Findings Of Fact Respondent Santaniello holds real estate broker license number 0186475, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. Santaniello is the active broker for Respondent, Sunair Realty Corporation, which holds license number 0213030. Mr. Don M. and Mrs. Agnes C. Long own two lots in Port Charlotte which they purchased as investments. By letter dated June 8, 1981, Respondents forwarded a "Deposit Receipt and Contract for Sale and Purchase" on each of these lots to the Longs. The documents established that Anni Czapliski was the buyer at a purchase price of $1200 per lot. Respondent Sunair Realty Corporation was to receive the greater of $120 or ten percent of the felling price for "professional services." The letter and documents were signed by Respondent Santaniello. Anni Czapliski was Bernard Santaniello's mother-in-law at the time of the proposed sale. This relationship was not disclosed by Respondents and was not known to the Longs at the time they were invited to contract with Respondents for sale of the lots. The Longs rejected the proposed arrangement for reasons not-relevant here.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), and fining each $500. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert J. Norton, Esquire Suite 408 First National Bank Building Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Mr. C.B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R.T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brian H. Morgenstern, holds and at all times material hereto held, Florida Real Estate Salesman's License No. 0320190. From February 4, 1983 to December 2, 1983, Respondent was licensed as a real estate salesman in the employ of E & I Realty, Inc. Mr. Ira Messinger was the qualifying broker for E & I Realty, Inc. On July 12, 1983, Respondent, purporting to act on behalf of E & I Realty, Inc., solicited and obtained a two-year lease agreement between Craig Brass, lessor, and James Joss, lessee, for condominium unit No. 705, Towers of Oceanview, 400 Leslie Drive, Hallandale, Florida. Pursuant to the express terms of the lease agreement, the lessee agreed to pay a monthly rental of $450.00 for the first year, and a monthly rental of $475.00 for the second year. In consideration for securing the lease agreement, Dr. Brass agreed to pay a broker's fee of $925.00, representing one month's rent for the first and second year of the term. Respondent delivered an E & I Realty receipt to Dr. Brass evidencing the receipt of the first month's rent, the last month's rent, and a security deposit, for a total sum of $1,375.00. From this $1,375.00 the receipt evidenced a deduction of $925.00 as a broker's fee, and delivery of the balance of $450.00 to Dr. Brass. There is disagreement between the parties whether the Respondent actually received $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss. Respondent insists that Mr. Joss, an acquaintance, could only raise $450.00 so be and Mr. Messinger "agreed" to forego receipt of the broker's fee of $925.00 and, in effect, loan such sum to Mr. Joss. There is, however, no promissory note or other memoranda to commemorate such an agreement. Mr. Messinger insists that his office made no such agreement, that he had no knowledge of the transaction, and that no monies were ever received by his office. Dr. Brass testified to a conversation on a speaker phone between Mr. Joss and the Respondent wherein the Respondent admitted receiving the funds. Further, Kenneth Rehm, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, personally interviewed Respondent and the Respondent admitted he had collected the full $1,375.00 and that be had retained $925.00 as a broker's fee. Respondent further insists that his version of the incident is given credence by the commission structure he had with Mr. Messinger. Under their agreement, Respondent was to receive 90 percent of any commission earned on business he produced. Therefore, Respondent argues, it would be "foolish" for him to risk his license for $92.50 (10 percent of the $925.00 commission). While Respondent's argument appears at first blush to have merit, the value of money is relative. On February 23, 1984, Respondent entered into a written agreement with Dr. Brass to pay him $350.00 within 17 days in consideration of which Dr. Brass would not file any complaints with anyone, including the Department of Professional Regulation. Respondent did not have the funds necessary to pay Dr. Brass, and in point of fact has never paid Dr. Brass. If Respondent did not have $350.00 to circumvent these proceedings, then $92.00 may well have been of import to him. The clear and consistent testimony of Dr. Brass, Ira Messinger, and Kenneth Rehm, Respondent's conflicting statements and testimony together with his demeanor, render Respondent's testimony inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer finds that the Respondent did in fact receive $1,375.00 from Mr. Joss, that he delivered $450.00 to Dr. Brass, and retained $925.00 for his own use and benefit without the knowledge or consent of his registered broker.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a retail installment seller should be granted.
Findings Of Fact John K. Moyant is the president and secretary of Petitioner Lifestyle Builders, Inc. He has also been a licensed general contractor in the state of Florida since 1973. He was formerly licensed by the state of Florida as a real estate broker. In July of 1986, the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, filed an Administrative Complaint against Moyant and others. Moyant subsequently decided that he would voluntarily surrender his real estate broker license rather than defend the administrative action filed against him. On November 12, 1987, he executed an Affidavit for the Voluntary Surrender of License for Revocation. That Affidavit read, in part, as follows: That in lieu of further investigation and prosecution of the pending complaint(s) and case(s) received and filed with the Department of Professional Regulation, I do hereby consent to and authorize the Florida Real Estate Commis- sion of the Department of Professional Regulation to issue a Final Order revoking any and all licenses and permits issued to or held by the undersigned. That effective date of the revocation shall be 11-12-87. That I will not apply for nor otherwise seek any real estate license or permit in the State of Florida for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the effective date of the revocation. * * * 8. That I waive any right to appeal or other- wise seek judicial review of the Final Order of revocation to be rendered. The Florida Real Estate Commission entered a Final Order on December 10, 1987, ordering that Moyant's license "be revoked, effective November 12, 1987." On May 16, 1994, Moyant completed, on behalf of Petitioner, an Application for Retail Installment Seller License. That application identified Moyant as one of the principals in the business in that he is the president and secretary and further listed Moyant as the corporation's resident agent. Question numbered three on that application reads as follows: 3. Has the applicant, any of the persons listed herein, or any person with power to direct the management or policies of the applicant had a license, registration, or the equivalent, to practice any profession or occupation revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against? Moyant answered that question in the negative. Respondent received the application of Lifestyle Builders, Inc., on May 19, 1994. In reviewing that application, Respondent checked Moyant's name in the Department's computer system known as CREAMS. The computer check revealed that Moyant had been the subject of a Final Order of Revocation by the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent verified the accuracy of that information by obtaining from the Commission a copy of the Administrative Complaint, the Affidavit for the Voluntary Surrender of License for Revocation, and the Final Order. Based upon that information, Respondent advised Petitioner that its application was denied. Moyant's answer to question numbered three was a material misstatement of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a retail installment seller. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order did not contain any clearly- identified proposed findings of fact. It is assumed that the un-numbered paragraphs contained in the section entitled "Preliminary Statement" are intended to be Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Rulings on those un- numbered paragraphs are as follows: Petitioner's first through third un-numbered paragraphs in the Preliminary Statement portion of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order have been adopted in substance. Petitioner's fourth un-numbered paragraph in the Preliminary Statement portion of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order has been rejected as not being supported by the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Lettman, Esquire 8010 North University Drive, Second Floor Tamarac, Florida 33321-2118 Tobi C. Pam, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 302 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Harry Hooper, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Richard M. Woodley has two inactive contracting licenses numbered CB CA 17970 and CB CO 17970, and was so licensed in 1986. The Respondent's license CB CA 17970 qualified "Woodley Builders, Inc." with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At the time of the hearing, the Respondent was no longer in the construction contracting business as a licensed contractor. With respect to case number 87-2809, on December 15, 1985, the Respondent, on behalf of Woodley Builders, Inc., entered into a contract with Catherine M. Richardson and Jonathan P. Richardson to build a residence in or near Orlando, Florida. The contract price was $90,000, with $20,000 attributable to the land. The contract specified that payments would be made to Woodley Builders, Inc. "in accordance with the disbursement schedule set forth by the construction lender." P. Ex. 1, paragraph 7. Woodley Builders, Inc. also agreed in the contract to furnish to the Richardsons lien waivers as required by the construction lender for disbursements. The construction lender disbursed the following amounts on the indicated dates: $10,200 March 17, 1986 $10,200 March 19, 1986 $17,000 March 27, 1986 $17,000 April 24, 1986 To induce these disbursements, a total of $54,400, the Respondent signed lien waivers stating that all bills for labor and materials used had been paid in full. P. Ex. 5. At the time of signing, the Respondent told the construction lender that he had paid all bills due to that time, but had not paid bills not yet presented. T. 89. Thus, the lien waivers were intended to be a certification of the partial completion and payment for the work billed to the date of the waiver, and a promise to pay other bills for work already completed as such bills were presented. Six claims of liens were filed by subcontractors. The Richardsons hired a lawyer, and the lawyer was able to defend against two of the liens for failure to properly comply with procedures for mechanic's liens. Four liens for the following amounts and for work beginning on the dates indicated ultimately had to be satisfied by the Richardsons: $ 2,851.45 March 19, 1986 $13,462.34 March 7, 1986 $ 1,944.57 April 8, 1986 $ 785.01 April 9, 1986 These liens were for work commenced before the last lien waiver was signed on April 24, 1986. Thus, the Respondent failed to comply with the oral representations he made at the time of signing the lien waivers. The Richardsons were forced to execute a second mortgage in excess of $17,000 to pay off the unpaid liens. The Richardsons terminated the contract with Woodley Builders, Inc. when subcontractors quit working for lack of payment by Woodley Builders, Inc. Some money was obtained from family loans. It cost the Richardsons about $30,000 to have the house finished, which has added about $325 per month to their mortgage obligations. The Respondent and Woodley Builders, Inc. have not paid anything on these liens. Woodley Builders, Inc. filed bankruptcy. The Richardsons sued the Respondent as trustee for Woodley Builders, Inc. and obtained a default judgment for $149,839, which was a judgment of $32,380 in compensatory damages, trebled, plus costs, interest, and attorney's fees. With respect to case number 87-2810, on June 11, 1986, Woodley Builders, Inc. entered into a contract with Tom Jamieson to construct an addition to his residence in Orlando, Florida. The price of the work was $18,500. The contract specified that the price was a cash price, and that draws were to be made according to a schedule stated in the contract. Mr. Jamieson paid to Woodley Builders, Inc. about $11,700 of the contract price. At some time before completion of the addition, the owner, Mr. Jamieson, evidently became dissatisfied with the Respondent's work. Mr. Jamieson was given the Respondent's copy of the contract and refused to return it to the Respondent. Mr. Jamieson then owed the Respondent a draw of $3500, but refused to give it to him, and refused to have it put in escrow for the payment of subcontractors. The date that this occurred is not in evidence. T. 35-36, 39. Since Mr. Jamieson had taken back the contract, the Respondent thought that he (the Respondent) no longer had any legal proof of the contract (either scope of work or amount due), and thus had no contract to complete the work. He also did not receive the draw that was due. The Respondent thus ceased work on the addition for fear that he would not be paid without a copy of his contract. T. 36-37. The Respondent offered to complete the work. T. 51. The drywall contractor, Rick's Drywall, Inc., filed a lien for $465 for work done from August 12, 1986 and August 20, 1986. The Respondent would have paid this lien had Mr. Jamieson not terminated the contract and refused to give the Respondent a draw still due of $3500. T. 49-50. There may be a claim for unpaid electrical work in July, 1986, see P. Ex. 15, but it is impossible to tell if this occurred before or after Mr. Jamieson terminated the contract, or whether the Respondent had received draw money that should have paid this claim. The only evidence is that the Respondent had an agreement with the electrical subcontractor to pay that subcontractor at the time of the final draw, a draw never received as discussed above. T. 53. P. Ex. 11 is insufficient evidence that there were unpaid claims for roof trusses. Moreover, it cannot be determined whether the Respondent received a draw before contract termination which should have been used to pay for roof trusses. The Respondent had been a contractor for eight years before he began to have financial difficulties resulting in the problems with the Richardson's residence. There is no evidence of any prior discipline.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter its final order finding in case number 87-2809 that the Respondent, Richard M. Woodley, violated sections 489.129(1)(m), 489.129(1)(j), and 489.119, Fla. Stat. (1986), misconduct in contracting by diversion of funds, and failure to supervise as a qualifying agent, and in case number 87-2810, dismissing the administrative complaint for failure of proof by clear and convincing evidence. It is further recommended for the violation set forth above that the license of the Respondent be suspended for one year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1988. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard M. Woodley 2521 Tuscaloosa Trail Maitland, Florida 32751 David Bryant, Esquire 1107 East Jackson, Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue This proceeding involves permits for outdoor advertising issued by the Florida Department of Transportation. The issue for determination is whether those permits should be revoked for failure to have the property owner's permission to maintain a sign at the subject location.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, POA Acquisition, Inc. (POA), is an outdoor advertising company maintaining an office in Orlando, Florida. On or about June 7, 1985, sign permits #AQ 195-35 and AQ 196-35 were issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) to Iverson, Inc., for the two faces of a sign located near the highway intersection of State Road 438 and U.S. 441 in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The site for the sign was leased from the owners by Iverson, for 5 years effective August 1, 1985, at an annual rate of $1,800.00. The lease provided for automatic renewals of successive 5-year terms unless written notice to terminate was given by either party ninety (90) days prior to the end of the term. The lease also provided for termination by the lessor with ninety (90) days notice if the lessor required use of the property for another purpose. (Petitioners Exhibit #4) At some point, Iverson assigned its lease and transferred the permits to another company, Don Bell Industries, Inc. (Don Bell) The lessors sold the property to Bernard Kaplan. Patricia Lavelle became the agent for the owner, Bernard Kaplan. The new owner had development plans for the property and began negotiating a new lease with Don Bell in July 1989. Offers and counter-offers were made, but no new lease was signed. On July 2, 1990, Patricia Lavelle sent a letter to Don Bell stating that the lease had expired as of June 30, 1990, and the billboards needed to be removed. Unknown to Patricia Lavelle, Don Bell had transferred its lease to POA in November 1989. Ms. Lavelle found out about the transfer the day she wrote to Don Bell, and she sent POA a copy of the letter. Ms. Lavelle also sent a notice to Peter Wright, DOT, informing him that the lease with Don Bell was terminated and asking that the permits be revoked and reissued to the new leasee, National Advertising Company. POA sent Ms. Lavelle a check for $1,440 (deducting 20% for federal tax), dated July 11, 1990. She held the check and never deposited it. Ms. Lavelle contends that no lease exists between the owner and POA, and POA does not have the owner's permission to maintain its billboard on the premises. She contends that the lease expired in June 1990, when the Don Bell lease expired. The assignment of lease from Bell to POA, which was never sent to Ms. Lavelle or Bernard Kaplan, indicates that the lease term is 6/26/85 to 6/26/90. POA contends that a five year renewal period commenced in July 1990, as the lessor did not give 90 days advance notice, as provided in the lease document. However, no evidence was presented to refute Ms. Lavelle's statement that the notice was given to Don Bell when a letter dated July 7, 1989, was sent from P.A. Lavelle to Russ Adams, Manager of Don Bell & Company, stating that the land was "under a development project", and someone from the company needed to negotiate a new lease. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, Ms. Lavelle's testimony and the July 7th letter establish that POA does not have the owner's permission to maintain a sign at the subject site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the DOT issue a Final Order revoking permit numbers AQ 195-35/AQ 196- 35. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of A1pril, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr. Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. #58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Jay Trent, Real Estate Manager POA Acquisition, Inc. P.O. Box 617617 Orlando, FL 32861 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Dept. of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 MARY CLARK 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 9th day of April, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Joseph E. Stalls, Jr., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by the Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, on July 19, 2000, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged the duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.125, and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes (2000). At the times material to this proceeding, Joseph E. Stalls, Jr., was a licensed Florida real estate salesperson. Mr. Stalls license number is 0125262. For his last issued license, Mr. Stalls was an active salesperson c/o Jim See Realty, Inc., located at 206 North 6th Avenue, Wauchula, Florida 33873. Prior to 1999, Mr. Stalls was actively engaged in growing, harvesting, and selling citrus. Mr. Stalls engaged in this business through a corporation, Stalls Fruit Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Stalls Fruit"). Mr. Stalls owned half of the stock of Stalls Fruit and was its president. Stalls Fruit elected coverage for its workers' compensation insurance through the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association Self-Insurers' Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"). On or about August 21, 1998, an Information was issued in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, charging Mr. Stalls with engaging in a scheme to defraud the Fund "to-wit: workers' compensation coverage from Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association Self- Insurer's Fund pursuant to policy number 840-8844-01, as valued by the diminution in premium payments resulting from said fraud or fraudulent pretenses or representations, with an aggregate value of $50,000 or more, in violation of Florida Statute 817.034(4)(a)." On or about February 17, 1999, Mr. Stalls pled guilty to the charge of the Information, which constitutes a felony. The court, upon the entry of Mr. Stalls' plea, withheld adjudication, ordered Mr. Stalls to serve one day in the Orange County Jail, with credit for a day already served, placed Mr. Stalls on Community Control for one year, followed by ten years of supervised probation, ordered Mr. Stalls to perform 500 hours of community service within a three-year period, and ordered that he make restitution in the amount of $738,566.00. The requirement that Mr. Stalls make restitution has placed an extreme financial hardship on him. Mr. Stalls, unaware that he was required to inform the Florida Real Estate Commission of his plea, and based upon his incorrect understanding of the consequences of adjudication being withheld, failed to report these events to the Florida Real Estate Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered finding that Joseph E. Stalls, Jr., violated Section 475.25(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes (1999), and that his salesperson license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 20th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna K. Ryan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Hurston North Tower 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N308 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Joseph E. Stalls, Jr. 1165 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Jack Hisey, Deputy Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-22202
The Issue Whether Respondent acted as a broker or sales associate without being the holder of a valid and current broker or sales associate license, in violation of Subsection 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, therefore, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes; and Whether Respondent published or caused to be published an advertisement for the sale of real properties, advertising himself to be a broker, at the time Respondent's license was in inactive status for failure to renew, in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.025.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings for the Commission. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within the Commission's jurisdiction. From April 18, 2002, through September 30, 2003, Respondent was an active sales associate in association with Caldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., a brokerage corporation located at 5981 Catheridge Avenue, Sarasota, Florida 34232. Respondent's Florida real estate sales associate license, number 95480, was involuntarily placed on inactive status due to non-renewal during the period October 1, 2003, through August 15, 2004. On or about February 22, 2004, Respondent published or caused to be published an advertisement for the sale of real properties with the South Florida Sun Sentinel, and in that advertisement, Respondent held himself out to be a realtor in the State of Florida, associated with Caldwell Banker. From August 16, 2004, through the present, upon the late renewal of his license, Respondent is listed as an inactive sales associate.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.42(1)(a), 475.25(1)(a), and 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-10.025 and, therefore, Subsection 475.25(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; suspending Respondent's license for a period of one year; fining Respondent the sum of $1,000; and requiring that Respondent pay fees pursuant to Subsection 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, for investigative costs, in the amount of $841.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Lawrence P. Weiner, was a registered Florida real estate salesman employed by Continental Marketing Services, Inc. Continental Marketing Services, Inc. solicited real property listings from property owners in the State of Florida by means of postal cards inquiring of those property owners whether they would like to sell their Florida real property. Interested owners were requested to fill out a card with their address and telephone number, and to forward that card to Continental Marketing Services, Inc. which would then contact the property openers by telephone, Respondent, as a real estate salesman in the employ of Continental Marketing Services, Inc., would then contact responding property owners from a list furnished him by his employer. Respondent would obtain information by telephone from property owners such as initial purchase price, size and location of the property. Both Respondent and his employer represented to property owners that, should they list their property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., the property would be advertised in foreign countries where investors existed who were interested in purchasing Florida real estate. In order to list their property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., property owners were required to pay an "advance fee" for these listings, usually $350, which amount they were told would be used to defray the cost of initial preparation of a directory listing those properties in Florida which were for sale. After obtaining initial background information, Respondent would submit the information to his employer, which, though unclear from the record, would analyze these facts and return to Respondent for transmission to the property owner a suggested sales price. This suggested sales price was usually several times the initial purchase price for the property. For example, one witness at the hearing testified that a lot purchased on April 27, 1967 for $2,640 was ultimately listed with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. at Respondent's suggestion, at a sales price of $7,600. Testimony at the hearing indicated that comparable lots in the same area are presently selling for $4,700. Another witness testified that two lots purchased in 1965 for $2,390, were discussed in 1977 with Respondent who suggested that they be listed at a suggested sales price of $16,600. Finally, still another witness testified that he listed property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. as a result of his contacts with the Respondent at a purchase price of $5,000 per acre in 1976 for property that he had purchased for $500 an acre in 1964. Those property owners testifying at the hearing who listed their property for sale with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., indicated that they had no further contact with either Respondent or Continental Marketing Services, Inc. after having paid their $350 listing fee. None of these property owners received any offers to purchase their property as a result of its listing with Continental Marketing Services, Inc., and, as of the date of the final hearing in this cause, the property remained unsold. The Respondent testified that his only responsibilities with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. involved contacting those persons on the lists furnished to him, and obtaining their agreement to listing their property with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. Suggested sale prices for particular pieces of property were furnished to Respondent by other employees of Continental Marketing Service, Inc. Respondent further testified that placing of advertisements for properties listed with Continental Marketing Services, Inc. was accomplished by other employees of the company. Respondent testified that he "understood" that Continental Marketing Services, Inc. had sold properties and that some of these sales were to foreign investors, although he did not know the identity of the foreign investors, or the number of parcels sold by the company. Respondent denied that he had represented to property owners that the sale of their property would be accomplished in sixty to ninety days. This contention is borne out by the testimony of two of the property owners testifying in this proceeding, one of whom testified that Respondent indicated that her property could "probably be sold within sixty to ninety days", and another property owner testified that Respondent made no representation to him concerning the length of time necessary to effect a sale of his property. There is no evidence in the record to establish that Continental Marketing Services, Inc. failed to advertise property listed for sale as promised in the Listing Brokerage Agreement with those property owners testifying in this proceeding. There is no evidence in the record in this proceeding to establish that Continental Marketing Services, Inc., in fact, knew of no foreign investors interested in purchasing property in the United States. Further, there is no testimony in the record in this proceeding to establish that Continental Marketing Services, Inc. had never sold property for other property owners in either the United states or the State of Florida. Finally, although property belonging to three of the witnesses testifying in this proceeding was listed at several times its initial purchase price, there is no indication in the record that Respondent played any part in setting the suggested listing prices.
The Issue Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Background5/ DMS released Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 on March 18, 2013, and released a revised version of the ITN on May 14, 2013, for the selection of a company to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida. Thirteen vendors responded to the ITN. The replies were evaluated by five people: Bryan Bradner, Deputy Director of REDM of DMS; Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS; Rosalyn (“Roz”) Ingram, Chief of Procurement, Land and Leasing of the Department of Corrections; Clark Rogers, Purchasing and Facilities Manager of the Department of Revenue; and Janice Ellison, Section Lead in the Land Asset Management Section of the Department of Environmental Protection. Five vendors advanced to the negotiation stage: Cushman (score of 87), JLL (score of 87), CBRE (score of 87), Vertical (score of 89), and DTZ (score of 86). DTZ is not a party to this proceeding. The negotiation team consisted of Beth Sparkman, Bryan Bradner, and Roz Ingram. Janice Ellison participated as a subject matter expert. DMS held a first round of negotiations and then held a public meeting on July 16, 2013. DMS held a second round of negotiations and then held a second public meeting on August 1, 2013. A recording of this meeting is not available, but minutes were taken. Also on August 1, 2013, DMS posted Addendum 8, the Request for Best and Final Offers. This Addendum contained the notice that “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3) . . . shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes.” The vendors each submitted a BAFO. DMS held a final public meeting on August 14, 2013, at which the negotiation team discussed the recommendation of award. All three members of the negotiation team recommended Vertical as one of the two vendors to receive the award. For the second company, two of the three negotiation team members recommended CBRE and one negotiation team member recommended JLL. DMS prepared a memorandum, dated August 14, 2013, describing the negotiation team’s recommendation of award. The memorandum comprises the following sections: Introduction; The Services; Procurement Process (subsections for Evaluations and Negotiations); Best value (subsections for Selection Criteria, Technical Analysis, Price Analysis, and Negotiation Team’s Recommendation); and Conclusion. Attached to the memorandum as Attachment A was a memorandum dated April 30, 2013, appointing the evaluation and negotiation committees, and attached as Attachment B was a spreadsheet comparing the vendors’ BAFOs. DMS posted the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE and Vertical on August 16, 2013. Cushman and JLL timely filed notices of intent to protest the Intent to Award. On August 29, 2013, JLL timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. On August 30, 2013, Cushman timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. An opportunity to resolve the protests was held on September 9, 2013, and an impasse was eventually reached. On October 10, 2013, DMS forwarded the formal protest petitions to DOAH. An Order consolidating JLL’s protest and Cushman’s protest was entered on October 15, 2013. Scope of Real Estate Services in the ITN Prior to the statutory authority of DMS to procure real estate brokerage services, agencies used their own staff to negotiate private property leases. Section 255.25(h), Florida Statutes, arose out of the legislature’s desire for trained real estate professionals to assist the State of Florida with its private leasing needs. The statutorily mandated use of tenant brokers by agencies has saved the state an estimated $46 million dollars. The primary purpose of the ITN was to re-procure the expiring tenant broker contracts to assist state agencies in private sector leasing transactions. Once under contract, the selected vendors compete with each other for the opportunity to act on behalf of individual agencies as their tenant broker, but there is no guarantee particular vendors will get any business. The core of the services sought in the ITN was lease transactions. The ITN also sought to provide a contract vehicle to allow vendors to provide real estate consulting services, including strategies for long and short-term leases, space planning, and space management as part of the negotiation for private leases. As part of providing real estate consulting services, vendors would also perform independent market analyses (IMAs) and broker opinions of value (BOVs) or broker price opinions (BPOs). In almost all instances, this would be provided at no charge as part of the other work performed for a commissionable transaction under the resulting contract. However, the resulting contract was designed to allow agencies to ask for an IMA or BOV to be performed independently from a commissionable transaction. In addition to the primary leasing transactions, the contract would also allow state agencies to use the vendors for other services such as the acquisition and disposition of land and/or buildings. These services would be performed according to a Scope of Work prepared by the individual agency, with compensation at either the hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or at the percentage commission rate negotiated between the vendor and the individual agency. However, these services were ancillary to the main purpose of the contract, which was private leasing. In Florida, most state agencies are not authorized to hold title to land. However, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) serves as staff for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board”), which holds title to land owned by the State of Florida. In that capacity, DEP buys and sells land and other properties on behalf of the Board. DEP recently began using the current DMS tenant broker contract for acquisitions and dispositions. The process was cumbersome under the current contract, so DEP asked to participate in the ITN in order to make the contract more suitable for their purposes. The ITN was revised to include DEP’s proposed changes, and DMS had Ms. Ellison serve first as an evaluator and later as a subject matter expert. At hearing, Ms. Ellison testified that she was able to participate fully, that her input was taken seriously, and that the proposed contract adequately addressed DEP’s concerns. While DEP anticipated that under the proposed contract it would use more BOVs than it had previously, there was no guarantee that DEP would use the proposed contract. DEP is not obligated to use the contract and maintains the ability to procure its own tenant brokers. Additionally, administration and leadership changes may cause a switch of using in-house agency employees instead of tenant brokers to perform real estate acquisition and disposition services. Specifics of the ITN The ITN directed vendors to submit a reply with the following sections: a cover letter; completed attachments; pass/fail requirements; Reply Evaluation Criteria; and a price sheet. The Reply Evaluation Criteria included Part A (Qualifications) and Part B (Business Plan). Qualifications were worth 40 points, the Business Plan was worth 50 points, and the proposed pricing was worth 10 points. For the Business Plan, the ITN requested a detailed narrative description of how the vendors planned to meet DMS’s needs as set forth in section 3.01, Scope of Work. The ITN requested that vendors describe and identify the current and planned resources and employees to be assigned to the project and how the resources would be deployed. Section 3.01, Scope of Work, states that the primary objective of the ITN is to “identify brokers to assist and represent the Department and other state agencies in private sector leasing transactions.” The ITN states that the contractor will provide state agencies and other eligible users with real estate transaction and management services, which include “document creation and management, lease negotiation and renegotiation, facility planning, construction oversight, and lease closeout, agency real estate business strategies, pricing models related to relocation services, project management services, acquisition services, and strategic consulting.” Id. The ITN also specifies: Other real estate consulting services such as property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales or those identified in the reply or negotiation process and made part of the Contract (e.g., financial services, facilities management services, lease v. buy analyses). The ITN lists the following duties the contractor will perform: Act as the state’s tenant broker, to competitively solicit, negotiate and develop private sector lease agreements; Monitor landlord build-out on behalf of state agencies; Provide space management services, using required space utilization standards; Provide tenant representation services for state agencies and other eligible users during the term of a lease; Identify and evaluate as directed strategic opportunities for reducing occupancy costs through consolidation, relocation, reconfiguration, capital investment, selling and/or the building or acquisition of space; Assist with property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding property, property auctions and direct sales; and Provide requested related real estate consulting services. The ITN set the commission percentage for new leases at 4 percent for years 1-10 and 2 percent for each year over 10 years; 2 percent for lease renewals, extensions, or modifications; and 2 percent for warehouse or storage space leases. Id. For “other services,” the ITN states: With respect to all other services (e.g., space management services, general real estate consulting services, property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales), compensation will be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the broker and the using agency. The ITN also required that vendors specify the number of credit hours to be given annually to DMS. Each vendor gives a certain number of credit hours at the start of each year under the contract. The state earns additional credit hours as the vendors perform transactions. DMS manages the pool of accumulated credit hours and gives them to individual agencies to use on a case-by-case basis as payment for individual projects. These credit hours are commonly allocated to pay for IMAs and BOVs that are not part of commissionable transactions. With the exception of one legislatively mandated project, DMS has never exhausted its pool of credit hours. The ITN further specified that IMAs and BOVs must be offered at no cost when performed as part of a commissionable transaction. Historically, most IMAs and BOVs are performed as part of a commissionable transaction. They have only been performed separately from a commissionable transaction a handful of times under the current contract, and many of these were still provided at no cost through the allocation of free credit hours available to the agencies. Therefore, most IMAs and BOVs to be performed under the proposed contract will likely be at no cost. The ITN states that points to be awarded under the price criterion will be awarded based on the number of annual credit hours offered and the commission rate paid per transaction per hour of commission received. The ITN further provides that DMS will evaluate and rank replies in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to award, and then the team will proceed to negotiations. Regarding negotiations, the ITN states: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent’s demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the section criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. The ITN also states: At the conclusion of negotiations, the Department will issue a written request for best and final offer(s) (BAFOs) to one or more of the Respondents with which the negotiation team has conducted negotiations. At a minimum, based upon the negotiation process, the BAFOs must contain: A revised Statement of Work; All negotiated terms and conditions to be included in Contract; and A final cost offer. The Respondent’s BAFO will be delivered to the negotiation team for review. Thereafter, the negotiation team will meet in a public meeting to determine which offer constitutes the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria. The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the State. The ITN and draft contract permit subcontractors to perform under the contract and provide an avenue for a contractor to add subcontractors by submitting a written request to DMS’s contract manager with particular information. Best and Final Offers After the conclusion of negotiations, the negotiation team requested each vendor to submit a BAFO, to be filled out in accordance with the RBAFO format. The RBAFO noted that each vendor would get a set percentage commission for leasing transactions, but asked vendors to submit their prices for IMAs, BOVs, and BPOs performed outside a commissionable transaction and to submit the number of annual credit hours vendors would give DMS at the start of the new contract. In an effort to increase potential savings to the state, DMS lowered the percentage rates of the commissions for lease transactions in the RBAFO below the rates initially set in the ITN. By selecting only two vendors instead of three, the additional potential volume for each vendor on the contract could support the lower commission rates being requested of tenant brokers. The state would ultimately save money due to the impact of the reduced commissions on the overall economic structure of each lease. Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS, expounded on the rationale for reducing the number of vendors under the new contract to two: The Court: To me, it’s counterintuitive that having fewer vendors would result in more favorable pricing for the state of Florida; and yet you said that was the anticipated result of reducing the number of vendors from three to two – The Witness: Correct. The Court: -- for the new contract. I’m unclear. Tell me the basis for the team’s anticipation that having fewer vendors would result in better pricing. The Witness: When the original ITN was released, it had the same percentages in there that are under the current contract. And I’ll talk, for context, new leases, which right now is at 4 percent. So the discussion was – and 4 percent is typical of the industry. That’s typical for what the industry pays across the board. So the desire was to reduce the commission, to reduce those commission amounts to drive that percentage down. So we went out with the first BAFO that had a range that said for leases that cost between zero – and I can’t remember – zero and a half million, what would your percentage be? Thinking that when we had a tiered arrangement, those percentages would come down. They really didn’t. So when we sat down as a team and discussed: Well, why didn’t they – and you know, because typical is 4 percent. So we came back and said: Well, if we reduce the percentage on new leases to 3.25 but restrict the reward to two vendors, each vendor has the potential to make as much money as they would have made at 4 percent, but the savings would be rolled back into the state. Each of the five vendors invited to negotiate submitted a BAFO, agreeing as part of their submissions to comply with the terms and conditions of the draft of the proposed contract and agreeing to the lowered set percentage commission rates in the RBAFO. The RBAFO listed selection criteria by which the vendors would be chosen, to further refine the broad criteria listed in the ITN. The RBAFO listed the following nine items as selection criteria: performance measures (if necessary), sliding scale/cap, IMA set fee, broker’s opinion of value, balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum), contract concerns, credit hours (both annual and per deal hour), hourly rates, and vendor experience and capability. CBRE’s BAFO submission followed the format indicated in the RBAFO, but CBRE included an additional section giving its proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions of land. These rates were also submitted by other vendors at other parts of the procurement process, but CBRE was the only vendor to include such rates as part of its BAFO submission. DMS considered this addition a minor irregularity that it waived. In its BAFO submission, Cushman offered a three-tiered approach to its pricing for IMAs and BOVs. For the first tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for free as part of a commissionable transaction. This is redundant, as the ITN required all vendors to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when part of a commissionable transaction. For the second tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when the user agency has previously hired Cushman on tenant representative work. Ms. Sparkman testified that this provision was unclear, as Cushman did not define the scope of this provision or what amount of work qualified the agency for free services. For the third tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for $240 when not part of a commissionable transaction for an agency with which it had never done business. Best Value Determination The five BAFOs were sent to the negotiation team for review on August 8, 2013, and on August 14, 2013, the team met in a public meeting to discuss the BAFOs, consider the selection criteria, discuss the team’s award recommendation, and draft a written award recommendation memorandum. During the August 14, 2013, meeting the team determined that CBRE and Vertical represented the best value to the state, by a majority vote for CBRE and by a unanimous vote for Vertical. Ms. Sparkman stated at the meeting that, from her perspective, CBRE and Vertical represented a better value than the other vendors because they were more forward thinking in their long term business strategies for managing Florida’s portfolio. Also at this meeting, Ms. Sparkman noted that CBRE’s prices for IMAs and BOVs were somewhat high but that she would attempt to convince CBRE to lower its prices during the contract execution phase. This was part of an attempt to equalize costs to ensure user agencies selected vendors based on individual needs rather than cost. However, CBRE represented the best value to the state regardless of whether its pricing changed. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that if CBRE had refused to lower its pricing, DMS would still have signed a contract with them based on the pricing submitted in its BAFO. Ms. Sparkman also stated at the public meeting that if she were unable to come to contract with both CBRE and Vertical, she would arrange for another public meeting to select a third vendor with whom to proceed to the contract execution phase. This statement did not refer to DMS selecting a third vendor to replace CBRE should CBRE refuse to lower its price, but rather reflected the possibility that during the contract execution phase, DMS and either one of the vendors could potentially be unable to sign a contract because the vendor was unwilling to execute the written terms and conditions. The “contract negotiations” referenced during the public meeting are the remaining processes to be worked out during the contract execution phase and are distinct and separate from the negotiation phase. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that in the past, vendors have refused to sign a contract because their legal counsel was unwilling to sign off on what the business representatives agreed to. Thus, if either CBRE or Vertical refused to sign the contract altogether, DMS would potentially have selected a third-place vendor in order to have a second vendor on the contract, according to Ms. Sparkman. International experience weighed in favor of CBRE and Vertical, according to team member comments made at the public meeting. Although the phrase “international experience” was not specifically listed in the selection criteria of the ITN or RBAFO, many vendors highlighted their international experience as part of the general category of vendor experience. Vendor experience and capability is specified in both the ITN and RBAFO as part of the selection criteria. Ms. Sparkman testified that international experience is indicative of high quality general vendor experience because international real estate market trends change more rapidly than domestic market trends. None of the negotiation team members recommended Cushman for a contract award, and in fact, Cushman's name was not even discussed at the award meeting. The Award Memorandum Also during the August 14, 2013, public meeting the negotiation team prepared a memorandum setting forth the negotiation team’s best value recommendation of CBRE and Vertical, and many of its reasons for the recommendation. There was no requirement that the memorandum list every single reason that went into the decision. For example, the memorandum did not state that the team found CBRE and Vertical’s focus on long term strategies more impressive than Cushman’s focus on past performance under the current contract. The award memorandum included a “Selection Criteria” section which simply repeated the nine selection criteria that had been previously identified in the RBAFO. The memorandum then went on to include a section labeled “B. Technical Analysis” that stated: Analysis of pricing is provided in section C below. As to the remaining selection criteria items, the Team identified the following key elements for the service to be provided: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. The selection criteria provided above were used by the Team to make its best value recommendation. Ms. Sparkman testified that while the choice of wording may have been imprecise, the items listed in the Technical Analysis section were simply elaborations of the selection criteria in the ITN and RBAFO, and not new criteria. The first four are subsumed within vendor experience and capability, and the fifth was specifically listed in the RBAFO. Indeed, Cushman’s Senior Managing Director testified at hearing that Cushman had addressed the first four items in their presentation to DMS during the negotiation phase to demonstrate why Cushman should be chosen for the contract. The memorandum failed to note that CBRE had included non-solicited information in its BAFO regarding proposed rates for the acquisition and disposition of land. However, the negotiation team considered CBRE’s inclusion of these proposed rates a minor irregularity that could be waived in accordance with the ITN and addressed in the contract execution phase, since those rates were for ancillary services, and there was no guaranteed work to be done for DEP under that fee structure. The memorandum included a chart, identified as Attachment B, that compared the proposed number of credit hours and some of the pricing for IMAs and BOVs submitted by the vendors in their BAFOs. The chart listed Cushman’s price for IMAs and BOVs as $240 and failed to include all the information regarding the three-tiered approach to IMAs and BOVs Cushman listed in its BAFO. However, Ms. Sparkman testified that the chart was meant to be a side-by-side basic summary that compared similar information, not an exhaustive listing. The Cushman Protest Negotiations After Award of the Contract Cushman alleges that DMS’s selection of CBRE violates the ITN specifications because DMS selected CBRE with the intent of conducting further negotiations regarding price, which provided CBRE with an unfair advantage. Cushman further argues that the procedure of awarding to one vendor and then possibly adding another vendor if contract negotiations fail violates Florida’s statutes and the ITN. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 23, 28 & 31. Section 2.14 of the ITN specifically reserved DMS's right to reopen negotiations after receipt of BAFOs if it believed such was in the best interests of the state. Specifically, section 2.14 A. provides: The highest ranked Respondent(s) will be invited to negotiate a Contract. Respondents are cautioned to propose their best possible offers in their initial Reply as failing to do so may result in not being selected to proceed to negotiations. If necessary, the Department will request revisions to the approach submitted by the top-rated Respondent(s) until it is satisfied that the contract model will serve the state’s needs and is determined to provide the best value to the state. The statements made by Ms. Sparkman at the August 14, 2013, public meeting and in the award memorandum, that DMS would attempt to reduce CBRE's prices for ancillary services during the contract execution process were not contrary to the ITN or unfair to the other vendors. Both Ms. Sparkman and Mr. Bradner, the two negotiation team members who voted to award to CBRE, testified that they recommended CBRE as providing the best value even considering its arguably higher prices for ancillary services. Ms. Sparkman further confirmed that even if CBRE refused to lower its prices during the contract execution phase, DMS would still sign the contract, as CBRE's proposal would still represent the best value to the state. The anticipated efforts to obtain lower prices from CBRE were simply an attempt to obtain an even better best value for the state. Ms. Sparkman also testified that section 2.14 F. allowed continued negotiations, even though it was silent as to timeframe. Paragraph F states: In submitting a Reply a Respondent agrees to be bound to the terms of Section 5 – General Contract Conditions (PUR 1000) and Section 4 – Special Contract Conditions. Respondents should assume those terms will apply to the final contract, but the Department reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if the Department determines that it provides the best value to the state. Ms. Sparkman also cited section 2.14 I. as authority for reopening negotiations following receipt of the BAFO’s. That section provides: The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving the BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the state. Ms. Sparkman’s statement that if DMS failed, for any reason, to successfully contract with either of the two vendors selected, it would consider pulling in another vendor, is not inconsistent with the clear language of the ITN. Selection Criteria Cushman alleges that DMS used criteria to determine the awards that were not listed in the ITN or the RBAFO. Amended Pet. ¶ 25. Section 2.14 E of the ITN established broad selection criteria, stating: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent's demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the selection criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. (emphasis added). Following the negotiations, and with the assistance of its subject matter expert, the negotiation team provided in the RBAFO additional clarity as to the selection criteria, and identified the "Basis of Award/Selection Criteria" as follows: Performance Measures (if necessary) Sliding scale/cap IMA set fee Broker's opinion of value Balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum) Contract concerns Credit hours (both annual and per deal hour) Hourly rates Vendor experience and capability The foregoing selection criteria, as well as the selection criteria stated initially in the ITN, make clear that pricing was only one of the criteria upon which the award was to be made. Indeed, Cushman's representative, Larry Richey, acknowledged during his testimony that criteria such as "Performance Measures," "Contract Concerns," and "Vendor Experience and Capability" did not refer to pricing, but rather to the expected quality of the vendor's performance if awarded the contract. As the principal draftsman of the ITN and DMS's lead negotiator, Ms. Sparkman explained that the RBAFO's statement of the selection criteria was intended to provide greater detail to the broad selection criteria identified in the ITN, and was used by the negotiation team in making its best value determination. Ms. Sparkman further testified that the best value determination resulted from the negotiation team's lengthy and extensive evaluation of the vendors' initial written replies to the ITN, review of the vendors' qualifications and comprehensive business plans, participation in approximately two and a half hours of oral presentations by each vendor (including a question and answer session with regard to the proposed implementation and management of the contracts), and a review of the vendors' BAFOs. Applying the selection criteria contained in the ITN and the RBAFO, the negotiation team selected Vertical for several reasons, including its performance indicators, employees with ADA certification, computer programs and employee training not offered by other vendors, its presence in Florida, and the strength of its business plan and presentation. Similarly, the negotiation team selected CBRE for an award based on the strength of its ITN Reply, its broad look at long-term strategies, its key performance indicators, the experience and knowledge of its staff, the comprehensiveness of its proposal and business plan, size of its firm, and creative ideas such as use of a scorecard in transactions. Ms. Sparkman observed that both Vertical and CBRE specifically identified the CBRE staff who would manage the state's business and daily transactions, while it was not clear from Cushman's ITN reply and related submissions who would actually be working on the account. Cushman likewise did not discuss out-of-state leases and how such leases were going to be handled, which was a significant concern because DMS considered out-of-state leases to be particularly complex. Ms. Sparkman also noted that with respect to the vendors' business plans, both Vertical and CBRE focused primarily on strategic realignment and plans for the future, whereas Cushman discussed their current transactions at length, but did not demonstrate forward thinking to the negotiation team. Cushman's reply to the ITN also included various discrepancies noted at the final hearing. While Cushman's ITN reply identifies a Tallahassee office, Cushman does not in fact have a Tallahassee office, but instead listed its subcontractor’s office.6/ Additionally, two of the business references presented in Cushman's ITN Reply appear not in fact to be for Cushman, but instead for its subcontractor, Daniel Wagnon, as Cushman's name was clearly typed in above Mr. Wagnon's name after the references were written. Finally, Cushman failed to provide in its ITN Reply the required subcontractor disclosure information for at least one of its "Project Management Partners," Ajax Construction. Based on all of the above, DMS's decision to award contracts to Vertical and CBRE as providing the best value to the state was not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition. Simply stated, and as the negotiation team determined, the submissions by Vertical and CBRE were more comprehensive and reasonably found to offer better value to the state than Cushman's submission. Indeed the negotiation team did not even mention Cushman as a potential contract awardee, but instead identified only Vertical, CBRE and JLL in their deliberations as to best value. Cushman's argument that DMS award memorandum improperly relies on the following as "key elements" related to services does not alter this analysis: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. While Ms. Sparkman acknowledged that the choice of language in the memorandum could have been better, it is clear that the foregoing are indeed "elements" of the selection criteria stated in the ITN and RBAFO, as the first four elements plainly relate to the vendors' ability to effectively provide the services, their technical proposal, performance measures, and vendor experience and capability, while the last element relates to the pricing portion of the criteria. Cushman also argues that the award memorandum failed to inform the final decision-maker that Cushman offered IMAs and BOVs at no charge when Cushman was engaged in a commissionable transaction or was performing other work for an agency under the contract. As a result, Cushman asserts, the Deputy Secretary was provided with inaccurate information relating to price. Cushman's argument that the award process was flawed because the pricing chart attached to the award memorandum did not accurately reflect Cushman's proposed pricing is without merit. As Ms. Sparkman testified, the chart was prepared by the negotiation team to provide for the decision-maker an apples-to- apples broad summary comparison of the vendor's proposed pricing for the proposed ancillary services. The chart was not intended to identify all variations or conditions for potential different pricing as proposed by Cushman.7/ Best Value Determination Cushman contends that the negotiation team’s decision to award a contract to CBRE did not result in the best value to the state. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 26, 28 & 29. Cushman further argues that DMS did not meaningfully consider differences in proposed pricing. The failure to consider price for potential ancillary services, Cushman argues, was contrary to competition as it gave an unfair advantage to CBRE whose prices were higher than Cushman’s prices in all but one category. Although pricing for the potential ancillary services was relevant, the ITN's initial scoring criteria made clear that DMS was primarily focused on evaluating the experience and capability of the vendors to provide the proposed services. For this reason, the ITN's initial scoring criteria awarded 90 percent of the points based upon the qualifications and business plan of the vendors, and only 10 percent of the points based on the pricing for potential ancillary services. The negotiation team members testified that this same focus on qualifications and the vendors' business plan continued during the negotiation phase and award decision, although without reliance on the mathematical scoring process utilized during the initial evaluation phase. Nothing in the ITN specifications altered this focus, and the negotiations were directed to gaining a greater understanding of the vendors' proposed services, the qualifications and bios of individuals who would actually do the work, vendors' approach to the work and parameters the vendors would use to evaluate their performance. Pricing remained of relatively minor significance primarily because the RBAFO established a uniform lease commission rate for all vendors, effectively removing pricing as a means to differentiate between the vendors. As a result, vendors were required to quote pricing only for certain potential ancillary services, including IMAs and BOVs, and the number of free credit hours to be provided to the state. Pricing for these potential ancillary services was not considered particularly important, since historically these services were seldom used, and the ITN required all vendors to provide IMAs and BOVs free of charge when related to a commissionable transaction (thereby greatly reducing the impact of any "free" IMA or BOV services). For these reasons, the negotiation team considered the potential ancillary services and pricing for these services not to be significant in the award decision and only incidental to the core purpose and mission of the intended contract, to wit, leasing and leasing commissions. As a result, the negotiation team referred to these potential ancillary services as "balance of line" items which were nominal and added little value to the contract. Notwithstanding Cushman's argument that it should have been awarded the contract because it offered the lowest pricing for these ancillary services, its prices were not in fact the lowest offered by the vendors. Indeed JLL offered to provide all IMA and BOV services (with no preconditions) at no cost. Cushman's pricing for the ancillary services also was not materially different than CBRE's pricing. CBRE's consulting services rates are comparable, if not lower, than Cushman's rates, and the difference between Cushman's and CBRE's proposed charges for IMAs and BOVs is only a few hundred dollars. When considered in terms of the anticipated number of times the ancillary services will be requested (rarely, based on the prior contract), the total "extra" amount to be spent for CBRE's services would be at most a few thousand dollars. The negotiation team reasonably considered this to be insignificant in comparison to the multimillion dollar leasing work which was the core purpose of the intended contract.8/ Because pricing for the potential ancillary services was of lesser significance to DMS's award decision, Cushman's position that DMS should have awarded Cushman a contract based upon its pricing for ancillary services is not consistent with the ITN and does not render DMS's intended awards to Vertical and CBRE arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous or contrary to competition. To the contrary, DMS articulated a rational, reasonable and logical explanation for the award. CBRE’s Proposal Non-Responsive to ITN and RBAFO? Cushman alleges that CBRE’s BAFO was not responsive to the ITN and the RBAFO because CBRE included a set rate for acquisitions and dispositions in its proposal. Amended Pet. 30. Since CBRE's BAFO materially deviated from the ITN's specifications, CBRE’s proposal should have been deemed non- responsive and therefore rejected, Cushman argues. The ITN originally requested pricing related only to credit hours as the ITN set the rates for leases. The ITN stated that “other services” would be determined on a case-by- case basis as negotiated by the agencies. However, as part of the ITN process, DMS discussed with the vendors the potential for them to assist the state in the sale and acquisition of property, and what commission rates might be charged for this work. For this reason, CBRE included proposed commission rates for acquisition and disposition services in its BAFO. DMS considered the inclusion of potential rates for acquisitions and dispositions to be a minor irregularity which did not render CBRE's BAFO non-responsive. This determination is consistent with the terms of the ITN, which at section 2.14(g) states "[t]he Department reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in replies." The form PUR 1001 incorporated by reference into the ITN likewise reserves to DMS the right to waive minor irregularities and states: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the state's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Consistent with the above-cited provisions, the negotiation team noted at its August 14, 2013, meeting that CBRE's inclusion of the proposed rates was not material, and that during the contract execution process, DMS would either exclude the proposed rates from the contract, or possibly include such as a cap for these services. Both of these alternatives were available to DMS given CBRE's commitment to follow the terms of the draft contract, which specifically stated that fees for acquisitions and dispositions would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, CBRE's inclusion of proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions did not give CBRE an advantage over the other vendors, or impair the competition, because Cushman and JLL also submitted, as part of their ITN responses, proposed commission rates for the acquisition and disposition of property. Do the ITN Specifications Violate Section 255.25? Cushman's final argument is that the ITN specifications, and the proposed contract, violate section 255.25(3)(h)5., Florida Statutes, which states that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract and may not be supplemented or modified by the state agency using the contract." Cushman's argument has two components. First, Cushman argues that the specifications included at Tab 5, page 13 of the ITN violate the statute by providing: "With respect to all other [ancillary] services, . . . , compensation shall be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by a percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the using agency.” Cushman also argues that the language in the award memorandum stating that the BOV rates are "caps" and "may be negotiated down by agencies prior to individual transactions," violates the statute. This latter reference to "caps" correlates to the "ceiling rates" stated in the above quoted ITN specification. Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires vendors to file a protest to an ITN’s terms, conditions, or specifications within 72 hours of the release of the ITN or amendment; failure to protest constitutes a waiver of such arguments. DMS included this language with the release of the ITN and each amendment, so Cushman was on notice of its protest rights. Cushman's challenge to the ITN specifications as violating section 255.25 is untimely and has been waived. Having been fully informed of this specification since May 14, 2013, when the revised ITN was published, Cushman could not wait until the ITN process was completed some four months later, and then argue that the ITN specifications do not comply with section 255.25 and must be changed. Such argument plainly constitutes a specifications challenge, and such a challenge is now time-barred. Even were Cushman’s challenge not time-barred, it would still fail. Section 255.25 requires only that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract," and not that all terms identifying the compensation be specified. The challenged ITN specification, actually added via Addendum 2 at the request of DEP and its subject matter expert, does specify the approved methods by which the state could compensate the vendor, which DMS determined would best be determined on a case-by-case basis. By stating the approved methods which can be used by the state agencies, the ITN specifications and term contract did specify the terms "relating to" the compensation of the vendor, i.e., an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or a percentage commission rate. DMS established these terms because the exact compensation would best be determined by the state agency on a case-by-case basis in a Statement of Work utilizing one of the specified compensation methods.9/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the petition of Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc., and affirming the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE, Inc., and Vertical Integration, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 24th day of January, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint? him? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since September 23, 1991, a Florida-licensed real estate salesperson (holding license number 0579778). On September 30, 1993, his license became "involuntary inactive." His license was reactivated effective November 22, 1994, and remained active through September 30, 1995. Respondent's license is currently in "involuntary inactive" status. In January of 1994, Respondent was hired to (and thereafter did work) as a real estate salesperson for 4% Realty, Inc. (4%). The decision to hire Respondent was made by Frank Eckert, 4%'s broker. At no time did Respondent advise Eckert that he (Respondent) did not have an active real estate salesperson's license. On January 26, 1997, and January 27, 1997, Respondent provided $500.00 to 4% (in the form of two checks made out to 4%, one, dated January 26, 1994, in the amount $300.00 and the other, dated January 27, 1994, in the amount of $200.00). The $500.00 represented a deposit made by Respondent in connection with a proposed real estate transaction involving Respondent (as the buyer) and Mark Solowitz (as the seller). By letter dated March 3, 1994, Respondent notified Solowitz that, as of January 26, 1994, there was “on deposit in 4% Realty, Inc., Escrow account a total sum of $500.” The real estate transaction between Respondent and Solowitz was never finalized. After the transaction failed to close, Eckert returned Respondent’s $500.00 deposit to Respondent. On or about October 12, 1994, Respondent applied and interviewed for a salesperson position in the Weston office of Prudential Florida Realty (Prudential). The interview was conducted by Dorothy McCullough, the branch manager of Prudential's Weston office. Respondent made certain statements during the interview with which McCullough was "not comfortable." At the conclusion of the interview, McCullough told Respondent that she would "get back to him" and "let him know" of her decision. At no time did McCullough hire Respondent or authorize him to use Prudential's forms or stationary or to act as an agent for Prudential. On or about October 13, 1994, Respondent submitted to First Atlantic Realty (First Atlantic), on behalf of prospective tenants, an offer to lease property (located at 3350 Ivy Way in Miramar) listed by First Atlantic. Respondent purported to be acting as a representative of Prudential. When McCullough discovered what Respondent had done, she telephoned him to make sure that he understood that he had not been, nor would he be, hired by her to work for Prudential. Subsequently, First Atlantic's broker, Roger Herman, learned that the prospective tenants on whose behalf Respondent had submitted the offer had already moved into the rental property notwithstanding that their offer (which was "extremely weak") had not been accepted.3 Herman thereupon went to the rental property "to find out what was going on." He attempted to communicate with the prospective tenants, but was unsuccessful because they spoke ”very little English." He then telephoned the police. Upon arriving on the scene, the police spoke with the prospective tenants and persuaded them to vacate the premises. On or about October 24, 1994, Respondent submitted to First Atlantic, on behalf of the same prospective tenants, another offer to lease the property at 3350 Ivy Way. On this occasion, however, Respondent was acting as a salesperson in the employ of 4%. Herman responded to this second offer by contacting the Department by telephone and discussing the situation with a Department representative. During the discussion, Herman was advised by the Department representative that Respondent did not possess an active salesperson's license. Herman then telephoned Eckert and informed him of Respondent's licensure status. After speaking with Herman, Eckert telephoned the Department and received confirmation that Respondent did not have an active salesperson's license. Eckert then contacted Respondent and advised him that his employment with 4% was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations described in Conclusion of Law 41 of this Recommended Order and revoking his real estate salesperson's license for having committed said violations.DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 28th day of April 1997.
