Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a non-profit corporation located in the State of Florida. Petitioner is dedicated to the training and education of persons who minister to law enforcement officers as police chaplains. The association is interfaith and interdenominational. It is not organizationally affiliated with any church and is not itself a church. It does not conduct worship services, nor require its members to conduct worship services. Moreover, Petitioner's member police chaplains are not necessarily required to be members of a religious organization. Petitioner does not control who may be selected by a law enforcement agency as a chaplain. In fact, persons acting as police chaplains can perform their duties without being a member of or consulting with Petitioner. Petitioner does not have a physical building or other structure which is used regularly for worship services or is used by any of its members to conduct regular worship services. Additionally, Petitioner did not offer or submit any competent evidence to show that it is within a larger church hierarchy or that there is some organizational nexus with various police departments or their chaplains. The association does have a voluntary ethical code for its members and does provide newsletters and documents about ethics to its members. The association also provides information to law enforcement agencies on operating a police chaplaincy and information related to selecting a police chaplain. However, no evidence was presented that Petitioner participates with or controls its members as they perform their daily duties as a chaplain. Likewise, Petitioner did not offer or submit any competent evidence to show that it "customarily" exercises any control over police chaplains or that it regularly participates in any of the "customary" activities of police chaplains. In short, Petitioner is a voluntary social organization whose various members have a common interest in the quality of ministering to law enforcement agencies. It is not an administrative office of a discreet religious hierarchy. Lacking such an affiliation, Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of exemption.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a consumer's certificate of exemption as a religious institution. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Nickell, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6668 David W. Derevere, Executive Director International Conference of Police Chaplains Post Office Box 5590 Destin, FL 32540-5590 Linda Lettera, Esquire Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation (DOT), is required by state and federal law to ensure that 10 percent of state and federal funds available for construction, design and consulting service-contracts be provided as an opportunity to small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (DBE). DBE contract goals are established by DOT for each construction contract. Every bidder must submit a form to DOT which either documents compliance with the DBE contract goal or, if compliance is not met, must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that good faith efforts were made by the bidder to meet the goal. Prior to June 1984, DOT's practice allowed contractors ten days after the bid letting to correct their DBE forms or to submit their good faith effort documentation. However, effective May 23, 1984, DOT adopted Rule 14- 78.03(2)(b), F.A.C., which provides in pertinent part: 4. For all contracts for which DBE . . . contract goals have been established, each bidder shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE . . . participation information shall be submitted with the contractor's bid proposal. Award of the contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE . . . participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. Failure to satisfy these requirements shall result in a contractor's bid being deemed nonresponsive and the bid being rejected. (Emphasis supplied.) In August 1984, subsequent to the adoption of Rule 14.78.03(2)(b)4., F.A.C., DOT sent a "Notice to All Contractors" which advised . . . all submittals for evaluating Good Faith Efforts in meeting DBE/WBE goals must be submitted with the bid proposal in order to be considered for award of the contract. Failure to submit the Good Faith Effort documentation with the bid may result in rejection of the bid. Petitioner, Wiley N. Jackson Company, acknowledges receipt of the "Notice to All Contractors." By notice dated August 30, 1984, contractors were advised that sealed bids would be received until 10:30 a.m., September 26, 1984, on various road projects. The bid documents advised that the DBE goal for Job Number 89095-3411 was 10 percent. The specifications for Job Number 89095-3411 contain extensive provisions with regard to compliance with the DBE contract goals. Among these provisions is the following language contained in Section 2-5.3.2. For all contracts for which DBE and/or WBE contract goals have been established, each contractor shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE and WBE participation information shall be submitted with the Contractor's bid proposal. Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals, or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. The Contractor's bid submission shall include the following information (Submitted on Form No. 141-12 - DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1): The names and addresses of certified DBE and WBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs and WBEs certified by the Department at the time the bid is submitted may be counted toward DBE and WBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE and WBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE and WBE firm. If the DBE or WBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the Contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. (Emphasis supplied.) The specifications list, as grounds for disqualification of bidders, failure to satisfy the requirements of Section 2-5.3. Further, Section 2-5.3.3 of the specifications advised bidders that: In evaluating a contractor's good faith efforts, the Department will consider: Whether the Contractor, at least seven days prior to the letting, provided written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, or hand delivery, with receipt, to all certified DBEs and WBEs which perform the type of work which the Contractor intends to subcontract, advising the DBEs and WBEs (a) of the specific work the Contractor intends to subcontract; (b) that their interest in the contract is being solicited; and (c) how to obtain information about and review and inspect the contract plans and specifications. Whether the Contractor selected economically feasible portions of the work to be performed by DBEs and WBEs, including where appropriate, breaking down contracts or combining elements of work into economically feasible units. The ability of a contractor to perform the work with its own work force will not in itself excuse a contractor's failure to meet contract goals. Whether the Contractor provided interested DBEs or WBEs assistance in reviewing the contract plans and specifications. Whether the DBE or WBE goal was met by other bidders. Whether the Contractor submits all quotations received from DBEs or WBEs, and for those quotations not accepted, an explanation of why the DBE or WBE will not be used during the course of the contract. Receipt of a lower quotation from a non-DBE or non-WBE will not in itself excuse a contractor's failure to meet contract goals; provided however, a contractor's good faith efforts obligation does not require a contractor to accept a quotation from a DBE or WBE which exceeds the lowest quotation received from any subcontractor by more than one percent. Whether the Contractor assisted interested DBEs and WBEs in obtaining any required bonding, lines of credit, or insurance. Whether the Contractor elected to subcontract types of work that match the capabilities of solicited DBEs or WBEs. Whether the Contractor's efforts were merely pro forma and given all relevant circumstances, could not reasonably be expected to produce sufficient DBE and WBE participation to meet the goals. Whether the Contractor has on other contracts within the past six months utilized DBEs and WBEs. The above list is not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive and the Department will look not only at the different kinds of efforts that the Contractor has made but also the quality, quantity and intensity of these efforts. Sections 2-5.3.2 and 2-5.3.3 are drawn directly and literally from Rule 14-78.03(2)(b). Consequently, all bidders were apprised by rule and bid specifications that if the DBE contract goal could not be met, sufficient information had to be submitted with their bid to demonstrate their good faith efforts to meet the goal, and the criteria that would be utilized to evaluate their efforts. On September 26, 1984, Petitioner submitted the low bid in the amount of $7,688,271.91 for Job Number 89095-3411. Attached to the bid was Form 141-12 - DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1, indicating that Petitioner's proposed utilization of DBEs was 0.2 percent of the total contract amount; $15,385 on a total bid of $7,688,271.91. Accompanying Petitioner's bid was a handwritten letter which stated: Gentlemen: To demonstrate good faith effort prior to the bid date for this project, we submitted seventy-three registered letters to prospective D.B.E. Subcontractors. On the major items we propose to sublet, comparative D.B.E. and non-D.B.E. quotations were received as follows: Box Culvert - J. E. Hill (D.B.E.) - 505,762.00 Shelton & Son - 369,092.00 Difference - $136,670.00 Fencing - Mikell (D.B.E.) - 55,727.00 Cyclone - 46,833.00 Difference - $ 8,894.00 Grassing - Mikell (D.B.E.) - 91,919.00 Agricultural Land - 63,198.00 Difference - $28.721.00 In view of the above, we are unable to meet the D.B.E. Goal and, at the same time, submit a realistic and competitive bid. Copies of pertinent quotations are attached and copies of D.B.E. solicitations (registered letters) and responses are available for your review. Quotations reflecting one unaccepted DBE proposal, and one accepted non-DBE proposal, in each of three areas--concrete, fencing and grassing--were attached to the letter. In each instance the DBE proposal exceeded the non-DBE proposal by more than one percent. No other documentation was submitted with Petitioner's bid to demonstrate its good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract goal. Respondent, Dickerson Florida, Inc. (Dickerson), was the second low bidder with a bid of $7,926,819.49. Dickerson's bid reflected a DBE participation of 10.8 percent. Upon the closure of bidding, Petitioner's bid was submitted to the Good Faith Effort Committee at DOT to evaluate the information contained in the bid to determine whether Petitioner's documentation evidenced a good faith effort to meet the DBE goal. That committee found Petitioner's bid documentation failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to meet the DBE goal, and recommended that Petitioner's bid be declared non-responsive and be rejected. DOT declared Petitioner's bid non-responsive and rejected its bid. DOT proposed awarding the contract to Dickerson. Petitioner's bid documentation failed to demonstrate a good faith effort to meet the DBE contract goals. The documentation failed to demonstrate that: (1) Petitioner, at least seven days prior to letting, had provided written notice to all certified DBEs, or, of what the DBEs had been informed, (2) Petitioner had selected economically feasible portions of the work to be performed by DBEs, (3) Petitioner had provided interested DBEs with assistance in reviewing the contract plans and specifications, and (4) Petitioner had selected for subcontract types of work that matched the capabilities of the solicited DBEs. Further, Petitioner's documentation did not include all quotations received from DBEs. Job Number 89095-3411 included several categories of work: box culverts, signs, landscaping, guardrail, fencing, traffic striping, trucking, paving, grading and miscellaneous concrete. The bid documentation submitted by Petitioner did not indicate the items it attempted to subcontract, nor what efforts, if any, it had expended to solicit DBE participation beyond "a letter" it had mailed, at an indeterminate date, to some 73 unidentified "prospective DBE subcontractors." Facially, Petitioner's documentation evidenced a pro forma effort. Subsequent to the bid closing, Petitioner forwarded to DOT copies of the 73 letters it had mailed to "prospective DBE subcontractors," together with the certified mail return receipts. Petitioner was in possession of these documents prior to the close of bidding, and could have submitted them with its bid. DOT's Good Faith Effort Committee declined to consider Petitioner's postbid submission. The committee interpreted Rule 14-78.03, F.A.C., to require the DBE participation information be submitted with the bid proposal, and to preclude consideration of postbid submissions. DOT has at all times acted consistently with this interpretation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Transportation rejecting the bid submitted by Petitioner, Wiley N. Jackson Company, on State Project No. 89095-3411, Martin County, Florida, and awarding the contract to Respondent, Dickerson Florida, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: David T. Knight, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P.A. Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Larry D. Scott; Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Robert M. Ervin, Esquire Thomas M. Ervin, Jr., Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to excuse Respondent's failure to timely request administrative hearings regarding the Administrative Complaints filed against facilities 1, 2, and 3.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of group home facilities pursuant to section 20.197 and chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Angel Heart is a Florida registered corporation. Its corporate officers are Eartha Mays and Azjah Temple. Respondent's registered agent is Eartha Mays. The address for Azjah Temple, Eartha Mays, and the corporation is 18901 Southwest 106 Avenue, Suite A-111, Miami, Florida 33157. On January 23, 2020, APD filed ACs against the licenses of Angel Heart's group homes 1 through 4. According to the United States Postal Service, the ACs for group homes 1 through 3 were delivered to 18901 Southwest 106 Avenue, Suite A-111, Miami, Florida 33157, and signed for by Odra Kok at 12:06 p.m., on January 30, 2020. Odra Kok is the group home manager for Angel Heart's group home 3. On January 30, 2020, Ms. Kok happened to be in Respondent's administrative office and received and signed the certified mail receipts for the ACs related to group homes 1, 2, and 3. Ms. Kok placed the ACs on a table in the office and they were subsequently lost. Neither Ms. Mays nor Ms. Temple was in the office at the time Ms. Kok received the ACs. Angel Heart did not respond to the ACs for group homes 1, 2, and 3 within 21 days of January 30, 2020. On March 9, 2020, APD entered default final orders that revoked the licenses of group homes 1, 2, and 3. APD vacated the final orders in response to a motion filed by Respondent. Eartha Mays timely appealed the AC for group home 4. At the time the ACs were issued in January 2020, Angel Heart was already operating under a settlement agreement with APD regarding group homes 1 through 4 that resulted from one AC issued in May 2019 against all four group homes. The settlement agreement placed a number of requirements on Angel Heart, including attendance at quarterly meetings with APD officials to review compliance issues. The four identical ACs issued in January 2020 allege that Angel Heart failed to comply with certain terms of the settlement agreement. On February 5, 2020, one day after receiving the AC for group home 4, Eartha Mays emailed the AC to Kirk Ryon, APD's Regional Program Supervisor for South Florida, to get more information. Mr. Ryon did not inform Ms. Mays that three identical ACs had been issued for group homes 1 through 3. On February 14, 2020, Ms. Mays met with Kirk Ryon and other APD officials in person to conduct a quarterly meeting. The purpose of the quarterly meetings was to address any problems or complaints APD had with Angel Heart, including compliance issues. None of the APD officials at that meeting mentioned to Ms. Mays that there were a total of four ACs issued in January. On February 20, 2020, Ms. Mays filed her Request for Administrative Hearing with the APD Agency Clerk, Danielle Thompson, in response to the AC for group home 4. Although Ms. Thompson was aware of the existence of the other three ACs at the time of receiving the Request for Hearing on group home 4, Ms. Thompson did not call or correspond with Ms. Mays to inquire as to why she did not appeal the other three ACs. After filing her Request for Administrative Hearing, Ms. Mays emailed Trevor Suter, the APD attorney who authored all of the ACs, to make sure that her Request for Administrative Hearing had been received. Mr. Suter responded to that email later that same day, saying that he would make sure the clerk received it. Even though he had authored all four ACs, Mr. Suter did not call or correspond with Ms. Mays as to why she did not appeal the three other ACs. The allegations in all four ACs are identical as to Count I, and make no distinctions as to which allegations apply to which facility. Ms. Thompson found that the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Angel Heart as to group home 4 was legally sufficient, including listing the facts alleged in the AC which were in dispute. Ms. Thompson testified that the only thing Angel Heart would have had to do to make the Request for Administrative Hearing applicable to all four ACs was to list the additional license numbers or style the title so it was clear that the appeal included all four group homes. Ms. Thompson explained that it is APDs standard procedure to give appellants who file timely, but legally deficient requests for hearing, multiple opportunities to amend their hearing requests to address deficiencies. Ms. Thompson will often call pro se appellants to advise of any deficiencies and permit them extra time to refile or amend their filing. Ms. Thompson indicated that as long as the petition for hearing was filed timely, she would allow appellants extra time to amend their petition even after the 21 days to appeal had expired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities treat the pending Request for Hearing for group home 4 as an appeal of all four Administrative Complaints or, in the alternative, allow Angel Heart Support Services, Inc., an additional 21 days from the date of the Final Order to appeal the Administrative Complaints for group homes 1, 2, and 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 20th day of July, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Paul Gennett, Esquire Polsinelli, P.C. 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2800 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 315C Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Danielle Thompson Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Francis Carbone, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of architecture pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes. At no time material hereto has Respondent been certified or licensed as an architect pursuant to Chapter 481, Part I, Florida Statutes. On March 9, 2002, Respondent contracted with Reverend Earnest Jackson, pastor of the Church of the Apostolic Faith, to provide services specified as follows: . . . design and composing of blue prints and specifications for securing permits from permitting agencies. Such work may involve civil, architectural or sign design . . . . Mr. Lee agreed to design all necessary [sic] drwgs. and designs for securing all permits for construction of the church and drainage of surface water. The contract referenced the "projected cost for design & delivery of plans @ approx. $7,000.00." There is also reference in the contract to "seven and one half percentage of market" but the remainder of that line on the copy of the contract in evidence is illegible as to the context of that reference. Reverend Jackson understood the contract to be for a total of $7,000.00. The contract was also signed by Robert Roundtree, a deacon of the Church of the Apostolic Faith. Respondent prepared two sheets of preliminary study designs for the Church of the Apostolic Faith dated April 10, 2002, for which Reverend Jackson paid Respondent $1,300.00. As time passed and the church plans were not finished, Reverend Jackson became concerned. Because of his concerns and because Respondent asked him for more money beyond the $7,000.00, which he understood to be a total contract price, Reverend Jackson verbally told Respondent that his services were terminated. In September 2002, Respondent filed a lien against Reverend Jackson and the Apostolic Faith Church. The lien was for "$15,000.00 of which there remains to be paid $13,700.00" for "700 hours in consulting & travel." Respondent later released Reverend Jackson from the lien. During this transaction, Respondent did not clearly inform Reverend Jackson that an architect or engineer would have to review and approve any plans that Respondent drew. The contract made no reference to any review of Respondent's work by either architects or engineers. Reverend Jackson would not have contracted with Respondent if he had been told that Respondent was not in a position to start and finish the church project. Respondent acknowledged that he is not an architect and that the preliminary plans submitted to Reverend Jackson were not reviewed by an architect. Respondent attempts to rely on notifications he received in the late 1980's from the State of Florida indicating he was qualified for certain job classifications, including the classification as Engineering Tech IV, for job opportunities within state government. Respondent's reliance on these notifications that he was eligible for certain job classifications within state government employment is misplaced to the extent they are intended to defend his actions. After terminating his relationship with Respondent, Reverend Jackson hired a firm to complete the plans for the church. The total cost of the plans for the church was $1,000.00.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 481.223(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that an administrative penalty of $1,000.00 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 7th day of August, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At some point in late 1984 or early 1985, Respondent, DOT, solicited bids for its Project Number 77030-3510 to be accomplished in Seminole County, Florida. Three bids were submitted. The bid by Petitioner, Macasphalt, was in the amount of $186,367.05. The two other bidders were Martin Paving Company, whose bid was for $196,391.99 and Orlando Paving whose bid was in the amount of $213,054.56. Petitioner's bid was the lowest by approximately $10,000.00. This particular project required the contractors to meet certain goals in the area of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (WBE). The goals for this project were 7% for DBE and 3.05% for WBE. In its bid, Macasphalt showed that it would award 20.14% of the contract to DBE's but only 2.01% of the contract to WBE's. Martin Paving Company, on the other hand, whose bid was approximately $10,000.00 higher, indicated that it would award 19.19% of the contract to DBE's and 3.04% of the contract to WBE's. Orlando Paving, which was the highest bidder, showed 2.4% WBE. As a result of the fact that Petitioner failed to achieve 3% WBE, whereas the second lowest bidder exceeded the 3% WBE goal, Respondent declared Petitioner's bid nonresponsive for failure to meet the WBE goal and recommended award of the contract to the second lowest bidder, Martin Paving, even though Martin's bid was approximately $10,000.00 higher. The goals set by DOT must be met at the time of letting of the contract. If a contractor cannot meet these goals, he must submit satisfactory evidence of his good faith efforts to meet them in order to be considered responsive. In regard to the goals, DOT issues a monthly list of certified DBE/WBE contractors listed by the type of work they are qualified to do and the geographical area in which they operate. According to Mr. LaLonde, Macasphalt routinely sent out letters to a majority of the subcontractors they feel could do the work generally and a follow-up letter is sent monthly to those subcontractors who do the type of work needed in a particular contract. These letters are sent monthly because Macasphalt bids frequently on DOT contracts and bid lettings are done on a monthly basis. This procedure gives, they feel, DBE's and WBE's information on jobs on which the Petitioner is bidding and keeps them informed. In the instant case, to solicit WBE's, on January 9, 1985 Petitioner sent out letters by certified mail to 47 DBE/WBE's requesting bids on several projects including the one in question here and naming areas in which it anticipated issuing subcontracts. Items to be subcontracted on the instant project included. barricades and signs guard rails landscaping painting and striping trucking, and concrete. No solicitation was made of DBE/WBE's for quotes on asphalt work because that is Petitioner's prime business and it is, in the opinion of its officers, not feasible to subcontract work they do themselves. When it became obvious that Petitioner could not achieve the 3.05% WBE goal, Petitioner, pursuant to the terms of the contract documents, submitted a summary of its good faith efforts to achieve the WBE goals with the contract bid. The Petitioner's summary of good faith effort includes a "remarks" sheet on which the following comments exclusively are made: "We have exceeded DBE goal with a total of 20.14%. However, have only attained 2.01% FBE goal. All subcontract items except guardrail were reflected in DBE or FBE quotes received. No DBE or FBE quote was received for guardrail item." In addition, Petitioner submitted a form letter entitled, "Good Faith Efforts" apparently used in numerous contracts, which requires only the insertion of two numbers and two dates and copies of two different letters in blank sent to subcontractors on apparently a routine basis. In addition to the above, Petitioner submitted two copies of DOT's DBE/WBE Directory, one dated September, 1984 and the other dated January, 1985 in which various subcontractors are identified with check marks, the explanation for which is contained in the form letter referenced above. No explanation was made as to why some WBE's were not solicited. Upon receipt of Petitioner's bid with the good faith explanation included, it was submitted to Respondent's Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. This committee deals only with an analysis of the good faith efforts made by bidders. It has been in operation since its creation in August, 1984 and applies the standards established in Rule 14-78, F.A.C. Here, the committee evaluated Petitioner's good faith effort as outlined in the material submitted with the bid and, based on Petitioner's submission, concluded that Petitioner was non-responsive because its good faith efforts, as documented, were insufficient. The committee based its conclusion on the following considerations: Petitioner did not meet the seven day requirement for notice by certified mail. The sample letter indicated "certified mail" but no copies of receipt showing it was sent by certified mail or to whom it was sent by certified mail were included. All potential subcontractors (WBE's) were not contacted. The ability of the contractor to do the work himself "asphalt) will not justify failing to achieve the goal. Whether or not other bidders met the goal. The remarks sheet was inaccurate and inadequate. The explanation about failing to solicit from those subcontractors who did not do business in Seminole County is inconsistent. Some were solicited and some were not. One contractor (Fran) who operates in three categories and who works statewide, was not solicited by the Petitioner in any category. The criteria as set forth in Rule 14-78 are not exclusive or necessarily determinative. There is no specific definition of good faith efforts. The committee is given the latitude to make a judgment measure of the bidder's efforts opposed to the criteria set forth in the rule. Mr. Pitchford, Chairman of the committee, indicated that after the committee had been in operation for a while, the approach taken toward looking at the criteria set forth in the rule was more strictly and severely applied. No notice of this change in approach was set to any bidder, however Petitioner contends that this was misleading and that it submitted them on a previous successful demonstration of good faith efforts. In October, 1984 it submitted a bid on a contract which did not meet the DBE goal. Nonetheless, the evidence of good faith which it submitted at that time was not questioned and Petitioner was awarded the contract. This good faith information was the same kind of information as submitted here which was considered inadequate. No documentation to support any of this was forthcoming, however. Since each case must be taken and considered on its own merits, even if true, this is not necessarily inconsistent. Petitioner readily admits that it did not submit requests for bids to al; DBE/WBE subcontractors in the directory. However, it does claim that for the most part, it submitted solicitations to every WBE listed in the directory that worked in the specialty needed and in the geographical area of the project. Petitioner defends its exclusion of potential subcontractors on the basis that, for example, they had no experience with those subcontractors and were not familiar with them. In most cases, Petitioner left out companies that were not known to it. Mr. LaLonde could not be sure whether Petitioner solicited any potential subcontractor not solicited by Petitioner previously. He is certain, however, that Petitioner did solicit all subcontractors on the list who had been solicited previously. In any event, it is important to the Petitioner to know the subcontractors and how they perform because Petitioner, as the prime contractor, is responsible for the work whether it or its subcontractor accomplishes it. It is for this reason, the lack of familiarity with a subcontractor and its performance, that it did not solicit some WBE's which operate statewide. Petitioner has used many WBE's before and has never failed, it claims, to meet WBE goals prior to this occasion. It has previously failed to meet DBE goals, however, but still was awarded the contract if it was the low bidder. It is apparent, then, that if the above is true, Petitioner's demonstrated good faith efforts were considered satisfactory on those occasions. Based on that experience, Petitioner felt that the procedures used here which it claims had previously been demonstrated to be satisfactory, were again sufficient. It is significant to note that while the fact of the bid submissions reflects a difference of approximately $10,000.00 between Petitioner's bid and that submitted by the next lowest bidder, a computer analysis run on this solicitation reflects a different figure. On the computer analysis, Martin Paving's bid is listed at slightly over $203,000.00 as opposed to the bid face of slightly over $196,000.00. If the $203,000.00 figure is used, the 3.05% goal would not be met. This discrepancy was explained by Mr. Haverty who indicated that the initial figure submitted by the contractor on the bid form is used to assess whether the DBE/WBE goals are met. The issue of good faith effort is raised at a later date. Where, as here, it is determined that the original price is in error and the actual price means that the bidder has failed to meet the goal, if the error is less than 10%, the bid may still be considered responsive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's bid on State Project Number 77030-3510, in Seminole County, Florida, be rejected as non-responsive for failure to meet the WBE goal. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 20th day of June, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Miller, Esquire Tower Place, Suite 600 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326 Larry D. Scott Staff Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be issued a Consumer Certificate of Exemption from Florida sales tax.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation prior to the taking of any testimony, the parties agreed that the only option upon which Petitioner seeks an exemption from sales tax is that relating its status as an administrative office of the organization. Petitioner agrees that it does not conduct regular church services within the meaning of Section 212.08(7)(o), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Construction for Worldwide Evangelism, Inc., was a non-profit corporation registered as such with the Florida Secretary of State, which has been granted exemption from Federal Income Tax under Section 501(c)3, of the Internal Revenue Code. It was established in 1991, and its purpose is to build churches in Third World countries for church mission boards and other missionary organizations, including Baptist International Missionaries, Inc. (BIMI). BIMI trains and places missionaries and provides stewardship of individual members’ funds and insurance. Petitioner also builds facilities for the Association of Baptists for Worldwide Evangelism (ABWE). BIMI and ABWE are the largest and second largest missionary sponsoring organizations in the country with each sponsoring more than 1,000 missionaries in the field. Petitioner also works with other Baptist missionary organizations which are not as large as those previously mentioned. These organizations all have the same purpose -- to spread the word of redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ. Since its inception, Petitioner has been guided in its work by its mission statement and its statement of faith. Both are taken from scripture and are included in the basic tenets of Christian faith. It was founded specifically to fulfill God’s great purpose -- to preach to the world. The missionary organizations referenced above do not build their own missions but look to churches and organizations like the Petitioner to raise funds and build facilities including churches, medical clinics, bible institutes, and other educational buildings. When the Petitioner was founded, it was obvious that funds would be needed to do this work. There are other missionary organizations around the country which build facilities as Petitioner does. The difference between these organizations and Petitioner is that Petitioner has no paid staff, and it takes a project from design conception through completion. Other organizations seem to do their projects in stages, based on the availability of volunteers to do the required work. Nothing requires Petitioner to limit approval of requests to those from recognized missionary boards. Other denominational churches make requests to Petitioner but most are turned down because the other denominations have their own funding. Petitioner tries to limit itself to “independent” churches, but it has no formal agreement, other than the Bible, with any of the recognized missionary boards. The missionary boards do not provide their own funds to Petitioner. Financial support comes from individual churches which provide money to their missionary boards which is earmarked for mission construction. Requesters need not be a particular denomination of Baptist congregation. Petitioner will talk with any organization that will agree with its Statement of Faith. However, Petitioner’s Board of Directors has the final authority to decide if a request will be granted. Need for a specific project is communicated to Petitioner through the various missionary boards operating in this country; through direct contact from missions in the field; and from individual churches which need help in organizing a project they want to do. When Petitioner receives a request, because of the volume of requests received, the Board of Directors tries to evaluate the need in the area, the requester’s doctrinal position, and the availability of resources to the local group which will do the work if approved. The Petitioner sends evaluators to the field to examine the proposed facilities. All procedures are included in its Project and Guideline Manual which details with particularity how Petitioner will do each step from evaluation, through purchasing of supplies after design, through securing and forwarding of volunteers to completion, close-down, and the return of the volunteers. Each proposed project is evaluated in accordance with the terms of the Manual. In a typical project, a determination is first made whether the applicant is an existing church which needs help. This is a requirement because Petitioner does not start churches. Once they are satisfied the applicant is an existing church, the evaluators determine how much of a project is needed and how much resources the local organization has, and then look to further evaluation against the twenty-five or so other factors for consideration. Most of this information is gathered from the applicant or a mission board either by Mr. Puleo, an electrical contractor who is president of the Petitioner organization, or by the vice-president of the organization. Once all pertinent information is on hand and the project deemed worthy, a project profile is developed. Petitioner has several projects ongoing at the same time. The initial step is to pray for guidance from God as to which project to do. Once a project is approved, an on-site inspection is conducted to develop information as to whether there is a real need for Petitioner to be involved or whether the local people can accomplish the project by themselves. This on- site inspection is usually done by a member of the Petitioner’s Board and by a committee chairperson. The on-site survey determines what is available at the site, and information is developed as to the logistics needed and the personnel required. Another part of the planning relates to the ministry to be supported. An evaluation is conducted of the on-site missionary and how well that individual operates, how long he plans to stay there, and whether he is flexible enough to work with both locals and volunteers. After this evaluation is completed, a conclusion is drawn as to whether Petitioner can take on the project and what will be needed. After prayer and consideration, a decision is made as to whether to go forward with the project. The funds to do the work and to buy the required materials come from Baptist churches across the country, businesses, other organization, and individuals. All the workers come from individual churches who support Petitioner’s program. They work on a volunteer basis without pay. When a church contacts Petitioner to have a facility built, a representative of the Petitioner goes to that church, conducts a service, and tries to enlist the financial and volunteer support of the church membership. In addition, periodically, conferences of pastors seek a presentation from Petitioner. Any funds received as a result of those presentations usually come from the specific church’s general fund and volunteers for the project from that church’s membership. In support of its fund and volunteer raising activities, Petitioner publishes a brochure regarding its activities which is widely distributed through supporting churches. It outlines how readers of the brochure can assist or seek other information. Petitioner also published a newsletter which is circulated to any volunteer who has gone on a project with it, to churches, and to others on the organization’s mailing list. This newsletter describes what is happening in the organization and what is planned. A tract is also passed out to the public by which Petitioner seeks to raise funds and attract disciples. No one who works with Petitioner is paid. All funds raised go to the cost of constructing the building, to the cost of travel and support of personnel at the building site, and to the cost of transportation of supplies. In that regard, a portion of the supplies and equipment needed for a project is often donated as is the cost of transporting that material to the job site. It should be noted that when Petitioner works on a project in a foreign country, often volunteers from that local church subsequently help with work and funds on other projects within that country. Included in every program is a devotional component. Guidelines exist which cover the duties and responsibility of the devotional committee of each work force, the chairman, and the individuals. These guidelines are prepared for each day of the program’s existence and call for a thirty minute to one hour devotional each night. Petitioner, which originated in Florida, now has branches in both Georgia and Michigan which are recognized by those states. Both the Georgia and Michigan organizations do work identical to that done by the Florida group, but everything they do is coordinated and controlled through the Petitioner’s Tampa office. Since its inception in 1991, Petitioner has built seventeen or eighteen facilities - ten or eleven were churches, two were Bible institutes, and one a radio station in the Caribbean area and South America. The average church costs between $45,000 and $50,000, although one church in Bolivia was built for $15,000 and one will be built for $20,000. Medical facilities are more expensive. The facilities constructed by Petitioner have a positive impact on the mission for which they are constructed. They tend to enhance the success of the mission and improve its local standing. Petitioner previously held a Certificate of Exemption from sales tax from the Department. Neither the Petitioner’s organization nor the statute under which certificates are granted has changed in the interim between the granting of the prior certificate and the denial of the current application for renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying Petitioner an exemption from sales and use tax. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark M. Schabacker, Esquire Schabacker, Simmons and Dunlap Suite 2500 100 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William B. Nickell, Esquire Department of Revenue Suite 304 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
