Findings Of Fact S. A. Williams Corporation (Williams) is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Florida, has a net worth of less than two million dollars, has fewer than 25 employees, and was the prevailing party in the initial proceedings. Williams has operated a construction and demolition landfill in Hernando County since prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances by the county, and its use of the land for this purpose was grandfathered. Subsequently, William sought to comply with certain conditions established by the County for expanding the landfill site. These improvements necessitated construction of a basin to retain surface water. On April 6, 1993, William applied for a surface water drainage permit from the Southwest Water Management District. On June 16, 1993, the District gave notice of its intent to issue the surface water drainage permit to Williams. On May 26, 1993, while Williams' application was pending with the Water Management District, the County revoked the zoning of Williams to operate a construction and demolition landfill site. Williams sought and obtained an injunction against the County to prevent it from revoking its zoning, and the County appealed the Circuit Court's order enjoining the revocation of the zoning. The Hernando County Commission was advised by their attorney on May 10, 1993, that the County might desire to challenge the issuance of permits by the Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Regulation to Williams to prevent Williams from proceeding with its operation during the appeal of the injunction. At a meeting on June 24, 1993, before the County challenged issuance of the permit, the Water Management District staff advised the County Attorney and a member of the County Commission, who were attending the presentation in their official capacity, that there would be no adverse drainage impacts to any property owned by the County, its rights-of-way, or any property of any citizen of the county because the drainage would be retained on Williams' property by a close basin system large enough to retain surface water drainage on the property during a 100 year storm. Subsequent to this meeting and prior to filing its petition challenging issuance of the permit, the County did not bring to the attention of the Water Management District any concerns to be resolved between the District, Williams, and the County over adverse drainage impacts to County property or rights-of-way. 7 On June 30, 1993, Hernando County filed a petition in the original proceeding challenging the issuance by Southwest Water Management District to Williams of a surface water drainage permit. That petition alleged two grounds for standing: (1) that the County was substantially affected because of adverse impacts to county property and the rights-of-way to county roads, and (2) that the County had standing to challenge the issuance of the permit under its general police powers. The County Engineer was not asked by the County Attorney to review the drainage impacts of the surface water drainage permit prior to filing the challenge, and did not review the District's file until after his first deposition on October 22, 1993. After reviewing the information, to include a new survey of the berm contours, furnished to the Water Management District by Williams, the County Engineer determined that there were no adverse drainage impacts off site. The County Engineer's opinion that there were no adverse impacts to County property was known by the County Attorney prior to the formal hearing in Case Number 93-4212 on November 16, 1993. At the formal hearing on November 16, 1993, in Case Number 93-4212, Williams moved to dismiss the petition filed by Hernando County for lack of standing on the basis that the County was not substantially effected by the Water Management District's decision to issue a surface water drainage permit to Williams. The County receded from its allegation of damage to County property and rights-of-way at the commencement of the hearing, but asserted standing on the basis of its general police powers. The County specifically denied at the formal hearing acting in a representative capacity in the manner of an association in behalf of the county's citizens. After hearing the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hearing officer recommended that the County's petition be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams moved for the award of attorney's fees and expenses from the County after argument on the motion to dismiss the County's petition. Thereafter, Williams filed a written motion for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The Hearing Officer retained jurisdiction to consider the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses when the recommended order was entered. The Water Management District adopted the Recommended Order in its Final Order dated December 20, 1993, and the County appealed the District's Final Order which was affirmed per curiam without opinion in Hernando County v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 647 So. 2d 124, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The instant case was established to consider William's motion which is treated as a collateral fact finding proceeding. The style of the original case was retained to prevent confusion. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for attorney's fees was held on May 10, 1995 which revealed the following facts. During the work-up period prior to notice of intent to issue the permit, the county's engineer and environmental specialist did not raise issues regarding drainage, contours, wetlands, and wildlife. (Tx-220). Although the County Attorney and one of its commissioners had been advised by the District that there would be no impact to County property or rights-of-way, the County Engineer was not asked to investigate whether the drainage from the proposed project would remain on the site as stated in the application and as concluded by the staff of the Water Management District prior to the County challenging the issuance of the permit. (Tx-198,199) The County Engineer looked at the Water Management District's file on the issuance of the permit only after the County had filed its challenge. (Tx-209). The County Engineer had expressed concerns to the District staff about suspected changes in the topography on the site. (Tx-208). When the Water Management District was made aware of the County engineer's concerns, a new survey was conducted which resolved the County engineer's concerns about changes in topography on the site, and revealed that the tops of the berms were as high or higher than represented in the application. The results of this new survey was shared with County Engineer prior to the original hearing. (Tx-208,211-219). The County's environmental specialist did not review the complete file on the Williams' permit application until within two weeks of the original formal hearing, well after the challenge was filed. (Tx-161). The environmental specialist had no basis to question the validity of the number of acres of wetlands stated in the second permit. (Tx-176). The environmental specialist did not have any personal knowledge regarding the flora or fauna on the site because she had never been on the site, and her information was based solely on material provided to her by individuals living in the vicinity of the site. (Tx-176,180-181). She did not have authority to enter on the site because the County had no enforcement authority over endangered species. When the county's concerns about endangered species on the site were voiced, an on site inspection was conducted by the District. The District staff found no endangered species, or evidence of endangered species, or persons who had seen them on the site. The District staff's findings were shared with the County prior to the original hearing. (Tx-220.) Williams incurred attorney fees and expenses responding to the challenge of the County to issuance of the surface water drainage permit. The expenses incurred by Williams were primarily in response to the County's allegations of adverse impacts to County property. However, it is impossible to reasonably separate the expenses incurred by Williams responding to the allegations of off-site impacts from those related to standing based upon general police power. The County's assertion of general regulatory authority was primarily a legal argument which was addressed by the District's staff. Williams sought no fees for the appeal which was litigated principally by the District and County. By agreement of the parties the evidence on the amount of attorney fees and rate were submitted by affidavit without agreement regarding the facts asserted in the affidavits. The rate charged by counsel for Williams of $195/hour was a reasonable rate for the type of service provided in the geographic area in which it was provided considering the skill and experience of counsel. The number of hours billed through preparation of the post hearing briefs in the original formal hearing in this case, 160.25 hours, was not excessive given the number of depositions taken, the motions hearings which were held, and the legal and factual issues raised. The Williams' affidavits of attorney's fees and expenses are as follows: Attorney fees thru original hearing: $31,248.75 Estimate of costs related to preparation and service of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses: $ 1,560.00 Teleconference charges on motion to compel: $ 127.73 Outside copying expense: $ 8.73 Expert Witness fee: $ 1,277.90 Court Reporter fees for depositions & transcripts: $ 1,692.45 Expert fees on Motion for Attorney Fee and expenses: $ 788.00 24. The attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred by Williams in the hearing on attorney fees May 10, 1995 of $3,894.81 are reasonable. Williams incurred an expense of $1,019.00 for publication of the transcript in the almost seven hour hearing.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. By its Notice to Show Cause filed herein dated February 9, 1984, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent's public housing license (license control number 16-2324-H) or to assess a civil penalty for stated violations of Rule Chapter 7C-1, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 509.221(8) and 509.281(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The subject housing facility, Westside Park Apartments, is located at 901 NW 8 Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida and is owned by George A. Williamson. (license number 16-2324-H) On October 19, 1983, Petitioner's inspector, D.J. Stallone, made a routine inspection of the licensed premises. At that time, inspector Stallone issued a warning to owner Williamson based on his failure to maintain fire extinguishers (violation of Rule 7C-1.04(1), Florida Administrative Code); a directive that he repair an open electrical outlet in apartment 17; repair a loose handrail; replace missing jalousies and screens; remove rubbish in the area of the trash dumpsters; exterminate the premises for rats and roaches and to generally clean the grounds surrounding the apartments. Owner Williamson was sent a certified letter directing him to complete the repairs and/or deficiencies within fifteen days or approximately November 4 or 5, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Inspector Stallone made a callback inspection for the subject premises on November 8, 1983 and found that the Respondent/owner had not complied with the following violations which were cited in the first inspection October 19, 1983: Failure to maintain fire extinguishers in violation of Rule 7C-1.04(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to keep electrical outlets in good repair in violation of Rule 7C-1.04(4), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to keep the building in good repair; specifically, handrails, walls and windows in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to keep vermin out of the premises due to broken or missing screens in violation of Section 509.221(8) Florida Statutes. Failure to keep the premises free of vermin in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(3), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to keep premises free of debris in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(7), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to keep trash in proper receptacles in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(5), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On November 28, 1983, Petitioner served Respondent with a Notice to Show Cause and an agreement was entered wherein Respondent was assessed a civil penalty and a stipulation was entered. Respondent paid the $200 civil penalty which was assessed and he agreed to correct the cited deficiencies within thirty days. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Inspector Stallone made a callback inspection after thirty days and specifically, on February 2, 1984, found at that time that corrections of the violations referred to herein had not been made although the fines which were assessed were paid. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Inspector Stallone made a callback/reinspection of the subject premises on February 28, 1984 and found that there were still some missing screens in several apartments and that there was still a problem with trash around the premises. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) A subsequent inspection was made by inspector Stallone on June 21, 1984 and Respondent was specifically advised that a loose handrail in the hallway of the apartments still existed as a violation; holes were in walls and debris and trash were on the premises. Inspector Stallone made another callback inspection for these premises on July 23, 1984 and found that the violations had not been complied with and Respondent was issued a Notice of Violation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Willie Fuller is a resident of the subject facility and has been for approximately seven years. Mr. Fuller is employed full-time at the Westside Apartments as a cleanup/maintenance man. Mr. Fuller cleans up the grounds surrounding the premises twice daily and removes all trash once it is gathered up. Mr. Fuller finds it difficult to keep the trash from accumulating in the meter room and around the premises inasmuch as the tenants have children who are not mindful of the tidiness of the grounds. Mike Milot is a carpenter employed by the Respondent for the Westside Park Apartments. During November of 1983, Mr. Milot changed all the screens and glass-a total of approximately 100 screens and 40 glass panes. Mr. Milot corrected problems based on either personal observations or tenants' complaints. Mr. Milot has noted that tenants lock themselves out on a frequent basis and, to enter apartments, they break the windows and screens. Mr. Milot noted that there was a hole in the wall behind apartment #107 and that this was necessitated by a broken pipe which had been repaired and was left unplugged (the hole) for a period of approximately ten days to determine whether or not the plumbing repair had been successful. Owner/licensee Williamson related the extensive efforts he has undergone to maintain these premises in good repair including the fact that he visits the premises on a daily basis and has retained the services of four full- time employees to assist in the maintenance of the subject property. Owner Williamson has trash and garbage collection pick ups routinely by the City of Pompano and bulky items are picked up by a private firm. Owner Williamson replaced in excess of 100 screens which were purchased from T.M. Products during late 1983. Additionally, approximately 3 weeks before the citations were issued herein, owner Williamson had the fire extinguishers recharged by the Pompano Fire Equipment Company. Respecting the hole in the wall in apartment #107, owner Williamson retained a plumber to correct a leak in that apartment and the plumber retained to correct the problem was waiting to determine if the problem had been corrected when the inspections were made herein. Owner Williamson related that the building was erected during 1958 at which time Schedule M copper was used whereas now, the deficiency has been corrected by Schedule L, a thicker grade of copper. Finally, owner Williamson related that all of the cited repairs and/or deficiencies which are at issue herein have been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $500. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADNELL 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 23nd day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 George Williamson, Esquire 1111 SE 3rd Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33316 Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00450 is for a consumptive use permit from 10 wells located in Hillsborough County, to be used for public water supply for the City of Temple Terrace. The permit seeks to withdraw 2.028 million gallons a day average annual withdrawal and 4.564 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The sought for withdrawal may affect other wells by drawdown of an average of 1" in a surrounding well. Such a drawdown will not seriously and adversely affect the surrounding wells. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of a type acceptable to the district on all withdrawal points covered by the permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage on a weekly basis and shall submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning January 15, 1977. All individual connections supplied by withdrawals permitted will be metered. Records of meter readings will be made available to the district upon request. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
The Issue Whether Respondent falsified employment papers by stating no previous arrest, while employed by the School Board was adjudicated guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, and subsequent to a dismissal made threats against school board personnel.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Pinellas County School System on May 17, 1988 as a plant operator at the South Ward Elementary School in Saint Petersburg, Florida. On the date he was employed Respondent signed a document as part of his application entitled Notice to All New and Rehired Employees. That document directed Respondent to list all prior arrests. Respondent wrote "no" on the document and signed it. (Ex 2). Although Respondent denied the signature on Ex 2, is his signature, this document was presented from the personnel file of Respondent and Respondent's contention that someone from the school system forged his signature on this document is not credible. Respondent was arrested in 1983 on charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault and battery, was brought to trial and found not guilty of all three charges. Accordingly, his denial of arrest on Ex 2 is false. In May 1988, shortly after his employment with the School system commenced, Respondent was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, was tried and found guilty of this offense. During the investigation of the charges brought to light when a background check was done on Respondent as a result of an unrelated matter and the criminal proceedings came to light, Respondent was offered three options: 1) to resign, 2) be terminated, or 3) receive a written reprimand and agree to random drug testing four times during the next year at Respondent's expense. (Ex. 7). Respondent rejected the first and third options and told the personnel officer to "terminate me". On September 14, 1993 Respondent went to the Pinellas County Courthouse and demanded to see the Board of County Commissioners to complain about the actions of the School Board. When told the commissioners were not present, Respondent nevertheless went to the Commission Chambers. When he returned to the receptionist he remarked he guessed he would have to go back to the School Administration Building and shoot the place up. During a telephone conversation with Ted Pafundi, Supervisor of Employee Benefits at the School System, the person who identified himself as Respondent, in an agitated condition told Pafundi that he was coming down to get you all. "I'll blow up the building." When the amended charging letter was sent to Respondent by certified mail it was refused by Respondent and returned to the sender. (Ex. 5).
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered confirming the termination of Henry Lee Jackson as an employee of the Pinellas County School Board. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 5th day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Henry Lee Jackson 311 Pennsylvania Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 4th Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of The Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate action that should be taken by the Petitioner. Petitioner contends that the Respondent participated in board of directors' meetings regarding the Golden Lakes Village condominium, without first posting notice of the meetings and without maintaining minutes of the meetings as required by the provisions of The Condominium Act. Respondent denies the allegations.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Planned Communities, Inc., is the developer of a condominium known as Golden Lakes Village, Phase B. The affairs of Golden Lakes Village are administered by a board of directors that is controlled by the developer. There are three members of the board. Two are selected by the developer, and one by unit owners within the condominium. The bylaws of the condominium provide that meetings of the board of directors shall be open to all unit owners and that notice of meetings shall be posted conspicuously at the condominium property forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. The bylaws provide that a quorum of the directors means a majority of the entire board. The bylaws require that minutes of all meetings of the board of directors be kept. The condominium association maintains a minutes book. There are minutes from nine board of directors' meetings since 1979. Four of these meetings had as their purpose consideration of proposed budgets. Four were organizational meetings to elect officers. One was a special meeting called to consider a proposal to engage the services of a management company. Minutes were not kept for any other meetings of the board of directors that were conducted from 1979 until the present, neither was there any posting to advise unit owners of these meetings in advance. There were numerous meetings of the Board of Directors of Golden Lakes Village, Phase B, other than those that were properly noticed and for which minutes were taken. During these meetings, matters affecting the condominium were discussed. Many of the meetings were conducted on a very informal basis when the unit owners' representative on the board contacted one of the developer's representatives and asked for a meeting. Among the matters discussed were repairs to facilities, additional facilities, budget, and the like. It does not appear that business was conducted in this manner so as to hide the meetings from unit owners. Rather, the purpose appears to have been to conduct operations in a simple manner and to allow the unit owners' representative on the board ready access to the developer's representatives. While the motives of the developer do not appear to have been bad ones, conducting the meetings without first posting notice and without keeping minutes violated the provisions of the condominium bylaws.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all proposals on RFP No. 008-02 to design and build an ancillary building at the Tampa Service Office was arbitrary, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 21, 2002, Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), through its contracts manager, issued an Invitation to Proposal inviting interested persons to submit competitive sealed proposals on Request for Proposal No. 008-02 (RFP No. 008), which called for the design and construction of an ancillary building at its District Service Office (Tampa Service Center) located at 7601 Highway 301 North, Tampa, Florida. The proposed facility is an approximately 5,000 square foot metal building which will house the District's field staff. The last paragraph of the document provided that "[t]he District shall reserve the right to reject any or all bids/proposals received with or without cause." On May 24, 2002, the District placed an advertisement of its Invitation to Proposal in three local newspapers in Hillsborough County. The last paragraph of each advertisement also provided that the District reserved the right to reject all bids with or without cause. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on June 6, 2002, which was attended by various interested persons, including Petitioner, Paul J. Sierra Construction, Inc. (Sierra), a large construction firm located in Tampa, Florida. Although Sierra engages in general construction, it also has a division which specializes in projects using Butler building systems. A Butler building utilizes a combination of a metal roof with a pre-engineered structural system. At the pre-proposal meeting, Sierra requested a copy of RFP No. 008-02, which contained the general conditions for the project, nature of the services required, insurance requirements, and evaluation procedures. Section 1.13 of that document provided in relevant part that "the District reserves the right to reject all proposals and not grant any award from the issuance of this RFP." Five proposals, including Sierra's, were received and opened on June 26, 2002. All proposals were reviewed and independently scored by a three-person selection committee composed of District staffers. Although Sierra's proposal of $374,038.00 was not the lowest dollar amount submitted, it received the highest numerical score of 279, edging out two other proposers who both received scores of 277. The lowest dollar proposal submitted was $337,000.00. Under the process in place, the selection committee then referred the results of its evaluation to a three-person Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee), comprised of the Governing Board's chairman, Mr. Ronnie E. Duncan, the Governing Board's vice-chairman, Mr. Thomas D. Dabney, II, and the treasurer of the Governing Board, Watson L. Haynes, II. The Committee was delegated the authority to reject any proposal without further action by the District's Governing Board; however, approval of a proposal had to be confirmed by the Governing Board. Committee members Duncan and Dabney are developers with extensive experience in construction while Mr. Haynes has a background in accounting. The Committee was formed in late 2001 for the purpose of achieving more efficiencies in the construction process, particularly in light of a newspaper's criticism of the money spent by the District while renovating Building 2 at its Brooksville office. The Committee was not obligated to accept the selection committee scoring. Rather, the Committee had a duty to make the ultimate decision as to how taxpayer dollars are best spent. The Committee met on July 30, 2002, to consider the results of the evaluation. Mr. Haynes was not present. The two other members voiced concerns regarding the cost of Sierra's proposal, which was more than $74.00 per square foot. For that reason, the Committee continued the decision on awarding the contract to its next meeting on August 28, 2002. It also requested the staff to determine how costs on the project could be reduced. On July 31, 2002, Sierra contacted the District's contract manager, Steven M. Long, by telephone and was told that Sierra had received the highest ranking from the selection committee, but that the Committee had postponed a decision until its next meeting because of concerns over the cost of the project. On August 28, 2002, the Committee reconvened. Due to a personal conflict, Mr. Haynes was not present. By a 2-0 vote, the Committee determined that because of the cost concerns, all proposals should be rejected, and that the 5,000 square foot ancillary building should be combined with two other projects being undertaken at the Tampa Service Center under a single construction manager to reduce costs and realize other benefits. This decision was conveyed by telephone to Sierra on September 1, 2002. On September 3, 2002, formal Notice of Rejection letters were sent to all five proposers. On September 5, 2002, Sierra filed its Notice of Protest. This was followed by a Formal Written Protest filed on September 12, 2002, in which Sierra contended that the Committee's decision was arbitrary. The Tampa Service Center is a branch office of the District and includes office, technical, maintenance, and garage facilities with accompanying parking and roadways. Existing Building 1 is outdated, crowded, and inadequate and must be replaced. It will be demolished once the new Building 1 is constructed. Although the District initially decided that the new building would need 30,000 square feet, it later determined that the approximately 5,000 square feet needed to house District field staff could be separated out as an ancillary building from Building 1 and built as a metal building. A preengineered metal building was selected since it would be cheaper and faster to build, and some of the field staff could be moved out of the crowded existing Building 1 to the ancillary building while new Building 1 was being constructed. In addition to the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building, the District intends to re-roof existing Building 2, demolish Building 1, re-route traffic flow, install security gates, improve parking, improve the stormwater system, and install new landscaping. As a general rule, as a project gets larger, there are economies of scale that result in cost reductions because the cost per unit becomes less as a greater quantity is purchased. In deciding to reject all proposals, and combine all of the work at the Tampa Service Center, the Committee considered the following advantages to having a construction manager supervise the entire project: It would reduce potential confusion by better coordinating the number of contractors and subcontractors on the job and create a more efficient work flow. Task coordination is essential for safety since District employees and members of the public will have continuing access to the Tampa Service Center while all components of the project are under construction. There will be considerable underground construction work for the installation of electrical lines, telephone lines, computer cabling, water lines, fire protection water service lines, sewer lines, irrigation lines, and stormwater lines. Improved coordination reduces duplication and the possibility of putting recently completed work at risk for damage. By working with the architect and the construction manager, the District could use value engineering to reduce costs. Value engineering would allow the District to look at creative ways to reduce costs by substituting similar, less expensive items for more expensive items. Because the District is exempt from paying state sales tax, the District would save the 7 percent sales tax since the construction manager sets up accounts with vendors directly for the District. The District would also save the contractor's percentage markup that typically encompasses the 7 percent sales tax when it has to be paid. The construction manager system produces a better selection process and cost savings since the construction manager can be required to obtain at least three proposals for each of the sixteen divisions of labor. There will be benefits of accountability and uniformity from having only one person or entity responsible for any problems encountered. In addition, the following savings could be realized through economies of scale by including the ancillary building in the larger project and under a construction manager: mobilization; demobilization; site work; excavation for foundation; concrete for foundation; rough-in electrical work; rough-in plumbing; fire protection service line; electrical lines; water lines; computer cabling lines; plumbing; electrical; insulation; drywall; floor tile; ceiling grid; ceiling tiles; doors; air conditioning system; painting; landscaping; irrigation sprinkler system; paving work; stormwater system; and one project manager. At the same time, when the earlier decision was made to separate the construction of the ancillary building out from the rest of the Tampa Service Center project to save time and money, the Committee believed that the ancillary building would obtain its utility and communication services from an existing, adjacent building. After later learning that this was not the case, and that the scope of the work for the ancillary building had expanded to require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services, the Committee realized that the cost and other benefits originally intended had been lost. Finally, new Building 1 is only sixty feet from the ancillary building and will require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services. Therefore, the Committee concluded that it made more sense to combine the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building to achieve cost savings and efficiencies in the installation of utility and communication services and to reduce other overlapping aspects of the Tampa Service Center project. Given the foregoing considerations, the Committee's decision to reject all proposals was not arbitrary in any sense. While it is true that the precise amount of savings to be realized cannot be quantified, the greater weight of evidence shows that some savings can be achieved, and that the Committee's decision was based on facts, sound reasoning, and logic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order rejecting all proposals on RRP 008-02. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Stephen H. Kurvin, Esquire 7 South Lime Street Sarasota, Florida 34237-6105 Stephen O. Rushing, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
