The Issue Whether information Petitioner provided on pages 36-39 of its SOQ should be considered by the Respondent and, if considered, whether Petitioner should be included in the group of firms within the competitive range?
Findings Of Fact Background On September 11, 1987, Respondent issued Solicitation 8804 for the purpose of selecting a group of contractors which could potentially be awarded contracts to clean up petroleum contamination sites. On September 29, 1987, Respondent held a mandatory contractor's meeting to answer questions from potential contractors regarding the work being procured and the instructions for completing the SOQ. Mr. Paul Gruber attended this meeting on behalf of Petitioner. On October 13, 1987, Respondent cancelled Solicitation 8804 in order to make changes in the solicitation package and to correct an error in the published notice of the contractor's meeting. The notice did not indicate that the meeting was mandatory. Petitioner did not receive timely notice of the cancellation and submitted a SOQ. Respondent returned the SOQ to Petitioner unopened. On October 23, 1987, Respondent issued Solicitation 8809, which was essentially similar to Solicitation 8804. On November 9, 1987, Respondent held a contractors' meeting to answer questions regarding the work being procured and the preparation of the SOQ. In contrast with the contractors' meeting on Solicitation 8804, attendance at this meeting was not mandatory. Petitioner chose not to attend the meeting. Solicitation 8809. Solicitation 8809 consisted of a package which included the following: a pink cover sheet indicating where the SOQ should be submitted and containing the general conditions of the Solicitation; a transmittal letter; Attachment A, General Instructions; Attachment B, Instructions for Preparation of a SOQ; Attachment C, Conflict of Interest; Attachment D, Insurance; Attachment E, Minority Business Certificate; Attachment F, Evaluation Scoresheet; Attachment G, Standard Form 255, Attachment H, Chapter 17-70, F.A.C., Draft Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Criteria; Attachment I, Chapter 17-71, F.A.C., Petroleum Contamination Site Priority- Ranking Rule; and Attachment J, Air Stripping Guidelines. Attachment B contained the instructions for preparation of a SOQ, which was to consist of two parts: (1) a transmittal letter, limited to a length of one page, and (2) the SOQ, limited to 35 pages in length. The instructions stated that "the SOQ shall contain the following seven sections:" 1. Introduction, 2. Company Background, 3. Qualifications, 4. Project Management, 5. Personnel Assigned and Availability, 6. Past Performance, and 7. Minority Business Utilization. The instructions for Section 6, Past Performance, required that the contractor list a minimum of ten former clients other than Respondent and provided the format for presenting the required information about former clients. Also, the instructions provided that "All FDER (Respondent) contract work shall be listed separately along with the ten clients described above." The instructions for Section 7, Minority Business Utilization, provided, in part, that "Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms (Attachment E)." Attachment E is a two-page document titled "Minority Business Certificate." The document first cites the statutory and rule provisions dealing with and defining minority business, and sets forth that "certification information may be obtained by contracting the ... Department of General Services..." The document then continues with the following: Responders shall indicate on the following form if they or proposed subcontractors are small minority businesses as described in Chapter 13- 8.005, F.A.C. and determined by the Department of General Services Office of Minority Business Enterprise Assistance. Copies of certifications should be attached, not to be included in the page count of the response package. Pending certifications should be so-noted. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this business meets the criteria for small, minority business, category ( ) (Signature) (Business Name) (Address) (Address) ATTACHMENT E MINORITY BUSINESS CERTIFICATE Page 2 of 2 I CERTIFY, to the best of my knowledge, the following proposed subcontractor(s) are small minority businesses domiciled in the State of Florida. Subcontractor(s) Subcontract Name and Address business estimate percent of total contract percent of total contract Pages 8 and 9 of Attachment A to Solicitation 8809 set forth the evaluation criteria which Respondent intended to use to select the group of firms which would become eligible to receive contracts. The evaluation criteria were: A.16 Evaluation Criteria General The [Respondent] reserves the right to accept or reject any or all SOQs received and reserves the right to make an award without further dis- cussion. Therefore, the SOQs should be submitted initially in the most favorable form. Nonresponsive SOQs include, but are not limited to, those that: (1) are irregular or not in conformance with the solicitation requirements and instructions; (2) fail to utilize or complete prescribed forms; (3) are conditional, incomplete, indefinite or ambiguous; (4) are intended to accomplish only a portion or por- tions of the overall work; or (5) have improper or undated signa- tures. A nonresponsive SOQ will not be considered. The [Respondent] may waive informa- lities or irregularities in the SOQs received where such are merely a matter of form and not substance, and the corrections of which are not prejudicial to other contractors. Ranking Each SOQ will be reviewed by a technical committee of at least three persons with technical knowledge about petroleum con- tamination site cleanup. Each of the reviewers will work independently using the outline shown in Attachment F. Past performance will be scored based on answers to a standard group of questions received from at least two of the con- tractor's former clients and the [Respondent] if applicable. Only one reviewer will contact any given reference. The [Respondent's] project to be evaluated will be the most recent comprehensive project which is most closely related to petroleum contamination site cleanup. Satisfactory performance for the [Respon- dent] will score no points; but unsatis- factory performance will score negative points. In this way, contractors which have not worked for [Respondent] or which have had satisfactory performance are not penalized. Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated on the percentage of the total contract amount estimated to be awarded to minority business as noted in the contractor's Minority Business Certifi- cate (Attachment E). Each reviewer will use the total point scores to rank the contractors and a mean rank for each contractor will be calculated. The mean rank scores, without accompanying contractor names, will be presented to the chairman of the selection committee who will deter- mine the competitive range. Those contractors in the competitive range will be invited to participate in discussions with the selection committee. Following the discussions the committee will recommend approxi- mately six contractors to the [Respon- dent's] Secretary for contract award. Attachment F to Solicitation 8809 sets forth the scoresheet used by the Respondent's evaluators. A firm could receive a maximum of 132 points from each evaluator. Attachment F provided that a maximum of 13 points could be received for Minority Business Utilization. As set forth in the evaluation criteria, supra, Attachment F provided a maximum score of 0 for Past Performance on a contract with Respondent. Also, Attachment F indicated that "a score of minus 14 can be given for this item" (past performance on a contract with Respondent). Respondent's Evaluation of SOQs Respondent received SOQs from 43 firms in response to Solicitation 8809. Prior to forwarding the SOQs to the members of the Respondent's technical review committee for their evaluation, Ms. Gwenn Godfrey, a Grant Specialist Supervisor II with Respondent's Contract Office and Mr. Douglas A. Jones, Administrator with Respondent's Bureau of Waste Cleanup and chairman of Respondent's Technical Review Committee for Solicitation 8809, counted the pages of each SOQ to determine compliance with the 35-page limitation. On SOQs which exceeded the 35-page limitation, a large "X" was drawn on page 36. The information provided beyond page 35 was not considered by the Technical Review Committee members. Respondent intended that the instructions for Section 7, Minority Business Utilization, would result in contractors submitting information on minority business utilization on Attachment E and including Attachment E within the 35-page SOQ. Upon receiving the SOQs, it became clear that some of the contractors which submitted minority business information had interpreted the instructions differently than intended. Some contractors submitted SOQs which complied with the instructions like Respondent intended. Others, rather than using Attachment E, simply listed the names of the minority businesses they intended to use and the percentage of proposed utilization within Section 7 of their SOQs. Still others included information on minority business in sections of their SOQs other than Section 7. Finally, some contractors, including Petitioner used Attachment E, but did not include it within the 35-page limit. Faced with this, Respondent decided that the different methods of reporting minority business utilization constituted minor irregularities of form and not substance, so long as the information on minority business utilization was provided within the 35-page limit. Contractors which identified the minority business contractors and the percentage of utilization anywhere within the 35- page SOQ were given the same number of points they would have received if they had used Attachment E to provide the information. The Technical Review Committee consisted of five persons and each reviewed the 43 SOQs. Each reviewer ranked the 43 SOQs from 1 to 43, with the firm receiving the most points being ranked number 1. For each firm, the rankings received from the five evaluators were added together and divided by five to produce an overall "mean rank score." The firm with the lowest mean rank score was ranked number 1. The mean rank score and ranking of the top 16 firms were: Mean Rank Score Ranking 2.6 1 2.8 2 3.2 3 3.4 4 3.6 5 6.6 6 7.6 7 8.8 8 11.1 9 11.9 10 12.8 11 13.0 12 14.0 13 14.6 14 15.0 15 16.2 16 By memorandum dated February 5, 1988, Mr. Douglas Jones provided the Respondent's Assistant Secretary with a graph plotting the mean rank score of each firm which submitted a SOQ. The memorandum stated that: Since approximately six contracts will be awarded and a large point difference exists between the eighth and ninth ranked firms..., we recommend inviting the top eight to participate in oral presentations. If time constraints are not severe and more choice is desired, we would recommend inviting the top twelve Although a larger break exists [between the firms ranked 14 and 15] than [between 12 and 13], we feel inviting fourteen firms would be too cumbersome. This recommendation was followed, and the top eight firms were selected as being within the competitive range. Petitioner's SOQ 8809 Petitioner's SOQs in response to Solicitation 8804 and 8809 were prepared under the direction and supervision of Mr. Paul Gruber. Mr. Gruber attended the contractors' meeting held on Solicitation 8804, but did not attend the meeting held in Solicitation 8809. Within the first couple of days after receiving Solicitation 8809, Mr. Gruber and another employee of Respondent each made a page-by-page comparison of Solicitation 8804 and Solicitation 8809 to make sure they understood the differences between the two Solicitations. Mr. Gruber determined that both Solicitations were essentially the same and noted that Attachment E had been changed. He also believed he understood what all the instructions meant. Mr. Gruber decided not to attend the contractor's meeting held in Solicitation 8809, since Solicitation 8804 and Solicitation 8809 were essentially the same and the Solicitation 8809 meeting was not mandatory. He felt comfortable that Petitioner could respond adequately without attending the meeting. Approximately a week before the SOQs had to be submitted to Respondent, Petitioner had prepared a draft of the SOQ. At this point, Mr. Gruber felt that there was some ambiguity in the instructions for Section 6, Past Performance, and Section 7, Minority Business Utilization, of the SOQ, and he was not sure how to present this information. Mr. Gruber was confused with the instructions for Section 7, Minority Business Utilization, because the instructions appeared to provide that Minority Business Utilization was to be included within the 35-page limit. However, the instructions referenced Attachment E, which was titled "Minority Business Certificate", and-among other things, provided that "Copies of certifications should be attached, not to be included in the page amount of the response package." Therefore, Mr. Gruber did-not know whether Attachment E should have been included within the 35 pages or could have been provided outside the 35 pages. Mr. Gruber's confusion about Section 6, Past Performance, was due to information which had been provided by Respondent at the contractors' meeting on Solicitation 8804. At the contractors' meeting a question came up about how to provide information on prior contracts with Respondent. At that meeting, it had been decided that contractors with prior contracts with Respondent only had to identify the project's title and did not have to provide all the other information required for other contracts. However, the written instructions for Section 6 in Solicitation 8809 were identical to those in Solicitation 8804 and indicated that prior contracts with Respondent should be listed in the same manner as any other contracts. Therefore, Mr. Gruber was unsure as to how to include prior contracts with Respondent in the SOQ. In order to get answers to his questions, Mr. Gruber made a telephone call to (904) 487-4831, the telephone number listed on the front page of Solicitation 8809 as being the number where Ms. Gwenn D. Godfrey could be reached. The telephone call was made at 2:18 p.m., on December 1, 1988. Mr. Gruber believes he spoke with Ms. Godfrey, because he asked for her. However, Ms. Godfrey cannot recall speaking with Mr. Gruber or with anyone from Petitioner's company. Mr. Gruber cannot recall if the female person he spoke with identified herself, and it is Ms. Godfrey's practice to identify herself every time she picks up the telephone. Mr. Gruber can remember little of the actual conversation, except for the decisions he made based on the conversation. There is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the telephone conversation took place, but not enough to find that Mr. Gruber spoke with Ms. Godfrey. During the telephone conversation, Mr. Gruber was not specifically told that Attachment E could be outside the 35-page limit; he was told something in the nature of "follow the instructions in the RFSOQ." After further conversation, he came away from the telephone conversation with the general interpretation that placing Attachment E beyond the 35th page was acceptable to Respondent. Mr. Gruber came away from the telephone conversation with less assurance about his questions regarding Section 6, Past Performance, than about the questions regarding Section 7, Minority Business Utilization. While he ended the telephone call without having all his questions answered, he provided his own interpretation of the conversation and prepared the SOQ based on that interpretation. Mr. Gruber's notes from the telephone conversation were as follows: DER Projects - include in page count? List all info separately? Yes MBE Certificate - Follow instructions Attachment "E" not counted. Based on the telephone conversation and his understanding, of the instructions, Mr. Gruber prepared and submitted Petitioner's SOQ listing prior contracts with Respondent on page 36. Page 37 consisted of Attachment E from Solicitation 8804, certifying that one of Petitioner's subcontractors was a small, minority business. Page 38 consisted of page 1 of Attachment E from Solicitation 8809, certifying that another of Petitioner's subcontractors was a small minority business. Page 39 consisted of page 2 of Attachment E to Solicitation 8809 and indicated that each of the two minority business subcontractors would receive 10 percent of the total contract. Respondent's evaluation of Petitioner's SOQ Page 36 of Petitioner's SOQ was marked with a large "x" and with the notation "exceeded page limit." The information on pages 36-39 was not considered. Petitioner was given 1 point for having listed the use of two minority business subcontractors in Section 2 of its SOQ. Petitioner was given minus 14 points for failing to list the prior contracts with Respondent within the SOQ. Respondent ranked Petitioner ninth. If Petitioner's proposed minority business utilization set forth in pages 37-39 of its SOQ had been considered by Respondent, Petitioner would have received an additional 6 points from each evaluator. If Respondent had considered information on minority business utilization provided outside the 35-page limit for all SOQs, the rankings of the top 16 firms would have been as follows: Mean Rank Score Ranking 2.6 1 2.8 2 3.2 3 3.6 4 4.1 5 5.3 6 7.4 7 9.2 8.5 9.2 8.5 12.2 10 12.3 11 13.4 12 13.8 13 15.4 14 16.3 15 16.6 16 The nine firms ranked 1-8.5 are the eight firms, Respondent determined to be within the competitive range, plus Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order finding Petitioner to be within the competitive group. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 29th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0996BID The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number Reason for Rejection Accepted. RO7 Irrelevant. Accepted. RO2 Accepted. RO4,5 Accepted. RO2,3 Accepted. RO6 Accepted generally. RO6 Accepted generally. RO6 Irrelevant. Accepted generally. RO10 Accepted RO9, 11, except for the last 13 words which are rejected; how this information was to be submitted is the issue in this case. Accepted. RO13 Accepted. RO13 Generally accepted. RO8 Irrelevant. First sentence is irrelevant. Second sentence accepted. RO23 Accepted. RO27 Accepted generally. RO29 Accepted generally, except that use of the word "contradiction" is rejected; this is a conclusion. RO28 Accepted. RO12 Accepted. RO12 Accepted generally, except that finding that Mr. Gruber spoke with Ms. Godfrey is rejected. RO30, 31 Generally accepted as set forth in RO31-34. Accepted. RO17, 35 Accepted. RO35 Irrelevant. Accepted. RO20 Accepted. RO18 29-33. Supported by the evidence but unnecessary for the decision. First sentence irrelevant; second- sentence accepted. RO16, 36. Rejected. Attachment F clearly stated that a score of minus 14 could be received for this item. See RO16 and Conclusions of Law. Accepted. RO16 Generally accepted. RO20 Generally accepted. RO21 Supported by the evidence, but unnecessary for the decision Generally accepted. RO21 Last phrase accepted. RO37. Rest is irrelevant. Supported by the evidence, but unnecessary for the decision. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant and argumentative. Irrelevant. 47-48. Subordinate to RO39. 49-51. Generally accepted. RO39 Irrelevant. Irrelevant. 54-56. Irrelevant. 57-60. Supported by the evidence, but unnecessary. 61-63. Irrelevant. 64-65. Supported by the evidence, but unnecessary. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Rejected, not a Finding of Fact Second and third sentences generally accepted; first and fourth sentences irrelevant. Generally accepted. RO1 and 2 Accepted. RO2-4 Accepted RO5, 10, 11 Generally accepted. Generally accepted. RO25 First and second sentences accepted. RO6. Third and fourth sentences are irrelevant. Accepted. RO17 and 18 12-13. Supported by the evidence, but unncessary. 14-15. Generally accepted. RO14, 20 16. Generally accepted. RO21. Last sentence is rejected as not a fact. 17-27. Rejected as not being findings of fact; they are arguments, conclusions or recitations of testimony. 28. Generally accepted. RO9 and 10. Last sentence rejected as a conclusion. 29-30. Rejected as argument and conclusion. Generally accepted. RO19 Generally accepted. RO12 Addressed in Conclusion of Law portion of RO. 34-41. ; 43-45, 49-60. Rejected as recitation of testimony. 42. Argument and conclusions. Generally accepted Generally accepted. Last sentence is irrelevant. First sentence accepted. Last sentence rejected to extent it states that a telephone conversation did not take place. Rest of paragraph is irrelevant. Rejected as conclusion and argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Cole, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gary Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Barrett Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 1308 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Preston, Esquire Thomas M. DeRose, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 420 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32314
Findings Of Fact Wanda Forbess is an American woman. She is the president of the Petitioner corporation, Center Office Products, Inc. She owns 5l percent of that corporation's outstanding stock. The stock is full voting stock and there are no agreements in existence or anticipated which would cause any change in the percentage of ownership of Wanda Forbess, nor any change in the voting power of her stock. The Petitioner corporation and Wanda Forbess has no affiliation or relationship with any other business and Wanda Forbess is not an employee of any other business. The net worth of the Petitioner as of the date of hearing is less than one million dollars. It has also been stipulated that the Petitioner, that is, Wanda Forbess, has been performing a useful business function and operating the Petitioner's business since 1981. Wanda Forbess is the mother of Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess and the wife of Thomas D. Forbess. In 1981 her children were almost out of school, with her youngest child being about to enter college. She decided she wanted to start her own business. She had been active as a homemaker, a volunteer and active member of civic organizations. She decided to enter the office supply retail business in 1981 because of the low initial investment required due to the presence of two wholesale suppliers in Jacksonville who could supply goods for inventory on a rapid basis. She also chose to enter this business because there were no particular special skills, training or licenses required and because she knew something about it, since her husband worked for twenty-five years in one phase of the business, that of sales of paper products. This decision being made, Ms. Forbess approached her sons, Thomas J. Forbess and Raymond D. Forbess, to persuade them to enter into the business with her. They agreed to join her in the venture and she set about to form the Petitioner corporation. She desired to incorporate in order to limit the liability which she and her sons would be exposed to in operating the business. She retained an attorney to incorporate the business, but paid no particular attention herself concerning how the shares were to be issued and held or as to the manner of appointment of the members of the board of the directors. She simply followed her attorney's instructions who advised her to do the "standard type" of incorporation. The corporation estab- lished by her attorney provided, in its by-laws, that there would be three directors. Wanda, Ray and Thomas Forbess were each named as directors since they were the only three individuals involved with the Petitioner at its formation. The attorney also issued stock certificates for 200 shares each to the three directors. Wanda Forbess was appointed as president and chief executive officer of the Petitioner corporation. This was because the formation of the business and the company was Mrs. Forbess' idea and she had provided more than five times the amount of capital of each of the other two owners, her sons. In fact, she had provided $11,000 of her own money as initial capital and her two sons provided $2,000 each. Notwithstanding their equal ownership status and the equal vote each of the three has on the Board of Directors, as well as the requirement in the bylaws that a majority vote of the Board is controlling, Mrs. Forbess has been in control of the Petitioner corporation's operations from the day of its inception. Her sons do not question that control and established the fact of it in their own testimony at the hearing. The vice- president is Raymond D. Forbess and the secretary treasurer is Thomas J. Forbess. The bylaws provide that the property and business of the corporation is managed by its Board of Directors and that a majority of those directors shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be deemed to be the act of the board. It is also provided in the bylaws that the holders of the majority of shares of stock may remove a director at any time, with or without cause, at a duly called meeting. The president of the Petitioner is empowered to call such a meeting at any time. Any vacancy occurring as a result of removal of any director by the majority shareholders may be filled by the affirmative vote of the majority of remaining directors, even if less than a quorum shall be present. Directors are not required to be shareholders. Therefore, as a holder of 51 percent of the shares of the Petitioner, Wanda Forbess has control over the board of directors by the power to elect or remove any director by voting shares accordingly at a meeting which she may call at any time, with or without notice, as the president of the Petitioner corporation. Replacement directors could then be appointed by her vote alone and could be any person she elects, including, for example, an employee over who she has authority and who she may direct to vote a certain way. In any event, from 1981 through 1987, the Petitioner grew from a company with three employees to a company of 18 employees and more than $280,000 gross monthly sales. During this time, the Petitioner enjoyed some State of Florida contract business. Some time in 1987, Mrs. Forbess became aware that she would soon be unable to continue doing business with the state because her business was not a certified minority business enterprise. In fact, however, the Petitioner had been, from its inception, an American woman-controlled corporation in actual practice. On June 1, 1987, Mrs. Forbess directed her sons to convey sufficient stock to her so that she could become a 51 percent shareholder of the Petitioner corporation. This transfer was done to comply with section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, concerning the definition of "minority business enterprise." It was also done to formally reflect what had been the case, as a practical matter, since the inception of the corporation: that Wanda Forbess controlled the Petitioner corporation. The company by that time had significant value reflected in the value of its stock, but neither son required payment for his stock which he conveyed to Mrs. Forbess. They considered that she was the controlling owner of the corporation from its inception anyway due to the fact that the business was her idea and that she had contributed by far the most significant amount of initial capital. Mrs. Forbess spends a majority of her time conducting the financial affairs of the Petitioner. She is more familiar and more involved with the financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation then any other owner, officer, director or employee. In that capacity, she sets all the salaries, including the salaries of her sons and her husband. All salaries are set completely at the discretion of Mrs. Forbess and always have been. She pays her two sons and her husband a higher salary than she pays herself because their financial requirements are greater, but the salient point here is that she is the manager with the discretion to set their salaries. In 1985, after the Petitioner had been operating successfully for four years, Thomas J. Forbess, the husband of Mrs. Forbess, retired from his position with Jim Walter Paper Company after 25 years of employment with that firm. Prior to that time he had no involvement with the formation, operation or management of the Petitioner corporation. He has never had an ownership interest in the Petitioner. He is an employee of the corporation and assists in some of the operations, including preparation and submittal of bids for some of the work the corporation undertakes. Mrs. Forbess controls the purchase of goods, equipment and business inventory and services used and needed in the day- to-day operation of the business. She frequently purchases significant items used in the business, such as computers, trucks, and postage machines, as well as inventory. In addition to this, the major purchases made by the business by any co-owner or employee must be made only with her approval. Evidence was offered showing the lease agreements and notes evidencing that corporate debts related to large purchases were signed by all corporate officers as a basis for an attempt to show that decisions are made by "consensus" or are joint decisions. However, the fact that lenders and lessors require all corporate officers to sign documents evidencing leases or debts does not mean each corporate officer had an equal part to play in making the decision involved. The record is replete with evidence and testimony from employees and the other owners that Wanda Forbess has a veto power on all decisions concerning purchases, loans, leases of real property and every other major business decision the Petitioner confronts. Further, the fact that discussions are had amongst the owners and officers of the business prior to making major decisions is really a sound business practice and does not mean that one of the owners, directors or officers does not have final authority to make a binding decision. The person who has final authority for such major decisions is Wanda Forbess. Mrs. Forbess also has the authority to hire and dismiss employees, a requirement of subsection 3(b) of Rule 13-8.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. She herself has interviewed employees from time to time and also has final authority to approve all hiring and discharge decisions or to veto them in those instances where she has delegated that authority. She controls which professional services are obtained by the Petitioner corporation, as shown by her decision to discontinue the services of the former company accountant. Indeed, she has delegated some of the hiring processes, given the fact that the Petitioner corporation has grown to be a business with 18 employees. That however, is a normal, acceptable business decision. The delegation of the advertising of a position, the interviewing of prospective employees and the conveying of offers of employment to prospective employees in no way indicates that the delegator does not have the final authority to hire or dismiss the employees. Wanda Forbess also controls all financial affairs of the Petitioner corporation. She thus has unsurpassed knowledge in relation to the other owners, officers and directors, of the financial structure and operations of the business. In fact, the bulk of her time spent working for the Petitioner, corporation since its inception, has been in the field of financial matters. She makes the decisions concerning debt to be incurred by the Petitioner, and approves any major expenditure, without which approval expenditures may not be made. It is significant that Mrs. Forbess has veto authority over the extension of credit to customers and establishment of credit accounts by customers. One instance was described by Jeannine Silcox and Raymond Forbess concerning Raymond Forbess' attempt to open an account to service a particular customer on a credit basis. Mrs. Forbess opposed that procedure and ordered that the account not be opened. The account was not opened. This demonstrates effectively that not only does Mrs. Forbess control the financial affairs of the company, but also wields ultimate authority amongst the co-owners of the Petitioner. Additionally, it is undisputed that Mrs. Forbess writes the vast majority of checks on the Petitioner's two checking accounts, in terms of the requirement, at subsection 3(D) of the above-cited rule, that she control the accounts of the business. She estimates that she writes 97 percent of the checks and there is no evidence to refute that estimate. Thomas J. and Raymond B. Forbess are each authorized signatories on the accounts, but their names are simply there as a matter of convenience and the only instances in which they sign checks are when there is an immediate need for the check to be paid and Mrs. Forbess is unavailable to sign herself. There is no question that Mrs. Forbess is the ultimate authority controlling the Petitioner's bank accounts. In order to comply with subsection 3(e) of the above cited rule, the minority owner must demonstrate capability, knowledge and experience in making decisions concerning the business involved. At the time of the business's inception, neither Mrs. Forbess nor her co-owner sons had the capability, knowledge or experience required to make many of the decisions concerning the retail office supply retail business. Over seven years of operation however, Mrs. Forbess has actively supervised and managed the business of the Petitioner and has developed to a high degree those attributes, in making decisions involved in operating that business successfully. She has delegated certain aspects of the company's business to the supervision of her sons. Thomas J. Forbess, for example, is involved in developing additional retail operations. Raymond B. Forbess is more actively involved in the delivery of merchandise to customers and the monitoring of customer accounts, as well as maintaining and accounting for inventory. Nonetheless, neither of the other owners effects any significant decisions without consulting Mrs. Forbess first and gaining her approval or veto. Through this supervision and control over the past seven years, as well as her current direct involvement in managing the Petitioner's affairs, Mrs. Forbess has developed the capability, knowledge and experience required to make decisions regarding the office supply business involved herein. Her operational and managerial capabilities are demonstrated by the fact that under her leadership the business started with three employees and has grown to an 18 employee business with gross sales in the neighborhood of $280,000 per month in just over seven years. Finally, Mrs. Forbess has displayed independence and initiative in conducting all major operations and details of the Petitioner since its inception, (as required by subsection (f) of the above rule). Although she has done little bid negotiating directly, she has the ability to do so and has some experience in that activity. Further, bid proposals are submitted to her for approval and are not made without her knowledge and assent. Further, she herself negotiates leases and other contracts on behalf of the Petitioner.
The Issue Whether the Respondent properly rejected the Petitioner's bid for Board of Regents (BOR) project 658 because it did not comply with the good faith effort requirements of the General and Special Conditions of the project's specifications?
Findings Of Fact Call for Bids was issued by the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, for Board of Regents ("BOR") project numbered 658, Southeast Campus Building - Davie at Broward Community College Central Campus, in Florida Administrative Weekly. (Stipulated). The Project Manual is the volume assembled which includes the bidding requirements, sample forms, and Conditions of the Contract and Specifications (Jt. Ex. 1 at pp. 8 of 106 pages). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that at least fifteen (15) percent of the project contracted amount will be expended with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Department of General Services as set forth under the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. If fifteen percent were not obtainable, the State University System would recognize good faith efforts by the bidder (Jt. Ex. 2). The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that the bidder be advised to review the Good Faith Efforts requirements in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual immediately, in order to schedule the necessary tasks to accomplish Good Faith Efforts. The Call for Bids (Jt. Ex. 2) provided that all bidders must be qualified at the time of their bid proposal in accordance with the Instruction to Bidders, Article B-2. The Instructions to Bidders, Article B-2 at page 9 of the Project Manual, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides in pertinent part, that in order to be eligible to submit a Bid Proposal, a bidder must meet any special requirements set forth in the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-23 at page 16 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the contract will be awarded by the Respondent for projects of $500,000 or more, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder, provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Respondent to accept it. The award of the contract is subject to the demonstration of "good faith effort" by any bidder whose Bid Proposal proposes less than fifteen (15) percent participation in the contract by MBEs (Minority Business Enterprise). Demonstrated "good faith effort" is set forth in the Special Conditions. The contract award will be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low responsive aggregate bid within the preestablished construction budget. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-25 at page 17, (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that the Florida Small and Minority Business Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes requires the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The Respondent/Owner has adopted a program for the involvement of minority business enterprises in the construction program. The application of that program is set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26 at page 17 (Jt. Ex. 1) provides that bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. The Project Manual, Instructions to Bidders, B-26, at page 15 provides that falsification of any entry made on a bidder's proposal will be deemed a material irregularity and will be grounds for rejection. The Project Manual, Special Conditions, Article 1, subparagraph 1.1.1, at page I-1 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that the SUS has established a Construction Minority Business Enterprise Program in compliance with the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act, Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. The expenditure of at least fifteen (15) percent of the Base Bid with certified MBEs is a requirement of this contract, unless Good Faith Effort, as identified in paragraph 1.7 can be demonstrated by the Bidder. MBEs not certified by Department of General Services will be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of Good Faith Effort in lieu thereof will be required as identified in subparagraph 1.1.2 and paragraph 1-7 of these Special Conditions. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article I, subparagraph 1.1.2 at page I-2 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1), provides that evidence of good faith efforts will be required as specified by the Respondent/Owner within two working days after the opening of bids. Incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of paragraph 1.7 of the Special Conditions shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the Bidder. The Project Manual Special Conditions, Article 1, paragraph 1.6 at page I-3 of I-26 pages, (Jt. Ex. 1) states that MBE's participating in the State University System Minority Construction Program must be certified as a MBE by the Florida Department of General Services (hereinafter referred to as DGS) at the time of bid submittal. Certification identifies and limits the Specialty Area of business the MBE can perform and still qualify as a certified MBE. Therefore, the trade service listed on the Proposal for each of the MBEs must be within the scope of the Specialty Area. The bidder is required to ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate specialty area to perform the services for which it is listed. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-15, at p. 13). On January 17, 1992, Petitioner, Centex-Rooney Consturction Company, Intervenor, State Paving Corporation, and ten other bidders submitted bids on BOR Construction Project No. BR-658. After review of the bids and preparation of the bid tabulatio it was announced by FAU that Centex-Rooney was the apparent low bidder, but that Centex-Rooney had failed to meet the fifteen percent (15%) MBE participation requirement, and therefore, would be required to submit evidence of Good Faith Efforts within two days. The bid submitted by Centex-Rooney listed four (4) subcontractors which Centex-Rooney represented as DGS certified MBE firms, for a total of $867,000 which was 9.56% of the base bid of $9,067,000. (Stipulated). Since the bid submitted by Centex-Rooney was less than fifteen (15) percent required participation in the contract by MBEs, the University Planning Office requested that Centex-Rooney submit documentation to demonstrate "good faith effort" as set forth in the Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney timely submitted its good faith documentation on January 22, 1992. (Stipulated). The Board of Regents with representatives of Centex-Rooney on February 25, 1992 to give Petitioner an opportunity to clarity and submit any additional good faith evidence in support of its bid. After reviewing the additional evidence, the Respondent contended that Centex-Rooney was in non-compliance with paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.6.1 of the Special Conditions of the Project Manual, requiring at least 15% participation by MBEs at the time of bid opening, and at least one good faith effort criteria, paragraph 1.7.4, Special Conditions of the Project Manual. (Stipulated). Centex-Rooney was informed of the Board of Regents decision to reject its bid for non-compliance with Respondent's MBE requirements, and on March 6, 1992, the Chancellor of the Florida Board of Regents awarded the contract to State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). ^ The Board notified by letter dated March 6, 1992, all bidders of its award of contract for BR-658 project to the next lowest responsive bidder, State Paving Corporation. (Stipulated). Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on March 10, 1992. (Stipulated). On March 19, 1992, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Written Protest for BR-658. (Stipulated). A representative from Centex-Rooney attended the pre-bid/pre- solicitation meeting. (Jt. Ex. 10, R-115, 116). The minority business enterprise program was discussed and the Board of Regents' requirements for good faith efforts were reviewed. (R-116, 117, 131). Centex-Rooney submitted its bid proposal on January 17, 1992. (Jt. Ex. 13). On page 2, paragraph c., of the bid proposed form submitted by Centex- Rooney, it provides that expenditure with minority business enterprises shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 1. of the Special Conditions, Minority Business Enterprise Requirements. Centex-Rooney listed four subcontractors on its List of Subcontractors and MBE participation form as DGS certified MBEs for a total of 9.56% participation (Jt. Ex. 13, Jt. Ex. 31). The List of Subcontractors form is an integral part of the proposal (Jt. Ex. 13, List of Subcontractors Form page 1) and it is required of all bidders that MBEs must be certified at the time of bid opening for bona fide participation. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-3 of I-26 pages, R-163, 174). Two of the four subcontractors listed by Centex-Rooney, Quality Concrete and S&S Roofing, were not DGS certified MBEs at the time of bid submittal. (R-19, 150, 163, 164, 174). Therefore, the two non-DGS certified subcontractors were deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, so that the total DGS certified MBE participation of Centex-Rooney at the time of bid submittal was 5%. (Jt. Ex. 1, Spec. Conditions 1.1.1, page I-1, Jt. Ex. 13, R-19, 150, 163-4, 174). Therefore, Centex-Rooney was required to show a good faith effort to engage MBE's. See Paragraph 16 above. Ms. Patricia Jackson, MBE Coordinator for Respondent, testified that requiring the DGS certified MBEs to be named at the time of bid opening makes the contract bidding procedures consistent, and eliminates any unfair price differentials between contractors. (R-151). Centex-Rooney was pressed for time in responding to the bid. It called a large number of the MBEs listed the documentation provided, and wrote letters to those subcontractors who expressed an interest and to other subcontractors. Mr. Charles Federico was chairman of the MBE advisory committee at Florida Atlantic University (Jt. Ex. 6, R-115). The committee reviewed the good faith efforts submitted by Petitioner (Jt. Ex. 6, 25, R-115, 140). The good faith effort submittal to FAU from Centex-Rooney contained nine sections (Jt. Ex. 25) with the following consecutive headings: Pre-Bid Meeting Attendance, Advertisements for MBE Participation, Solicitation Letter to Minority Businesses, Follow-Up Contacts to Minority Businesses, Selected Items (or portions) of Work for Minority Businesses, Specific Project Bidding Information made available to Minority Businesses, Utilization of Minority Businesses in Bid, Solicitation of Available Minority Organizations to Recruit Minority Businesses, and a Table of Contents. Under the third heading in Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, Solicitation Letters to Minority Businesses, Petitioner provided 55 form letters in his submittal to FAU and a bulletin. The text of each form letter provided the following: Centex-Rooney is bidding as general contractor on the Southeast Campus Building for FAU and BCC, Central Campus, Davie, FL and invites your firm to submit a quotation for the materials and/or labor on any portion of said project which falls within your scope of work. Please review the attached notices with respect to pertinent information pertaining to the bid. If your firm will be unable to submit a bid on the project, please state your reasons on the enclosed unavailability certificate form, sign and return to the Office of C-R. By doing this, it will help maintain an active MBE directory at Centex-Rooney and continue to indulge you on our bid list. Centex-Rooney encourages that participation of MBE contractors will be more than happy to answer your questions regarding this project. Under the section heading, Follow-up Contracts to Minority Businesses, for Petitioner's good faith submittal to FAU Petitioner included a 14 page log gridded with subcontractor/ vendor names, telephone numbers, MBE designation, will bid, bid submitted, low bid, date contacted and remark sections. The FAU MBE advisory committee found Petitioner in non-compliance with 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.7 and 1.7.8 of the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual that contains the good faith efforts requirements of Respondent. (Jt. Ex. 6, Jt. Ex. 12). The committee based its findings on the Special Conditions section of the Project Manual. (R-119). The committee found non-compliance with 1.7.3 because the 55 form letters submitted by Petitioner were dated January 9, 1992. The committee determined that a letter dated January 9 was too late to give MBEs time to respond to the January 17 bid opening date. (R.121). In regard to 1.7.4, the committee found the Petitioner in non- compliance because no follow-up letters, telegrams, or meetings notes were provided in the good faith documentation. (R-122, 124). Mr. Federico testified that the committee found non-compliance with 1.7.7 of the Good Faith Effort requirements (R-125, 126) and 1.7.8. (R-126, 127). The advisory committee determination was sent to the Vice-President of Administration and Finance at FAU, Ms. Marie McDemmond. (R-128). The University President recommended award of the contract to Centex- Rooney. (Jt. Ex. 2, R-129). The University President is not authorized to award Board of Regents contracts. The Board of Regents awards contracts for projects of $500,000 or more. (Jt. Ex. 1, B-23, at page 16). Centex-Rooney could not utilize the two additional subcontractors, Kings Plumbing and Eagle Electric Distributors, because they were not listed on the Subcontractor/MBE form submitted by Centex-Rooney at the time of bid opening. (R-129, 130, 131). The University reconsidered its recommendation (Jt. Ex. 29), and subsequently recommended State Paving for award. (Jt. Ex. 32). The Handbook distributed by FAU at the pre-bid/pre-solicitation meeting contains a disclaimer which states that it is not intended to replace or supplement any information in the Project Manual or conditions for contract award (R-31, 132). State Paving met and exceeded the 15% MBE participation requirements for BR-65 (Jt. Ex. 14, R-20). Centex-Rooney's bid plus three alternatives was $9,590,000, and State Paving's bid plus three alternates was 9,592,500, so that the two bidders were $2,500 apart. (Jt. Ex. 7). At least seven of the twelve bidders on BR-658 met the 15% MBE participation goal (R-19). The FAU committee has reviewed many bids and has had several that met good faith efforts and several where the low bidders had met 15% MBE goal. (R- 117, 142). Ms. Jackson received a telephone call from Centex-Rooney regarding the FAU advisory committee's determination of non-compliance. (R-149). Ms. Jackson contacted Mr. Federico and reviewed the bid proposal and good faith efforts of Centex-Rooney on behalf of the Board of Regents. (R-148, 149). Ms. Jackson reviewed Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts as submitted to FAU and found non-compliance with 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions in the Project Manual for BR-658. (R-149). The Special Conditions of the Project Manual at page I-5 for 1.7.4, provide that the State University System requires that a bidder shall make no less than one written follow-up contact per initial contact. In the event a positive response is obtained, the Bidder shall request, in writing, a meeting between the MBE and Bidder's staff. The documentation required in the Special Conditions for 1.7.4 are copies of letters, telegrams and/or meeting rates. Ms. Jackson testified that the telephone log submitted by Centex-Rooney to document compliance with 1.7.4 did not meet the Special Conditions requirements because it was not a letter nor a telegram or a meeting note. (R-149). Nor did the telephone log reflect one written follow-up per initial contact as required by the University implementation of 1.7.4 in the Special Conditions (R-149, 157). Ms. Jackson contacted Centex-Rooney by phone and informed it of her finding that Centex-Rooney's reversal of the telephone calls and letters did not conform to the requirements of 1.7.4. (R-152). Thereafter, a meeting was arranged between Ms. Jackson and other BOR staff to provide Centex-Rooney an opportunity to provide supplemental evidence of good faith effort. (R-152). The Special Conditions section, at I-2, paragraph 1.1.2 provides that incomplete evidence which does not fully support each of the eight requirements of Paragraph 1.7 (good faith requirements) shall constitute cause for determining the bid to be unresponsive, except that the Owner may, at its option but not as a duty, seek supplementary evidence not submitted by the bidder. (R- 152). Centex-Rooney supplemented its submittal with 55 form letters dated January 24, 1992. These form letters were not considered satisfactory by Respondent as a written follow-up to each initial contact or to meet any other requirements in 1.7.4 because the letters were dated after the date of the bid opening. (Jt. Ex. 27, R-157, 158). Pursuant to Centex-Rooney's request at the February 25, 1992 meeting, Ms. Jackson again reviewed the company's documentation of its good faith efforts, evaluating the January 9, 1992 letters originally submitted as documentation for 1.7.4, as documentation for 1.7.3, and evaluating the telephone log, originally submitted as documentation of follow-up contact for 1.7.4 as initial solicitation documentation for 1.7.3. (R-153, 154). Considering Centex-Rooney's efforts in their best light, it was still determined by BOR that Centex-Rooney was not in compliance with 1.7.4. because there was no initial written contact and no written follow-up for each positive response. The telephone log is deemed to be analogous to meeting notes; however, the documentation viewed most favorably for Petitioner does not meet the written requirements of the Special Conditions which cannot be waived. (R- 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171). Two spread sheets were provided to BOR as supplemental documentation (Jt. Ex. 26). The Summary (Jt. Ex. 37) and other spread sheets (Jt. Ex. 36) were not provided to FAU by Centex-Rooney nor to Respondent in its subsequent review or as part of its option to permit supplementary documentation for good faith compliance. (R-55, 70, 71). Petitioner did not obtain the 15% MBE participation for BR 658. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions. (Jt. Ex. 1, page I-1). Two of the MBEs listed by Petitioner with its bid proposal were not certified by DGS at the time of bid submittal. Petitioner did not meet the MBE requirements contained in 1.6.1. (Jt. Ex. 2, I-3). The telephone log submitted by Petitioner was insufficient as required documentation. Petitioner did not meet the good faith efforts requirement set out in 1.7.4 of the Special Conditions (Jt. Ex. 2, page I-4). (R-175, Jt. Ex. 28, 29). The telephone log, as presented by Centex-Rooney was not a copy of a letter, a telegram or a meeting note. The telephone contact did not constitute a written follow-up contact per initial contact as required by the Special Conditions, nor did it suffice as a request in writing for a meeting between the MBE and bidder's staff if a positive response was obtained from an MBE. (R-149, 157). Conversely, as proposed by Petitioner, the telephone contact was not acceptable under the terms of the Special Conditions as an initial notice under 1.7.3 because the contact was not by letter as required. Also, there was not a letter for each initial telephone contact, and the January 9 letters did not request meetings with those MBEs who responded positively, nor did the letters provide evidence of any meeting notes. (R-157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Centex-Rooney's bid for project BR-658 was properly rejected by the Respondent, and that the Board of Regents may proceed with its award of the contract to the Intervenor, State Paving. DONE and ENTERED this day of May, 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 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-2272BID Board of Regent's proposed findings were read and considered. The findings of the BOR were adopted except for Paragraph 22 which was deemed a conclusion of law. State Pavings' proposed findings were read and considered. The following list indicated which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: 1 through 3. Adopted. Was not specifically adopted, but is correct and is subsumed in other findings. Subsumed in other findings. Rejected that Centex-Rooney "freely admits" their bid failed to meet 15% requirement, a contrary to the evidence. Subsumed Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34. Subsumed Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47. Subsumed Paragraph 50. Subsumed Paragraph 29 re documentation. Comments re Mr. Hamlin are argument and rejected. Rejected in part a restatement of statutes and law, and subsumed in other findings. Adopted that Centex-Rooney complied with 1.7.1, 1.7.2, and failed to comply with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. Centex-Rooney did comply with 1.7.5 and 1.7.6 and 1.7.8. To the extent that the evidence in this case did not show Centex-Rooney's good faith efforts, 1.7.7 was not proven. Rejected as argument. Subsumed Paragraph 35. Subsumed Paragraphs 39 and 41. Rejected as argument. Subsumed in Paragraphs 55, 56 and 57. Rejected as conclusion of law. The Petitioner's proposed findings were read and considered. The following list which of the findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Paragraphs 1 through 11. Adopted. Adopted, Paragraph 23. True; adopted in part in Paragraph and in Paragraphs 23 and 28. 14 and 15. Rejected as irrelevant. True, subsumed in Paragraph 28. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32 and 46. True, but irrelevant. There was no allegation that Centex-Rooney failed to advertise. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28 and 33. Subsumed in Paragraphs 32, 48 and 52. True but irrelevant because Centex-Rooney had fewer than 15%. True but irrelevant. Subsumed in various paragraphs. Subsumed in Paragraphs 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35. True subsumed in Paragraphs 36 and 37. Subsumed in Paragraphs 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51. Irrelevant because it does not establish compliance with 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. BOR properly rejected this evidence which was presented after the bid opening. Copies furnished: Charles B. Reed, Chancellor Florida Board of Regents State University System 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 James E. Glass, Esquire 6161 Blue Lagoon Dr., Suite 350 Miami, FL 33126 Jane Mostoller, Esquire 325 W. Gaines St., Suite 1522 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1950 J. Victor Barrios, Esquire 1026 Ease Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue In an order dated January 29, 1992, the State of Florida, Commission on Ethics found probable cause that the Respondent, as a city commissioner of the City of Cottondale, violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having a contractual relationship with a business entity which was doing business with the city. The issue in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred and, if so, what penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Leonard Norsworthy served two two-year terms as a city commissioner for the City of Cottondale, a small community in the Florida panhandle. His tenure spanned from 1987 until July 1991. Mr. Norsworthy is sole proprietor of J. & L. Housepainting and Remodeling (J & L), a roofing and remodeling business. He has a State of Florida contractor's license. Sometime in 1990, the City of Cottondale, through its grants coordinator in Tallahassee, sought and obtained Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for various needed public works. The project was advertised, and a bid was awarded to T & A Utilities Contractors, Inc. (T & A), a Lynn Haven, Florida, firm owned by Charles Williams. The total contracted amount of $244,282 included resurfacing two streets, a parking lot, a children's park, 8-inch water lines, and renovations to the city hall. Not all of the work was done immediately, as the city needed to get various permits. Due to changes in the scope of work, additional money became available for other projects, including renovating a public bathroom to make it accessible for handicapped persons. Some of the work was subcontracted by T & A to other firms. Charles Williams did not advertise for bids for the subcontracted work, but obtained proposals. He had obtained proposals from some Panama City firms for the bathroom and city hall renovations because he was not aware of firms closer to Cottondale. "Pete" Hilton was Cottondale's Public Works Director for eight years until he left in October 1992 for medical reasons. He told Charles Williams that he knew someone who could do the work for a good price, and shortly thereafter Leonard Norsworthy called Williams. Mr. Norsworthy's proposal was less than the prices quoted by the Panama City firms, and on June 5, 1991, T & A subcontracted with J & L for the renovation work for a total amount of $8,460. The sum was paid in three releases. The jobs performed by Mr. Norsworthy under the subcontract included redoing the bathroom and a handicap ramp entrance, installing rain gutters, removing a wall and plastering and finishing a wall. At no charge for his labor, Mr. Norsworthy also painted the building. Leonard Norsworthy knew about the city's revitalization contract with T & A because he was a city commissioner at the time. While the city was a party to the contract, the specifications and the background work were handled by the city engineer, who recommended the award to T & A. Leonard Norsworthy admits that he did the work and says, "You live and learn." He concedes that there are others in the area who could have done the work, but believes he gave a good price for the job. He says that work is scarce in the area and you have to take it where you find it. He knew that the law prohibited doing business with one's own agency, but he had no idea that the prohibition extended to subcontracts as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission enter its final order and public report finding that Leonard Norsworthy violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, and recommending a penalty of $300.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of April 1993. 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 12th day of April 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Willis, Esquire Michael Ingraham, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard Norsworthy Post Office Box 299 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue The issue is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny Top Flight's development application approved by the Board on July 26, 2004. That decision approved a Flexible Development application to permit a reduction on the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet (to pavement) and an increase of building height from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) in association with the construction of 62 multi-family residential (attached) units at 1925 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On September 25, 2003, Top Flight filed a Flexible Development Application for Level Two approval of a comprehensive infill for redevelopment of properties located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive and just north of Sunset Pointe Road in Clearwater, Florida. A Comfort Suites motel is just north of the property, while a Chevron gasoline station sits on the south side. The property is located within the Tourist zoning district, which allows condominiums as a permitted use. The project, as originally proposed, involved the construction of a seventy-seven unit, seven-story (including covered parking), luxury condominium on a 2.572-acre tract of land now occupied by 32 motel units and 9 rental apartments with ancillary structures, which the developer intends to raze. The original application requested a deviation from the requirement in the Code that structures in the Tourist zoning district not exceed 35 feet in height. Under flexible development standards for that zoning district, however, a structure may be built to a maximum height of between 35 and 100 feet. (Although the City staff is authorized to approve requests for a deviation up to a maximum height of 50 feet without a hearing, Top Flight was requesting a flexible deviation to allow the building to be constructed an additional 25 feet, or to a height of 75 feet. This was still less than the 100 feet allowed under flexible development standards.) On December 24, 2003, Top Flight filed a second application which amended its earlier application by seeking a reduction of the front yard setback on Sunnydale Drive from 25 feet to 17 feet to allow the placement of balcony support columns within the setbacks. Without a deviation, the Code requires a minimum 25-foot front yard setback. The second application continued to seek a deviation in height standards to 75 feet. Because of staff concerns, on February 5, 2004, Top Flight filed a third Flexible Development application for the purpose of amending its earlier applications. The matter was placed on the agenda for the March 16, 2004, meeting of the Board. At the meeting on March 16, 2004, the City's staff recommended that certain changes in the design of the building be made. In order to make these suggested changes, Top Flight requested that the matter be continued to a later date. That request was granted, and the matter was placed on the agenda for the April 20, 2004, meeting. At the April 20, 2004, meeting, Board members again expressed concern over the height of the building, the lack of stair stepping, and the bulk, density, and height. Because of these concerns, Top Flight requested, and was granted, a 90-day continuance to address these concerns. Appellant, who was present at that meeting, did not object to this request. The matter was then placed on the agenda for May 18, 2004, but because of a notice problem, it was continued to the July 20, 2004, meeting. During the April 20, 2004, meeting, the Board allowed Top Flight's architect, Mr. Aude, and a City Planner III, Mr. Reynolds, to make their presentations prior to asking if any persons wished party status. (Section 4-206.D.3.b. provides that, as a preliminary matter, the chair of the Board shall "inquire of those attending the hearing if there is any person who wishes to seek party status.") Mr. Reynolds was not sworn, even though Section 4-206.D.3.d requires that all "witnesses shall be sworn." After the presentations by Mr. Aude and Mr. Reynolds, Appellant was given party status. Therefore, Appellant could not cross-examine the two witnesses immediately after they testified. However, Appellant did not request the right to examine those witnesses nor did she lodge an objection to the procedure followed by the Board. Also, assuming that Mr. Aude and Mr. Reynolds were treated as experts by the Board, there is no indication that either witness submitted a resume at the hearing. (Section 4-206.D.5.a. requires that "[a]ny expert witness testifying shall submit a resume for the record before or during the public hearing.") However, no objection to this error in procedure was made by any person, including Appellant. Based on the concerns of staff and Board members at the April 20, 2004, meeting, and to accommodate objections lodged by nearby residents, Top Flight modified its site plan by reducing the height of the building from 75 to 59 feet (which in turn reduced the height of the building from six stories over parking to four) and increasing the number of parking spaces. Other changes during the lengthy review process included decreasing the side (rather than the front) setback from a minimum of 10 feet to 5.85 feet and preserving two large oak trees on the property. The proposed height was significantly less than the maximum allowed height in the Tourist district (100 feet), and the proposed density of 59 units was also considerably less than the maximum allowed density on the property (30 units per acre, or a total of 77 on the 2.57-acre tract). The application, as amended, was presented in this form at the July 20 meeting. Documents supporting the various changes were filed by Mr. Aude in February, March, April, May, and June 2004, and are a part of the record. At the hearing on July 20, 2004, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Aude again testified in support of the application, as amended. The staff report prepared by Mr. Reynolds was made a part of the record. (Section 4-206.G provides that the record shall consist of, among other things, "all applications, exhibits and papers submitted in any proceeding.") The report found that "all applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and the flexibility criteria for attached units (Section 2-803.B) have been met." The Board accepted this evidence as the most persuasive on the issue. The Board further accepted the testimony of Mr. Aude, and a determination in the staff report, that the project would be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. In doing so, it implicitly rejected the testimony of Appellant, and other individuals, that the height of the building was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Finally, the Board accepted Mr. Reynolds' recommendation that the application should be approved, subject to eighteen conditions. The vote was 4-2 for approval. During the July 20, 2004, meeting, Mr. Reynolds was cross-examined by another party, Mr. Falk. Although given the right to do so, Appellant did not question the witness. All parties, including Appellant, were given the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Aude, but none sought to do so. The parties were also given the opportunity to ask questions of Top Flight's counsel, who gave argument (but not evidence) on behalf of his client. Although members of the public, and Appellant, were limited in the amount of time allowed for statements to three minutes, all persons who gave testimony or made statements that day, including Appellees, were urged by the chair to limit their remarks. Finally, Top Flight's counsel was allowed to make a closing argument at the meeting, at which time he used a demonstrative exhibit (a "chart" containing the names of area residents who supported the project), which was shown to Board members. (The same information can be found in the City files, which are a part of this record and contain correspondence from numerous area residents, some supporting, and others opposing, the project.) Although Appellant was not shown a copy of the document, the record does not show that she objected to the use of a demonstrative exhibit, or that she requested to see a copy. Mr. J. B. Johnson was appointed to the Board sometime after the April 20, 2004, meeting. At the July 20, 2004, meeting, he made the following statement concerning Top Flight's application: I can't speak for everybody here. Some people have lived here a short period of time. In view of every word that I have heard, every word that I have read, and I've been keeping up with this for several months because several months ago I had telephone calls from your area. I don't know how you could satisfy everybody. It's impossible, but I do know this, this is a great project. One that would be good for the City. One for the area, good for the area and I will support this. Appellant has not cited to any evidence showing that Mr. Johnson did not review the record of the prior meetings or the application file before he cast his vote. Further, Appellant did not object to Mr. Johnson's participation. On July 26, 2004, the Board entered its DO memorializing the action taken on July 20, 2004, which approved Top Flight's application. In the DO, the Board made the following findings/conclusions supporting its decision: The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per Section 2-803.B The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. The decision also included 18 Conditions of Approval and a requirement that an application for a building permit be made no later than July 20, 2005. On August 3, 2004, Appellant filed her Appeal Application seeking a review of the Board's decision. The Appeal Application set out two relevant grounds (without any further specificity): that the Board's decision was not supported by the evidence, and that the Board departed from the essential requirements of the law. On August 19, 2004, the City referred the Appeal Application to DOAH. The specific grounds were not disclosed until Appellant presented oral argument and filed her Proposed Final Order.1
The Issue Whether Petitioner waived its right to protest the Supplemental Notice of Intent to Award issued by the Department on December 1, 2020.
Findings Of Fact On March 17, 2020, the Department issued Request for Proposals Number 06-80101500-J (the RFP) seeking vendors to provide services through state term contracts in two categories (Service Categories): (1) management consulting services (MCS) and (2) financial and performance audit services (FPA). The awarding of state term contracts resulting from the RFP does not guarantee the awarded vendors business; instead, being selected for award under a state term contract merely allows the awarded vendors to further compete for business from state agencies and certain defined eligible users who require the services offered under the contract. After vendors are selected for a state term contract, a state agency or eligible user who requires the services issues a request for quotes from the state term contract vendors. The vendors decide whether they want to compete for the specific services solicited by submitting a quote, and the procuring agency or user then selects from the contracted vendors the vendor that can best fit its unique needs based on the quotes. Accordingly, the purpose of the RFP is simply to pre-qualify the vendors for the future possibility of obtaining work from state agencies and eligible users. Consequently, the Department’s award to multiple vendors for each Service increases competition and gives the users significant choice in selecting a vendor, with each additional award having the effect of increasing the competition and choice available to state agencies and other eligible users who utilize the state term contract. The Department separately evaluated proposals submitted in the two Service Categories and made separate awards for each Service Category. Integrity Group submitted proposals for both Service Categories. Petitioner’s Protest concerns only the actions of the Department in conducting the procurement for the MCS Service Category and does not implicate the FPA Service Category. As part of the evaluation for the MCS Service Category, each vendor submitted a summary of its experience and a separate proposal for each individual Service (Services a through l) within the MCS Service Category. Integrity Group submitted a response summarizing its experience and an individual proposal for each of the MCS Services (Services a through l). Five evaluators appointed by the Department were tasked with scoring each vendor’s response with respect to experience, as well as separately evaluating and scoring each Service proposal submitted for Services a through l. The vendor with the highest score for each Service was awarded a state term contract for such Service, and the RFP reserved to the Department the right to make additional awards to vendors that scored within 25% of the highest score for each Service. The Department initially posted its Notice of Intent to Award and a list of the vendors that were awarded contracts in each Service on September 29, 2020. While the Department awarded Integrity Group state term contracts for the FPA Service Category, it did not make any awards to Integrity Group for the MCS Service Category. The Notice of Intent to Award for the MCS category posted by the Department on September 29, 2020, stated: State of Florida Notice of Intent to Award Management Consulting Services RFP No: 06-801 01500-J Date: September 29, 2020 As to the Management Consulting Services (MCS) category of the above-mentioned Request for Proposals, pursuant to sections 287.057(1)(b) and 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, the Department of Management Services hereby posts its Notice of Intent to Award a contract to the vendors listed in the MCS Award List attachment. Vendors who submitted proposals but were not awarded a Contract are listed in the MCS No Award attachment. Vendors who have submitted proposals deemed non-responsive are listed in the MCS Non-responsive attachment. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, or failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any protest concerning this agency decision or intended decision must be timely filed with the Agency Clerk. Protests may be filed by courier, hand delivery, or U.S. mail at Department of Management Services, Office of the General Counsel, Attention: Agency Clerk, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950. Protests may also be filed by fax at 850-922-6312 or by email at agencyclerk@dms.fl.gov. It is the filing party’s responsibility to meet all filing deadlines. From October 9 to 12, 2020, the Department received formal protests from four vendors not initially selected for award: Intervenor, MGT; TEK Systems Global Services, LLC; Slalom, LLC; and Tidal Basin Government Consulting, LLC. Integrity Group did not file a notice of protest within 72 hours of the Department’s posting of its September 29, 2020, Notice of Intent to Award, and did not file a formal written protest within ten calendar days from the filing of a notice of protest. On December 1, 2020, and after having engaged in resolution conferences with each of the protesting vendors, the Department issued a Supplemental Notice of Intent to Award, which awarded contracts to the four protesting vendors. Thereafter, on December 4, 2020, Integrity Group filed a notice of intent to protest related to the Department’s Supplemental Notice of Intent to Award, and on December 14, 2020, filed Petitioner’s Protest. Petitioner’s Protest alleges that “the Integrity Group is substantially and adversely affected by the Department’s improper and fundamentally flawed procurement process and erroneous decision to exclude the Integrity Group from receiving any awards.” However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law below, Petitioner’s Protest is untimely, has been waived, and should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner lacks standing and dismissing Petitioner’s Protest with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Rebekah Davis, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marion Drew Parker, Esquire Radey Law Firm Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mia L. McKown, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Benjamin J. Grossman, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP Suite 900 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher Brian Lunny, Esquire Radey Law Firm Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mallory Neumann, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP Suite 900 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Hall, Esquire Dean Mead & Hall Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James A. McKee, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP Suite 900 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Chorba, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Jonathan Satter, Secretary Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 285 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Daniel R. Russell, Esquire Dean Mead & Hall Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Company, Al Raska Contractors, Inc., located at 503 South MacDill Avenue, Tampa, Florida, is a contractor which specializes in installing highway guardrails, rip rap, slope pavement, and signs. Between 1970 and 1980, it was owned by Al Raska and operated as a sole proprietorship. In February, 1980, it was incorporated by Al Raska, Jack Williams, and Dan Fisher, with Al Raska as president. (Testimony of Raska, R-1.) The Company began to experience financial difficulties. Mr. Raska concluded that it needed additional capital and new leadership. He realized that he "was not the one to carry the leadership of it. . . ." (Tr. 39.) Mr. Raska looked to Eugenio Ramos for help. (Testimony of Raska.) They reached an agreement. As a result, Eugenio Ramos -- an Hispanic residing in Texas -- became president and majority (51 percent) owner of the Company in September, 1980. In exchange, Mr. Ramos contributed $25,000 to the Company and established an additional $25,000 letter of credit. (The Company used the $25,000, in cash, to purchase equipment and defray operating expenses.) Mr. Raska became vice-president: . . . I stepped aside [to] do what I could do best, work in the field rather than run [the Company]. . . (Tr. 39.) Jack Williams remained as secretary-treasurer of the Company. (Testimony of Raska, Ramos, Williams.) II. Since September, 1980, Eugenio Ramos, 506 Lake Park, Waxahachie, Texas, has possessed the power to direct the management and policies of the Company, including the power to make day-to-day as well as major business decisions. In practice, he delegated authority to Mr. Raska and, to a lesser extent, to Mr. Williams to supervise and carry out the day-to-day operations of the Company. Mr. Raska, as the supervisor of field operations, corks at the Company's job sites, trains employees, does drawings, develops job estimates, signs payroll, schedules jobs, and maintains close contact with prime contractors. Because of Mr. Raska's years of experience and expertise, Mr. Ramos relies heavily on his advice. Mr. Williams also supervises the various job sites and assists in preparing estimates. (Testimony of Raska, Ramos, Williams.) All major business decisions, however, are made by Mr. Ramos, ordinarily after considering the advice of Mr. Raska. While job estimates are prepared by Mr. Raska, the decision to bid on a project is made by Mr. Ramos. No written contracts are signed without Mr. Ramos' approval. Mr. Raska and Mr. Williams, who Supervise field operations, were hired by and serve at the pleasure of Mr. Ramos. No heavy equipment may be purchased without Mr. Ramos' approval. (Testimony of Ramos, Raska.) Mr. Ramos communicates with Mr. Raska and Mr. Williams frequently, despite Mr. Ramos' residence in Texas. He visits the Company seven or eight times a year to meet with his Supervisors and discuss ongoing work. He spends approximately 97 percent of his time in Texas. But he communicates by telephone with the Company office on almost a daily or weekly basis. During one month, his telephone bill was $900. (Testimony of Raska, Ramos; P-5.) The Company has, under contract, jobs worth more than two million dollars. There are three projects now under construction. Although at hearing Mr. Ramos was familiar with the projects under construction, he could not recall some of the pertinent details. (Testimony of Ramos.) Sunil B. Nath administers the Department's Minority Business Enterprise Liaison Office. Chapter 14-78 is the Department's rule governing certification of minority business enterprises. Mr. Nath interprets this rule as requiring the minority owner to carry out the day-to-day operations of a company; in his view, a minority owner cannot delegate day-to-day management and retain eligibility for Minority Business Certification. (Tr. 150.) No basis was presented for this conclusion other than the language of the rule. (Testimony of Nath.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Company's application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be granted. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of October, 1982.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to certification as a Minority Business Enterprise pursuant to Rule 38A-20.005, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On February 12, 1998, Teddy L. Serdynski and Janice A. Serdynski entered into a Partnership Agreement which in pertinent part provides as follows: NAME: The name of the partnership shall be known as "Ted's Auto Parts." PURPOSE: The purpose of the partnership shall be the operation of an automobile parts business and related enterprises. * * * COMMENCEMENT: The partnership shall officially commence upon execution of this agreement. DURATION: The partnership shall continue until dissolved, either by the parties or by legal proceedings, or by liquidation. CAPITAL: The capital of the partnership shall be contributed in amounts equalling 51% by JANICE A. SERDYNSKI and 49% by TEDDY L. SERDYNSKI, thereby granting to the said JANICE A. SERDYNSKI the controlling interest of said partnership. WITHDRAWAL: No partner shall withdraw any invested capital without the consent of the other partner. CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES: Capital gains and losses shall be shared in a proportionate amount of their investment and ownership interest. * * * MANAGEMENT: Although JANICE A. SERDYNSKI is the owner of a controlling interest in the partnership, each shall have equal voice in the management of the affairs of the partnership. Both parties shall administer to the general affairs of the partnership and shall carry out and put into effect the general policies and specific instructions of their decision on any given matter. BANK ACCOUNTS: The partnership shall maintain checking and other accounts in such bank or banks as the partners shall agree upon. Withdrawals and writing of checks on the partnership account may be done jointly and/or singly. PROFITS AND LOSSES: The partners shall share in accordance with their ownership interest in the profits and losses. . . . LIMITATIONS ON PARTNER: No partner, without the consent of the other partner, shall borrow money in the partnership name for partnership purposes or utilize collateral owned by the partnership as security for such loans, assign, transfer, pledge, compromise or release any of the claims or debts due to the partnership except on payment in full; consent to the arbitration of any dispute or controversy of the partnership; transfer firm assets; make, execute or deliver any assignment for the benefit of creditors; maker, execute or deliver any bond, confession of judgment, guaranty bond, indemnity bond, or surety bond or any contract to sell, bill of sale, deed, mortgage, lease relating to any substantial part of the partnership assets or his/her interest therein; or engage in any business or occupation without the consent of the other partner. * * * 17. DISPUTES: That the parties agree that all disputes and differences, if any, which shall arise between the parties, shall be referred to and decided by two indifferent, competent persons in or well acquainted with the trade, one person to be chosen by each party, or to submit to arbitration by a recognized arbitration service, and his/her or their decisions shall, in all respect, be final and conclusive on all parties. Ted's Auto Parts was a sole proprietorship from May 1, 1985 until February 11, 1998. From May 1, 1985, until February 11, 1998, Janice A. Serdynski shared ownership in Ted's Auto Parts equally with her husband, Teddy L. Serdynski, a non- minority. Janice A. Serdynski does not share income from Ted's Auto Parts commensurate with her 51 percent ownership. Decision-making, withdrawal of funds, borrowing of money, and the day-to-day management of Ted's Auto Parts are shared equally between Janice A. Serdynski and Teddy L. Serdynski. Ted's Auto Parts is a family operated business with duties, responsibilities, and decision-making occurring jointly, and, at time, mutually among family members. Both Janice A. Serdynski and Teddy L. Serdynski are authorized to sign checks on the account of Ted's Auto Parts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for Minority Business Enterprise certification and dismiss the petition filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas I. Jamerson. Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Janice A. Serdynski Ted's Auto Parts 190 Second Avenue, South Bartow, Florida 33830 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
