Findings Of Fact Six signs were described in a violation notice to Respondent Dandy Signs from Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation dated July 7, 1977. The notice stated the signs were alleged to be in violation of Chapter 479 and rules 14-10.04; rule 14-10.03. By stipulation of the parties the charges on the signs listed were dropped except for the following two signs: a sign located one mile west of U.S. 1, State Road 44, Mile Post 28.25 with copy "Bob's Sandpiper Restaurant" and a sign located at Junction 17-92 Deland, U.S. Highway 17 (Section 35 Mile Post .02) with copy "Buddy Sheats". The foregoing signs have no permit and evidence was presented to show that each sign is nearer to a permitted sign than 500 feet. The Respondent admits that neither sign has been permitted and that both signs violate the spacing requirements. Respondent was given time to submit evidence that the signs had at one time been permitted, but no evidence was submitted to this hearing officer although the hearing was held in excess of three months before this order is being entered.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs and invoke penalty under Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dan Richardson, Owner Dandy Signs 324 Flagler Street New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is James Newberry Jr., who was also the Petitioner in the underlying challenge to Emergency Rule 64B14ER98-1 of Respondent Florida Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists, designated as DOAH Case No. 98-1186RE. The underlying case was brought pursuant to Section 120.56(5), Florida Statutes, pertaining to "Challenging Emergency Rules; Special Provisions." Mr. Newberry prevailed therein. The instant costs and fees case has been brought, in the alternative, pursuant to Sections 120.595(3) and 57.041, Florida Statutes. These are the only statutes relied upon in the Petition. In oral argument, Petitioner's counsel acknowledged that no case law exists to support an award of fees and/or costs under Section 57.041, Florida Statutes. The Petition does not contain an allegation that Petitioner incurred the attorney's fees set out in the attached affidavit of Ryan Garrett. The Petition does not attach any contract for attorney's fees. Petitioner's counsel acknowledged orally that no contract for fees existed and that the statements of the attorneys representing Petitioner addressed to "The Board of Orthotists Certification" in Baltimore, Maryland were addressed in that way because of an agreement between that private corporate entity and Petitioner Newberry, who is one of its members. By that agreement, apparently not reduced to writing, the Maryland corporation agreed to provide Petitioner with an attorney and pay the attorney's fees and further advanced all Petitioner's costs. "The Board of Orthotists Certification," also known as "The Board for Orthotics and Prosthetics Certification," of Baltimore, Maryland was not a party to the underlying emergency rule challenge. No evidence of its standing, if any, to challenge the emergency rule nor even of its involvement with Mr. Newberry for fee purposes was presented in DOAH Case No. 98- 1186RE.
Findings Of Fact The sign here in issue was erected in 1992 and remained in the same location until December 1986. The sign is located along the west side of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, Florida, 41 feet from the western edge of the pavement. The DOT right-of-way at this location is 57 feet. U.S. 19 is part of the state highway system. Respondent stipulated that the sign was located in the DOT right-of-way and was in violation. Upon receipt of the violation notice, the association relocated the sign off of the DOT right-of-way within ten days of the notice of violation (December 11, 1986).
The Issue The issue is whether a penalty should be imposed on Pettegrove Equipment for driving a truck over a bridge when the truck weighed more than the posted bridge weight limit.
Findings Of Fact Raymond S. Cran drove a loaded dump truck owned by Pettegrove Equipment over a bridge on State Road 850 which crosses over Florida's Turnpike on September 26, 1990. The truck weighed 69,100 pounds. The truck was a straight truck, not a tractor trailer combination. The bridge which Mr. Cran drove across is a low limit bridge. Signs were posted in five places on the approaches to the bridge of the 26 ton limit for straight trucks. The first is at the intersection of State Road 850 and East Highland Pines Drive, which states "Weight Limit Restriction Ahead." One mile from the bridge at the intersection of Green Meadows Road is a second sign which states "Weight Limit" and has silhouettes of a straight truck and of a tractor trailer combination, showing a 26 ton limit for the straight truck and a 38 ton limit for the tractor trailer combination (tractor trailers have a higher limit because their weight is distributed differently). Similar signs are posted one half mile from the bridge, two tenths of a mile from the bridge, and at the foot of the bridge. Officer Joseph Barkas, a Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, stopped Mr. Cran and prepared the Load Report and Filed Receipt describing the incident. The Respondent did not dispute that the truck was 17,100 pounds overweight, nor that the penalty for crossing the bridge based on that weight is $865, as shown on the Load Report and Field Receipt. Pettegrove Equipment disputes the fine because it's driver misunderstood the weight limit signs on the approach to the bridge. The silhouette of the straight truck is much shorter than the silhouette of the tractor trailer combination. Mr. Cran believed that the 26 ton limit for a straight truck applied to only small trucks, such as pickup trucks, and not to a large dump truck like the one he was driving. This contention is unpersuasive. Ordinary pickup trucks are incapable of carrying loads any where near 26 tons. Mr. Cran's interpretation is simply unreasonable. The limitations for straight trucks were clearly posted, and were violated.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation sustaining the fine of $865 assessed against Pettegrove Equipment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon Whittier, Esquire Assistant General Counsel WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 4th day of June 1992. Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ann Porath, Esquire Wellington Country Plaza Suite 209 12773 Forrest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the application for an at grade vehicle railroad crossing permit should be issued to the City of Holly Hill by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The City of Holly Hill, Florida, filed an application with DOT for an at grade railroad crossing permit on Tenth Street at Milepost 107+1513', in the city of Holly Hill. The DOT denied the City's application by letter dated November 27, 1991, which enclosed the Department's intent to deny the permit. The City petitioned and received a hearing to consider its application. The City of Holly Hill is located due north of the City of Daytona Beach on the east coast of the state of Florida. It stretches west approximately a mile from the Halifax River, and runs north for approximately two miles from the northern boundaries of the City of Daytona Beach. Tenth Street, where the proposed railroad crossing would be located, is a local street running east and west in the City of Holly Hill, Florida. West of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street connects with Center Avenue and continues further west to connect with Nova Road, both of which are major north/south connectors. To the east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street runs less than one block and terminates at its intersection with US 1, the major north/south arterial road in Holly Hill. Immediately east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks in the vicinity of Tenth Street, the City of Holly Hill maintains Holly Land Park, a major recreational area in downtown Holly Hill. Immediately to the west of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, the City of Holly Hill maintains a nature trail and facilities related to its public works department. The City seeks the permit for an at grade crossing alleging that (1) a large number of pedestrians are illegally crossing the track and have persisted in doing so notwithstanding warnings and citations; and (2) the City feels that opening a crossing at Tenth Street would relieve bad traffic congestion existing on Eleventh Street just north of Tenth at Eleventh's intersection with US 1. Video tapes and the observations of police officers of the City of Holly Hill establish a significant level of pedestrian traffic by adults and children over the railroad tracks between the western and eastern ends of Tenth Street. This practice is very dangerous. Some of the pedestrians walk their bicycles over the railroad tracks at this location. The majority of the young people crossing the tracks in this vicinity are moving east to utilize the facilities in Holly Land Park or moving west to go to the middle school and grammar school located respectively at the intersections of Center Avenue and Walker Street and Center Avenue and Fifteenth Street. This is a popular route because of the heavy vehicle traffic on Eleventh Street and Eighth Street. Warnings, citations, and patrols have not halted the illegal crossing of the tracks. Eleventh Street is located 1300 feet to the north of Tenth Street and also runs east and west from the Halifax River westward to beyond Interstate 95. Plans call for the development of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 95 and Eleventh Street. Eleventh Street appears to be the only street in downtown Holly Hill which moves directly west in this manner. From Nova Road east to US 1, Eleventh Street runs parallel to and north of a large drainage canal. Two shopping centers are located at the intersection of Eleventh Street and Nova Road. Eleventh Street is so close to this drainage feature that pedestrian walks on the southern side of Eleventh Street were removed. Because of this drainage structure, Eleventh Street cannot be inexpensively widened. To the south of Tenth Street 1320 feet, Eighth Street runs east and west from the Halifax River to Nova Road. Both Eleventh and Eighth Streets are two-way streets along their entire length. The City bases it petition to open the crossing upon traffic congestion caused by east bound traffic on Eleventh Street seeking to turn left on US 1, and by north bound traffic on US 1 seeking to turn left onto Eleventh Street when Eleventh Street is blocked by rail traffic. The I-95/Eleventh Street interchange will increase traffic congestion on Eleventh Street. The City asserts that opening the proposed crossing would alleviate this congestion because traffic using Eleventh Street would then use Tenth Street. The traffic count on Eleventh, Tenth, and Eighth Streets was measured by the county. The traffic on Eleventh Street was 10,744; on Tenth Street was 1,019; and on Sixth Street was 6,153. According to a traffic projection run by the county traffic operations supervisor, 1,000 vehicles would be diverted from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street if a vehicle at grade crossing were opened at Tenth Street. Although this projection is suspect because it was made without any origin and destination surveys being done, the shift of 1,000 vehicles from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street is negligible in terms of its present and projected impact on Eleventh Street. It was uncontraverted that a ground level pedestrian crossing with adequate gates and signals would permit pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks quickly and therefore reduce their exposure to train/bicycle accidents. (T- 81,135.) Opening an at grade crossing on Tenth Street would create a greater potential for car/train accidents by increasing the exposure of vehicle traffic to railroad traffic. This was also uncontraverted. The fire station is currently located in the back of City Hall which is located immediately across US 1 from Holly Land Park. Plans exist to move the fire station from its present current location to a location in the vicinity of the Public Works Department along Tenth Avenue. The public library which is currently located at Holly Land Park affronting on US 1 may be relocated to the old school building located south of the city hall. Movement from the fire- station at its proposed location would be no better or worse than it is now because Tenth Street does not extend east across US 1. Emergency equipment will have to use Eighth Street or Eleventh Street to go east, and these streets are also the best routes west. The proposed crossing is not necessary based upon the traffic studies prepared by the City. Assuming the shift of 1,000 cars from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street, this would not warrant the expense and the potential hazard generated by permitting the proposed railroad crossing. It was uncontraverted that the best way to solve the congestion problem on Eleventh Street would be to widen it. However, it was universally acknowledged that this would be very expensive. While evidence is contradictory, the most credible testimony supports using one-way pairs on Eleventh and Eighth Streets as a low cost interim measure to improve traffic flow along the arterial routes. (T-112,145 et seq., and 173.) In addition to the crossings located at Eleventh and Eighth Streets, there are also crossing located at next to through streets south of Eighth, and at Fromich Street north of Eleventh. There would be more than five public crossings located within one mile of railroad track if a crossing were opened at Tenth Street.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving a pedestrian at grade crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida; and That the Petition for a public at grade vehicular railroad crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-0942 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraphs 1, 2, 8 Recommended order paragraph no. 4 Paragraph 3, 5, 7, 10 Recommended order paragraph no. 7 Paragraph 4 Recommended order paragraph no. 8 Paragraph 6 Rejected, Data in Paragraph is more credible Paragraph 9 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 11 Immaterial Paragraph 12 Cumulative Paragraphs 13, 14 Immaterial Paragraph 15 Contrary to the fact that Tenth Street ends at US 1 Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 Contrary to more credible evidence Paragraph 19 .027 represents one train/car collision every four years. If you are in the car, that is significant. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 All these improvements do not establish the necessity for the proposed crossing and appear to be counter to good land use and traffic planning. Paragraph 26 No credible evidence to support this. Paragraph 27 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 29 Immaterial Paragraph 30 "de facto" crossings don't exist Paragraph 31 Immaterial Paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 37 Speculative Paragraph 38 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 9 Respondent's Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1, 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 6, 10, 11 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 13, 14 COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Edward F. Simpson, Jr., Esquire Randal A. Hayes, Esquire Moore, Wood, Simpson, Correy, McKinnon and Vulkeja Post Office Box 305 Ormond Beach, FL 32175 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to excuse the late filing of Respondent's Election of Rights form.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating massage establishments pursuant to chapter 20 and section 20.43, Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed as a massage establishment in the State of Florida, having been issued license number MM 33902. Respondent's address of record is 440 South Military Trail, West Palm Beach, Florida 33415. The August 5, 2016, Letter and First Response On or about August 5, 2016, the Department issued a letter to Respondent at its address of record ("August 5 Letter"), advising Respondent that the Department was conducting an investigation based on an internally generated complaint that on July 24 and August 1, 2016, Respondent ran an advertisement on www.backpage.com ("Backpage") with images "of Asia women dressed in swim wear and lingere," which was considered by the Department as designed to "induce sexual misconduct." The August 5 Letter also alleges that Respondent failed to include a license number in the advertisement. The advertisement in question was not provided to Respondent by the Department. The August 5 Letter advised Respondent that it could submit a written response within 20 days of receiving the letter and that it was not possible to estimate how long it would take to complete the investigation. Respondent, who at that time was owned by Ms. Jing Hui Guo, contacted a retired attorney, Jule Paulk, regarding the correspondence from the Department. Ms. Guo only reads and speaks Mandarin. Ms. Guo had purchased the business, formerly known as "Ocean Spa," about 15 months prior. She was not familiar with the advertising content of Ocean Spa. When she purchased the business, Ms. Guo changed the name to Kai Xin Spa, Inc., and she kept paying the invoice from the prior advertising agency. After receipt of the August 5 Letter, Ms. Guo provided a copy of it to her advertising agency and directed that they remove and/or stop running the offending advertisements. According to her testimony, she approved new advertisement content with the business license number and with none of the cited offending content. That new advertisement ran as of August 8, 2016. On August 15, 2016, Mr. Paulk drafted a written response to the August 5 Letter ("First Response Letter") on behalf of Respondent. The First Response Letter was electronically signed by Ms. Guo and it contained the new advertisement which included the business license number and removed the women in bathing suits and lingerie. The First Response Letter states: We have taken immediate steps to address the issues in the letter mentioned above. We will continue to do so until all issues are resolved. We hope this letter will show our sincere efforts to bring our business into compliance. (Emphasis added). Ms. Guo sold the business in the beginning of 2017 to Mr. Haibing Wang. Hearing nothing further from the Department prior to sale, she reasonably assumed the Department approved of her new advertising and that matter was closed. The April 12, 2018, Letter and Second Response Despite receipt of the First Response Letter, the Department continued to "investigate" Respondent's alleged misconduct. On April 12, 2018, 20 months after its original notification to Respondent, the Department issued a second letter to Respondent ("April 12 Letter"), advising Respondent that the matter was still ongoing. The Department's April 12 Letter was identical to the August 5 Letter except for the date. When it was received by the new business owner, Mr. Wang, he forwarded it to Ms. Guo telling her that it was her problem because she did not tell him about the investigation at the time of the sale. Ms. Guo provided the letter to Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk recognized the letter as identical to the August 5 Letter, but noted there was a new document included, dated August 1, 2016, which was styled "Health Care Provider Complaint Form." This form states, "[w]e will send a copy of the Complaint to the health care provider if the complaint is assigned for investigation." The Complaint with the Department of Health was certainly assigned for investigation in 2016, but this form was not given to Respondent until 2018. Mr. Paulk also noted the following additional discrepancies in the Health Care Provider Complaint form: It was dated August 16, 2016, but attached to a letter dated April 12, 2018. The form identified the reason for the complaint to be that of advertising. The box for sexual contact was not checked. Attached to the Health Care Provider Complaint Form was a document signed by Mr. Kevin Lapham dated August 1, 2016. Such document identified the same advertisements, which were the subject of the prior investigation which were published on August 1 and June 24, 2016, and which he thought was resolved. Further, the initial August 5 Letter included an attachment which specifically references advertising to induce sexual misconduct and identifies specific Florida Statutes. However, the Department's April 12 Letter, nor the attachments thereto, reference sexual misconduct or a statute dealing with sexual misconduct. On or about April 16, 2018, Mr. Paulk submitted a written response to the Department's April 12 Letter ("Second Response Letter"), on behalf of Respondent. The letter was electronically signed by Ms. Guo. The Second Response Letter states: Your letter of April 12, 2018 refers to 2016 Case Number 2016-20171. By our letter of August 15, 2016 (copy enclosed), we responded to this Case, assuring your office that we had taken steps to correct the concerns you had listed. We are not sure why you are still addressing this same Case. We assumed that our August 15, 2016 letter had satisfied the concerns. In addition, the concerns expressed in your August, 2016 letter involved a Backpage ad. We corrected those issues at that time. Now, Backpage has been removed from the internet. We hope this information resolved this matter. Please contact us if otherwise. Ms. Guo received no response from the Department to her Second Response Letter. The Administrative Complaint On June 28, 2018, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, alleging that Respondent inappropriately advertised to induce sexual misconduct and failed to include its license number in its advertising. The cover letter included with the Administrative Complaint stated: Please review the attached documents and return the Election of Rights form to my attention. You must sign the Election of Rights form and return the completed form to my office within twenty-one (21) days of the date you receive it. Failure to return this form within twenty-one (21) days may result on the entry of a default judgement against you without hearing your side of the case. (Emphasis added). The cover letter also referenced an enclosed Voluntary Relinquishment form for consideration described as "an offer to resolve this matter without the necessity of further proceedings and the expense of further proceedings." The Administrative Complaint contained a Notice of Rights section, which informed Respondent that "[a] request or petition for an administrative hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Department within 21 days from the day Respondent received the Administrative Complaint, pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(2), Florida Administrative Code." The EOR form included with the Complaint stated: In the event that you fail to make an election in this matter within twenty-one (21) days from receipt of the Administrative Complaint, your failure to do so may be considered a waiver of your right to elect a hearing in this matter, pursuant to Rule 28-106.111(4), Florida Administrative Code, and the Board may proceed to hear your case. (Emphasis added). The Department mailed the Administrative Complaint, a Notice of Rights, and an EOR form via certified U.S. mail to Respondent's address of record. On July 14, 2018, Mr. Wang received the Administrative Complaint and gave the Administratve Complaint and EOR to Ms. Guo, who provided the documents to Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk consulted with counsel for Respondent, Mr. Samuel Holland, Esquire, about the EOR. Mr. Holland completed and signed the EOR on August 8, 2018. However, neither Mr. Paulk nor Mr. Holland returned the completed EOR to the Department until August 17, 2018, nine days later. Mr. Paulk testified that this nine-day delay was because he and Mr. Holland were "confused," "not quite sure how to proceed the best way," that he "needed to collect [his] thoughts," and that he needed to "do a little more looking into [the] matter" in order to decide the "best approach." This confusion is understandable and in large part created by the Department's own doing. At no time did the Department supply Respondent with a copy of the alleged offending advertisement. In fact, even the Administrative Complaint does not attach the advertisement at issue. The allegations in the Administrative Complaint deviate from the matters of which Respondent was provided notice were under investigation. For the first time, the Department indicates a concern that the advertisement contained hearts with arrows going through them, women in "sexually suggestive poses," and massage therapists described as "hot," "beautiful," and "young." The EOR and the penalty for failure to return such was not stated in absolute terms. The EOR form states, "[f]ailure to return this form within twenty-one days may result in the entry of a default judgment against you without hearing your side of the case." The use of the word "may" detracts from any finality to the consequences of failure to return the signed EOR. This sentence also suggests that a hearing will be conducted with or without the return of the EOR. Eventually, Mr. Paulk and Mr. Holland decided the best course of action would be to submit the EOR because "any further delay might be harmful." Twenty-one days from July 14, 2018, was August 3, 2018. The Department ultimately received the EOR via regular mail on August 20, 2018; 16 days after it was due. On or about September 12, 2018, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Holland ("Denial Letter"), denying Respondent's request for a formal administrative hearing. On October 15, 2018, the Department received a letter from Respondent ("October 9 Letter") contesting the Denial Letter. In the October 9 Letter, counsel for Respondent, Mr. Holland, explained the reason for the untimely filing and asked for a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's request for a formal hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, be permitted in accordance with the doctrine of equitable tolling. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2019, 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 21st day of August, 2019.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT"), acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications, in rejecting the proposal of Petitioner, Old Tampa Bay Enterprises, Inc. ("Old Tampa Bay"), to RFP-DOT-97/98-1003, Bridge Tending/Maintenance and Repair Services for Five Movable Bridges, Sarasota and Manatee Counties (the "RFP" or "RFP 1003"), and awarding the contract to Intervenor, General Electric Industrial Systems ("GE"). GE also raises the issue whether Old Tampa Bay lacks standing because it submitted a materially false or fraudulent proposal.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about April 10, 1998, FDOT issued RFP 1003, requesting proposals for a bridge-tending, maintenance and repair service contract for five movable bridges within Manatee and Sarasota Counties. The contract would run for a period of one year, with an option for two annual renewals. FDOT contemporaneously issued RFP 1004, for the performance of identical bridge tending, preventive maintenance and repair services on four other movable bridges in Sarasota County. The RFP required, among other things, that proposers must employ an experienced bridge tender supervisor and an experienced registered electrical engineer. The RFP required that the contractor must be licensed to perform electrical and mechanical work in the State of Florida, and that a copy of the license be submitted as part of the proposal package. RFP 1003, Section 1.7.5. (In this and some other sections of the RFP, FDOT employed the undefined term "Consultant" rather than the term "Contractor" or "Proposer" used through the bulk of the RFPs. Absent a clarifying explanation, it is assumed that all three terms are used interchangeably.) The RFP required the proposers to provide the names of "key personnel," a resume for each of these individuals, and a description of the functions and responsibilities of each key person relative to the task to be performed. The approximate percent of time to be devoted exclusively to this project was also to be provided. FDOT’s prior written approval was required for the removal and substitution of any of the key personnel proposed. "Key personnel" included project engineers, bridge superintendents, mechanics, and electricians. Under the heading "preventive maintenance," the RFP required the proposers to provide "sufficient and competent personnel to perform the inspection, troubleshooting and work for all bid item requirements." The electrician must be "a licensed electrician with experience in industrial maintenance and troubleshooting." RFP 1003, Exhibit A-3, Section 3.0. The RFPs incorporated by reference the "Bridge Operations and Maintenance Manual" (the "Bridge Manual"), an FDOT document establishing procedures for bridge operations and maintenance requirements statewide. The Bridge Manual set forth the following qualifications for electricians: All electricians working on movable bridges or electrical equipment on any bridge must hold at least a journeyman electrician’s license in at least one Florida county and have skills in industrial electrical work. Ability to read and understand blueprints and written instructions. Ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing. Ability to plan, organize and coordinate work assignments. Ability to install, alter, repair and maintain electrical systems, equipment and fixtures. Bridge Manual, pages 2-3. Another section of the Bridge Manual elaborated on the minimum qualifications for electricians as follows: All electricians working on movable bridges or electrical equipment on any bridge must hold at least a journeyman electrician’s license in at least one Florida county and have at least two years experience in industrial electrical work. Vocational/training in industrial electricity can substitute at the rate of 720 classroom hours for each year of the required experience. After employment, they should attend the Bridge Inspection school and Movable Bridge Inspection school. They should also receive continuing training on motor controls, National Electric Code and applicable safety training. They should be able to read blueprints, and written instructions, communicate effectively, be able to plan, organize, and coordinate work assignments, and have the ability to install, alter, repair and maintain electrical systems, equipment and fixtures. Bridge Manual, pages 2-17 through 2-18. The RFP awarded a maximum of 100 points to responsive proposals. A maximum of 60 points could be awarded for the technical proposals, which were scored by a three-member technical committee that included Hendrik Ooms, FDOT’s assistant maintenance engineer for District One. Each member of the committee scored the proposals independently. Their scores were then averaged to arrive at the final technical score. The RFP listed Richard Marino, the head of contracts for District One, as the project manager who should receive all technical questions from prospective proposers. Regardless of the formal designation, Mr. Ooms was in fact the project manager and the person capable of answering technical questions. The technical proposal scoring subsumed a maximum of 35 points for the "management plan," including 20 points for identified "key personnel." A maximum of 35 points could be awarded for the price proposal. The low price proposal received the maximum 35 points, with the remaining proposals scored according to the formula: (Low price/proposer’s price) x Price points = Proposer’s total points. The technical committee was not aware of the contents of the price proposals prior to scoring the technical proposals. Finally, proposers could obtain 5 preference points for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation of at least 10 percent of the total dollar amount of the contract, or 2 preference points for DBE participation of between 5 and 10% of the total dollar amount. On or about May 11, 1998, three companies submitted proposals for RFP 1003 and 1004: GE; Old Tampa Bay; and C & S Building Maintenance Corporation. GE is the incumbent vendor for these contracts. Until this bid, Old Tampa Bay was a subcontractor to GE on these contracts. On May 22, 1998, FDOT posted the proposal tabulations indicating the intended awardees of the two contracts. Old Tampa Bay was the apparent awardee of the contract for RFP 1003, the contract at issue in this case, with a total score of 79.67 points. GE was the second high scorer, with 79.45 points. GE was the apparent awardee of the contract for RFP 1004. As to RFP 1003, the averaged technical score for Old Tampa Bay was 39.67 points. The averaged technical score for GE was 49 points. All three members of the technical committee awarded GE more points than Old Tampa Bay, though Mr. Ooms saw a greater difference between the two bids than did the other committee members, Richard Marino and Kenneth Clark. Mr. Marino awarded 56 points to GE and 52 points to Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Clark awarded 53 points to GE and 47 points to Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Ooms awarded 38 points to GE and 20 points to Old Tampa Bay. Despite the difference in the technical proposals, Old Tampa Bay was named the intended awardee for RFP 1003 on the strength of 35 points for its significantly lower price proposal ($539,915 per year, versus $621,340 per year for GE) and obtaining the full 5 points for DBE participation. GE was awarded 30.45 price points according to the RFP formula and obtained no DBE points. No formal protest having been received, FDOT moved forward to the next step in the award process. The agency sent substantially identical letters to Old Tampa Bay as the intended awardee of the contract for RFP 1003 and to GE as the intended awardee of the contract for RFP 1004. The letters, dated June 15, 1998, and signed by Felipe Alvarez, FDOT’s purchasing agent, informed the vendors that they had each proposed the same people as "key personnel" who would devote 100 percent of their time to the project. This situation "concerned" FDOT, as these persons obviously could not devote 100 percent of their time to RFP 1003 as employees of Old Tampa Bay and 100 percent of their time to RFP 1004 as employees of GE. The letters requested each of the vendors to clarify the employment of the following persons: Mr. W. Bruce Chapman, whom GE had identified as its bridge superintendent and Old Tampa Bay had identified as its project manager; Mr. Gary Berkley, whom GE had identified as its mechanic and Old Tampa Bay had identified as its primary mechanic; Kelly Green, whom both GE and Old Tampa Bay had identified as primary electrician; and John Vance, whom both GE and Old Tampa Bay had identified as supporting electrician. The letters concluded with the following statement: The Proposal Package stated that if awarded the Agreement, the Consultant is to provide the services of the key personnel proposed. Removal and substitution of any of the key personnel proposed will require the Department’s prior written approval. Please advise the Department if your firm plans to provide the same key personnel or will be providing an equivalent substitution; equivalent meaning as of [sic] the same caliber, experience, and expertise or better than the individual originally proposed. (Emphasis added.) As noted in FDOT’s letter, the Old Tampa Bay proposal listed Kelly Green and John Vance as electricians. Old Tampa Bay’s proposal emphasized that Vance and Green were the current electricians performing electrical maintenance and repairs on the bridges, with nine years combined experience on the District One contract. Old Tampa Bay's proposal emphasized the ease of transition to the new contract that FDOT would enjoy should it select Old Tampa Bay: There will be no transition pain from the existing prime contractor [GE] to [Old Tampa Bay] as ALL personnel currently serving are already on the [Old Tampa Bay] payroll and have been for several years. FDOT will have no new relationships to establish or unknowns with which to be concerned. (Emphasis in original.) Old Tampa Bay’s proposal emphasized in several places that Old Tampa Bay would provide the same electricians who were already working on the bridges. In describing its technical approach to the electrical systems, Old Tampa Bay emphasized that its electricians would require no orientation before commencing work: The electrical system is a critical link in the operation of the bridge. Its maintenance is crucial to reliable operation. [Old Tampa Bay's] comprehensive maintenance program is designed to meet and exceed contract requirements. The [Old Tampa Bay] electrician (Resume attached) is knowledgeable and experienced in the performance of this program. He has performed this service under other FDOT contracts. Old Tampa Bay's proposal emphasized the experience of its electricians with respect to the electro-mechanical control systems, stating that "All [Old Tampa Bay] service personnel including electricians have been trained to work on, maintain, and troubleshoot as required each intricate system." Old Tampa Bay emphasized the experience of Vance and Green, and stated that they had "never failed to correct any problems on this system on any of the bridges in this contract." Old Tampa Bay made similar representations in regard to equipment malfunctions and computerized control systems, emphasizing the quick, successful responses by and experience of its electricians. The evidence indicated that Old Tampa Bay knew, or should have known, at the time it submitted its proposal, that John Vance had no intention of working for Old Tampa Bay on these contracts. Old Tampa Bay included Mr. Vance’s name and license in its proposal without his consent. Mr. Vance never stated orally or in writing that he agreed to be included in Old Tampa Bay's proposal. Old Tampa Bay never asked Mr. Vance’s permission to include his name as a proposed supporting electrician. Old Tampa Bay never asked Mr. Vance’s permission to include a copy of his electrical contractor’s license in Old Tampa Bay's proposal. About two weeks prior to the proposal submission date, Old Tampa Bay's president, Donald Abernathy, asked Mr. Vance for a copy of his license, but did not tell him that Old Tampa Bay intended to include the license in its proposal. Rather, Mr. Abernathy told Mr. Vance that Old Tampa Bay needed the license for purposes related to insurance. Mr. Vance refused to provide Old Tampa Bay with a copy of his license. Old Tampa Bay obtained a copy of Mr. Vance’s license by making a public records request to Manatee County, and submitted that copy with its proposal. Mr. Bruce Chapman has served for nearly four years as a bridge tender supervisor, employed by Old Tampa Bay under a GE contract with the FDOT. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Chapman was still an Old Tampa Bay employee. Mr. Chapman assisted Mr. Abernathy in trying to obtain permission of various people to use their names in Old Tampa Bay's proposal. Mr. Chapman testified that he knew from conversations with Mr. Vance that Mr. Vance did not want to work for Old Tampa Bay on the new contract. Old Tampa Bay also knew at the time of proposal submission that it had obtained no assurances from Kelly Green that he would work for Old Tampa Bay on the contract for RFP 1003. As detailed below, Mr. Green ultimately signed a letter-of-intent to work for GE on the contract for RFP 1004. Mr. Abernathy contended that Old Tampa Bay was entitled to include Vance and Green in its proposal without permission because they were Old Tampa Bay employees. However, Mr. Abernathy also conceded that Vance and Green were at-will employees, and his prior attempt to secure their permission to use their names in the Old Tampa Bay proposal was a tacit admission that Old Tampa Bay had no control over them. Further, in the fall of 1997, Mr. Abernathy attempted to obtain the signatures of Mr. Vance and several other bridge employees to a non-compete agreement for the purpose of binding them to Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Vance refused to sign the agreement. Old Tampa Bay provided payroll services to Vance and Green during their work on the bridges under GE’s existing contract with the FDOT, but Old Tampa Bay never supervised the work of the bridge electricians, never provided Vance or Green with the tools, equipment or supplies they used in their work as bridge electricians, and never had any control over the day-to- day activities of any electricians on any FDOT contract. The electricians worked on a daily basis with GE’s project engineer, Douglas Blake. Mr. Blake had trained Mr. Vance on bridge electrical equipment when the latter commenced work on the bridges. The electricians looked to Mr. Blake for technical and substantive assistance in working on the bridges. Mr. Vance testified that he considered himself an employee of GE. Mr. Green did not testify at the hearing. On June 26, 1998, both Old Tampa Bay and GE submitted responses to the FDOT letter of June 15, 1998. In a letter signed by William Trainor, contract leader, GE set forth its staffing plan for RFP 1004. GE identified the following as "key personnel" proposed for the positions discussed in the FDOT letters: John Vance as bridge superintendent (replacing W. Bruce Chapman); Bruce Morris as mechanic (replacing Gary Berkley); Kelly Green as primary electrician; and John Vance as Supporting electrician. GE attached résumés for each of these personnel. GE indicated that it would utilize PRM, Inc. as a subcontractor to secure the required contract personnel for the contract under RFP 1004, and GE attached letters-of-intent for employment for each of the named key personnel. Each of these letters was signed either by the named employee or by the president of PRM, Inc. FDOT accepted GE’s response in full. The award of the contract for RFP 1004 to GE was not protested. In a letter dated June 26, 1998, signed by Donald R. Abernathy, president, Old Tampa Bay proposed the following key personnel: W. Bruce Chapman as project manager; Gary Berkley as mechanic; Charles Adam Kenney as bridge superintendent (not mentioned in the FDOT letter); and Kelly Green as primary electrician. Old Tampa Bay attached résumés for each of these personnel. The letter made no mention of a supporting electrician. Old Tampa Bay also attached agreements of the employees to serve in their respective positions. However, the signature line on Kelly Green’s statement of acceptance was left blank. Mr. Abernathy testified that he asked Mr. Green to sign the document indicating his acceptance of employment with Old Tampa Bay, but Mr. Green refused. Mr. Abernathy did not reveal this information to FDOT, continuing to maintain that he was within his rights as Mr. Green's employer to include his name in the proposal. FDOT knew from its review of the GE submission that Mr. Green had in fact signed a letter of intent for employment with PRM, Inc. to work on the GE contract. Mr. Alvarez, the FDOT purchasing agent, acted chiefly as a coordinator and as the person ensuring that the procedural requirements of competitive bidding laws were met by FDOT. He admittedly lacked the expertise to make decisions as to the technical aspects of the project. Thus, Mr. Alvarez forwarded the vendors’ responses to Mr. Ooms, the project manager, for his evaluation. Mr. Ooms is a professional engineer, and for the past five years has supervised the operations of all nine bridges covered by RFPs 1003 and 1004. In a memorandum to Mr. Alvarez, dated July 2, 1998, Mr.. Ooms reported his findings and conclusions regarding the vendors’ submissions. As noted above, he found the GE submission acceptable in its identification of PRM, Inc. as a subcontractor and its naming of Vance, Morris, and Green as intended key personnel. Mr. Ooms found acceptable the submission of Old Tampa Bay insofar as it named Chapman, Kenney, and Berkley as key personnel. However, Mr. Ooms noted that the Old Tampa Bay submission provided no documentation of Kelly Green’s commitment to work for Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Ooms also noted that the Old Tampa Bay submission made no mention of John Vance, who had been listed as support electrician in Old Tampa Bay’s original proposal, and listed no substitute who would take over those duties. Mr. Vance had also accepted an offer from PRM, Inc. to work on the GE contract. Thus, Mr. Ooms concluded that the proposed key personnel roster submitted by Old Tampa Bay was not acceptable. By letter to Donald R. Abernathy dated July 8, 1998, Mr. Alvarez conveyed to Old Tampa Bay the "discrepancies" found by FDOT in the Old Tampa Bay submission of June 26, 1998. While stating that FDOT accepted the proposal of Chapman, Kenney, and Berkley for their respective positions, Mr. Alvarez pointed out the problems noted by Mr. Ooms as to Green and Vance. The letter concluded that "the Department still requires that your firm provide, in writing, clarification as to the positions of Primary and Supporting Electricians," and required the response by July 13, 1998. Old Tampa Bay responded by letter to Mr. Alvarez from Mr. Abernathy dated July 10, 1998. The letter provided no explanation as to Mr. Green’s unsigned agreement or Old Tampa Bay's failure to mention Mr. Vance or otherwise address the position of supporting electrician. The letter stated no objection to any of the conclusions contained in FDOT’s letter of July 8, 1998. The letter took no issue with the standard described for "equivalent" electricians. Old Tampa Bay's letter stated that it had selected Mr. Gary McCormick as its primary electrician. The letter noted that Mr. McCormick was finishing a project but would be available for this contract no later than July 27, 1998. The letter stated that while Mr. McCormick was a "skilled and valuable electrical and hydraulic specialist," he had never been required to have an electrician’s license by any prior employer. The letter requested that FDOT waive the license requirement for 90 days, during which time Mr. McCormick would obtain the required license. The letter attached Mr. McCormick’s résumé, which indicated that he had been involved with the Stickney Point bridge from September 1997 until July 1998. The résumé provided no dates for any of his other employment since 1973. The résumé indicated that most of Mr. McCormick’s electrical experience involved repair and installation of elevators. Old Tampa Bay's submission made no attempt to relate Mr. McCormick’s elevator experience to the electrical specifications of the RFP. The letter further stated that Old Tampa Bay was "actively seeking" a supporting electrician, and that Mr. Abernathy would fill the position until the search was completed over the "next few weeks." The letter gave no further indication of the status of Old Tampa Bay's attempt to locate a support electrician. The letter attached the résumé of Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Alvarez forwarded Old Tampa Bay’s July 10, 1998, letter to Mr. Ooms for his review. By memorandum dated July 15, 1998, Mr. Ooms responded to Mr. Alvarez, concluding that the proposed key personnel roster of Mr. McCormick and Mr. Abernathy as primary and supporting electricians was not acceptable. Mr. Ooms’ memorandum first addressed Old Tampa Bay's original statements in its proposal as to Vance and Green, noting that Old Tampa Bay represented both electricians as follows, in his words (punctuation and capitalization not corrected): [Mr. Green] "has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 4 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties. His duties range from preventive maintenance to emergency repair" . . . "an intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Green has a Journeyman’s electricians license. * * * [Mr. Vance] has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 5 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties. The maintenance he performs covers the entire bridge--the gates, lock motors, drive motors, variable frequency drives, programmable controllers, contactors, limit switches, control panels and resistors." "intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Vance has a [sic] Electrical Contractor’s license. Mr. Ooms contrasted Mr. Green’s qualifications with those of Mr. McCormick, whose résumé showed that he had less than one year’s experience with bridges, did not hold a journeyman electrician’s license, and thus was not "an equivalent substitution for Mr. Kelly Green." Mr. McCormick’s résumé listed his current employer as "Acutec Inc.," his position as "project electrical foreman," and stated that he was "currently finishing Stickney Point drawbridge rehabilitation project. In charge of electrical, PLC, and hydraulic systems installation, trouble-shooting, and start-up. Working closely with Gregg Martin of FDOT, Sarasota." Mr. Ooms testified that Mr. McCormick did not have the qualifications claimed in his résumé. He testified that Mr. McCormick was not in charge of electrical, PLC and hydraulic systems installation on the Stickney Point bridge. He testified that Mr. McCormick was strictly a "wire puller," with "no experience whatsoever to do this type of work." Mr. Ooms took issue with Mr. McCormick’s claim that he was "in charge" of the installation of the PLC, or programmable logic controls. Mr. Ooms testified that Mr. McCormick’s employer, Acutec, was involved with writing the PLC program, setting up the parameters, checking out the hydraulics, and performing the interfacing, but that Mr. McCormick was simply running wires from point-to-point pursuant to instructions from others. Mr. Ooms testified that he knew these facts from watching at first-hand the work being performed on the Stickney Point bridge. Mr. Ooms did not call Acutec to verify the statements in Mr. McCormick’s resume. Mr. Ooms stated that there was no need to call Acutec, as he was out on the bridge and could see for himself what Mr. McCormick was doing. PLCs, or programmable logic controls, are the means by which newer bridges are controlled by computer. The PLC sequences the computer program to constantly monitor the condition and operation of the bridge. The PLC technology is not unique to bridges. It is common in many manufacturing operations, and is in place on two of the five bridges covered by RFP 1003. The remaining three bridges have a manual relay control system. Old Tampa Bay did not dispute that PLC experience is necessary to perform the work as an electrician on this contract. Mr. Ooms noted that Mr. McCormick’s résumé claimed PLC experience, but that when the time came for the contractor to deliver the laptop computer with the PLC programs to run the renovated Stickney Point bridge, Mr. McCormick could not even run the program on the computer. Mr. Ooms testified that if one cannot run the computer program, one cannot do anything on a computer controlled bridge. Mr. Ooms’ testimony as to the qualifications of Mr. McCormick is credited. While Mr. Ooms might have confirmed his conclusions with Mr. McCormick’s employer, he cannot be found to have acted arbitrarily in relying on his own extensive observations of Mr. McCormick’s job performance. Old Tampa Bay offered no evidence to dispute the factual underpinnings of Mr. Ooms’ decision that Mr. McCormick was not an equivalent substitute for Kelly Green. Mr. Ooms’ July 15, 1998, memorandum also rejected Mr. Abernathy as the temporary supporting electrician. As quoted above, the memorandum noted Old Tampa Bay's representation that John Vance, the supporting electrician it originally proposed, has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past five years in Sarasota and Manatee counties, has intimate knowledge of these bridges, and has an electrical contractor’s license. Mr. Ooms noted that Mr. Abernathy does not have an electrical contractor’s license. Mr. Ooms also took issue with Mr. Abernathy’s résumé statement that he has acted as a bridge inspector for the past eight years for Kisinger Campo and Associates, a company that FDOT hires to perform bridge inspections. Mr. Ooms wrote that in the five years that FDOT has let out the operations and maintenance contracts, he has never "seen or known of Mr. Abernathy visiting a Sarasota or Manatee county bridge or troubleshooting a bridge problem." He testified that Kisinger Campo could not have used Mr. Abernathy as a bridge inspector because he lacked the required engineer’s license or certification as a bridge inspector. Mr. Ooms admitted that Kisinger Campo does not always tell him who is performing the inspections. Mr. Ooms made no inquiries of Kisinger Campo to verify Mr. Abernathy’s résumé. Mr. Abernathy testified that he was in fact an electrical inspector for Kisinger Campo for eight years and that in 1997 he personally performed inspections on every bridge covered by RFP 1003, including the electrical, lighting, and PLC systems. Mr. Abernathy conceded that he does not have an electrical contractor’s license. Mr. Abernathy’s testimony is credited as to his experience as a bridge inspector. In the case of Mr. McCormick, Mr. Ooms reasonably relied on his own extensive observations. As to Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Ooms attempted to rely on what he did not observe. Mr. Ooms chose to assume, without knowledge or verification, that Mr. Abernathy’s résumé was false. This assumption was arbitrary, and cannot be credited. Mr. Ooms’ decision to reject Mr. Abernathy was nonetheless reasonable. Mr. Abernathy did not possess the requisite license, and admitted that his most recent experience in actually performing bridge electrical maintenance and repair was more than twenty years ago. By letter to Mr. Abernathy dated July 17, 1998, Mr. Alvarez conveyed FDOT’s rejection of Old Tampa Bay’s proposal pertaining to the electrician positions. The reason for rejection was stated as follows: As stated within the Request for Proposal Package, if you are proposing to substitute key personnel you must provide an equivalent substitution; equivalent meaning as of [sic] the same caliber, experience, expertise or better than the individual originally proposed. . . . Please understand, the Department is looking forward in [sic] entering into an Agreement with your firm, [sic] however, it cannot accept anything less than what was originally proposed. Mr. Alvarez’ letter enclosed Mr. Ooms’ memorandum of July 15, 1998, and offered Old Tampa Bay another opportunity to submit substitute electricians no later than July 27, 1998. By letter from Mr. Abernathy to Mr. Alvarez, dated July 27, 1998, Old Tampa Bay submitted a new list of proposed substitutes. The text of the letter stated, in full: We have selected Mr. Steven Manning, Master Electrician License Number 3994, Hillsborough County to be our primary electrician. Attached is his resume. We have selected Mr. Adrian Cook as the supporting electrician, Journeyman License Number JE776, Hillsborough County. We have selected Mr. Wayne Cano as an electrician’s helper. Hillsborough County licenses have full reciprocity with Manatee and Sarasota Counties. Résumés of all three proposed employees were attached, along with copies of the relevant licenses and certificates of completion of various professional training courses. Mr. Manning’s résumé contained sketchy descriptions of the kinds of electrical work he had performed, and gave no indication that he had any experience working with computers or PLCs. Mr. Manning’s résumé revealed no experience with moveable bridge maintenance or repair. Mr. Manning had no experience as an electrician on the FDOT bridges. Mr. Manning’s résumé indicated that his experience included industrial electrical experience intermittently during eight years of electrical work. The résumé indicated "industrial and commercial electrical work," "working in fuel terminals, working with motor controls," "remodeling tenant spaces," "working with new commercial," "working with commercial remodeling, and service work," "traveling around Florida and Georgia remodeling Pizza Huts," "residential and commercial sales, estimating jobs, job foreman, billing and scheduling, handling of permits," and "working with industrial and commercial, service work, remodeling and new construction." Old Tampa Bay's submission offered no specific information or explanation of how Mr. Manning’s varied experience related to the specifications for electrical maintenance and repair in the RFP. Old Tampa Bay had obtained Mr. Manning’s name by calling an electrical company, Southern Power and Controls, and asking for recommendations of personnel with qualifications and experience equivalent to Mr. Green’s. Southern Power and Controls is an industrial electrical firm specializing in industrial controls, motor controls, switch gears, limit switches, and PLCs. Old Tampa Bay would have paid a finder's fee to Southern Power & Controls for any employees who went to work for Old Tampa Bay on this contract. Old Tampa Bay provided Southern Power and Controls with the documentation it had submitted to FDOT regarding the qualifications and experience of Vance and Green. Robert Harwell, a registered electrical engineer and principal of Old Tampa Bay, had discussions with Southern Power and Controls as to the qualifications of the candidates it sought. No person from Southern Power and Controls appeared at the hearing to explain the process by which they selected Mr. Manning. No person from Old Tampa Bay ever interviewed Mr. Manning. Mr. Manning did not testify at the hearing. Old Tampa Bay proposed Adrian Cook as a supporting electrician. Mr. Cook’s résumé indicated that he was a licensed journeyman electrician, with four years’ experience as an electrician and two years as an apprentice. Mr. Cook’s résumé indicated two years of unspecified commercial and industrial work, but no moveable bridge experience. Old Tampa Bay obtained Mr. Cook’s name from Southern Power & Controls, asking for personnel with qualifications and experience equivalent to Mr. Green’s. No person from Southern Power & Controls appeared at the hearing to explain the rationale for choosing Mr. Cook. No person from Old Tampa Bay ever interviewed Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook did not testify at the hearing. Old Tampa Bay submitted Mr. Wayne Cano as an "electrician’s helper." Old Tampa Bay did not specify what function Mr. Cano would serve or what actions he would perform as an "electrician’s helper." Neither the RFP nor Old Tampa Bay's proposal contains any mention of an "electrician’s helper." Mr. Cano’s résumé did not indicate an electrician’s license. Old Tampa Bay did not state that it had any intention to require Mr. Cano to obtain an electrician’s license. Mr. Cano’s résumé did not indicate any moveable bridge experience or experience on other FDOT projects. Again, Mr. Alvarez forwarded the Old Tampa Bay letter and attachments to Mr. Ooms for his review. Mr. Ooms provided his response by memorandum dated August 6, 1998. Again, Mr. Ooms outlined the qualifications and experience of the electricians originally proposed, Kelly Green and John Vance, as set forth in Old Tampa Bay's own proposal. Mr. Ooms wrote as follows (punctuation and capitalization not corrected): Mr. Green’s experience were [sic] listed as follows. "has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 4 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties. His duties range from preventive maintenance to emergency repair . . . an intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Green has a Journeyman’s electrician license. Mr. Vance’s experience were [sic] listed as follows. "has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 5 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties." "The maintenance he performs covers the entire bridge-- the gates, lock motors, drive motors, variable frequency drives, programmable controllers, contactors, limit switches, control panels and resistors." "intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Vance has a [sic] Electrical Contractor’s license. Mr. Green and Mr. Vance each have over four years of "on the Bridge" experience trouble shooting non functioning systems. They have worked on nine different bridges that were 30-40 years old with antique controll [sic] systems and on bridges recently rehabilitated with modern computer controlled systems. They have years of experience in reading and analyzing bridge ladder logic programs and trouble shooting problems and solutions. All these bridges were operational and any loss of service was quickly reported. An outage can easily block traffic for several miles in minutes generating calls from the sherrifs [sic] department. In addition, any breakdown in service has severe political consequences due to the Ringling bridge and Anna Maria Bridge replacement program. A problem on Ringling Bridge can cause a [sic] hour detour and missed flights. On page C-1 of the contract it states "The Contractor’s personnel that will perform the work required by this Section shall be trained and well experienced in start-up and maintenance of equipment . . . and will have headquarters within Sarasota/Manatee County" . . . On page A-3.2 is [sic] states "the Contractor shall initiate corrective action within fifteen (15) minutes following the malfunction." further down on Page C-1 of the contract "the Contractor agrees to provide men and equipment to a bridge sites [sic] within 30 minutes of notification of any emergency equipment failure". Mr. Ooms contrasted the experience and qualifications of the proposed substitutes as follows (punctuation and capitalization not corrected): Mr. Steven Manning experience [sic] in industrial electrical work does not start until 1997. It does not show any bridge related work. His training certificate in Electrical ladder Drawings" is for a one day 7 contact hours session. The "well experienced" requirement is not clearly indicated by his resume. Mr. Adrian Cook also does not show any bridge related work and the "well experienced". Mr. Wayne Cano has 11 years of industrial experience but no bridge experience or electricians license. In conclusion Old Tampa Bay enterprises needs to provide us with equivalent substitutions. Specifically licensed electricians with a minimum of four years experience in diverse bridge electrical configuration; with old relay logic operation, well experienced in PLC controllers from various manufactures [sic]; the ability to read and interpret ladder logic drawing; the ability to program plc’s. The Department’s inclusion of response time in the contract clearly indicates our desire for prompt and efficient emergency repair work. In other words the Department would like the equivalent of Mr. Green and Mr. Vance in the original proposal who’s [sic] experience will "keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." By letter to Mr. Abernathy dated August 13, 1998, Mr. Alvarez forwarded FDOT’s rejection of Old Tampa Bay’s proposed substitutes. The letter essentially reiterated the contents of the memorandum quoted above, and informed Old Tampa Bay that it would have one last opportunity to provide FDOT with equivalent or better substitutions for the electrical key personnel. Old Tampa Bay’s response would be due no later than August 24, 1998. Mr. Alvarez testified that as to this and his prior letters to Mr. Abernathy, he essentially acted as a conduit for the actual decision-maker, Mr. Ooms. Mr. Alvarez wrote the letters because he was the designated contact person in the FDOT contracts office, not because of any personal expertise or authority he possessed to deal with the issue of the qualifications of the proposed key personnel. By letter from Mr. Abernathy to Mr. Alvarez, dated August 21, 1998, Old Tampa Bay informed FDOT that "we are unable to locate electricians which meet or exceed the qualifications of those we proposed, i.e., Mr. Green and Mr. Vance. Please proceed as necessary." Old Tampa Bay’s letter did not take issue with any of the conclusions set forth in Mr. Alvarez’ letter of August 13, 1998. On August 24, 1998, FDOT posted a revised proposal tabulation finding Old Tampa Bay nonresponsive and listing GE as the intended awardee of the contract for RFP 1003. At the hearing, Mr. Ooms testified that he did not know Mr. Manning, Mr. Cook, or Mr. Cano, had no personal knowledge of their background or experience, and relied on their résumés in making his decision. Mr. Ooms felt that Mr. Manning, while a master electrician, lacked sufficient experience on PLCs and had no experience working on bridges. Mr. Ooms noted that the only indication of electrical ladder drawing or computer experience on Mr. Manning’s résumé was a seven-hour continuing education course in electrical ladder drawing. Mr. Ooms’ undisputed testimony was that a single seven-hour course was insufficient to provide the expertise needed to perform the duties required of an electrician on these bridges. Mr. Ooms admitted that John Vance and Kelly Green lacked PLC experience when they started working on the bridges, and were trained by FDOT. However, Mr. Ooms rejected Old Tampa Bay’s suggestion that Mr. Manning could be similarly trained on the job. Vance and Green were trained in connection with the installation of PLC equipment on the Cortez Bridge in 1996. Mr. Ooms testified that this training was simply a part of the rehabilitation of the bridge, and that PLC experience was not a prerequisite at the time Vance and Green were hired. Mr. Ooms further distinguished this situation by noting that the issue here is not simply qualifications, but equivalency. Mr. Ooms stated that because Old Tampa Bay’s winning proposal was based on the presence of Vance and Green, any substitutes for Vance and Green must not only meet the RFP specifications but must be equivalent to the experience of Vance and Green, which included PLC experience. Mr. Ooms testified that he rejected Adrian Cook for the same lack of PLC experience. Mr. Cook held the required journeyman electrician’s license, but his résumé gave no indication of PLC or troubleshooting experience. Mr. Ooms testified that he called Mr. Cook’s current employer, who vouched for him as a "good man," but provided no details as to his PLC experience. Mr. Ooms also admitted that he did not ask the employer about Mr. Cook’s PLC experience. As to Mr. Cano, Mr. Ooms testified that he appeared well qualified but lacked the required journeyman electrician’s license, and lacked bridge experience. Mr. Ooms was impressed by Mr. Cano’s PLC and ladder logic experience, and might have approved him but for the lack of the required license. Mr. Ooms acknowledged that Kelly Green did not have his journeyman electrician’s license when he started work on the bridges. Mr. Ooms testified that he was unaware of that fact at the time Mr. Green was hired. Douglas Blake, project engineer for GE, affirmed that in the five years GE has been performing bridge operations and maintenance, FDOT has never asked any electrician to produce a license. Mr. Blake testified that performance of an electrician’s job on these bridges does not require permitting, and that there is no license exposure to an electrician working these jobs. Mr. Blake’s opinion was that the license requirement is merely a contract tool FDOT can use to eliminate substandard bids. No witness for FDOT assented to Mr. Blake’s characterization of the license requirement. FDOT’s consistent position was that a prospective electrician must have at least a journeyman electrician’s license, as set forth in the RFP and the Bridge Manual. Mr. Blake testified that Manning, Cook, and Cano all appeared to be worthy candidates to be bridge electricians, insofar as their electrical technical qualifications appeared to compare favorably to those of Vance and Green. No evidence was presented that Mr. Ooms had any knowledge of Mr. Blake’s opinion at the time he made his decision, or that such knowledge would have altered that decision. Lane Tyus, a GE electrical engineer with experience on these bridges, likewise testified that the résumés of Manning, Cook, and Cano would pass his initial screening and that he would make a final decision in a face-to-face interview. No evidence was presented that Mr. Ooms had any knowledge of Mr. Tyus’ opinion at the time he made his decision, or that such knowledge would have altered that decision. At the hearing, Old Tampa Bay produced a list purporting to show 25 electricians whose hiring for bridge work was approved by FDOT for various districts during the period 1991 through 1998, despite the fact that none of the 25 had prior bridge experience. This list included Mr. Vance and Mr. Green in District One, where Mr. Ooms works. Mr. Ooms disclaimed knowledge as to the approval practices of other districts, which in any event have no relevance to this proceeding. Mr. Ooms again averred that this situation is different than that prevailing when Vance and Green were hired, because the substitutes here proffered by Old Tampa Bay must not only meet the RFP requirements but must be the equivalent of Vance and Green in experience and expertise. Mr. Abernathy testified that he believed the team of Manning, Cook and Cano was the equivalent of Vance and Green. He testified that any modern industrial electrician must have experience with PLCs, and will not necessarily spell-out that experience on his résumé. He testified that it was his "absolute firm belief" that no matter whose names he submitted to FDOT as substitute electricians, they would be rejected. Mr. Ooms testified that he neither favored GE nor disfavored Old Tampa Bay. He admitted having greater familiarity with GE’s personnel because they have been working on the bridges for the last five years. He testified that he considers it his professional obligation to work with whoever holds the contract. Aside from the obvious licensure deficiency for Mr. Cano, these proposed substitutes may well have been equivalent to Vance and Green. However, their equivalence could not be ascertained from Old Tampa Bay's submissions. Their résumés did not clearly establish their qualifications in areas that Old Tampa Bay knew or should have known were critical to FDOT. The agency made its expectations very clear to Old Tampa Bay as to what was expected of equivalent substitutes. Old Tampa Bay did nothing to expand upon the sketchy résumés of these persons, or to explicate the relationship between their experience and the work to be performed on the bridges. Mr. Ooms cannot be faulted for failing to consider information that the proposer did not provide. It is found that Mr. Ooms was not biased in rejecting Manning, Cook, and Cano. Old Tampa Bay argues that the disparity in the scoring of the technical proposals between Mr. Ooms and the other two evaluators demonstrates his bias in favor of GE. However, as noted above, all three evaluators gave GE the highest marks for RFP 1003. In fact, the scores for GE’s proposal given by the other two evaluators were significantly higher than the score Mr. Ooms gave to GE’s proposal. The fact that Mr. Ooms found an 18-point disparity between the proposal of GE and the proposals of the other two bidders does not of itself indicate bias in favor of GE on his part, any more than the fact that his score for GE was 15 to 18 points lower than the GE scores by the other evaluators indicates a bias against GE. FDOT demonstrated no bias against Old Tampa Bay in this process, providing Old Tampa Bay repeated opportunities to provide satisfactory substitutes for Green and Vance. Old Tampa Bay attempted to show disparate treatment by introducing evidence showing that FDOT allowed GE to substitute Kelly Green for an electrician named Charles Cave in 1995, after award of the previous contract, despite the fact that Green at the time had no experience working on the bridges and did not obtain a journeyman electrician’s license until approximately two months after he commenced work. Assuming arguendo that FDOT’s actions in awarding this contract may be attacked by showing different agency behavior in prior contracts, the evidence adduced by Old Tampa Bay is insufficient because it gives no indication of the qualifications of Charles Cave, the electrician replaced by Mr. Green. There is no way to determine whether Mr. Green was or was not an equivalent substitute for Mr. Cave, and thus no way to establish disparate treatment by FDOT from one contract to the next. Old Tampa Bay further asserts that FDOT’s treatment of Mr. Green when he commenced work indicates that FDOT had the discretion to allow Mr. McCormick to obtain his journeyman electrician’s license after commencing work. Assuming arguendo that Old Tampa Bay’s assertion is correct, the facts establish that the lack of a license was a secondary concern in the rejection of Mr. McCormick. Mr. Ooms testified that his rejection of Mr. McCormick was primarily based on lack of bridge and PLC experience, and the overstatement of qualifications on Mr. McCormick’s résumé. Even if Mr. McCormick possessed the required license, Mr. Ooms would have properly rejected him. Old Tampa Bay challenged FDOT’s allowing GE to make changes in its management personnel after being awarded the contract for RFP 1003. The three upper-level managers in question were located in Atlanta, had nothing directly to do with the operation of the bridges, and were not "key personnel" as described in the RFP and Bridge Manual. GE informed FDOT of the change in a courtesy letter, dated October 20, 1998, more than five months after submission of the original proposals. The RFP did not require these remote persons to be identified by name at all, let alone require GE to freeze them in place as a condition of its contract. As noted above, the facts established that Old Tampa Bay included the name of John Vance in its proposal though it knew or should have known that Mr. Vance had no intention of working for Old Tampa Bay on this project. Old Tampa Bay attempted to demonstrate that GE did substantially the same thing when it included the name of Mr. Lane Tyus in its proposal as its registered electrical engineer. Mr. Tyus indeed testified that he did not know that GE had included his name in the proposal at the time it was submitted, and was not made aware of his inclusion until some time after Old Tampa Bay filed its protest. However, Mr. Tyus also testified that he knew his résumé was kept on file by GE precisely for inclusion in proposals. Further, he testified that he has been involved with the contract for these bridges since 1992, that he was not surprised at his inclusion, and that he was prepared to undertake the tasks described in the GE proposal. Thus, there is no comparison between Mr. Tyus’ situation with GE and that of Mr. Vance with Old Tampa Bay. Finally, Old Tampa Bay attempted to demonstrate bias in the fact that FDOT allowed GE to submit John Vance's name as bridge superintendent for RFP 1004, despite his lack of experience in that position. However, Mr. Ooms testified that Mr. Vance was in fact more than qualified for the position, in that the training requirements set forth in the Bridge Manual for electricians such as Mr. Vance include all the requirements for bridge superintendents as well as electrical courses.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the protest filed by Old Tampa Bay Enterprises, Inc. and awarding the contract for RFP-DOT-97/98- 1003, Bridge Tending/Maintenance and Repair Services for Five Movable Bridges, Sarasota and Manatee Counties, to General Electric Industrial Systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 27th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Sjostrom, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Office oif the General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert A. Rush, Esquire Robert A. Rush, P.A. 726 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's claim is barred by Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (1999), because Petitioner filed a request for hearing more than 35 days after the time prescribed in Section 760.11(3) for a determination of reasonable cause by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the "Commission"). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner from May 25, 1995, until September 1, 1995. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on October 3, 1995. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Petitioner was forced to leave his position of employment because of Petitioner's sex, color, national origin, and age. The Charge of Discrimination contains no more specific factual allegation of an adverse employment action or other act of discrimination. Time Limits The Charge of Discrimination was timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(1). The filing date of October 3, 1995, fell within 365 days of May 25, 1995, which is the first day on which the alleged discrimination could have occurred. Section 760.11(3) authorizes the Commission to issue a determination of reasonable cause within 180 days of October 3, 1995, the date Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination. Counting October 4, 1995, as the first day of the 180-day time limit, Section 760.11(3) authorized the Commission to determine reasonable cause no later than March 31, 1996. The Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on July 14, 1999. Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing within 35 days of March 31, 1996. Counting April 1, 1996, as the first day of the 35-day period, Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing no later than May 5, 1996. Petitioner did not timely file a request for hearing. Petitioner first requested a hearing in the Petition for Relief filed on August 13, 1999. Petitioner filed his request for hearing approximately 1,185 days late and 1,220 days after the expiration of the 180-day time limit prescribed in Section 760.11(3). Petitioner delayed the request for hearing because he did not have the form entitled Petition for Relief. Section 760.11(7) statutorily bars Petitioner's claim. Section 760.11(7) expressly provides, in relevant part: If the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within the 35 days, the claim will be barred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this proceeding as barred by Section 760.11(7). DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Luis F. Hernandez 1116 Golden Gate Avenue Orlando, Florida 32808 Charles Williams, Jr., Esquire Scott A. Livingston, Esquire Williams and Davis, P.A. Suite 1220, Suntrust Center Post Office Box 1831 200 South Orange Avenue Olando, Florida 32802-1831
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was issued a permit to erect a sign on the site in question in 1971 and has renewed this permit annually since that time. At the time the initial permit was issued, the interchange to the 1-275 was not paved or opened to the public for access to the I-275. On October 19, 1971 Petitioner leased the property for this proposed sign at a minimum rental of $175 per month and has paid this rent since the execution of the lease (Exhibit 1). The boundary line between St. Petersburg and Pinellas County runs through the paved portion of the interchange in the vicinity of the site for the proposed sign. This site is outside St. Petersburg city limits. Petitioner now desires to erect the sign for which it holds a permit but, before spending the $40,000 estimated cost for this sign, reapplied for a permit to insure Respondent would not demand the sign be removed because it is within 500 feet of an interchange. The site of the proposed sign is located within 500 feet of the interchange to the I-275. The interchange is both within and without the corporate limits of St. Petersburg, and the site of the sign is outside the corporate limits of St. Petersburg in an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. Since leasing the property, Petitioner has made lease payments in excess of $15,000 and has paid annual permit fees of $12 each to Respondent for the north and south facings of the permitted sign.
