The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent Department of Corrections (the Department) properly determined that there were no responsive proposals to the Request for Proposals entitled Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV, RFP #08-DC-8048 (the RFP); (b) whether the Department's intended award of a contract to provide mental healthcare services to inmates in Region IV to Intervenor Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS), pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), is unlawful; and (c) whether Petitioner MHM Correctional Services, Inc. (MHM), has standing to challenge the Department's intended award of a contract to CMS pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact The RFP Process The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2009. Two addendums were issued to the RFP, the first on February 6, 2009, and the second on March 11, 2009. The Department did not receive any protest of the RFP or addendums from MHM or any other proposer within the statutorily set time limit of 72 hours from the issuance of the RFP. At the time of issuance of the RFP, MHM was the incumbent provider of mental health services to inmates in Region IV. At that time, MHM was providing the services at a rate of $77.62 per month/per inmate. MHM's contract to provide mental health services in Region IV was the result of a prior vendor being financially unable to perform the contract at its agreed rate. The RFP sought proposals from vendors to provide comprehensive mental healthcare services for inmates located at 14 correctional institutions located in the southern part of the State beginning on July 1, 2009. The Department’s contract with MHM for those services was set to expire on June 30, 2009. The Department had previously attempted another procurement for replacement of those services in late 2008. Proposals to the RFP were received and opened in a public meeting on March 23, 2009, from CMS, MHM, the University of Miami's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (the University of Miami), and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Wexford). The Department’s Bureau of Procurement and Supply (BPS) was responsible for overseeing the RFP. The Procurement Manager for the RFP was Ana Ploch. Ms. Ploch’s duties included drafting the proposal with the assistance of the Office of Health Services, managing the procurement process by coordinating release of documents, conducting related meetings (such as proposers’ conferences, proposal opening, and price opening), conducting site visits, supervising the evaluation process, and keeping records of the process through completion of a summary report of the procurement. Once the Department received the proposals, it began the eight-phased review and evaluation process as set forth in Section 6 of the RFP. Phase 1 of the review and evaluation process began with the public opening of the proposals that took place on March 23, 2009. Phase 1 also included the review of the proposals to determine if they met mandatory responsiveness requirements. Determination of meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements was made by BPS staff. Mandatory Responsiveness Criteria or “fatal criteria” is described in Section 5.1 of the RFP as requirements that must be met by a proposer for the proposal to be considered responsive. A failure to meet any one of the three following criteria would result in an immediate finding of non- responsiveness and the rejection of the proposal: (a) the subject proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP; (b) the proposal must include a signed and notarized Certification Attestation Page for Mandatory Statements; and (c) the price proposal must be received by the Department by the date and time specified in the RFP and must be in a separate envelope or package in the same box or container as the project proposal. There is no dispute that all four proposals met these mandatory responsiveness/fatal criteria. In addition to the fatal criteria, a proposal could be found to be non-responsive for failing to conform to the solicitation requirements in all material respects. The RFP, Section 1.20, clearly set forth the definition of a “material deviation” and the basis for rejecting a proposal as follows: 1.20 Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by vendors. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this RFP indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient proposal is not in substantial accord with this RFP’s requirements, provides an advantage to one proposer over other proposers, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services proposed, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a proposal. (Emphasis in original.) A Responsive Proposal is defined in the RFP Section 1.29 as “[a] proposal, submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” A minor irregularity is defined in Section 1.26 of the RFP as: 1.26 Minor Irregularity: A variation from the RFP terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or gives the proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other proposers or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. Phase 2 consisted of a review of the business/corporate qualifications and technical proposal/service delivery narratives contained in the proposals. This phase was completed individually by evaluation team members. The evaluation team, which consisted of 5 employees from the Department’s Office of Health Services, met with Ms. Ploch on March 24, 2009, for instruction on how to proceed with the evaluation. The team members were given the evaluation materials on that date. Evaluation and scoring of the proposals was done separately by each individual without discussion among the members. At the March 31, 2009, bid tabulation meeting, which occurred after the team members scored the proposals, Ms. Ploch told the team members that MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive to the RFP. Then the scores for the different categories were recorded as announced by each member of the evaluation team. All four proposals were scored for the three categories listed in RFP Section 5.3 (business/corporate experience), Section 5.5 (project staff) and Section 5.6 (technical proposal and service delivery narrative). There is no allegation that the scores assigned to the proposals were done in error or that they were not in compliance with Department rules or procedures. Phase 3 of the review and evaluation process was completed at the same time as Phase 2 and 4, by Ms. Ploch and the BPS staff. That review of the proposals included a determination as to whether the proposers were in compliance with Section 5.3 “Business/Corporate Qualifications.” At that point in the review process, BPS determined that the University of Miami’s proposal was non-responsive in that the proposer did not have the necessary business experience. This finding has not been disputed by any party. An independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) completed Phase 4 of the review and evaluation process. The Department hired the CPA to review the financial requirements of Section 5.4 of the RFP. The CPA, Richard Law, was given all the proposals, including the financial documentation, on March 24, 2009. He conducted his review separately from the Department's reviews in Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Law has been a licensed CPA for over 30 years. His major practice area is conducting audits for state governments, as well as private businesses. With more than 10 years of experience reviewing financial documentation for the Department and assisting on the setting of financial benchmarks for numerous procurements, he is highly qualified to perform the evaluation and assessment of these basic financial criteria. The financial requirements and the financial documentation and information that the proposers had to submit are set out in Section 5.4 of the RFP. That section is entitled “Financial Documentation,” and provides as follows in pertinent part: Tab 4-Financial Documentation The Proposer shall provide financial documentation that is sufficient to demonstrate its financial viability to perform the Contract resulting from this RFP. Three of the following five minimum acceptable standards shall be met, one of which must be either item d, or item e, below. The Proposer shall insert the required information under Tab 4 of the Proposal. Current ratio: = .9:1 or (.9) Computation: Total current assets ÷ total current liabilities Debt to tangible net worth: = 5:1 Computation: Total liabilities ÷ net worth Dun and Bradstreet credit worthiness (credit score): = 3 (on a scale of 1-5) Minimum existing sales: = $50 million Total equity: = $5 million NOTE: The Department acknowledges that privately held corporations and other business entities are not required by law to have audited financial statements. In the event the Proposer is a privately held corporation or other business entity whose financial statements ARE audited, such audited statements shall be provided. If the privately held corporation or other business entity does not have audited financial statements, then unaudited statements or other financial documentation sufficient to provide the same information as is generally contained in an audited statement, and as required below, shall be provided. The Department also acknowledges that a Proposer may be a wholly-owned subsidiary of another corporation or exist in other business relationships where financial data is consolidated. Financial documentation is requested to assist the Department in determining whether the Proposer has the financial capability of performing the contract to be issued pursuant to this RFP. The Proposer MUST provide financial documentation sufficient to demonstrate such capability including wherever possible, financial information specific to the Proposer itself. All documentation provided will be reviewed by an independent CPA and should, therefore, be of the type and detail regularly relied upon by the certified public accounting industry in making a determination or statement of financial capability. To determine the above ratios, the most recent available and applicable financial documentation for the Proposer shall be provided. This financial documentation shall include: The most recently issued audited financial statement (or if unaudited, reviewed in accordance with standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant). All statements shall include the following for the most recently audited (immediate past) year. auditors’ reports for financial statements; balance sheet; statement of income; statement of retained earnings; statement of cash flows; notes to financial statements; any written management letter issued by the auditor to the Proposer’s management, its board of directors or the audit committee, or, if no management letter was written, a letter from the auditor, stating that no management letter was issued and that there were no material weaknesses in internal control or other reportable conditions; and a copy of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness report dated on or after February 5, 2009. (Emphasis in original) The RFP provided as follows in Section 5.4.2: If the year end of the most recent completed audit (or review) is earlier than nine (9) months prior to the issuance date of this RFP, then the most recent unaudited financial statement (consisting of items b, c, d and e above) shall also be provided by the Proposer in addition to the audited statement required in Section 5.4.1. The unaudited financial data will be averaged with the most recent fiscal year audited (or reviewed) financial statement to arrive at the given ratios. Throughout Section 5.4 of the RFP, the emphasis is on the need for audited financial statements. The use of unaudited financial statements alone does not apply to MHM pursuant to the terms of the RFP, but they did apply to other proposers. Both audited and unaudited financial statements were averaged to determine ratios for CMS and Wexford, where their audited financial statements were older than 9 months. This was clearly permissible under Section 5.4.2. MHM’s proposal included audited financial statements dated September 30, 2008, and also additional information, including unaudited financial statements and a financial narrative in which it admitted that its current ratio as of September 30, 2008, was 0.82 and that it had a negative equity of $24.8 million dollars. MHM was fully aware that it could have difficulty meeting the financial ratios before the Department issued the RFP. As early as January 2008, MHM was considering a stock repurchase. MHM knew its existing contract would come up for rebid. MHM also knew that the Department sometimes used financial criteria and financial ratios as pass/fail ratios. MHM was concerned that the stock repurchase would trigger one of those ratios, causing them to lose the contract. In January 2008, Susan Ritchey, MHM's Chief Financial Officer, and Steve Wheeler, MHM's President and Chief Operating Officer, contacted Mr. Law. Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler wanted to discuss their concerns regarding financial ratios that the Department might require in the future. During the hearing, Mr. Wheeler denied that the contact with Mr. Law had anything to do with the instant RFP. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Law gave Ms. Ritchey and Mr. Wheeler inappropriate advice. The independent review by Mr. Law of MHM’s financial documentation resulted in the finding that MHM only met two of the minimum acceptable standards required by Section 5.4 of the RFP. Mr. Law set out his conclusions on a Department form entitled “Phase IV, Financial Documentation Review to Be Completed by Independent CPA.” That sheet reflected that MHM had failed the current ratio with a score of .819, when a ratio of = 9:1 or (.9) was required (item a). Likewise, MHM failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” and the “total equity” criteria (items b and e, respectively), since MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars. MHM passed the two remaining criteria. First, it met the minimum existing sales (item d) with sales at $217 million (greater than or equal to $50 million). Second, it met the requirement of the Dun & Bradstreet creditworthiness score (item c), which needed to be less than or equal to 3, with a score of The Dun & Bradstreet score was not noted on the Department review form because MHM had already failed three of the financial minimum acceptable financial standards. MHM disputes the finding that it failed the “Debt to tangible net worth” requirement (item b) which was a ratio of = 5:1 or “less than or equal to 5 to 1, a whole number.” Net worth is the same as equity. Following proper accounting practices and a commonsense reading of this mathematical phrase required that both numbers be whole numbers, neither could be a negative. Put simply, a proposer could only have a maximum of five dollars in debt for every one dollar in net worth to pass this minimum acceptable standard. So, for purposes of evaluating this ratio, once it was determined that MHM had a negative equity of $22 million dollars, there was no way for MHM to pass this critical requirement. The “Debt to tangible net worth” criteria, was meant to be “Debt to net worth.” The computation set out below the criteria reflects the proper calculation needed to find debt to net worth, not debt to tangible net worth. Mr. Law performed the computation for debt to net worth as set out in the description of the computation, which was more advantageous to proposers than debt to “tangible net worth,” and resulted in a more favorable ratio. The ratio of “-1.77,” reflected on MHM's financial documentation review sheet is a mistake because Mr. Law used the number he reached averaging the audited and unaudited financial statements. The correct number is “-2.16,” which is based only on MHM's audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. That is, it was a greater negative number, but still negative. Either way, MHM fails this criteria. MHM had no dollars in net worth as of the issuance date of the RFP. Instead, MHM had a negative net worth of $24,785,000.00 as of the end of its fiscal year on September 30, 2008, as reflected in its audited financial statement. As to item “a”, “Current ratio,” a finding of .819 was reached by taking the total current assets ($23,493) and dividing into that number the total current liabilities ($28,692), both reflected on the MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2008. These numbers taken from MHM’s audited financial statements for total current liabilities; total current assets and total equity represent millions, rounded for accounting purposes. MHM reached a similar finding of .82 using its September 30, 2008, audited financial statements. On the date the RFP was issued, February 5, 2009, MHM’s audited financial statement of September 30, 2009, was indisputably less than 9 months old and was the only financial statement under Section 5.4.2 of the RFP that could be used to compute the ratios in Section 5.4.2. Even if the unaudited financial statement submitted by MHM were averaged with the most recent audited financial statement, as demonstrated by Mr. Law’s attempts to do so, MHM would still not have met the current ratio. Nowhere in the RFP does it allow for the use of unaudited financial statements alone when there are existing audited financial statements. Mr. Law’s completed Phase 4 review of the financial documentation. He returned it to the Department on March 30, 2009. The Department conducted Phase 5 of the review and evaluation process, the Public Opening of the price proposals, on April 2, 2009, in a properly noticed meeting. At that time, the Department knew that there were only two responsive proposals (CMS and Wexford). No public announcement regarding the status of the other proposals had been made at that time. The RFP contained a price cap of $70.00 per inmate per month as reflected in Section 5.11.2 of the RFP and the Price Information Sheet. The intent of the price cap of $70 per month was to achieve a price savings for the Department over what it was then paying for mental healthcare services in Region IV, which was nearly $78.00. The goal of $70 was considered to be possibly unrealistic, but the true intent was to keep from exceeding the current rate of $78.00. At the price opening, the following prices were announced: (a) MHM’s price was $70.00 per inmate per month; (b) the University of Miami’s price was $69.49 per inmate per month; (c) CMS’s price was $74.49 per inmate per month; and (d) Wexford’s price was $95.00 per inmate per month. It was later determined that CMS had also submitted an alternative price sheet. However, the alternative price sheet did not affect the responsiveness of CMS's proposal or the Department's subsequent decision. Based on the fact that CMS’s and Wexford’s proposed prices exceeded the amount set by the RFP, their proposals were deemed non-responsive to the RFP. Consequently, as of April 2, 2009, there were no responsive proposers to the RFP. BPS staff prepared a final score and ranking sheet as required by Section 6.2.7 of the RFP. The scoring and ranking included just the two proposals, CMS and Wexford, that were responsive going into the Phase 5 Price Opening. BPS staff did not perform further scoring and ranking of the two proposals that were non-responsive prior to the Price Opening. Department of Corrections’ Procedure 205.002, entitled “Formal Service Contracts,” addresses the Department’s procedures, terms, and conditions for soliciting competitive offers for certain types of services. The Procedure has separate sections for Invitations to Bid, Requests for Proposals, Invitations to Negotiate and general sections that address all three. There is no requirement in the procedure that addresses the specific situation facing the Department in the mental healthcare procurement. The section of Procedure 205.002 that Petitioner points to, Section (5)(r)3., applies only to instances when the Department is seeking to single source a procurement or negotiate with a single responsive bidder. The section reads as follows in pertinent part: (r) Receipt of One or Fewer Responsive Bids, Proposals or Responses: * * * 3. If the department determines that services are available only from a single source or that conditions and circumstances warrant negotiation with the single responsive bidder, proposer, or respondent on the best terms and conditions, the department’s intended decision will be posted in accordance with section 120.57(3), F.S., before it may proceed with procurement. This section of the procedure is clearly inapplicable in the instant case since there were no responsive proposals. Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008) Faced with no responsive proposers, the Department considered its options. The Department then decided to negotiate for a contract on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in lieu of going through a third competitive solicitation. The Department’s decision to negotiate was ultimately made by the Assistant Secretary for Health Services in the Department's Office of Health Services. The BPS staff and legal counsel advised Assistant Secretary Dr. Sandeep Rahangdale about the options available to the Department. Dr. Rahangdale had the following three options: (1) to reject all proposals and begin what would be the third competitive procurement for mental healthcare services in less than 8 months; (2) to negotiate a contract on best terms and conditions under Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), since there were less than two responsive proposals to the RFP; or (3) to use the statutory exemption for health services under Section 287.057(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2008), and enter into a contract with any vendor the Department selected. Option 1, to begin a new procurement was time-barred because the Department needed a new contract in place by July 1, 2009. Dr. Rahangdale’s primary concern was to insure that the Department provided constitutionally mandated health care, including mental healthcare to all inmates in its custody. In making the decision to negotiate, Dr. Rahangdale reasonably chose to begin negotiations with CMS. He made this decision because, of the two proposers who were responsive except for exceeding the price cap, CMS’s price was closest to the $70.00 per inmate per month goal. Wexford, the other proposer that was responsive except for price, had submitted a price of $95.00 per inmate per month. Thus, the Department had a reasonable belief there was a better chance of reaching its $70 goal through negotiations with CMS. Additionally, CMS was the highest scored technical proposal of the only two responsive proposals prior to the Price Opening. Thus, CMS was a better choice for the Department from a delivery of services standpoint. The Department made a reasoned decision to not abandon all the criteria of the RFP that had to do with qualifications, such as business experience (failed by University of Miami) or financial viability (failed by MHM). Dr. Rahangdale considered and determined that the nature of MHM’s and the University of Miami’s failure to be responsive could not be changed or cured in the negotiation process unless the Department lowered its expectations regarding performance and corporate viability. Negotiations were conducted between April 7, 2009, and April 9, 2009, by Jimmie Smith of the Office of Health Services. Dr. Rahangdale instructed Mr. Smith to undertake negotiations with CMS on best terms and conditions, and to strive to get as close as possible to a price of $70.00 per inmate per month in the negotiations. Mr. Smith is a Registered Nurse working in the Department’s Office of Health Services. His working job title is Assistant Program Administrator/Contracting. He has the responsibility to contact potential vendors for health-related services and commodities and to ensure that formal contracts or purchase orders are issued for the required health-related services and commodities. Mr. Smith typically is charged with making initial contact with vendors, handling negotiations for exempt health service contracts, and coordinating the procurement of the services with BPS. He is also a contract manager for healthcare services and advises other contract managers. Mr. Smith was eminently well qualified to negotiate this contract for mental healthcare services on behalf of the Department. Prior to beginning his negotiations, Mr. Smith obtained a complete copy of CMS’s proposal, including the price proposal. He contacted CMS'S Senior Director of Business Development, Frank Fletcher, by telephone to conduct the negotiations. Emails dated April 9, 2009, between the Department and CMS’s representative reflect an offer by CMS to perform the scope of work described in the RFP at a capitated rate of $70.00 for the first year of service, with a $2.50 escalator per year for a five-year non-renewal contract term. CMS also proposed adding a 30-day period for correction of performance measures, prior to the imposition of liquidated damages. The Department counter-offered with a requirement that any failure to correct the performance measure violation within the 30-day period would result in retroactive imposition of liquidated damages to the day of the violation. These terms and conditions were presented to Dr. Rahangdale who approved them. Dr. Rahangdale considered the $2.50 escalator, but decided he was satisfied with the initial year price of $70, a 10% savings for the Department over its current contract and a savings of three million over the life of the contract. On April 10, 2009, Mr. Smith confirmed the tentative agreement to Mr. Fletcher by email. CMS understood that the agreement was tentative until the Department posted a notice of agency decision. The BPS staff prepared an Agency Action Memo, the Summary Report, and the Notice of Intent to Award. The Agency Action Memo contained a recommendation for award and an option of non-award. The Agency Action Memo stated as follows in part: The Department made the determination that it was in the best interest of the State to proceed with negotiations as authorized by Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes. The Department negotiated with the highest- ranked Proposer on the best terms and conditions for the resulting Contract. Based upon the results of the negotiation conducted, it is recommended that the Department awards a Contract to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. A Summary Report was attached to the Agency Action Memo. The report explained the RFP process in detail. It explained the reasons for finding MHM and the University of Miami non-responsive. It explained that CMS and Wexford were non-responsive because they exceeded the price cap. 55.. The report charted the results of the Phase 5--Public Opening of Price Proposals as follows in abbreviated form: PROPOSER UNIT PRICE ANNUAL COST FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE CMS $74.59 $16,536,780 Passed Passed Wexford $95.00 $21,090,000 Passed Passed U. of M. $69.49 $15,426,780 Passed Failed MHM $70.00 $15,540,000 Failed Passed The report set forth the Department's reasons for negotiating on best terms and conditions pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), in pertinent part as follows: Phase 8--Notice of Agency Decision The procurement of Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV was under competitive solicitation for over eight (8) months, via two (2) different solicitations (ITN and RFP). The companies that submitted proposals in response to this RFP also submitted responses to the previous ITN. Pursuant to Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department negotiated with the highest-ranking proposer on the best terms and condition and in the best interest of the state, in lieu of resoliciting competitive proposals for a third time. The last page of the report charted the Final Score and Ranking for CMS and Wexford. The first chart showed the actual points received by the proposers, the highest points received by any proposal, and the awarded points. The second chart showed the proposed unit price, the lowest verified price, and the awarded points. The third chart showed the total response points, with CMS having 500 and Wexford having 454.64. MHM and the University of Miami were non-responsive as to RFP requirements that the Department, in its sole discretion, determined were non-negotiable. Therefore, the Department properly determined that CMS was the highest-ranking proposer after the Price Opening. As Bureau Chief, Mr. Staney was ultimately responsible for verifying that the four proposals were non-responsive. He and Dr. Rahangdale signed the Agency Action Memo, recommending an award to CMS. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Staney sent the documents to his supervisor, Director of Administration Millie J. Seay. The BPS staff briefed Ms. Seay regarding the Agency Action Memo. Ms. Seay questioned whether the Department should negotiate with Wexford. The BPS staff explained that Dr. Rahangdale had considered negotiating with Wexford but that he was satisfied with the negotiated rate and the higher technically-scored proposal from CMS. On Monday, April 20, 2009, Ms. Seay signed the Agency Action Memo. The next day the Department posted its intent to award a contract to CMS. The Department's Notice of Agency Decision announced the intent to award a contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS as follows: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NOTICE OF AGENCY DECISION RFP #08-DC-8048 MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 287.057(6), Florida Statutes, the Department of Corrections announces its intent to award a contract for MENTAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES IN REGION IV to the following vendor: Correctional Medical Services, Inc. This announcement gave all interested parties notice that the Department was taking some action with regard to the referenced RFP. The Notice also contained the statutorily required language giving all interested parties a point of entry to challenge the Department’s intent to award. Accordingly, no proposers were denied an opportunity to inquire into the details of the process that led to an award under the referenced statute, including the evaluation of the proposals and the Department’s decision to wait until it had completed Section 287.057(6), Florida Statutes (2008), negotiations to post the intended agency decision. 63 MHM timely filed its Formal Bid Protest Petition with the Department on May 4, 2009.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended: That the Department enter a final order awarding the contract for Mental Healthcare Services in Region IV to CMS and dismissing the protest of MHM. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 5, 1999, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent maintains that the instant action is barred by laches and violates Section 455.225, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of certified public accountants licensed within the state. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Robert Jarkow, has been licensed in Florida as a certified public accountant, license number AC0010963. On or about December 1996, the Respondent orally agreed to provide accounting services for an individual named Kasman who was doing business as Traditions Workshop, Inc. (Traditions). Traditions manufactured uniforms and listed the federal government among its clients. Revenues to the company from the sale of uniforms were presumably posted in accordance with written contracts. Although the Respondent participated in the monthly completion of financial records for the company, the exact description of his responsibilities for the company and the individual are not known. It is undisputed that Ms. Kasman asked the Respondent to provide a financial statement for the company as part of an effort to secure a line of credit from a bank in New York. It is also undisputed that Ms. Kasman refused to pay for the statement. According to the Respondent, based upon that refusal, he declined to prepare the instrument. Nevertheless, a document entitled "Financial Statements" was generated with a notation "MANAGEMENT USE ONLY-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." The Respondent maintains that the document was not prepared as a financial report and that if generated using his data disk it was done without any intention on his part for the product being used to secure a line of credit. The document did not comply with provisions of accounting practice. The Respondent admitted that when his relationship with the party deteriorated, and payment for services was not rendered, he did not release information to a succeeding accountant. Ms. Kasman needed the information, depreciation schedules, in order to accurately complete tax records for Traditions. The Respondent attempted to locate Ms. Kasman and her bookkeeper for hearing but was unable to do so. Ms. Kasman filed a complaint with the Petitioner against the Respondent that was not investigated until several months after it was filed. The Respondent obtained a civil judgment against Traditions for unpaid accounting fees. The Administrative Complaint filed in this case was submitted over a year after the consumer complaint. Neither party presented testimony from the complainant, her bookkeeper, or her succeeding accountant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding the Respondent violated Rule 61H1-23.002, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Code; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000; and placing the Respondent on probation for one year subject to terms as may be specified by the Board of Accountancy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 4th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Victor K. Rones, Esquire Law Offices of Rones & Navarro 16105 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is University General Hospital, Inc. (hereinafter "UGHI"), the present license holder of University General Hospital (hereinafter "University Hospital"), a 140-bed general acute-care hospital located in Seminole, Florida. During calendar years 1989 and 1990 and until July 30, 1991, University Hospital operated as a division of Community Health Investment Corporation f/k/a/ CHS Management Corporation (hereinafter "CHIC"). On July 30, 1991, UGHI was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CHIC and became the license holder of University Hospital. University Hospital's change in licensure on that date did not change its ownership, control, management, reporting, or operation. On or about December 2, 1991, UGHI timely filed Certificate of Need (hereinafter "CON") Application No. 6851 to convert 12 general acute-care beds to hospital-based skilled nursing beds. As of the date of filing its CON application, UGHI was the license holder of University Hospital and complied with the definition of "Applicant" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. Prior to submission of CON Application No. 6851, UGHI retained John Gilroy of the law firm Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French to serve as legal counsel for the CON project. In his initial dealings with UGHI regarding compliance with the requirements of Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, Gilroy learned that audited financial statements previously prepared for University Hospital while it was a division of CHIC could be reissued for UGHI. Gilroy then contacted Elizabeth Dudek, Director of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS") Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, to inquire whether the proposed audited financial statements (i.e., the reissued statements) would comply with the applicable statutory requirements. Dudek suggested that Gilroy direct his inquiry to Roger Bell, an Audit Evaluation and Review Analyst with the HRS Office of Community Health Services and Facilities. In conducting her responsibilities, Dudek relies upon the opinions of experts, and Bell is the most qualified person in the HRS Office of Community Health Services and Facilities to render an opinion regarding hospital audited financial statements. Among Bell's responsibilities is advising Dudek whether CON applicants' financial statements should be accepted or rejected. At that time or soon thereafter, Gilroy had at least one telephone conversation with Bell wherein he informed Bell that UGHI had been in existence for less than one year and inquired whether the proposed reissued audited financial statements would be acceptable to HRS. Bell's response to Gilroy was that he was not aware that audited financial statements could be reissued in the manner proposed by UGHI, but if Arthur Andersen & Co. could prepare such a document, he expected that it would be acceptable. Additionally, Bell indicated to Gilroy that a balance sheet audit would not give HRS sufficient financial information and that it would be beneficial if he could look at reissued audited financial statements to conduct a more in-depth analysis. Bell did not inform Gilroy of any HRS policy regarding the types of audited financial statements HRS would accept from applicants in existence for less than one year. Following his discussion with Bell, Gilroy sent a letter to his client dated November 20, 1991, indicating that Bell agreed that the reissued statements would be acceptable and that Arthur Andersen & Co. should prepare such statements prior to January 17, 1992. In a letter dated December 12, 1991, Gilroy asked Bell to confirm HRS' position regarding reissued audited financial statements in writing, consistent with their prior conversation. In a letter dated December 16, 1991, Bell reiterated to Gilroy that "if Arthur Andersen is assuming the liability for this assertion, then it is probably in order," and also stated that "[u]nless a concern appears in the auditor's reports or notes, I do not foresee any problem." The letter did not refer to any HRS policy regarding the types of audited financial statements HRS would or would not accept from corporations in existence for less than one year. After receipt and review of Bell's December 16 letter, Gilroy remained under the impression that reissued audited financial statements would be acceptable to HRS provided they were properly executed and signed and had appropriate notes. In a letter dated December 19, 1991, HRS identified certain items of information omitted from UGHI's initial application (commonly referred to as an "Omissions Letter"), including, among other items, audited financial statements of the applicant. On that same date, HRS also sent an Omissions Letter to Edward White Hospital, Inc., an applicant in the same application review batch as UGHI. The Omissions Letter sent to Edward White Hospital, Inc., included a section as follows: If an applicant, due to non-existence as an entity, has not completed a fiscal year of operation, the applicant will submit an audited financial statement in which the balance sheet date falls within the period which begins on the first day of its existence as a legal entity and ends on the date of the applicant's choosing, provided the audited financial statement is available and included with the application during or before the end of the omissions process. Had a similar statement been contained in the UGHI Omissions Letter, Gilroy would have approached HRS to determine whether UGHI's proposed audited financial statements were acceptable notwithstanding this policy. After his review of the UGHI Omissions Letter, Gilroy remained under the impression that reissued statements would be acceptable to HRS if prepared in accordance with accounting and auditing standards. According to Dudek, HRS did not reveal its policy regarding entities in existence for less than one year in the UGHI Omissions Letter because HRS had not been provided with information prior to the issuance of the letter that UGHI was an entity that had been in existence for less than one year. Prior to the Omissions Letter, HRS was, however, informed both orally and in writing that UGHI had been in existence for less than one year. On or about January 15, 1992, UGHI timely filed its response to the Omissions Letter and included a document entitled "UNIVERSITY GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC. (A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF COMMUNITY HEALTH INVESTMENT CORPORATION) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1990 AND 1989 TOGETHER WITH REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS." In a letter dated January 28, 1992, HRS notified UGHI that its CON application was being administratively withdrawn from consideration for the sole reason that it did not contain audited financial statements of the applicant, University General Hospital, Inc. The purpose of audited financial statements from the standpoint of HRS' review of CON applications is that they provide HRS with a basis to determine the overall financial strength and financial position of the applicant and the applicant's ability to carry out the project being proposed. HRS requires that the financial statements be "of the applicant" because it looks to the source of funding and financial strength of the entity responsible for funding the project--the party submitting the CON application. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI reflect the resources available to it for the CON project proposed in CON Application No. 6851 and are appropriate to demonstrate the financial strength of UGHI. The audited financial statements filed by UGHI contain financial documentation for years ending December 31, 1990 and 1989, as well as information through November 13, 1991. The issuance of audited financial statements for an entity incorporating a period of time before that entity's corporate existence (known as "reissuance") is a common practice in the accounting profession and, subject to the entity's ability to satisfy the specified prerequisites, is consistent with pronouncements and standards under generally accepted auditing standards (hereinafter "GAAS") and generally accepted accounting principles (hereinafter "GAAP"). The prerequisites for reissuance of an audited financial statement are adequate disclosure made in the notes of the financial statement and continuance of common ownership, control, management, reporting, and operation of the entity's activities. Prior to issuance of the audited financial statements for UGHI, Arthur Andersen & Co. conducted an extensive post-audit review of UGHI and concluded that the financial statements previously issued to University Hospital could be reissued as audited financial statements of UGHI. Had Arthur Andersen & Co. found that the previously-issued audited financial statements were misleading or that the requirements set forth in GAAS and GAAP were not satisfied, it would not have reissued the audited financial statements on behalf of UGHI. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI to HRS constitute a valid document prepared in accordance with the pronouncements and standards under GAAS and GAAP. It is the policy of HRS that, if an entity has been in existence for less than one year, HRS will accept only a balance sheet audit as of the date of incorporation, or a short period audit from the date of incorporation through an undefined period of time. HRS' policy is not reflected in any of the statutes, rules, or HRS Manual provisions regarding audited financial statements, and HRS is not in the process of promulgating a rule regarding this policy. HRS' policy applies to all entities submitting CON applications that have been in existence for less than one year. Balance sheet and short period audits are not appropriate documents to assess an entity's financial condition. In many cases, HRS would prefer a reissued audited financial statement to a balance sheet audit in analyzing a CON application. In determining whether an applicant complies with Section 381.707(3), Florida Statutes, HRS will, with certain exceptions, look at whether the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, is met. HRS does not apply the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Section 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, to applicants in existence for less than one year. The definition it applies to these entities is not set forth in any rule, statute, or HRS Manual provision. A balance sheet audit does not comply with the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. The audited financial statements filed by UGHI comply with the definition of "Audited Financial Statement" set forth in Rule 10-5.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, identifies those audited financial statements satisfying the rule definition of "Audited Financial Statement" that HRS will not accept. HRS explains the exceptions set forth within Rule 10-5.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, on the basis that these audited financial statements reflect financial documentation of an affiliate entity. The audited financial statements submitted by UGHI are not a combined audit, a consolidated audit, or an audit of a division, as prohibited under Rule 10-5.008(5)(g). From an accounting standpoint, the audited financial statements submitted by UGHI are those of UGHI. An accounting firm typically identifies the entity being audited on the title page of the audited financial statements and in the audit report and financial statements contained therein. The title page of, and audit report and financial statements in, the audited financial statements prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for UGHI all reflect that the entity being audited is UGHI. An accounting firm faces significant liability if the audited financial statements it prepares are found to be inaccurate or misleading. HRS does not dispute, and in fact agrees, that the audited financial statements prepared by Arthur Andersen & Co. for UGHI were correctly issued and are consistent with GAAS and GAAP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered accepting Certificate of Need Application No. 6851 filed by University General Hospital, Inc. for review in the nursing home batching cycle in which it was filed. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1838 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-54 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald M. Cohen, Esquire Steel Hector & Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Richard Patterson Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0018740. Eileen and Robert Organ engaged Respondent's services to prepare income tax returns for Ma's Kitchen, Inc., and Respondent prepared several years of returns for them. In a letter dated March 19, 1999, the Organs advised Respondent that his services were no longer required. Thereafter, Respondent gave his file on Ma's Kitchen to his attorney to collect Respondent's outstanding bill for services rendered to the Organs in the amount of $6,000. On July 6, 1999, the Organs sent Respondent a letter stating that their new accountant needed the ledger books and files of Ma's Kitchen, that the Organs would pick up those records from Respondent, that Respondent's attorney had sent them letters, and that they would file a complaint against Respondent if they did not hear from Respondent. Respondent thereafter made unsuccessful attempts to contact the Organs. The Organs did not contact Respondent after their July 6 letter to make arrangements to pick up their file. Further, the Organs' new accountant did not contact Respondent to obtain copies of Respondent's records although he contacted someone in Respondent's attorney's office who told him he could come there to look at the file. The new accountant never went to Respondent's attorney's office to look at the records for Ma's Kitchen, Inc. Respondent had told his attorney to give the Organs any documents they asked for if they contacted him as long as they paid any copying charges. Respondent's attorney and the Organs' attorney wrote letters to each other, containing their interpretations of their clients' positions. Respondent's attorney took the position that all records provided by the Organs had been returned and that Respondent's work product was not needed by the Organ's new accountant but would be released when Respondent's bill was paid. The Organs' attorney demanded that Respondent return all records in his possession and suggested that Respondent owed money to his clients. The Organs had provided to Respondent check stubs, bank statements, payroll tax returns, and other financial information to be used to prepare tax returns for them. Using those documents, Respondent had entered the data in his computer and had created a computer-generated general ledger. He had returned to the Organs all records they gave him long before they terminated his services, and their attorney's demand that he return records already returned was non-productive. The demand of the Organs' attorney that Respondent return all corporate books and records was also non-productive. Respondent had never possessed Ma's Kitchens' articles of incorporation, corporate seal, by-laws, or minutes of meetings, those items commonly referred to as corporate books and records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 1st day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Samuel Francis May, Jr. 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, Florida 33498 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondents Wardlaw and Etue were Certified Public Accountants licensed by the State of Florida. A Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief was filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which alleged, among other charges against other codefendants, that Wardlaw and Etue had engaged and, unless enjoined, would engage directly and indirectly in aiding and abetting others (notably A.T. Bliss & Co. and some of its principals), in acts, practices and a course of business that constituted and would constitute violations of Section 17(a) of the Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 78m(a), Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13, 71 C.F.R. 240.13a-1 and 240.13a-13. Individual consents to Entry of Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction were entered by each Respondent by which they each consented to the entry of a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction against themselves. By a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction as to each Respondent, each Respondent was permanently restrained and enjoined in connection with the offer or sale of any securities issued by A. T. Bliss and Company, Inc. and from other certain wrongful acts. By an Order Instituting Proceedings and Accepting Resignation from Practice Before the Commission pursuant to Rule 2(e) [See 17 C.F.R. Section 2O1.2(e)] of the Commission's Rule of Practice, each Respondent was separately identified as a Certified Public Accountant who has appeared and practiced before the Securities and Exchange Commission, and based upon certain stated facts, the Commission stated in its separate Orders as to each Respondent the following: In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to institute proceedings and to impose a remedial sanction. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Proceedings pursuant to Rule 2(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice be and hereby are instituted against Stuart C. Wardlaw (James E. Etue). The resignation of Stuart C. Wardlaw (James E. Etue) from practicing before the Commission is hereby accepted. Stuart C. Wardlaw (James E. Etue) shall not, in his capacity as an independent public accountant, directly or indirectly perform any audit service or render any opinion concerning financial statements which he has reason to believe will be contained in any filing with the Commission or prepare financial statements which he has reason to believe will be included in filings with the Commission. (Emphasis supplied) The public accounting firm of Etue, Wardlaw, and Company, C.P.A., performed accounting services in connection with the issuance of audits of financial statements of A. T. Bliss and Company for the years 1979 and 1980. Respondents Etue and Wardlaw were each 50 percent shareholders of the certified public accounting firm, which was formed December 1, 1979. Etue was President and Wardlaw was Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer. Neither Wardlaw nor Etue had extensive experience in the field of auditing prior to formation of the firm, having only been licensed as certified public accountants since 1976. A. T. Bliss and Company (hereafter, Bliss) only became a public corporation in 1980. However, during the latter part of the calendar year 1979, Bliss entered into the business of manufacturing and distributing solar hot water heating systems. Sales were made to various investors, who financed the purchase through 15 and 30 year notes, plus a cash downpayment, with the notes receivable consisting of both recourse and nonrecourse long-term notes. The 1979 and 1980 audited financial statements prepared by Respondents recognized revenue on the accrual basis. It is the auditor's responsibility to determine whether the company issuing those statements has chosen a method of revenue recognition that complies with generally accepted accounting principles. The accrual method of revenue recognition is the generally accepted and preferred method in public accounting, unless the collectibility of the sales price is not reasonably assured. When collection is over an extended period and because of the terms of the transactions or other conditions there is no reasonable basis for estimating the degree of collectibility, the installment sales or cost recovery methods of revenue recognition may be used and are normally preferred. Bliss' revenue recognition policy in 1979 and 1980 recognized the sale at the time of executing the contract and receiving the cash down payment, with a recording of all costs of sales and establishing an allowance for doubtful collections. Petitioner contends that there was insufficient information gathered and sufficient information could not have been gathered by Wardlaw and Etue due to the lack of history of the relatively new company's (Bliss') collections and the length of the extended collection period (15 to 30 years) by which they could reasonably use the accrual method of revenue recognition instead of either the installment method or cost recovery method of revenue recognition, preferably the latter. Respondents contend that sufficient information was collected but not documented. By either assessment, it is clear that there was a violation of generally accepted accounting principles simply in the Respondents' failure to document. The greater weight of the credible expert testimony is accepted that the information gathered or "known" or "understood" by the Respondents concerning the collectibility of a few notes was both of insufficient quantity and quality so as to further offend generally accepted accounting principles. Further, the applicable accounting publications and pronouncements, particularly Accounting Principles Board Opinion 10, (APB 10) strongly suggest that if the collection of the receivables is not reasonably assured, the cost recovery or installment method of revenue recognition should be utilized. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned specifically rejects Respondents' suggestion that both the recourse and non-recourse notes had a high collectibility factor based on the present personal wealth of a small sampling of makers of these notes and based upon the assumption from a still smaller sampling that most solar unit purchasers would stay in for the long haul because they were investing for tax advantages. Equally unpersuasive is the Respondents' argument that because solar units may be attached to buildings and financed over a long period of time Respondents were entitled to utilize real estate sales accounting principles in their financial statements and accountants' reports, all without adequate documentation in their work papers. Based upon the absence of any collection information in the work papers, the 15-30 year collection periods and the fact that none of the notes had any lengthy collection period, those expert opinions that the installment method or cost recovery method of revenue recognition would have more appropriately presented the financial condition of the company in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice are accepted. Although Respondent Etue is correct that APB 10 is couched in permissive not mandatory language, it is significant that Respondents' C.P.A. expert, David Levy testified that the lack of documentation in Respondents' work papers precluded him from forming an opinion that the accrual method of revenue recognition fairly presented the financial position of Bliss and that Respondents' financial statements and accountants' reports do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. Bliss' net income, if determined by either of the preferred methods (installment or cost recovery) rather than by the accrual method selected by Respondents would be materially lower than the amount reported in the 1979 and 1980 audited financial statements. See Finding of Fact 8, below. The significance of this variation could have been minimized or at least lessened by making a full and specific disclosure within the respective financial statements that the accrual method of revenue recognition had been utilized. This was not done by Respondents. Instead, the Summary of Significant Accounting Policies presented in the notes to the 1979 and 1980 financial statements did not disclose the revenue recognition policy utilized, except by a blanket statement that the financial statements (not necessarily the revenue recognition method of the client company) were presented on the accrual basis. Bliss' revenue recognition policy would materially affect its financial position, results of operations, and changes in financial position. Generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice would require the disclosure of such a significant accounting policy in light of the doubtfulness of collectibility of the long term notes. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned specifically rejects the Respondents' basically antithetical propositions advanced at hearing that either (1) anyone reading these financial statements is so sufficiently knowledgeable that he would automatically infer from the notes thereto that the accrual method of cost recovery had been utilized or (2) most persons reading the financial statements would not have the accounting background to appreciate the information if properly disclosed. Respondent Etue maintains that the fact that there is a difference in net income using the accrual method versus a cost recovery or installment sales method is immaterial or has little meaning as there is always a difference using the different methods and because depending upon the total volume of sales, there could be differences of billions of dollars. Even accepting this proposal and Respondent Etue's additional proposition that Certified Public Accountant Reilly's demonstrative figures utilized at hearing may have been slightly distorted, it still appears that concerning the revenue recognition policy alone, Bliss' 1979 financial statement showed close to a $735,000 net income rather than a $20,000-plus loss, as reflected by subsequent audits/restatements of that year. Showing close to a 2.3 million dollar net income rather than about $77,000 in the second year (again as reflected by subsequent audits/restatements) surely reflects at least that the Respondents' accounting decisions were major enough to warrant outside consultation or substantial research and documentation of decisions. Respondents failed to consult and failed to document substantial research and decision factors. These deviations of practice by Respondents are clearly material. There is no reference whatsoever in the 1979 work papers to the determination of the reasonableness of the 60 percent allowance for doubtful collections for notes receivable. Note Two (2) to the 1980 Bliss financial statements disclosed that 50 percent of the total notes receivable in 1980 constituted the allowance for doubtful collections for notes receivable. There is no documentation in the audit work papers to substantiate any audit review to determine the reasonableness of the allowance for doubtful collections for notes receivable except the following statement: "Reserve of 50 percent is reasonable Client has now a full year of experience and knows better the collectibility. Additionally, the ratio of nonrecourse to recourse has changed dramatically in 1980, with more people taking recourse loans. Accordingly, management felt there would be less losses than the 60 percent reserve in 1979 due to the shift. Although there are no dollar statistics to support the 50 percent reserve, it seems to be a reasonable conservative estimate." Considerable testimony was heard from each Respondent as to how this note came to be created. Recitation of most would be subordinate and unnecessary and contrary to the concept of ultimate findings of fact. However, the basic facts adduced are that it arose through collaboration of Wardlaw and Etue to at least some degree. See Finding of Fact 14, below. Despite all of the foregoing the uncertainty in determining a 50 percent allowance suggests strongly that Respondents as auditors merely accepted representations from Bliss' principals without adequate empirical testing and auditing of the judgment and further demonstrates the uncertainty of collections, thereby more strongly indicating that a different approach than the accrual method of revenue recognition should have been selected, because in the accrual method of revenue recognition, the sale is recognized at the time of the entry into a long term note and here, under the circumstances of the instant case, there was inadequate data to form a conclusion as to the collectibility of all monies due under the note. Pursuant to the most credible expert accountants' testimony, this failure in the audit with regard to the 50 percent reserve was a failure to comply with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice and constituted a departure from generally accepted accounting principles and generally accepted auditing standards, but it also appears from the evidence as a whole to be at least partly attributable to Respondents' inexperience in auditing, which was alluded to earlier. The greater violation occurred by the Respondents' failure to recognize the impartiality required of them in certified public accounting practice and their willingness to impose, as it were, their C.P.A. "imprimatur" upon the Bliss financial statements by an opinion without any qualifying language (an unqualified opinion). See Finding of Fact 7, above. Pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) provisions 169.105 and 165.109, receivables of the nature retained by Bliss, must be recorded at their present value. The discount resulting from the determination of the present value should be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction to the face amount of the note, or properly disclosed in the footnotes to the financial statements. There was no adjustment to present value for lower than prevailing interest rates in the 1979 financial statements, nor any disclosure in the footnotes to the financial statements beyond that previously discussed. The 1980 financial statement, disclosed in Note 2 that the 50 percent allowance for doubtful collections included both a provision for uncollectibility as well as a reduction in value due to a lower than prevailing interest rate. The footnote did not distinguish between the two and the total allowance was included in the operating expenses, when the greater weight of the credible expert witness testimony is that the adjustment to present value for lower than prevailing interest rates should have been made as a reduction of sales. The failure to separately disclose the discount and the reserve for doubtful accounts fails to conform with generally accepted accounting principles, specifically APB 21, which requires that the discount is to be made as a reduction of sales. The audit note disclosed that the entire 50 percent allowance was management's estimated allowance for doubtful collections and, after the fact, and without any supportable calculations, the 50 percent figure now included the adjustment in value due to a lower than prevailing interest rate. Proceeding as Respondents did resulted in a material misstatement of gross revenue and operating expenses for 1980, which fails to comply with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice and which fails to conform to generally accepted accounting principles. Cost of sales were not presented separately in the 1979 and 1980 audited Bliss financial statements or auditors' notes thereto. Although there is expert testimony by Leo T. Hury, C.P.A., to the effect that failure to separately present cost of sales is a violation of the custom of accounting and not a violation of generally accepted accounting principles, Mr. Hury also felt it departed from generally accepted auditing standards. Moreover, APB 4 states that separate disclosure of the important components of the income statements, such as sales and other sources of revenue, including costs of sales, is presumed to make the financial statement more useful. The cost of sales as a separate item permits the reader of the financial statement to determine the gross profit on sales before other income items come into play. Under the circumstances of the instant case the best that can be said of this violation of "custom" is that it constituted only one of several components of a material misstatement of financial condition, which, if not an independent and specific departure from generally accepted and prevailing standards of public accounting practice, generally accepted accounting principles, and generally accepted auditing standards, was one component of such a departure. The 1979 and 1980 work papers associated with the Bliss audit do not document or justify Respondents' study of accounting policy issues in relation to the financial statements so as to accord with generally accepted auditing standards. In making this finding of fact, the undersigned specifically rejects Respondent Etue's proposal that sufficient competent evidential matter was obtained but not documented in the 1979 work papers while the 1980 work papers evidence compliance with generally accepted auditing standards. The proposal is rejected because the expert testimony is consistent that an accountant's "work papers" are to be a "catch all" of supporting documentation for not only the final figures reported but for his studies of accounting issues, judgment calls of accounting policies and principles, and his explanation of selected methodologies as well. Failure of the work papers to adequately reveal how these decisions were reached either indicates that the studies were not done, not documented, or the work papers were defectively maintained, any of which constitutes at least minimal noncompliance with generally accepted and prevailing standards of accounting practice. The Respondents only minimally agree upon what separate responsibilities each had with regard to Bliss' account and financial statements. As might be expected, the elements of "control," "final authority," "sign-off authority," "final say," and "ultimate authority" were used by both Respondents with some considerable variation of meaning. Where there was agreement or only minor deviation, those portions of their respective evidence has been reconciled and accepted. However, each Respondent has a high stake in the outcome of these proceedings and where each characterized their respective responsibilities with regard to the Bliss account generally, and with regard to the 1979 and 1980 Bliss financial statements specifically, in diametrically different ways, greater reliance has been placed on the testimony of Allan Karp, the independent contract accountant who performed the 1980 field work. By any and all points of view, however, and for want of better legal terminology, it would appear that this was a situation that fluctuated from both to neither of the C.P.A. Respondents "minding the store." Respondent Wardlaw was the titular "partner in charge" of both the 1979 and 1980 Bliss audits. Respondent Etue had obtained the client initially and both he and Wardlaw initially met with the client. Prior to introducing Wardlaw to the Bliss principals Etue advised them that he, Etue, was on probation with the Board of Accountancy and Wardlaw would be in charge of the audit. Etue had performed two audits prior to the formation of the public accounting corporation that came under the review of the Florida Board of Accountancy and both of which led to the imposition of the discipline of probation in 1978 and 1981. 1/ Etue's reasons for Wardlaw taking charge of the audits were the language in his prior stipulation with the Board of Accountancy and because he believed he needed improvement in auditing. Petitioner desires that the inference be drawn from portions of each Respondent's testimony taken out of context that Etue concealed from Wardlaw that he, Etue, had done previous audits and represented that he, Etue, was precluded from doing Bliss' audits, and that by these misrepresentations Etue maneuvered Wardlaw into assuming the partner-in-charge responsibilities for the express purpose of avoiding oversight by the Board of Accountancy of the Bliss audits. However, the full context of the Respondents' respective testimony, the internal contradictions of Wardlaw's testimony, and the general vagueness of both Respondents' testimony do not support Petitioner's inference and preclude its acceptance. The custom of the profession of certified public accounting is that the "partner-in-charge" bears the ultimate responsibility of the conduct of a certified audit, including supervision of subordinates, final review of the auditor's work, and recommendations for corrections and changes. That is not precisely what occurred as between these Respondents. Although Wardlaw was responsible for the field work in the 1979 audit, one Sherry Carasik in Wardlaw's office nine miles from where Etue's office was located did the bulk of the work under his supervision, including preparation of the work papers and tests of transactions involved in the field work. Etue had no supervisory responsibility for the 1979 audit and did little if any of the actual field work. Etue did, at Wardlaw's request, however, prepare a list of items to be performed in the audit. This does not support the inference that Etue deferred to Wardlaw's superior auditing experience but quite the opposite, supports the inference that Etue was instructing Wardlaw or they were jointly deciding courses of action with Wardlaw deferring to Etue. Later, Etue also drafted the confirmation letters to be mailed to all investors and edited Wardlaw's letter to Bliss recommending changes to the footnote disclosure. Respondent Wardlaw testified that all major decisions concerning accounting policies re Bliss were discussed with Respondent Etue and concurrence and "joint decisions" were reached between them. Allan Karp materially confirms this testimony with regard to the 1980 audit procedure on the few occasions he was able to view the two Respondents together. It was Karp's view that Respondent Etue was his primary employer who supervised Karp in performance of the 1980 Bliss audit with Wardlaw dropping by periodically but mostly operating out of his separate office. Wardlaw's involvement in the 1980 audit was in the nature of a review partner performing a "cold review" after audit completion but before finalization. In 1980, Etue also assisted Karp with inventory as part of the field work, discussed with Karp his concerns about related parties, and helped Karp locate materials for a portion of the audit. The joint decisions with regard to assessing collectibility have been discussed supra.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent has violated Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.25(1)(k), Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes; by being guilty of culpable negligence or breach of trust; by allegedly failing to promptly deliver a deposit; by allegedly failing to maintain trust funds in a proper escrow account; by allegedly depositing or intermingling personal funds with trust funds or escrow funds; by operating as a broker without holding a valid, current license; and by failing to preserve and make available to the agency all books, records, and supporting documents and by allegedly failing to keep an accurate account of all trust-fund transactions.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with licensing and regulating the practice of real estate brokers and salespersons licensed in the State of Florida. It has the duty to prosecute with Administrative Complaints any alleged violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, and related laws and rules, involved in the licensure and regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons. The Respondent, Richard Irwin Ray, is now and was, at all times pertinent to this case, a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida. He was issued license number 0423296, in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to him was as a non-active broker, bearing an address of 10013 Calle de Celestino, Navarre, Florida 32566. The Respondent, at times pertinent hereto, was the licensed and qualifying broker for the now-defunct Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. for the period from October 31, 1985 to approximately November 6, 1989. The Respondent and Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. failed to renew their licenses on March 31, 1989, the expiration date. Instead, the licenses were renewed effective April 5, 1989; and the Respondent continued to do business as a real estate brokerage and broker for several months thereafter through and including the time in which the transaction at issue was entered into. On or about July 27, 1989, Richard Walker, a salesman working for the Respondent's brokerage firm, solicited and obtained an executed contract for the sale and purchase of certain real property owned by Myra Lee Philips, the seller, and Charles W. and Pamela S. Brannon, the proposed buyers. The buyers gave the salesman, Mr. Walker, a $500.00 earnest money deposit called for by the terms of the contract, which terms also provided that the earnest money deposit was to be held in escrow by Navarre Shores Realty, Inc., the Respondent's real estate brokerage firm. Mr. Walker maintains that he turned in the check or submitted it to the broker or to one of his representatives or to someone who was "running the office at the time". He does not recall to whom he actually tendered the check when he received it; however, he recalls making a copy of the check and then making a copy of the check and the front page of the contract, with the check copy overlaid on it, which was the procedure in the office required by the Respondent in order that he could keep a record of sales transactions. In addition to Mr. Walker, the salesman, having no recollection of who, if anyone, he might have given the check to with the Respondent's brokerage firm, the Respondent has no recollection of receiving the check, ever seeing the check nor the manner or means by which the check was handled, as, for instance, whether it was deposited in his firm's escrow account or not. Mr. Charles Brannon, the proposed buyer in the subject transaction, testified that he executed a $500.00 earnest money deposit check in accordance with the terms of the contract referenced above and that the $500.00 check did clear his bank account; that is, it was paid upon being tendered to his bank. The Respondent maintains that he does not know the location of any records he might have, if any, related to this transaction and the subject earnest money deposit check. During the time in question immediately following the transaction date of July 27, 1989 and the time in November of 1989 when the Respondent closed his real estate office, the Respondent apparently had some disagreements with salespersons, including Mr. Walker. During this time period, the Respondent and his secretary, Ms. Galfano, learned that some client and sales transactions files were removed from the Respondent's brokerage office by Mr. Walker and others. Apparently, Ms. Galfano was able to retrieve some of the files; however, the Respondent was unable to, or in any event, failed to provide the Department's investigator, Mr. Bratton, with any records related to the subject transaction, including the escrow account records, which might have revealed whether the earnest money deposit check was deposited in the Respondent's escrow account or not, although the Respondent did advise Mr. Bratton by telephone on two occasions that he was endeavoring to have the bank prepare his escrow account records. The escrow account had been closed by Emerald Coast State Bank because service charges had been applied to it which resulted in its having a negative balance. This may mean that no $500.00 earnest money deposit check had been deposited in that account, and the Respondent does not know what happened to the check once the Brannons executed it and presumably gave it to Mr. Walker. He does not feel that it was ever placed in his escrow account, nor that he ever had any possession of it because the account was closed for having a negative balance due to the debiting of monthly service charges. In any event, the Respondent did not obtain and provide to the Petitioner the escrow account records. The Respondent stated in his testimony that if the buyers, the Brannons, could provide their bank records and produce the cancelled check involved, that would show how the check was cashed and, therefore, whether it was processed through his escrow account. The cancelled check was not produced and admitted into evidence at the hearing. Mr. Brannon, one of the buyers, merely testified that the check had cleared his bank and had been debited from his account upon which the check was written. Check number 3642 in evidence is the $500.00 check drawn on the account of Richard I. or Maryanne Ray, which is the check by which the Respondent paid the seller, Ms. Philips, the earnest money deposit funds which she was due because the transaction failed to close. A receipt for that check was issued to the Respondent by witness, Richard Walker, the Respondent's former salesman. The receipt indicates that the funds in question were received from R. Ray Construction, a/k/a Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. Mr. Walker did not adequately explain why he issued a receipt to the Respondent for the check drawn on his personal account and represented it as being from R. Ray Construction, a/k/a Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. He merely testified that he went to Mr. Ray, who "...was operating out of his personal account with his construction company. I did it because that's what he was known as at the time. OK. I did it in good faith." Mr. Walker does not have any knowledge concerning where the earnest money deposit check from the buyer, the Brannons, was actually deposited, nor whether the Respondent ever received it. Ms. Galfano was the secretary for Navarre Shores Realty, Inc., the Respondent's firm, at the time of the transaction in question and thereafter. Ms. Galfano established that Mr. Walker took some files from the office which contained sales contracts when the Respondent closed the office. She went to his home on a Sunday and persuaded him to give her back the records and took them back to the office. Ms. Galfano opined that certain files had been removed from the office by Mr. Walker because Mr. Walker was in a dispute at the time with one of the sales associates in the office. Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. had been experiencing internal problems with the associates disputing among themselves. In fact, the Respondent lost several associates from his firm due to internal dissension, presumably about credit for clients and contracts. It was because of this that the Respondent decided to close his office. At the time of the transaction between the Philips and the Brannons, Navarre Shores Realty, Inc., through Mr. Walker, had the listing on the property. Prior to that time, the Philips' property had been listed with Mr. Lou Jakes, also a sales associate with Navarre Shores Realty, Inc. The seller, Ms. Philips, later turned the listing over to Mr. Walker because she was upset with Mr. Jakes over upkeep not being properly done on the beach house in question. She called the off ice concerning this and happened to talk to Richard Walker, who persuaded her to change the listing from Lou Jakes over to him. Thus, the subject listing and transaction caused a dispute between Mr. Jakes and Mr. Walker, and Mr. Jakes left the firm as, later, did Mr. Walker. One of them apparently removed the subject records from the brokerage office. Since the transaction in question and the internal dissension in his office involving Mr. Walker and the other associate, the Respondent has had difficulty conversing with Mr. Walker because they are not on good terms. In summary, the evidence establishes at most that Mr. Walker received the earnest money deposit check from the buyers, the Brannons. It was not established that the Respondent ever received or became aware of the delivery of the earnest money deposit check to Mr. Walker. It was not established that it was ever deposited in any of the Respondent's or his corporation's accounts. It was established that the Respondent, partly out of a desire to avoid accusation of any illegality by the Petitioner, voluntarily paid the $500.00 to the seller out of his personal account, although he does not know or has no recollection that the money was ever received by him nor deposited in any of his accounts. The earnest money deposit check was not produced and placed into evidence, which could have shown in whose bank and account the check might have been deposited. Mr. Brannon only testified that the $500.00 check cleared and was debited from his account. It was established that the Respondent either has no records of his escrow account transactions with regard to this real estate transaction or is unaware of their location. It was likewise established, however, that upon request by Mr. Bratton, Petitioner's investigator, for copies of those records, the Respondent did not produce them. The Respondent maintains that he had requested that his banks provide a copy of his account records; however, as of the time of the hearing, he had not provided those to Mr. Bratton. It was also established that the Respondent and his brokerage firm were duly licensed at the time the transaction in question occurred and that some months later, in November of 1989, he closed his office and ceased doing business. It was established that his licensure expired on March 31, 1989 and that there was a six-day lapse of his licensure, with it being renewed on April 5, 1989. In November of 1990, on approximately November 6th, the buyers, the seller, and the Respondent signed a release of deposit agreement whereby the Respondent was to disburse $500.00 to the seller with regard to the subject transaction. See Exhibit 2 in evidence. On or about April 18, 1991, the Respondent made and delivered check number 3642, in the amount of $500.00, drawn on his personal checking account number 1322650, maintained at First National Bank of Santa Rosa, Milton, Florida, payable to Myra Lee Philips, who had been the seller in the subject transaction. Thus, in excess of five months elapsed between the time the Respondent agreed to disburse the $500.00 to Ms. Philips and the time he actually paid Ms. Philips the $500.00.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, finding that the Respondent, Richard Irwin Ray, has violated Subsection 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, by failing to promptly deliver a deposit; finding that he is guilty of having failed to preserve and make available to the Petitioner all books, records and supporting documents concerning trust-fund transactions in violation of Rule 21V-14.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and that he be accorded the penalty for these violations of a written reprimand and a $250.00 fine. Concerning his violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the consequent derivative violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, by operating for six days without a license, it is recommended that due to this inadvertent, technical licensure lapse that no penalty be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 James Gillis, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802-1900 Richard Irwin Ray 10013 Calle de Celestino Navarre, FL 32566
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The parties stipulated at the final hearing to factual findings set forth in paragraphs 1-3, below. The Department received the Application for Qualification on April 27, 1995. An audited financial statement of Tony DePaul & Sons, Inc., was completed on December 31, 1994. The deadline for the Department to have received the annual audited financial statement of Tony DePaul & Sons was May 1, 1995. Other Facts Petitioner in this proceeding is Tony DePaul & Sons, Inc. Respondent is the Florida Department of Transportation. Respondent's Contracts Administration Office administers a contractor qualification program in which the Department qualifies contractors to subsequently bid on Respondent projects which exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Petitioner's application was received on April 27, 1995, minus Petitioner's annual audited financial statement which had been completed on December 31, 1994. The deadline for receipt of the application and Petitioner's annual audited financial statement was May 1, 1995. Respondent's representative contacted Petitioner on May 9, 1995, as a courtesy to inform Petitioner that the annual audited financial statement had not been received. Thereafter Respondent received the annual audited financial statement on May 11, 1995. Respondent's interpretation of law applicable to the subject application dictates that an application, such as Petitioner's, must be denied where the application and annual audited financial statement are submitted more than four months after the ending date of the annual audited financial statement, unless the applicant submits an additional interim audited financial statement. Petitioner made no inquiry of Respondent's offices to ascertain whether Respondent had timely received Petitioner's application and audited financial statement. Notably, Respondent's Contracts Administration Office has not lost or misplaced a document since 1982. The total elapsed time between receipt by Respondent's offices of Petitioner's Application for Contractor Qualification on April 27, 1995, and Respondent's issuance of a Notice of Intent to deny Petitioner's application is thirteen (13) days. Respondent is required to process applications within thirty (30) days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 16th day of October, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, 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 16th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings None submitted. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-11., Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Cummings Tony DePaul & Sons, Inc. P. O. Box 1650 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Peter DePaul, President Tony DePaul & Sons, Inc. P. O. Box 1650 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Michael J. Lerner, C.P.A. Tony DePaul & Sons, Inc. P. O. Box 1650 Blue Bell, PA 19422-0465 Mary Dorman, Esq. Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee St., MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben Watts, Secretary Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Dept. of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Notice to Show Cause, filed on September 14, 2010, and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating condominiums, including condominium associations, pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Whitehall was a condominium association operating in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Whitehall was responsible for managing and operating Whitehall Condominium in West Palm Beach, Florida. Pertinent to the case at hand, regarding a condominium's year-end financial statement, section 718.111, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: (13) Financial reporting. --Within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year, or annually on a date provided in the bylaws, the association shall prepare and complete, or contract for the preparation and completion of, a financial report for the preceding fiscal year. Within 21 days after the final financial report is completed by the association or received from the third party, but not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year or other date as provided in the bylaws, the association shall mail to each unit owner at the address last furnished to the association by the unit owner, or hand deliver to each unit owner, a copy of the financial report or a notice that a copy of the financial report will be mailed or hand delivered to the unit owner, without charge, upon receipt of a written request from the unit owner. The division shall adopt rules setting forth uniform accounting principles and standards to be used by all associations and addressing the financial reporting requirements for multicondominium associations. The rules must include, but not be limited to, standards for presenting a summary of association reserves, including a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of reserve funds that would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item based on the straight-line accounting method. This disclosure is not applicable to reserves funded via the pooling method. In adopting such rules, the division shall consider the number of members and annual revenues of an association. Financial reports shall be prepared as follows: (a) An association that meets the criteria of this paragraph shall prepare a complete set of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The financial statements must be based upon the association's total annual revenues, as follows: * * * An association with total annual revenues of $ 400,000 or more shall prepare audited financial statements. (emphasis added). Whitehall's annual revenue is in excess of $400,000.00. Therefore, Whitehall is required to produce audited year-end financial statements. Whitehall's fiscal year coincided with the calendar year. As a result, Whitehall's 2009 year-end financial statement was due on or before May 1, 2010. On December 11, 2009, Whitehall engaged Hafer Company, LLC (Hafer), a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firm, to produce its audited 2009 year-end financial statement. Whitehall must rely upon a third-party vendor, such as Hafer, to produce its audited financial statement. Hafer assigned Nicole Johnson as the auditor to produce Whitehall's audited 2009 annual financial statement.4/ Ms. Johnson's process involved, among other things, preparing a draft audit; providing a draft audit to the condominium board, which reviews the draft audit with Ms. Johnson; and then preparing the final audit. Whitehall's engaging Hafer in December 2009 did not contribute to any delay in producing Whitehall's audited financial statement. Ms. Johnson wanted to begin the auditing process early and made a request to Whitehall to begin on or about January 6, 2010, but Whitehall was not prepared to go forward at that time. She was not concerned with beginning at a later date because, among other things, her suggested date was an early date for beginning the auditing process. Whitehall's day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting was performed by a third-party vendor, The Accounting Department, Inc. (Accounting). On February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson met with Accounting's representative who was handling the day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting. Having the meeting occur in February 2010 was not late or abnormal in the ordinary course of preparing an audited year-end financial statement for a condominium; and did not contribute to any delay in Ms. Johnson's producing Whitehall's audited 2009 year-end financial statement. On February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson began her field-work and received the primary bulk of the accounting information necessary to complete the audit. From February 3, 2010, Ms. Johnson maintained communication, whether by telephone, email, or other methods of communicating, with Whitehall's directors and officers, and its property manager, Michael Weadock, who is a licensed Community Association Manager (CAM). Ms. Johnson's communications included requesting additional information, asking questions, and obtaining clarifications regarding items for the audited year-end financial statement. One of the items needed by Ms. Johnson to complete the audited year-end financial statement was independent verification from Whitehall's banks regarding Whitehall's certificates of deposit (CDs). Ms. Johnson, as the auditor, was responsible for obtaining the independent verification of the CDs from Whitehall's banks. Due to the economic crisis, which occurred in 2009, banks nationwide were taking an unusual amount of time to respond to auditors' requests associated with the independent verification of bank account information. The banks from which Ms. Johnson was requesting independent verification were no different. She did not receive independent verification of Whitehall's CDs until after the May 1, 2010, due date for Whitehall's audited 2009 financial statement. Whitehall could do nothing to expedite the banks' response to Ms. Johnson's requests. Additionally, on May 28, 2010, Ms. Johnson sent an email to Mr. Weadock requesting additional items that were outstanding. The requested items were non-bank items and were not items that would delay the completion of a draft audit, but were required for the final audit. The next business day, Whitehall provided the requested items. Whitehall had control over these non-bank items, which delayed completion of the final audit. Subsequently, Ms. Johnson received the independent verification of Whitehall's CDs from the banks. On June 23, 2010, Ms. Johnson completed Whitehall's audited 2009 Financial Statement and forwarded a copy to the Department. Even though the final audit was not completed until June 23, 2010, on or about June 10, 2010, Whitehall posted on its bulletin board a notice indicating that copies of the audited 2009 Financial Statement were available in its office. However, subsequently, another notice was posted on the bulletin board indicating, among other things, that copies of the audited 2009 Financial Statement would be available at the Board of Directors Meeting on July 1, 2010, in order to provide for the completion of the audited year-end financial statement. Whitehall does not dispute that neither notice complies with the manner/method of delivery requirement in section 718.111(13). Additionally, Whitehall provided notice to its unit owners as to the availability of the audited 2009 Financial Statement through its community television channel, website, and email blast. This same manner/method of sending the notices to unit owners was used in the past by Whitehall. Whitehall does not dispute that this manner/method of providing notice does not comply with the manner/method of delivery requirement in section 718.111(13). At the time of hearing, Whitehall had not provided its unit owners with a copy of the audited 2009 Financial Statement by mail or hand-delivery. Whitehall has prior disciplinary history regarding its failure timely to prepare and provide its audited year-end financial statements in prior years. On April 1, 2010, Whitehall and the Department entered a Consent Order resolving several statutory violations. One of the violations in the Consent Order was Whitehall's failure timely to prepare and provide its 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 audited year-end financial statements. As to this violation, the Consent Order concluded that Whitehall failed timely to prepare and provide the audited year-end financial statements for the four consecutive years. The Consent Order did not include a violation of the manner/method of delivery of notices regarding the year-end financial statements for the four consecutive years. Subsequent to the Consent Order, the Department received a complaint from a one of Whitehall's unit owners regarding Whitehall's failure timely to provide a copy of the 2009 audited year-end financial statement. The Department's usual practice is that, if a repeat violation occurs within a two-year period, administrative action is taken resulting in a consent order or notice to show cause. Considering the recent Consent Order, the Department followed its usual practice and appropriately pursued the complaint. On September 14, 2010, the Department filed a Notice to Show Cause against Whitehall, which is the subject matter of the instant case. Even though the unit owner's complaint did not include the manner/method in which notice was provided, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department was restricted to investigate only that which was complained of. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department's investigation of a violation of section 718.111(13) by Whitehall was improper. Further, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department's enforcement of the requirements of section 718.111(13) was selective enforcement against Whitehall. The evidence demonstrates that the Department participated in this proceeding primarily due to Whitehall having previously, within a short period of time, violated section 718.111(13) regarding Whitehall's failure timely to provide its unit owners a copy of audited year-end financial statements. Additionally, the evidence fails to demonstrate that either the Department or Whitehall needlessly increased the cost of litigation in the instant case.5/ Consequently, the evidence fails to demonstrate that the Department participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by section 120.595(1)(e)1.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Condominiums, Timeshares, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order: Finding that Whitehall Condominiums of the Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Association, Inc., violated section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, by failing to deliver, in the manner authorized by statute, a copy of its audited 2009 year- end financial statement to all of its unit owners no later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year, and by failing to make audited 2009 year-end financial statement available in the manner authorized by statute, when it became available; and Imposing a fine in the amount of $5,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for self-insurance for workers' compensation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses' testimony and the documentary evidence received into evidence, the following relevant and material facts that follow are determined. The Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Inc. (Association), is established by Section 440.385, Florida Statutes (2003), and is an organization that provides a guarantee for workers' compensation benefits for companies that are self-insured. The Association pays injured workers their benefits, if the self-insurer becomes insolvent. An insolvency fund is established and managed by the Association, which funds the workers' compensation benefits for insolvent members. The insolvency fund is funded by assessments from members of the Association. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.102 (formerly Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-5.102), in order for an employer to qualify for self-insurance under the relevant provisions of law, the applicant must meet the following requirements: (1) have and maintain a minimum net worth of $1,000,000; (2) have at least three years of financial statements or summaries; (3) if the name of the business has changed in the last three years, provide a copy of the Amended Articles of Incorporation; and (4) have the financial strength to ensure the payment of current and estimated future compensation claims when due, as determined through review of their financial statement or summary by the Department. Of the general requirements noted in paragraph 3, above, the only issue in this proceeding regards N.C.M.'s financial strength. An applicant for self-insurance is required to submit in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent years. All financial statements, audits, and other financial information must be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Association is required to review each application and the financial documents which are submitted as part of that application to determine if the applicant has the financial strength to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims. After the Association reviews the application, it makes a recommendation to the Department as to whether the application for self-insurance should be approved or denied. The Department is required by law to accept the Association's recommendations unless it finds that the recommendations are clearly and convincingly erroneous. N.C.M. submitted its application for self-insurance on or about May 6, 2003, and included in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent fiscal years. The statement contained an unqualified opinion from N.C.M.'s accountant. N.C.M. provided information in its application regarding the number of employees, the worker classifications of these employees, and a payroll classification rating that has been established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The application made it clear that the Department could use this information to calculate a manual annual rate premium for each worker classification to determine an overall workers' compensation premium based on statewide manual rates. The Association calculated a standard premium of $507,088.75 for N.C.M., after giving credit for its experience modification of .71. N.C.M. confirmed in its application that it was a corporation duly organized and existing in the State of Florida. N.C.M. also supplied information on its corporate officers and copies of its Articles of Incorporation confirming its corporate existence. In its application and at the hearing, N.C.M. agreed that, if accepted for membership, it will maintain security deposits and excess insurance as required by the Department's administrative rules. Upon receipt of N.C.M.'s application, the Association thoroughly reviewed the application and financial statements for the three most recent years. The Association examined the balance sheets to analyze the Company's assets, liabilities, working capital, and equity structure. Additionally, the Association examined N.C.M.'s income statements to analyze the Company's revenues, profits and/or losses, and expenses. The Company's cash flows were examined. The Association calculated various financial ratios for N.C.M. in order to examine, among other things, the company's asset structure, liquidity, total debt to equity structure, and net income or loss as it relates to the company's equity. The analysis and review performed by the Association, as described in paragraph 12, is the same type of analysis the Association performs on every applicant for self-insurance. Because applicants for self-insurance come from various types of industries, it is not useful to establish specific threshold values for various financial ratios in determining financial strength. However, the Association reviews and analyzes the financial statements of each applicant to determine the financial condition of that applicant. The Association's review of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements revealed that the Company had a net loss of $60,937 in the year ending December 31, 2002. The Company also had a loss from operations in its most recent year in the amount of $74,897, or negative .62 of its revenues. This was a significant factor to the Association because it revealed N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for its most recent year. Petitioner's tax return of 2002 showed a profit for the Company. However, the tax returns are not meant to reflect the economic profit of a business and are not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Rather, the audited financial statements provide more accurate information about the Company’s financial health. N.C.M.'s 2002 net worth was $1,218,895, which exceeded the $1,000,000 minimum net worth requirement established in the applicable rule cited in paragraph 3 above. However, the Association was concerned about N.C.M.'s net worth when taken as a percentage of its workers' compensation premiums, calculated by using the payroll classification information in N.C.M.'s application. The analysis of N.C.M.'s net worth as a percentage of workers' compensation premiums is important because workers' compensation claims can accrue each year and be paid out over a long period of time by the self-insurer. A company with equity that is relatively low in comparison to its workers' compensation exposure might, over time, owe its injured workers as much as, or more than, the equity in the company. This would increase the risk for the injured worker. Upon completing its financial analysis, the Association recommended that N.C.M.'s application for self- insurance be denied. Brian Gee, the executive director of the Association, conveyed the recommendation of denial to the Department in two letters, one dated May 12, 2003, and the other one dated June 19, 2003. The letters were virtually identical, except that the June 19, 2003, letter referred to the specific statute at issue and statutory language that N.C.M. did not have the financial strength necessary to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. Attached to both the May 12, 2003, and June 19, 2003, letters was a copy of the Association's summary of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000. Based on the review of the financial data, the Association made the following four findings, which it listed in both letters: The Company received unqualified audit opinions on its December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000 financial statements from Rust & Christopher, P.A. Liquidity - The current ratio has decreased from 1.34 at December 31, 2000 to 1.13 at December 31, 2002. Capital Structure - The total liabilities to book equity ratio has increased since December 31, 2000 from 1.39 to 1.99 at December 31, 2002. Results of Operations - The Company's gross profit margin has negative 0.62 for the year ended December 31, 2002. The Company reported a net loss of $60,937 for the year ended December 31, 2002. Although the above-referenced letters listed findings relative to the Company's liquidity and capital structure, Mr. Gee did not believe that those findings were of "major significance." The Association's letters and accompanying financial data were submitted to the Department for a final decision to be made by the Department. The Department received and reviewed the Association's letters of recommendation and the accompanying documentation. Based on its review of the letter, the Department noted that the Association appeared to have concerns about the Company's liquidity, liabilities, and profitability. However, there was nothing in the letters which indicated that the Association did not consider the findings related to the Company's liquidity and liabilities (capital structure) to be of major significance. The Department sent N.C.M.'s application, which included the financial statements, to an outside CPA firm for review. The outside CPA performed a financial analysis, calculated various financial ratios on N.C.M., and provided a report to the Department. The outside CPA correctly noted in her report that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin for the year ended December 31, 2002, was 15.4 percent. In Finding No. 4 of its letters of recommendation to the Department, the Association had mistakenly mislabeled the Company's net profit margin as the gross profit margin. As a result of that mislabeling in the letters, the finding incorrectly stated that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin was a negative 0.62 percent for the year ending December 31, 2002. In fact, it was the Company's net profit margin for the year ending December 31, 2001, that was negative 0.62 percent. Notwithstanding the incorrect mislabeling of this item in the letters, the financial summary attached to the letters accurately reflected the Company's gross profits and revenue. The financial statement of N.C.M. also reflected that for the year ending 2002, the Company had a gross profit of $1,877,076, and for that same period had a loss from operations of $74,897, or negative .62 percent. The outside CPA also compared various financial information on N.C.M. to an industry average and concluded that "some of the Company's ratios are below the industry ratios." In making these comparisons, the outside CPA researched two companies she believed were in a business similar to N.C.M. The research on these companies provided an industry average for various financial information on companies in the same industry as the two reference companies. In this case, the two reference companies were primarily producers or sellers of concrete products, as opposed to construction companies like N.C.M. Accordingly, the industry ratios contained in the outside CPA's report may be different than the construction industry and not an appropriate basis with which to compare N.C.M. The report of the outside CPA stated that N.C.M. pays approximately $1,000,000 a year in workers' compensation insurance. That figure is higher than the premiums calculated by the Association using statewide manual rates. Instead of using those rates, the outside CPA based her figure on a newspaper article, which stated that Mr. DelDuca, president of N.C.M., pays $1,000,000 for workers' compensation insurance. In her report, the outside CPA cited N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for the year ending 2002 and correctly noted that for that year, the Company reported a net loss of $60,937. The outside CPA notified the Department that she concurred with the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application to become self-insured because the Company had not demonstrated it has the financial strength to ensure timely payment of workers' compensation claims. The Department reviewed the outside CPA's report and noted the concerns about the company's debt equity and lack of profitability. Based on the outside CPA's report, the Department correctly determined that the report contained no information that the Association's recommendation was clearly and convincingly erroneous. As a result of its determination that the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application for self-insurance was not clearly or convincingly erroneous, the Department denied the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying N.C.M. of Collier County, Inc.'s application for self-insurance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Alford, Esquire 542 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mark B. Cohn, Esquire McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A. 1800 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1088 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wood-Hopkins Contracting Company, is a general contractor specializing in heavy industrial and water-related construction activities. Its principal offices are located at 1901 Hill Street, Jacksonville, Florida. On February 8, 1982, Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of qualification with Respondent, Department of Transportation. A certificate of qualification is necessary in order for any person or firm to bid on road and bridge work to be let by the Department. The application included, inter alia, financial statements for the forty weeks ending October 3, 1981. The statements were prepared by Coopers and Lybrand, an independent accounting firm. On February 10, 1982, Respondent advised Petitioner by certified mail that its application was being denied on the ground "[t]he financial statements submitted (were) of a date of more than 120 days prior to the application." The letter of denial precipitated the instant proceeding. Petitioner is currently qualified to bid on construction projects to be let by the Department. However, its certificate of qualification expires on March 27, 1982. It is also qualified to bid on contracts let by the Department of General Services and the University System for the State of Florida. Prior to 1981, Petitioner's fiscal year-end was the Saturday nearest December 31 of each year. Therefore, its financial statements for 1980 were based upon the fifty-two weeks ended December 28, 1980. Sometime during 1981, Petitioner's parent company, Rowe Corporation, changed the fiscal year-end to the Saturday nearest September 30 of each year. Consequently, its most recent financial statements under the new fiscal year were based upon the forty weeks ended October 3, 1981. Department rules and applicable statutory provisions require that financial statements submitted with an application reflect the financial position of the applicant as of a date not more than one hundred twenty days prior to the date of filing of the application. Petitioner's financial statements preceded the date of filing by one hundred twenty-eight days, or eight days more than the law allows. Petitioner contends that it has been qualified to bid for a number of years, and its financial position has not materially changed even though its statements are more than four months old. It argues that the application of the rule in this case is arbitrary given the fact that it was only eight days late in filing its statements, and that the denial of its right to bid is harsh treatment for such a minor violation of the rule. Respondent processes approximately five hundred applications for certificates of qualification each year. Many of these are not timely filed, thereby prompting requests for waiver of the rule. However, it has a uniform policy of not waiving the rule in any cases, and to require strict compliance with the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for a certificate of qualification be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1982.
