the decision to deny minority business enterprise recertification. The proposed denial was approved by Sandra Allen, an attorney in the General Counsel's Office with previous experience in review of minority business enterprise decisions. The denial letter was mailed to the applicant on July 18, 1988. Although BTST prevailed in Case No. 88-3885, it is important to note that some of the evidence presented at the formal hearing in that case was substantially different from the information furnished to DGS prior to the July 18, 1988, denial letter. Some of the differences resulted from new developments (such as eleventh-hour stock purchases and changes in the corporate provisions regarding directors). Other differences resulted from more careful and precise descriptions than had been furnished earlier. Four competent, experienced MBE certification reviewers for DGS concluded that the information in the possession of the Department at the time of the decision to deny recertification of BTST was sufficient to warrant denial of recertification of the Petitioner. The denial of recertification had a reasonable basis in fact at the time of the decision. This is especially true when note is taken of the fact that BTST's corporate provisions regarding directors at the time of the decision were essentially the same as corporate provisions which had been the basis for denial of certification in other Department final orders.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
