Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jim Neel & Associates, Inc., a Florida corporation, applied to the Department of Transportation (DOT) for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. The majority stockholder of Jim Neel & Associates, Inc., is Jim Silver Eagle Neel. On his mother's side Jim Neel is a direct descendant of Creek Indians Who were enrolled in the 1832 Census for that Tribe. Additionally, his father's family is known to be descended from the Cherokee Tribe. In terms of blood lines it is estimated that Mr. Neel is one-quarter American Indian. However, Mr. Neel has the features of a Native American. However, Mr. Neel has actively participated in the activities of the Lower Creek Muskogee Tribe since the beginning of 1986. 1/ He is considered by the National and local Creek Indian Tribes to be a member of their group. Additionally, Petitioner has been recognized by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs as being a member of the Creek Indian Tribe. Such recognition enables Petitioner to participate in the Eastern Creek Judgment Fund which was awarded against the federal government for treaty violations to members of the Eastern Creek Tribe. Prior to the beginning of 1986, Mr. Neel did not maintain any direct affiliation with a tribe. To the best of his knowledge, his mother did not maintain any direct affiliation with a tribe. However, the evidence did show his mother kept in contact with local Creeks on an informal basis. Additionally, when Mr. Neel was young, his mother would tell him stories about his Indian heritage, but advise him not to reveal the fact of his Indian heritage to others. When Mr. Neel was growing up it was not wise to declare one's Indian heritage due to the racial prejudice which would be inflicted on that individual. In fact, Mr. Neel did not feel he could freely declare his heritage until about ten years ago. Mr. Neel was raised on a poor rural farm in northwest Florida. His mother, due to her Indian heritage, was uneducated. She could not read or write and, therefore could not obtain above menial wages to support her family. The entire family, including Petitioner, existed under an economic as well as social disadvantage. Through sheer determination, Petitioner literally pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Around 1948 he became an auto/truck mechanic. Around 1955 he began as a service manager for an Oldsmobile dealer. Because the wages of a mechanic were low at that time, Mr. Neel changed careers and joined the Panama City Police force. He was a city police officer for the next fifteen years. In 1972 he was employed by the Panama City Airport Authority as a security officer. He rose by promotion to become the Airport Manager from 1980 through 1987. At present he is a consultant to the Airport Authority. No evidence was presented by the Department which would be sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Neel had not suffered social and economic disadvantage on an individual basis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the application of Jim Neel and Associates, Inc. for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of April, 1989.
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 The issue is whether the Petitioner is qualified for designation and certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact At the hearing, it became apparent that the reasons for denial were principally lack of independence and affiliation with a non-qualifying company. The parties stipulated to the following: Ms. Wendy Stephens, President and Secretary of WPS and sole stockholder WPS, possess the authority to, and does in fact, exercise complete control over the management, daily operations and corporate affairs of WPS. Ms. Stephens possesses the technical capability, managerial qualifications and expertise to operate WPS. The following facts were proven at hearing: Ms. Stephens is a white, female and is qualified as a minority person under the statute. In 1991, Charles Perry, Ms. Stephen's father and a white male, provided $7,000 for start up capital and a lease of 3 acres on his farm to house Alachua Greenery, a wholesale/retail nursery which Wendy Stephens began with assistance from Perry. Ms. Stephens has never made payments on the aforementioned lease. Charles Perry and Wendy Stephens were the sole stockholders in Alachua Greenery, each holding 50 percent of the shares in the corporation. Perry has contributed nothing more to the operation of the corporation, and has never exercised any control over the corporation, although he was initially a director. WPS is a Florida corporation, domiciled and doing business in the state. WPS is worth less than $3,000,000 and has three employees. Ms. Stephens is and always has been the sole stockholder of WPS, and has served as its President and Secretary since its incorporation. Ms. Stephens husband, Gary Stephens, was once a director of WPS upon the advice of counsel; however, he exercised no control over the corporation and resigned as a director on April 12, 1996. Gary Stephens sold a Bobcat tractor to Wendy Stephens upon which he has deferred payments. This Bobcat is used by WPS and Alachua Greenery. Gary Stephens has no other financial or other interest in WPS or Alachua Greenery. WPS was formed for the purpose of engaging in the retail landscaping business, which is a logical business expansion from the wholesale nursery business. WPS has engaged in the retail landscaping business for several customers. WPS shares equipment, land, vehicles, and employees with Alachua Greenery. There is no evidence that WPS, which has performed a number of contracts, has been a conduit of money to Alachua Greenery. On May 13, 1996, Perry gifted his share of Alachua Greenery to Wendy Stephens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for minority business status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-0023 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. References to numbered paragraphs in Petitioner's findings includes all letter subparagraphs unless otherwise noted. PETITIONER'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1,2 Statement of Case Paragraph 3 Irrelevant Paragraphs 4-6 Statement of Case Paragraph 7a Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7b Subsumed in Paragraph 6 Paragraph 7c Subsumed in Paragraphs 6 & 8 Paragraph 7d Contrary to best evidence Paragraph 7e Irrelevant Paragraph 7f Subsumed in Paragraph 9 Paragraph 7g Irrelevant Paragraphs 7h,i Paragraph 7 Paragraphs 7j,k,l Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraphs 7m,n,o,p Paragraph 4 Paragraph 7q Subsumed in Paragraph 12 Paragraph 7r Paragraph 11 Paragraphs 7s,t Irrelevant RESPONDENT'S RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 8 Paragraph 3 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 10 Paragraph 6 Not necessary Paragraph 7,8 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 9 Not necessary COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire Peter A. Robertson and Associates 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development 107 West Gaines Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2005 Veronica Anderson, Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation is the state agency charged with the responsibility to develop and adopt criteria for a DBE program, and administer the DBE program. Burkett is a Florida corporation whose sole stockholder is a white female American. She meets the criteria of a socially and economically disadvantaged individual. Burkett applied for certification as a DBE on July 12, 1991, and on October 1, 1991, the Department denied Burkett certification. Burkett submitted additional information and made changes in its internal organization to better conform to the Department's requirements; however, the Department has denied Burkett the designation based upon the owner's lack of expertise in the critical areas of the firm's operation, to wit; she does not possess education or experience in engineering. The parties stipulate that Burkett is substantially effected by the rules being challenged, and possesses standing to bring this rule challenge. In determining the qualifications of an applicant for DBE status, the Department utilizes Sections 334.044(2), 337.137, 339.05, and 339.0805, Florida Statutes; 49 CFR Part 23; the United States Department of Transportation administrative decisions; guidelines and training manuals from USDOT or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and its own rules. At the recommendation of a representative from FHWA, the Department amended the rules being challenged regarding qualifications for DBE certification to explicate the requirement for ownership control, as required by Section 339.0805(1),(c), supra, and 49 CFR Part 23.53, to include the concept of "expertise in critical areas of operation of the business" which is required by the USDOT. The terms "expertise" and "critical areas of operation" are not defined in the Florida Statutes or DOT's rules. The DOT interprets "critical areas of operation" to mean the technical area in which the DBE certification is being sought. Management limited to the day-to-day normal business operations is not considered to be a "critical area of operation." The DOT's evaluation of "expertise" changes from business to business based upon the applicant's type of work. The department expects to see education and experience on the part of the disadvantaged owner in the technical area of operations of the business. The Department denied the Petitioner DBE certification because the disadvantaged owner did not possess engineering experience or education.
Findings Of Fact General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc. (Petitioner), is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of general contracting and construction (construction and renovation of commercial and residential buildings), including subcontracting, since 1985. Petitioner's President is Ms. Akram Niroomand-Rad and its Vice-President is Mr. Kamran Ghovanloo, Ms. Niroomand-Rad's husband. Petitioner is a small business concern as defined by Subsection 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. Prior to April 1990, Ms. Niroomand-Rad owned 50 percent of Petitioner's stock. In April 1990, she acquired 100 percent of the stock and became the Petitioner's sole owner. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is a minority person as defined by Subsection 288.703(3), Florida Statutes. According to Petitioner's articles of incorporation and by-laws, its corporate business is conducted by a majority of the board of directors. Petitioner has two directors, Ms. Niroomand-Rad and Mr. Ghovanloo, 1/ and as such, the minority owner does not control the board of directors. Also, according to Petitioner's by-laws, Petitioner's President manages its business and affairs subject to the direction of the board of directors. Petitioner's licensed contractor is Mr. Ghovanloo who is a certified general contractor. Ms. Niroomand-Rad is not a licensed contractor although she is taking course work to become a licensed contractor. Mr. Ghovanloo is Petitioner's qualifier, and, as its qualifier, brings his expertise and license to the business. Further, as qualifier, he is also responsible for the finances of Petitioner and for pulling the necessary permits in order for Petitioner to perform the contractual work. Additionally, Mr. Ghovanloo performs Petitioner's estimating, handles quality inspection of job sites, assists in the evaluation and preparation of bids, and attends some of the pre-bid meetings on projects. Ms. Niroomand-Rad has been involved in soliciting bids, reviewing bids and estimates, negotiating contracts, visiting clients, responding to correspondence, overseeing financial activities, hiring and firing, and visiting job sites. However, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily upon Mr. Ghovanloo's technical expertise, expert opinions, and judgment and upon others for guidance and for handling the technical aspects of the business. Further, Ms. Niroomand-Rad relies heavily on Mr. Ghovanloo, and others to a lesser degree, regarding the purchasing of goods, equipment, or inventory, and services needed for the day-to-day operation of the business, including evaluating and retaining subcontractors. Mr. Ghovanloo is authorized to sign checks without restriction. Ms. Niroomand-Rad was reared in a construction environment. Also, she has completed a construction management course offered by the City of Miami and is a licensed real estate broker. Petitioner has been certified as an MBE by Dade County and the Dade County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order denying General Contractors & Construction Management, Inc., certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 24th day of July, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department had the authority to certify those firms who qualified as MBE's for the purpose of contracting with it under the provisions of Chapter 13-8, F.A.C. When an application for MBE status is received at the Department's certification office in Tallahassee, it is assigned to one of five certifying officers who reviews it and determines whether it is complete as submitted or requires additional documentation. This is called a desk audit review. In the event all required documents have not been submitted with the application, they are requested in writing and the applicant has thirty days to provide them. Failure to do so results in denial of the application. If, on the other hand, all the required documentation is present, a decision is then made as to whether an on-site visit of the applicant's operation is necessary. If so, Department personnel go to the site and look to see if the business can qualify as an MBE. If an on-site visit is appropriate, but for some reason cannot be made, Department personnel try to get the required information by phone. The decision to approve or deny certification is made, based on the reviewing certifying officer's recommendation, by the certification manager who, before making a decision, personally reviews the file and, if appropriate, sends it to the Department's legal staff for additional review. Once the legal staff has made its recommendation, if the decision is made to deny the application, a letter of denial is sent to the applicant who may then appeal that decision. An application must meet all criteria set out in Rule 13-8, F.A.C. to be certified as an MBE. Each application is looked at on a case by case basis to see if those criteria are met. In the instant case, the denial was based on the Department's concern over several factors. These are related to Rule 13- 8.005(3), F.A.C. and included A question as to whether the business was actually controlled by Ms. Hogan. The nature of the corporate structure. The application of Chapter 47, F.A.C., dealing with the construction industry. The ability of both Hogan and Perretta to sign business checks. Whether Ms. Hogan had the technical and mechanical capability, skills and training to run a construction company, and Whether Ms. Hogan could effectively control such areas as financing, purchasing, hiring and firing, and the like. In arriving at its decision to deny Petitioner's application, the Department relied only on those matter submitted with the application. It did not ask for or seek any information about the company and its operation beyond that initially provided. Notwithstanding her recommendation in this case, Ms. Freeman has previously recommended the certification of numerous woman owned businesses as MBEs. On April 6, 1990, Ms. Hogan, as owner of E.C. Construction, Inc., a licensed general contractor qualified under the license of Carmen M. Perretta, applied to the Department for certification as a woman owned MBE. The application form reflected Ms. Hogan as the sole owner of the business, a corporation created under the laws of Florida. Ms. Hogan was listed on both the Articles of Incorporation, (1989), and the application form in issue here as the sole officer and director of the corporation, as well. Mr. Perretta was to be merely an employee of the firm, E.C. Construction, Inc.. In that regard Ms. Hogan claims, and it is so found, that the letters, "E. C." in the corporate name do not stand for Elinor and Carmen. Instead, they stand for Elite and Creative. Ms. Hogan is a 63 year old widow who professes a long-standing interest in building, design and decorating. In 1950, she and her husband started a floor covering business in another state which they operated for nineteen years. In 1969 they moved to Florida where her husband started a lawn maintenance business in Sarasota. She worked full time as a nurse at a local hospital and still found time to assist her husband in every aspect of their business including marketing, bookkeeping, public relations, etc. Her husband took ill in early 1986 and from that time on and after his death in May, 1988, until the business was sold almost a year later, she exercised complete control. She still runs a wedding supply and stationery business from her home. She sold the lawn business because she wanted to break the emotional links with the past and since she had some experience in construction, design and remodeling of her own home, went into the construction business establishing the Petitioner firm. In the few preceding years, she had designed and supervised several construction projects in the area in which she attended to financing, hiring the1 subcontractors, and supervision of the work. She also took some courses in design and has taken other courses and seminars in financing, accounting, marketing, advertising and operating a small business. Ms. Hogan and her husband met Mr. Perretta in 1987 when they put an addition on their house and she was impressed by his talents. When she decided to look into going into the construction business, she turned to him for advice and ultimately recruited him as the corporation's qualifying agent. Notwithstanding the fact that neither the corporate documents nor the application for MBE status so reflect, Ms. Hogan's lawyer now indicates that Perretta was also made a Vice-President of the firm, but his authority was limited to those actions necessary to meet the minimum compliance requirements of Florida law. When confronted with this discrepancy, Ms. Hagan claimed that the corporate papers and the application were in error and that she didn't know what they meant when she signed them. Ms. Hogan claims to be in full and complete control of all corporate activities, and to delegate to Mr. Perretta those responsibilities and functions, relating to the actual construction, that he is best qualified to carry out. She claims she does not share dominant control of the daily business activities of the firm though the evidence indicates both she and Mr. Perretta can individually sign corporate checks. In that regard, she claims he has signed only 19 of more than 500 checks issued by the firm since its inception. They have an understanding he will sign checks only for the purchase of materials, and then only in an emergency situation. He claims to no longer use that authority. The Department introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Hogan admits to not having formal construction training or experience but, based on her other experience, believes she is qualified to run a business. Under her leadership the company has reportedly secured over one million dollars in contracts and for the most part, has performed them successfully. Under oath she claims to negotiate the contracts, prepare the estimates and deal with contracting customers in all the projects in which the company is engaged. She claims to have made those contractual decisions independent of Mr. Perretta to whom she is not accountable. Yet, as was seen, the Articles of Incorporation wrongfully indicate her as the only officer when Mr. Perretta was actually a Vice-President, and she claims not to have known that. This gives rise to some doubt as to her business credentials. In reality, Mr. Perretta actually directs and supervises the actual construction work at all job sites and schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job when needed. When changes are required, Mr. Perretta gives the necessary information to Ms. Hogan who prepares the change orders, including the typing, and forwards them as appropriate. Ms. Hogan has also entered into an agreement, dated June 25, 1989, with Mr. Perretta whereby, in lieu of salary as qualifying agent and field superintendent for the company, he is to receive 40% of the gross profits of each construction project. He gets a periodic draw against that percentage. In addition, in May, 1989, Ms. Hogan, as President, and Mr. Perretta, as Vice- President, entered into an agreement with Raymond Meltzer to retain him as general manager of E.C.'s Designer Structures division. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Meltzer was to have "absolute, unlimited and exclusive authority" to conduct all affairs of the division, except to incur debt other than short term debt to subcontractors. Mr. Meltzer was to have the right to draw checks on a separate E.C. account in a bank of his choosing, and was to receive 95% of all monies received as a result of the activities of that division. E.C. was to obtain the required permits or licenses for projects and to provide such supervision as is required by law. Though Petitioner did not incorporate under the name Designer Structures, nor did it register that name under the fictitious name statue, it continues to do business under that name. When it does, business is not conducted out of E.C.'s office, but from Meltzer's office instead. This is not consistent with Petitioner's MBE application which reflects only one office. Petitioner submitted at the hearing a notarized statement dated December 8, 1990, from Mr. Meltzer in which he admits to seeking to originally use Mr. Perretta and E.C. primarily as a qualifying agent for his own construction activities. The terms of the agreement referenced above tend to confirm that arrangement. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that Ms. Hogan possess excellent business acumen and administrative abilities, and, he claims that, based on his initial meeting with her, he abandoned his plans to set up his own business and went into a business relationship with her. The evidence indicates he develops the work for the division and gets 95% of the fee. Ms. Hogan claims to be considering terminating the arrangement since it has not proven to be a lucrative one. She is apparently not aware the agreement specifically states it is for a three year term and carries options to renew. Though both Petitioner's application for MBE status and its bonding application indicate E.C. has no employees, Ms. Hogan testified that both Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer are employees. She claims to use only subcontractors in the accomplishment of company projects and this appears to be so. She claims to have the strength of character and the will. to manage, hire and fire subcontractors as required. There is other evidence in the record, however, to indicate that Mr. Perretta actually schedules the subcontractors and materials to insure their presence at the job site when needed. It is found that there are no other employees who do direct, hands on contracting work, but while there may be a question of word meaning, it is clear that both Perretta and Meltzer qualify as employees. E.C.'s application for MBE status also indicates that it had not executed any promissory notes, yet there is a note for $3,500.00 from E.C. to Mr. Perretta, dated May 10, 1989, on which no payments have been made. Though Ms. Hogan claims to be fully in charge of running the business side of the operation, she is apparently also unaware of certain basic facts other than those previously mentioned. In addition to the inconsistencies regarding the office structure and her mistake concerning the employee status of Mr. Perretta and Mr. Meltzer, as well as her error regarding the loan, she was also in error as to the company's net worth. Whereas she indicated it was set at about $30,000.00, the company's most current financial statement reflects net worth at just above, $6,000.00, revealing her estimate to be 80% off. She also did not know the character of Mr. Perretta's license, (Class E.C. owns very little construction equipment and Ms. Hogan rents all needed equipment as indicated to her by Mr. Perretta. The lack of ownership is not significant, however. The one piece of equipment the company owns is a transit level which was purchased at Mr. Perretta's insistence. He has also donated to the company some used office equipment from his prior business as a contractor. He was not paid for it. Other equipment, in addition to office space, was furnished by Mr. Meltzer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case denying E.C. Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 22nd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-5217 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as to her prior experience though it was limited. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted. Not proven. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. & 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. Unknown but accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy Brisson, Personal Representative E. C. Construction, Inc. 105 Island Circle Sarasota, Florida 34232-1933 Dannie L. Hart, Esquire Joan V. Whelan, Esquire Department of General Services Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Knight Building Koger Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 3399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel DGS Suite 309, Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Swiftline Trucking, Inc., was incorporated in Florida in 1979 by Rose Laquidara. The Articles of Incorporation filed with the Florida Secretary of State reflect Rose Laquidara as President and Treasurer, Carl Laquidara, her son, as one Vice- President, and Felix Laquidara, her other son, as the other Vice- President and Secretary. These same individuals were also identified as the initial Directors of the corporation. Anthony Laquidara, Rose Laquidara's husband, was neither an officer nor a director. Carl is no longer with the firm. The corporation originally operated out of the Laquidara home with Anthony Laquidara serving as a truck driver and Rose serving as bookkeeper and general manager. The two sons, Carl and Felix, ages 14 and 15 at the time, acted as mechanics. Ultimately the corporate offices were moved to a commercial site owned by Rose and Anthony Laquidara, personally, which was leased to the corporation. The Laquidaras moved to Florida sometime prior to 1979 when Anthony retired from his position as a police officer in New York City. When the family moved to the Ft. Myers area, Rose went back to school and Anthony spent his time fishing and driving a truck part time. In 1978, when the trucking industry was deregulated, Rose got the idea of starting her own trucking company. Swiftline Trucking, Inc., the result of that idea, was started with $5,000.00 that she inherited from her father. This $5,000.00 was used to purchase the company's first truck. Later on, during the growing years, additional money was put into the business to cover payroll. This money came from Rose's share of the proceeds of the sale of the family home in New York. The business operated continuously from its inception until the present. On October 10, 1986, as President of the corporation, Rose submitted an application for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise. Thereafter, the Department sent Tyrone Reddish to Ft. Myers to interview her and to inspect the records of the company. In the course of his review, Mr. Reddish examined the documents, looked at the corporate books, records, and files, and examined contracts and purchase vouchers as well as subcontracts, and financial records. He concluded that Swiftline met two of the five standards necessary for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise. These were: (1) that the applicant was a female and, (2) that the applicant owned 51 percent of the stock issued in the corporation. However, he also concluded that three other standards were not supported by independent evidence. These were: (1) that the applicant failed to exercise substantial control over the operation, (2) that the applicant was responsible for the day to day operation of the company, and (3) that the applicant was, in fact, in charge of company management. Because of this, he could not conclude that the business should be certified and he prepared a report outlining his findings and conclusions which he sent for review by the Department. Specifically, Mr. Reddish found several discrepancies between stock certificates issued and the stock ledger. Corporate records reflect that from the time of incorporation in 1979 to 1984, Rose Laquidara held 80 percent of the stock. Records for 1984 indicate a directors' meeting at which Rose Laquidara was not present. The minutes of that meeting reflect only that her stock was sold. They are silent as to how much, if any, compensation was received by Rose Laquidara for the sale of her stock. The minutes of a 1986 meeting reflect that Rose Laquidara reacquired her original 400 shares (80 percent), and an additional 510 shares. However, the minutes did not provide any information regarding the transfer or furnish the background for it. Additional discrepancies found by Mr. Reddish include the fact that the income tax forms filed in 1986 reflected that Rose Laquidara held 80 percent of the stock and two other individuals, her sons, held 9.8 percent of the stock. The stock record book reflects that 39 percent of the stock was at that time owned by Anthony Laquidara, Rose's husband, 51 percent was owned by Rose Laquidara, and 5 percent each was owned by the sons. This discrepancy and the previous one are explained by Mrs. Laquidara who indicates that in 1984, she and her husband were divorced. As a part of the divorce settlement, she transferred all her stock in Swiftline to her husband who paid her compensation therefor. This compensation came from the proceeds of the corporation. However, Mr. Laquidara was unable to make a go of the business and suffered a nervous breakdown in 1986. He called Mrs. Laquidara from New York and advised her he had walked away from the business and if she didn't want it to fail completely, she had best step in and take over again. Thereafter, Rose Laquidara accepted transfer of the ownership back from Anthony who indicated he wanted no ownership interest in the corporation. She felt, however, that because he had provided so well for the family for the first years of their marriage, it would be unfair for him to end up without anything and she insisted he be given a 39 percent interest in the corporation. This stock was issued from treasury stock. The sons, who were identified as each owning 9.8 percent of the stock, in reality each own 50 shares representing 5 percent of the 1,000 shares authorized and issued. According to the stock record book, 1400 shares of stock have been issued to various members of the Laquidara family. This is incorrect. Only 1,000 shares was authorized by the Articles of Incorporation and have been issued. Another discrepancy disclosed by Mr. Reddish was in the report of profits for 1986 which showed an 80 percent distribution to Rose Laquidara and 10 percent to each of her sons. Anthony Laquidara was not represented at all. Nonetheless, he later wrote a letter stating he had no claims on profits in 1986 and this constituted a discrepancy in Mr. Reddish's mind for which he could find no explanation. It really is quite clear, however. Mr. Reddish also concluded there were other discrepancies such as, (1) the By-Laws had some restrictions which impacted on total control resting in Rose Laquidara; (2) a problem with employment of other family members in supervisory positions; (3) several checks were made payable to Tony Laquidara for which there were no supporting documents. With respect to those three discrepancies, the By-Laws have been amended to remove any impediments to Rose, as majority stockholder, having controlling voice in the operation of the business. There is nothing wrong with other family members exercising supervision over portions of the business operation so long as this supervision is delegated to them by the majority stockholder. The two checks in question were issued to Tony for, in one case, rent for the office building, and in the other for payment of the property taxes. These notations are clearly inscribed on the checks. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Reddish did not see them. Mr. Reddish was also concerned about he fact that even though Swiftline had done in excess of one million dollars worth of work with the Department, he could find only one or two purchase orders from the Department to back this up. When questioned, Mrs. Laquidara was unable to provide answers to satisfy him. This area of inquiry, however, is not pertinent to a determination of minority or disadvantaged business status. In the course of his visit with Swiftline, Mr. Reddish did not speak with any employees or customers because, he claims, the Department's method of certification is to talk only with the owner. This was not, he states, a compliance review and though he found several things as described above with which he was dissatisfied, he asked no one other than Mrs. Laquidara for an explanation. He claims it is the Department policy to talk only with the majority owner in a validation review and that validation is accomplished by an examination primarily of documentation. He claims he does not know who hires, who fires, within whom the decision making authority rests, or who is responsible for personnel actions. When he asked who performed these functions, he was told Mrs. Laquidara did some and others did other things. He does not know who delegated this authority to these other people but he asked only Mrs. Laquidara and, apparently, he did not ask her either enough questions or the right questions. The interview was taped but a copy of the tape was not forwarded for review with his report. Had Mr. Reddish's interview been more inclusive, he would have found, for example that Felix Laquidara, Rose's son and a road supervisor for the company, monitors its operation, seeks out jobs for the fleet to perform, and reports to Mrs. Laquidara. He makes no decisions as to the business without consulting with Mrs. Laquidara, nor can he commit the company to new work without her approval. He cannot hire or fire employees without consulting her nor does he take any part in determining employee salaries. That is done by Mrs. Laquidara who also determines how many employees the company should have. Felix is not permitted to extend credit to customers based on his own determination of creditworthiness, nor does he make any decisions about collecting outstanding fees. Mrs. Laquidara does both. In the event of any problem with customers, they are referred to Mrs. Laquidara for the resolution of their complaints. Felix has no idea how much income the company grossed during the last business year, (or, for that matter, in any business year), nor does he know how much profit was earned by the company. Though he is given a portion of the year-end profit as a bonus, the amount of bonus is determined by Mrs. Laquidara and it may take a form other than cash. Felix works between 14 and 16 hours per day and is paid a flat salary not based on the number of hours worked. Each week, he and the other road supervisors meet with Mrs. Laquidara to decide what business will be taken on for the next week. There is no question in his mind that Mrs. Laquidara runs the business. He is on the books as corporate secretary, and has attended corporate meetings but has had no input. Had he checked deeper, Mr. Reddish would also have found that when Rose Laquidara started Swiftline in 1979, her husband had little to do with it. He had no input as to the form of the business nor did he sign or file any of the paperwork involved. When the company was first started, with the first truck bought with Rose's money, their original business was the hauling of sand, stone and dirt, and he drove the truck part time. Now, he helps out with estimates, assists with collections, checks job sites and the like, but has no specific duties nor does he make any decisions regarding the operation. He works from 10 to 30 hours per week and draws no salary. Mr. Laquidara has no part in deciding how many jobs the company can handle at one time; he has no part in deciding which jobs to take on; he does not grant credit; nor does he decide how many employees should be kept on the payroll or who should be hired or fired. The individual with ultimate authority in all aspects of Swiftline's operation is Rose Laquidara who makes her decision after input from her employees. By the same token, she is the source from whom all authority flows. That which is not specifically delegated by her to her underlings is retained by her. Though Anthony Laquidara is an authorized signatory on company checks, along with Mrs. Laquidara, he was made so because he was also a signatory on some of the outstanding business loans of the corporation. The lender wanted a personal guarantee from him, as well as Mrs. Laquidara. He rarely signs corporate checks, however. As a shareholder in the corporation, he receives a portion of the business profits distributed at year end. The amount of distribution is determined by Mrs. Laquidara. This information, given by Felix and Anthony as to business and organizational arrangements and responsibilities, was confirmed by Mrs. Laquidara. In the early years of the business she did the dispatching herself, assigning jobs to individual truckers who signed on with her. Now she spends the majority of her time in management, settling problems within the operation and talking with customers. She opened the east coast office on her own, putting one of her former drivers in as manager, and he reports to her, alone. There are presently approximately 100 independent contractor drivers working for her who are paid about 89 to 90 percent of what the job brings in. She has arranged a line of credit with a financing institution, but Anthony was required to join her in personally guaranteeing the loans. As to the share breakdown, prior to her divorce, she held 90 percent of the corporate stock. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, she signed her shares over to Anthony and received a cash settlement in return. When he subsequently had a nervous breakdown and she had to step in and take back control of the business, she chose to take only a 51 percent share instead of the 90 percent share she previously held. She felt it was only equitable that Anthony keep a 38 percent share of the company stock because during the early years of their marriage, he supported them all. The stock decision was hers alone, however, and had nothing to do with the disadvantaged business certification. She now runs the corporation taking care of all financial, legal, and personnel matters. She employs an office manager and 7 office personnel. She discharged her son, Carl, because he could not take orders. Swiftline was certified as a minority business enterprise by Lee County for several years, renewed each year until the last year when it was turned down since the Lee County application is based on undefined federal guidelines which, apparently, were not met. When Swiftline was turned down by Lee County, Mrs. Laquidara applied for state minority certification. This application resulted in the visit by Mr. Reddish which ultimately culminated in the denial of this application as well. Without certification as a minority business enterprise, Swiftline is precluded from preforming many jobs for state, city, or county governments which require such certification and which, up until the present, have made up a substantival portion of Swiftline's business. Mr. Reddish's validation review was not sufficiently comprehensive. It was insufficient to generate adequate information upon which to base an informed conclusion and recommendation. It appears to be more an attempt to support denial of certification than a bona fide attempt to determine if the applicant qualified for certification. When Mr. Reddish completed his validation review, he forwarded his report to the validation committee which unanimously voted, based on the record, to deny Swiftline its certification. This decision was based on what the committee had before it which included only the documentation submitted with the application and Mr. Reddish's report. Mr. Sweet and the committee identified several problems with the file which included: (1) that Swiftline was a family business which could not demonstrate that control rested within one person. It appeared that everything was within the control of various family members with responsibility equally shared, and that, therefore, non-disadvantaged business people had more than one-half the control even though Mrs. Laquidara admittedly owned 51 percent of the stock. (2) The corporate By-Laws were not followed and there was no documentation to show compliance. (3) Last year the corporation did $4.6 million in gross business and this does not appear to be a small business so as to justify operating without formal procedures as was done here. Mr. Sweet indicated there were several deficiencies in the By-Laws. For example, 3/4 of the stockholders are required to appoint the Board of Directors. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that 4/5 of the voting stockholders are required to validate. This is far more than 51 percent and if applied, would divest Mrs. Laquidara of control. Directors are required to conduct certain specific types of business and only two are required to do others. As a result, the Board can operate and conduct corporate affairs without participation of the 51 percent owner. The committee's conclusions, however, can be no more valid than those of Mr. Reddish since it's deliberations were based solely upon the information he provided.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Swiftline Trucking, Inc.'s application for certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise be granted. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 7th day of March, 1988. Appendix to Recommended Order The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER 1., 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3., 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8., 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10.-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16.-19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21.-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. This is not a completely true statement. His authority to sign checks is not conditioned upon something happening to Mrs. Laquidara but was required because he is a co-signer in lending arrangements. Accepted and incorporated herein. Mr. Reddish also talked with Mrs. Laquidara. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27.-29. A summary of testimony - not a Finding of Fact 30. Accepted. 31.-32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as the original determination of the department on which this hearing is based. 3.-5. Accepted and incorporated except for the comment that Anthony and Felix share the control of the company which is rejected as contra to the evidence. First sentence as rejected as a Conclusion of Law as is the last. Remainder is accepted. Accepted. Rejected as an incorrect statement of Fact. Store records are unclear, but ownership, upon inquiry was clarified. The finding that Rose owns only 40 percent of the store is rejected. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence and as argument. The loan from Anthony's further, classified as "substantial", was not otherwise described. Accepted. Accepted, but not controlling. Accepted except for last sentence, which is rejected. Accepted in that the family worked together. Rejected as implying management responsibility was shared. The Finding that decision making and actual power was shared by the family as a unit is rejected. No evidence was presented to show that by the Department. Accepted. Accepted. 17.-19. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: LEIBY AND ELDER 290 NORTHWEST 165TH STREET PENTHOUSE 2 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33169 JUDY RICE, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 605 SUWANNEE STREET, MS 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399 KAYE N. HENDERSON, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING 605 SUWANNEE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0450 THOMAS H. BATEMAN, III, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING 605 SUWANNEE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0450 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, All Kinds of Blinds, was incorporated in the State of Florida on January 15, 1999, as All Kinds of Blinds of So. Fla., Inc. The President of the Petitioner is Angela Conroy, a female. Mrs. Conroy owns 51 percent of the company. The remaining 49 percent of the company is owned by Phillip Conroy, Angela’s husband. Mr. Conroy also serves as the company’s vice president and secretary. On June 2, 1999, Mrs. Conroy executed a Florida Statewide and Inter-local Minority Business Enterprise Certification Application that was filed with the Department. The application identified Angela Conroy as the person who makes policy, financial decisions, signs payroll, signs surety bonds and insurance, and makes contractual decisions for the Petitioner. The application also identified Phillip Conroy as the person who makes personnel decisions and signs payroll for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy is authorized to sign checks on behalf of the company. According to the application, the Petitioner performs various functions regarding the sales, consultation, service, and installation of all types of window coverings. Mrs. Conroy sought MBE certification as an American woman with majority ownership of the Petitioner. Mrs. Conroy has ten years of experience in this type of business but was reluctant to let her former employer know that she was opening her own business. Accordingly, Mrs. Conroy authorized Mr. Conroy to execute applications and various papers on behalf of the Petitioner. She relied on his business experience to guide her through the start-up process. An initial loan in the amount of $4,000 from the couple’s joint bank account was the start-up funds for the Petitioner. Mr. Conroy does the installations for the Petitioner. He performs other functions for the company as may be necessary. He also owns and operates an air conditioning filter company that leased a vehicle also used for the Petitioner’s business. Mr. Conroy maintained that his name appears on records pertaining to the Petitioner as a convenience for his wife. Mr. Conroy is a white male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office, enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for MBE certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela Conroy All Kinds of Blinds 123 North Congress Avenue Suite 328 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 301, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The primary issue in this proceeding is whether Gulf Coast is entitled to certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise under DOT rule 14-78.05 Florida Administrative Code. Ancillary issues include 1) the sufficiency of proof of Bernard Crooke's membership in a designated group, (i.e. "Hispanic Americans"); and 2) the criteria, if any, that DOT may utilize, other than an individual's membership in a designated group, to determine eligibility of that individual's firm for certification.
Findings Of Fact Gulf Coast and Traffic Engineers, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Escambia County, Florida. Its address is 8203 Kipling Street, Pensacola, Florida, 32513. (Stipulation of the parties: Petitioner's Exhibit #la, tab 2) Gulf Coast is a "small business concern" as required by Rule 14-78.05, Florida Administrative Code. (Stipulation of the parties). The Florida Department of Transportation receives federal highway funds and administers the program for certification of disadvantaged business enterprises. (T-6,92) Bernard E. Crooke is President of Gulf Coast and sixty- percent owner. He directs the management policies and operations of Gulf Coast. (Stipulation of the parties; Petitioner's Exhibit la, tab 2) Cameron Villar is a remote blood relative of Bernard E. Crooke. He and a cousin did some genealogical research on the Villar family history. He obtained a list of names of genealogical societies in Spain from the American embassy in Madrid. After contacting all the societies on the list, he retained one, and obtained from it a picture of the Villar family crest and a brief history of the family name. The Villars originated in Galicia, Spain. Cameron Villar also prepared a genealogical chart tracing his family (and Bernard Crooke's) back to one of two brothers who came from Spain to the United States. The brothers, Augustus and Emmanuel, were sons of Don Jose de Villar, who is mentioned in the family history provided by the genealogical society. (T-22-24, 30-35; Petitioner's Exhibits #2-#5) Paula Margaret Davidson is related to Bernard Crooke through a common great grandmother. She has known Bernard and his family all her life. She also conducted genealogical research and prepared a chart tracing the family back to Spain. (T-45, 6, Petitioner's Exhibit #6) Joseph Davidson (known as "Buddy" Davidson) was raised by Bernard Crooke's aunt, whom "Buddy's" father married after his first wife died. It was common knowledge in the family and in the Pensacola community that the Villars, including the branch in which "Buddy" and Bernard were raised, were of Spanish heritage. There was a community of Spanish harbor pilots in the Old Warrington Woolsey area. Later the city of Warrington was displaced and was moved to New Warrington. (T-71, 74-75) Bernard's grandfather was one of the bar and harbor pilots. (T-56). The Villar family and its various branches celebrated the Bicentennial with their first family reunion. Seven hundred and fifty members participated, including Bernard Crooke. The family was recognized as playing a significant part in the founding of Pensacola, as the two Villar brothers sailed into Pensacola with General Galvez and received land there as a reward from the King of Spain and as an incentive to create a Spanish colony in Pensacola. A booklet was published for the Bicentennial celebration, "Your Heritage," based upon the research of the family members. (T-64, 83, Petitioner's Exhibit #11). Until the Bicentennial in 1975-76, and the resultant public recognition of the family, being Spanish was not a subject of pride and there was concern about discrimination in the community. ( T- 6 9, 77, 82). Neither Bernard Crooke, nor any of the family members who testified on his behalf, could say for certain whether, as an individual, Bernard Crooke was the subject of bias or discrimination by virtue of his Hispanic cultural heritage. (T- 50, 53, 69, 73, 83). Bernard Crooke was one of nine children in a poor family. He started his construction business approximately twenty years ago with five hundred dollars and two partners. He helped support his business in the early days by delivering papers to rack stands. He put himself through Pensacola Junior College and obtained no further formal education. He eventually bought out the two partners who had other interests and were just helping him get started. (T-80-85). The business has gradually grown to one with gross annual receipts (year ending 9/30/84) of $1,761,117.37. (Petitioner's Exhibits #la, tab 2).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued finding Petitioner, Gulf Coast, eligible for certification as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 3rd day of June, 1986. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Paragraphs #1 and #3. Addressed in Background; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Paragraph #11. Adopted in Paragraphs #3-6. Adopted in substance in Paragraphs #3-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussion of criteria for certification is found in the Conclusions of Law. Adopted in Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #10. Adopted in Conclusions of Law, Paragraph #10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph #1. Addressed in Background. Rejected as summary of evidence rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in part in Paragraph #4. The statement that Mr. Villar is not a genealogist is rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in part in Paragraph #4; otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial, except that the Villar Spanish origins are addressed in paragraphs #4 and #7. Adopted in part in Paragraph #5, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph #10. Rejected as being immaterial since Petitioner has also been denied loans. See Conclusion of Law, Paragraph #9. Rejected as unnecessary and while an accurate restatement of an isolated portion of testimony, the out-of-context testimony does not reflect the substantial weight of the evidence. See Conclusion of Law, Paragraph #9. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles C. Sherrill, Esquire 435 East Government Street Post Office Box 12316 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Brant Hargrove, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact West Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation that is engaged in the construction business. The focus of the business is the renovation and new construction of commercial buildings. Petitioner has been certified as a minority business enterprise by several local governmental entities. Petitioner regularly bids on governmental contracts. Petitioner's application to the Respondent for certification as a minority business enterprise was denied. Petitioner is a "small business" as that term is defined by Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. 1/ At the time of the formal hearing, Martha A. Morgan owned 51 percent of the issued shares of stock in West Construction, Inc., served as one of two members of the Board of Directors, and was the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan is an American woman. 2/ At the time of the formal hearing, Donald West owned the remaining 49 percent of the authorized and issued shares of stock, served as the other member of the Board of Directors, and was Vice-President and Secretary of the corporation. Mr. West is not a "minority person". Ms. Morgan and Donald West have been married to each other since 1985. West Construction, Inc. was incorporated by Donald West and his father in 1977 after they had operated as a partnership for several years. The corporation is authorized to issue 1,000 shares of common stock. When it was incorporated, a total of 200 shares of stock were issued, with Donald West and his father each being issued 100 shares of stock. When Donald West's father retired in 1984, the corporation repurchased his 100 shares of stock and distributed to him an amount equal to 50 percent of the assets of the business. This distribution adversely impacted the corporation's ability to secure performance bonds for projects. After that repurchase, the only issued shares of stock were the 100 shares that had been issued to Donald West in 1977. Prior to her marriage to Mr. West in 1985, Ms. Morgan had her own separate assets. She contributed these assets to the marriage. The marital assets were thereafter used to obtain performance bonds for the corporation and served as security for other obligations of the company. Ms. Morgan is a college graduate with a degree in Business Administration. Her experience includes working as a certified legal assistant for a land development company. In 1985, Ms. Morgan started working for West Construction doing accounting, posting, and general record keeping. In 1989, she began to take a more active role in the affairs of West Construction in that she did more of the day to day bookkeeping, including payroll and accounting. Since December 1992, Ms. Morgan has been licensed by the State of Florida as a certified building contractor. Ms. Morgan became the majority owner of the company on January 1, 1993, when Donald West transferred to her 51 of his 100 shares of stock in the corporation. Donald West remained the only other stockholder with 49 shares of stock. Effective January 1, 1993, Ms. Morgan became the President, Treasurer, and Assistant Secretary of the corporation. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West became the only two members of the board of directors of the corporation. One of the reasons for the transfer of stock was to qualify the corporation for certification as a minority business enterprise. The consideration for the transfer of the stock to Ms. Morgan was the contribution she had made to the marital assets and the work she had done on behalf of the corporation. There was no separate payment of money by Ms. Morgan for this stock. Donald West has been in the construction business all of his adult life. He has a degree from the University of Florida in building construction and has a general contractor's license and a building contractor's licensed from the State of Florida. Mr. West's construction licenses were used to qualify the firm for construction work between 1977 and December 1992, when Ms. Morgan obtained her building contractor's license. Ms. Morgan's license has been used to qualify the corporation since she obtained it. Ms. Morgan is in charge of managing the finances of the company. Ms. Morgan keeps the company books, pays the bills, and invests any profits. She is responsible for payroll, insurance, bonding, accounts receivables, and billings. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West have the authority to sign checks, make withdrawals and deposits on company accounts, and execute bank documents. Both have the authority to draw on a line of credit that has been established by the company, but neither has had the need to do so. Mr. West has the authority to sign company checks, but he seldom does so. Ms. Morgan and Mr. West are jointly and severally liable as indemnitors on the company's bond, and their personal assets, including the jointly owned marital assets, act as security for this risk. Both serve as guarantor's on the company's line of credit. At the time of her application for certification, Mr. West and Ms. Morgan were paid the same salary. Between that time and the formal hearing, Ms. Morgan had increased her salary so that she was being paid $3,000 per month and Mr. West was being paid $2,000 per month. Ms. Morgan testified that she determined her own salary without consulting Mr. West. Ms. Morgan arranged for the financing of the latest vehicle purchased by the company, she determined that the building out of which the company operates should be financed. She made the decision as to how the company's idle capital would be invested. In addition to Mr. West and Ms. Morgan, the company has two other full time employees who were employed by Mr. West before Ms. Morgan became an owner, officer and director of the company. One of these employees is a carpenter and the other is a general laborer. Mr. West is the direct supervisor for these two employees. Ms. Morgan reviews submittals from subcontractors and works as the liaison between subcontractors and the project architect. Mr. West supervises the work of subcontractors. Ms. Morgan is also responsible for finding projects for the company to bid upon. The company subscribes to two services that provide information to potential bidders as to public works projects. Ms. Morgan reviews that information and determines the projects upon which the company will bid. Ms. Morgan obtains and reviews the bid packages, secures any other information she deems necessary by communicating with the contract letting agency or architect, and attends the pre-bid meeting. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan work on the company's bid. Mr. West's role is to prepare quantitative takeoffs from the bid plans. Ms. Morgan determines the overhead by factoring in the amount of current business undertaken by the company, the complexity of the project, and the difficulty of the project. Both Mr. West and Ms. Morgan attend pre-construction meetings. Ms. Morgan usually signs the company bids and any resulting contracts as its president and uses her license to qualify the company. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West develop the company's work schedule. Despite being licensed as a certified building contractor, Ms. Morgan has never supervised a construction project from beginning to conclusion. The actual construction projects undertaken by the company are supervised and managed by Mr. West. Both Ms. Morgan and Mr. West order materials and supplies for construction projects. Ms. Morgan would have to hire someone to manage the construction projects if Mr. West were not available. The management of this family run company is divided between Ms. Morgan and Mr. West. Petitioner established that Ms. Morgan takes a meaningful role in the management of the affairs of the corporation, but it is also clear that Mr. West takes a meaningful role. The managerial functions performed by both stockholders are essential to the operation of the company. One was not established to be more important than the other. It is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Morgan exercises dominate control of the affairs of the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order that denies West Construction, Inc.'s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1995.
