The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Virginia Valletti, an American woman, within the meaning of Section 288.703, Florida Statutes, holds 75 percent of the stock of Petitioner, Commercial Air Tech, Inc., (Commercial Air). Sam Valletti, the husband of Virginia Valletti, owns 15 percent of the stock of Commercial Air, and the two daughters of the Valetti's each owns five percent of the stock of the business. Sam Valletti is not a minority person as defined in Section 288.703, Florida Statutes. Article II, Section 1 of the bylaws of Commercial Air provides that "All Corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of, the Board of Directors." The bylaws state that the corporation shall have two directors. Those directors are Virginia and Sam Valletti. Article III, Section 2 of the bylaws of Commercial Air sets out the duties of the President of the company as follows: The President shall be the chief executive officer of the corporation, shall have general and active management of the business and affairs of the corporation subject to the directions of the Board of Directors, and shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and Board of Directors. Commercial Air provides heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) services and is required by Florida statutes to be qualified by a licensed contractor. Sam Valletti holds the contractor's license which qualifies Commercial Air. Virginia Valletti testified that she does not believe that she could pass the contractor's test to become the qualifying agent for the company. Sam Valletti is authorized to sign checks on the account of Commercial Air, but Virginia Valletti signs the majority of the checks for the business. Sam Valletti signed the business lease for Commercial Air. Sam Valletti or a male employee, signs the contracts on behalf of the business. According to Virginia Valletti, the two men sign the contracts for appearance sake because the HVAC business is a male-dominated industry. According to the application submitted to the Respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office (Department), Virginia Valletti's major responsibilities in the business are as follows: Open and close office Monday through Friday Transact all accounts receivables and payables Answer customer calls and inquiry's [sic] all on customers to insure their needs are being met Dispatch technicians to job sites Compose all company forms and form letters and contract forms Track job costs Analyze profit & loss statement, balance sheet and other financial reports Oversee office personnel - hire, review (all personnel) and fire (office only) Shop and purchase all insurance (workman's comp., liability, bond, etc) Figure payroll and all associated taxes Negotiate credit lines and loans Track truck maintenance and inventory Place orders with vendors and track shipments to job sites The application submitted to the Department lists Sam Valletti's major responsibilities as follows: Estimates jobs in construction and service Troubleshoots equipment problems with technicians Recommends and designs new installations with property managers and owners Keeps up to date on So. Florida code changes, labor laws, and union regulations Finds new resources and seeks out leading edge technological advances Customer liaison for technical questions Hires, reviews, and fires service personnel Purchases company vehicles Sam Valletti receives approximately $16,000 per quarter in wages from Commercial Air, and Virginia Valletti receives approximately $3,000 in wages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Commercial Air, Tech Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edmond L. Sugar, Esquire 950 South Federal Highway Hollywood, Florida 33020 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 303, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Reguest for Statement of Qualification for Petroleum Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. Attachment F to the solicitation sought information related to utilization of minority business enterprises as subcontractors. Points were available for said utilization. The Department awarded zero points to parties which failed to include the three pages of the attachment in the responses to the solicitation. The issue in this case is whether the Department acted in accordance with law in awarding zero points for failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F.
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1991, The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSOQ) for Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Services, Solicitation #9111C. As stated in the RFSOQ, the DER's objective is to enter into approximately ten contracts for petroleum cleanup services with contractors most qualified to perform the services. It is in the best interests of the state and the DER to enter into such contracts with the most qualified contractors available. Selected firms will be placed under contract with the DER to respond to task assignments. There is no work guaranteed to any contractor as a result of being selected and placed under contract. The cover sheet to the DER Solicitation #9111C identifies Attachment B as "General Instructions", Attachment C as "Instructions for Preparation of an SOQ", Attachment F as "Minority Business Certificate" and Attachment N as an "SOQ Checklist." In the RFSOQ, the DER specifically reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. The general instructions set forth at Attachment B provide, that the DER "may waive minor informalities 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." The DER is not required to waive all minor irregularities. The ability to waive such defects is within the jurisdiction of the agency. The evidence establishes that the DER applied such discretion consistently. There is no evidence that, at any time prior to the SOQ opening, did the Petitioner or Intervenors seek additional information from the DER regarding the agency's discretion to waive minor irregularities. Attachment C provides that "ANY AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY A CONTRACTOR IN VARIANCE WITH THESE INSTRUCTIONS WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED (e.g. pages beyond the 20-page SOQ limit will not be reviewed) or may result in the response being deemed non-responsive and rejected as noted." The purpose of the statement was to discourage responders from submitting information beyond that required by the RFSOQ, in order to provide a common basis for the evaluation of all SOQs submitted. The provision also provided the DER with the ability to reject an SOQ which failed to substantially comply with the agency's solicitation. Attachment C states that an SOQ shall consist of three parts, a one- page transmittal letter, a 20-page SOQ, and "other required information". According to Attachment C, the SOQ was to contain an introduction, a section on the company's background, a statement of experience and knowledge related to the qualifications required by the RFSOQ, a description of project organization and management appropriate to the tasks assigned, a list of personnel responsible for completion of assigned task, a list of "a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the FDER" and related information. Work performed for the DER was to be set forth separately in addition to the ten non-DER clients. "Other required information" included minority business utilization information. Attachment C provides as follows: Contractors submitting SOQs under this solicitation must identify intended minority subcontractors and estimated percentage of total contract amount to be awarded to minority firms on Attachment F of this Request for Statement of Qualifications. Use of any document other that Attachment F shall result in disallowance of any credit for use of minority subcontractors. (emphasis supplied.) Evaluation points were available on a scaled basis to contractors based upon their commitment to utilization of minority businesses enterprises in their SOQs. Attachment B provides that "Minority Business Utilization will be evaluated. provided that the responder complies with the reporting requirements contained in Attachment F...." (emphasis supplied.) Attachment F, page 1 of 3, provides as follows: Directions: Each contractor and/or subcontractor which meets the definition of a certified small minority business, as described below, shall submit an originally signed copy of page 1 of this Attachment in the response package to this solicitation. If more than one minority business is to be used, the prime contractor shall copy this page and have each minority business complete that copy as though it were an original. A prime contractor which intends to utilize subcontractors meeting the definition of small minority business is responsible for completing page 2 of this Attachment. A prime contractor which meets the definition of a small minority business is responsible for completing page 3 of this Attachment. If a particular page of this Attachment is not applicable, the prime contractor shall so indicate on that page and include the page as part of the response package. At a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit-- this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization. (emphasis supplied.) Attachment N, the "SOQ checklist," provides a list of items which are to be "properly completed, signed and enclosed" in order to "ensure that your SOQ is responsive to FDER Solicitation No. 9111C...." Item 3.b. of Attachment N reads: "Minority Business Utilization Form - if applicable (Attachment F)". As stated in Attachment B to the RFSOQ, on March 13, 1991, a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held in Tallahassee, Florida, at the DER's offices for all contractors wishing to submit a Statement of Qualifications (SOQ). Failure to attend the meeting would have resulted in rejection of SOQs submitted by non- attending contractors. The Petitioner and Intervenors were represented at the pre-bid meeting. The meeting provided an opportunity during the solicitation process to have technical, legal or administrative questions answered. Accordingly, potential responders are expected to have read the complete RFSOQ prior to the meeting. At the pre-bid meeting, the DER did not review every part of the solicitation, but invited questions from participants. The DER official conducting the meeting stated that "any and all information submitted by a contractor in variance with these instructions will not be reviewed or evaluated," however, the other directions provided in the RFSOQ were otherwise reviewed only upon request. Although there was a specific discussion of the requirements for reporting proposed minority business utilization, there were no questions asked with regard to the requirements for completion of Attachment F. There were no questions asked regarding the DER's right to waive irregularities, or whether the failure to submit Attachment F in accordance with the directions would be regarded by the agency as a minor irregularity. Potential responders also had an opportunity to submit written questions prior to a time certain. There is no evidence that questions were raised related to the requirements of Attachment F or to the DER's application of it's discretionary authority to waive minor irregularities. On March 22, 1991, the DER issued an addendum, not material to this case, to the Request for SOQs. The addendum was sent by certified mail to each contractor represented at the March 13, 1991 meeting. On March 27, 1991, a second addendum was sent to each contractor. The addendum, among other things, changed the date for submission of an SOQ from April 1, 1991 to April 15, 1991 at 2:00 P.M. On April 15, 1991, SOQs were submitted by the Petitioner and Intervenors in this case. The bids were opened at 2:00 P.M. or shortly thereafter, and subsequently evaluated and scored by DER personnel. In some categories, points were awarded on a weighted basis, which provided a relative ranking of responders. For example, the prime contractor with the highest minority business enterprise subcontractor utilization received 13 points, with lesser ranked contractors receiving fewer points. On June 3, 1991, at 10:05 A.M. bid tabulation results were posted in the DER's contract office. The Petitioner and Intervenors in this case submitted responsive SOQ's to DER solicitation #9111C. The result of the DER's evaluation was the development of a short list of contractors permitted to make oral presentations to agency officials after which the DER will initiate contract discussions with approximately ten contractors. The SOQs were reviewed by DER officials who initially identified information submitted which did not comply with the requirements of the RFSOQ. Irregularities were identified and discussed with DER legal counsel to determine the materiality of the irregularity and to ascertain the appropriate treatment of the defects. The DER officials did not disclose the identity of the responder during the discussions, although the person identifying the defect was aware of the related responder. However, there is no evidence that the three DER officials were aware of an individual non-complying contractor's identity, or that the decision to waive such irregularities was based upon the identity of the participants. The DER determined that, in order to be equitable to all participants, it would not waive irregularities where the directions were clear and the consequences for noncompliance were specifically set forth. If the solicitation were less clear, or the consequence of noncompliance with the requirement was not specifically identified, the Department attempted to be more lenient regarding the waiver of such irregularities. Where the DER waived irregularities, such waivers were awarded on a consistent basis without regard to the individual responders involved. Information which was not to be reviewed or evaluated was concealed by either covering the information with white paper, or stapling excess pages together. The DER waived several types of minor irregularities in the SOQs received for Solicitation #9111C. Some contractors submitted transmittal letters consisting of multiple pages rather than the one page letter specified in the RFSOQ. The transmittal letter received no evaluation points. The DER stapled multiple page letters together and considered only information contained on the first page. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the one- page limit was not reviewed or evaluated. The DER did not waive the failure to attach a transmittal letter. DER waived some irregularities related to subcontractor letters. Multiple page letters were stapled together and only page one information was reviewed. The DER decision to waive such defects was based upon the fact that such subcontractors were less familiar with the DER's submission requirements than were the prime contractors, that such letters were submitted by the subcontractors, that it was unfair to penalize the prime contractors for the minor irregularities of the subcontractor letters, and that the tasks to be performed by subcontractors were generally not critical to the successful completion of the prime contractor's assigned responsibilities. There was sufficient information to permit the DER to conclude that the subcontractor and prime contractor were committed to the project. There is no evidence that the identities of the subcontractors was considered in determining whether such defects should be waived. The DER waived other irregularities related to subcontractor letters, including the failure of a subcontractor to sign the letter. There was no specific requirement that the subcontractor sign the letter. However, the DER did not waive the failure to submit subcontractor letters. In instances where no letters were submitted, the DER awarded zero points and references to the subcontractor in the SOQ were deleted. The DER's actions related to subcontractor letters was reasonable and appropriate. Another irregularity waived by the DER was the failure to supply a minimum of ten separate and verifiable former clients other than the DER, with work performed for the DER set forth separately. The DER did not waive the failure to submit ten references, however, in some cases, not all ten references were acceptable. Attachment C does not state that the failure to submit ten acceptable references shall result in an award of zero points. In such instances, the DER reduced the number of points available to reflect the percentage of acceptable references provided. Therefore, information submitted at variance with the requirements, such as unacceptable references, was not evaluated. The DER acted reasonably and consistently with the provisions set forth in the RFSOQ. The DER requested that responders identify three "deliverables" required through an ongoing contract which had been effective within the past year. The DER did not consider deliverables related to contracts which had not been effective within the past year. The DER checked the references and awarded no points for unacceptable references. Several SOQ's did not appropriately identify key personnel as required. The DER did not consider information which was not reported as required by the RFSOQ. Where minor irregularities were waived, the waiver was applied consistently to all responders. The DER did not waive the failure of any responder to submit the three pages of Attachment F, as clearly required by the directions to the attachment. All parties which failed to submit all three pages of the attachment received a score of zero. There is no evidence that the DER, at any time, indicated that the directions set forth on Attachment F were optional. Approximately 20 of 45 of contractors submitting SOQs failed to include all three pages of the MBE utilization form, Attachment F to the Request for SOQs. Most failed to include page three of the attachment. The Petitioner, as well as Intervenors ERM-South, ITC and Westinghouse, were included in the 20 responders which failed to submit all three pages of Attachment F. As provided in the directions to Attachment F, failure to include all three pages of the attachment resulted in a score of zero points for MBE utilization. The DER could have made certain assumptions about the applicability of Attachment F to specific responders to the solicitation. However, given that the directions were clear and the penalty for not complying with the directions was equally clear, the DER did not waive the failure to submit all three pages of the attachment as part of the SOQs. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the DER's action was outside the agency's discretion or the requirements of law. Extensive testimony was offered in support of the assertion that the directions related to reporting of minority business utilization were confusing and ambiguous. However, the directions to Attachment F are clear and provide that, "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." There is no credible evidence to establish that such directions are confusing or ambiguous. The instructions to the RFSOQ consistently refer to Attachment F as being the only acceptable means of reporting minority business utilization information. Attachment F consists of three pages, with the "Directions" for completing and submitting the attachment set forth at page one, paragraph one. The Petitioner and Intervenors timely filed SOQ's and are substantially affected by the DER's determination that responders failing to submit all three pages of Attachment F were awarded zero points for minority business utilization. There is no evidence that the Petitioner or Intervenors are unable to perform the tasks identified in the RFSOQ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Case No. 91-4318B1D), as well as Cases No. 91- 43I6BID and 91-4317B1D, as set forth in the preliminary statement to this Recommended Order. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-4316B1D, 90-4317B1D, and 90-4318B1D The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected as to the implication that DER had no right to waive minor irregularities, contrary to the evidence. 12, 16, 19. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected. Such additional points appear to have been awarded to M&E in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 24-25. Rejected. Although the specific waivers are factually correct, the implication of the proposed finding is contrary to the weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER waives such irregularities, even though the instructions were clear, where the consequences for failing to comply with each specific instruction were unclear. There was no penalty set forth at the requirement that a document be signed or not exceed one page in length. The evidence establishes that the DER's actions were reasonable, logical, and within the authority of the agency. 29-32. Rejected. Contrary to the clear "Directions" of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." Responders were referred to Attachment F by the instructions cited in the proposed finding. 33-34, 36-38, Rejected, irrelevant. 39. Rejected, immaterial. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by M&E and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40-41 Rejected. A logical reading of the checklist reference to Attachment F would be that, if the attachment were applicable, the attachment should be included. The clear and specific directions to Attachment F require the submission of the three page package to receive points. 42-43. Rejected, irrelevant. 44. Rejected. The failure to submit all three pages of Attachment F resulted in zero points, as provided in the directions to the attachment. The DER policy related to waiver of irregularities does not include the waiver of irregularities where the instructions are clear, the penalty for noncompliance is specific, and a responder fails to comply. The policy is reasonable and was applied consistently. 47. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. It appears that M&E's assertion that it would be included in the "short list" requires addition of points awarded by the DER in violation of Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. 49-50. Rejected. While "instructions in a competitive bidding solicitation can be rendered ambiguous by their location," in this case, the instructions contained in the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. Attachment F's directions are not ambiguous or confusing. 51-53. Rejected, immaterial. This proposed finding is also contrary to the suggestion that the instructions were unclear, and indicates, not that the instructions were unclear, but that the M&E representative did not read the RFSOQ. It is not possible to find that a careful and intelligent reader of the directions to Attachment F could misunderstand the meaning of "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 54-61. Rejected, immaterial. The fact that a substantial number of responders failed to comply with the clear directions of Attachment F does not establish that the directions are confusing. The instructions to the RFSOQ referred readers to Attachment F for the reporting of minority business utilization information. The first paragraph of Attachment F is entitled and contains "Directions" which are clearly set forth. There is nothing at all ambiguous about the requirement that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 62-65. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the DER waive all irregularities. Such irregularities may be waived at the Department's discretion. The DER chose not to waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for failure to comply with said requirements, were clear. The DER applied this policy appropriately and consistently. There was no appearance of favoritism when the agency's policy is fairly and consistently applied. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER expects potential responders to have read the RFSOQ prior to the pre-bid meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions and provide clarifying information. The fact that no questions were asked regarding the requirement to submit all three pages of Attachment F indicates that participants either clearly understood the requirement or had not read the RFSOQ prior to the only mandatory opportunity to obtain clarification. In any event, the DER is not obligated to read every sentence of the RFSOQ aloud at a pre-bid meeting in order to make certain that responders who fail to read the document will submit responsive SOQs. Rejected, cumulative. 68-69. Rejected, immaterial, unnecessary. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, unnecessary. 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 23. Rejected as to the implication that Attachment C, Page 1, indicated the DER could not waive any irregularities. Cited language states that information submitted in variance with instructions would not be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence establishes that information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated, but was disregarded. 28. Rejected. It is not clear what is meant by this proposed finding. 37-39. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. 41. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. 42-43. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible, especially given M&E/PIECO's correct submission in response to similar requirements of RFSOQ #9003C. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. Testimony as to the ambiguity of such directions is not credible. The fact that the cited witness understood the directive and failed to comply due to oversight does not suggest that the directive was unclear. Rejected, unnecessary. The directions to Attachment F clearly state that all three pages must be submitted or zero points will be awarded. The reason for the cited witnesses failure to comply is unclear. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, unnecessary. 50-51. Rejected, immaterial. The issue in this case is not whether to goals of the minority business utilization program are met, but whether the DER acted inappropriately in reviewing SOQs submitted in response to the DER RFSOQ #9111C. 52-53. Rejected, unnecessary. 54-56. Rejected, unnecessary, cumulative. Intervenor ERM-South The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2. Rejected, cumulative. 14-19. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. 21. Last sentence rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER applied the language of the RFSOQ in a reasonable way, and that material information submitted in variance with the instructions was not reviewed or evaluated. 32-39, 41. Rejected, immaterial. The issue is whether the failure to follow the clear directions of Attachment F should result, as the directions provide, in zero points being awarded. The fact the DER could have examined the information submitted by ERM-South and ascertained the information which would have been set forth in the complete attachment is irrelevant. The agency is under no obligation to review the information submitted for the purpose of determining a responders' minority business status. Such information is to be provided in the three pages of the completed attachment. 40. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that the omission of Attachment F, page three, is the sole basis for exclusion of a contractor from the short list. The short list was determined by ranking scores awarded. As stated in the directions to Attachment F, the result of noncompliance with said directions was an award of zero points for minority business utilization. 42-46. Rejected, cumulative, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence which establishes that the DER's action in reviewing the submitted Attachment F was reasonable, logical, and was applied in a consistent manner. As to whether the DER should have contacted other agencies to determine MBE status, the agency is under no obligation to do so. 47-49. Rejected, contrary to the clear directions of Attachment F, which state that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package. Failure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." It is simply not possible to find, as suggested in the proposed finding, that such language cannot be relied upon to put contractors on notice that the failure to submit the three pages would result in zero points. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. Rejected, irrelevant. 52-54. Rejected, contrary to the evidence and to the clear directions set forth at Attachment F. 55-57. Rejected, irrelevant. 59-64. Rejected, irrelevant, unnecessary. See preliminary statement. Intervenor ITC The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Proposed findings of fact #7, #10 and #14-16 relate to evidence introduced at hearing by ITC to support it's position that it had been excluded from the "short list" due to DER's clerical error. As stated in the preliminary statement, ITC failed to timely file a notice of protest subsequent to the posting of the bid tabulation results challenging the DER's clerical error. Accordingly, this Recommended Order does not set forth Findings of Fact related to the clerical error due to ITC's failure to timely file a written notice of protest as required by Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes. 12. Rejected. The M&E formal written protest does not allege that the DER had improperly drawn the line for the "short list." 18-20. Rejected. Although likely correct, the proposed findings are irrelevant to the issue in this case. Rejected. Such additional points awarded to M&E by the DER appear to have been awarded contrary to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rejected, cumulative. ITC had an opportunity to timely file a written notice of protest subsequent to the bid tabulation posting, but failed to do so. An intervenor takes the case as it is found. Rejected, cumulative. 25. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The evidence does not establish that the failure to complete all of Attachment F was based on it's inapplicability. Attachment F clearly states that inapplicable pages should be so marked and submitted with the response package. If such pages were not returned, as suggested, because there did not apply, then it is reasonable to conclude that the responder failed to read the clearly stated directions to Attachment F. 26-29. Rejected, irrelevant. The DER did nothing more than apply the clearly stated direction that "[a]t a minimum, the entire three page Attachment F shall be submitted in the response package" and imposed the clearly stated penalty, stating that "[f]ailure to submit this Attachment in the response package shall result in the responder receiving a score of zero (0) for minority business utilization." 32-33. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence that the DER did not waive irregularities where the requirements, and the penalties for noncompliance with said requirements, were clearly stated. The DER did waive other irregularities where the instructions were ambiguous or confusing, or where there was not a specific penalty attached for the failure to follow a specific requirement. The evidence establishes that the DER actions were appropriate. 34. Rejected, immaterial. All three pages of Attachment F were clearly required to be submitted or a score of zero would be awarded. Intervenor E&E The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-3. Rejected, cumulative. 12. Rejected, contrary to the cited evidence. Although Attachment F was discussed in terms of reporting requirements, there were no questions asked related to the directions for completing or submitting the attachment. 21. Rejected, cumulative. Intervenors EBASCO, ABB, OHM, Cherokee and Westinghouse jointly filed a proposed recommended order. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 13, 16-17, 43-45, 47. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carolyn S. Raepple, Esq. Carlos Alvarez, Esq. 123 S. Calhoun Street Post Office Drawer 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 M. Christopher Bryant, Esq. 2700 Blairstone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George N. Meros, Esq. 101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barrett G. Johnson, Esq. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Rex D. Ware, Esq. 106 East College Avenue Highpoint Center, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Robert Venzina, III, Esq. Mary M. Piccard, Esq. 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0589 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esq. Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters concerned herein, either the Department of Management Services, or its successor, the Commission of Minority Economic and Business Development, was the state agency in Florida responsible for certification of Minority Business Enterprises in this state. Johnston was started by Mrs. Cloversettle's grandfather and operated by him and his three sons, including Conrad Johnston, Mrs. Cloversettle's father, for many years. As a child and young woman, Mrs. Cloversettle worked at the place of business in differing capacities and learned something of the business operation. At some point in time, she married Mr. Cloversettle who was and has been an employee of the firm, and over the years, he operated much of the equipment used in the business. Mrs. Cloversettle is also a licensed cosmetologist, and owns and operates a beauty salon through a corporation she owns with her husband. He does much of the handyman work at that shop and she works, part time, as a cosmetologist. Most of her time, however, is occupied with the affairs of Johnston. There are currently 60 shares of common stock issued in Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.. Seven and three quarters shares are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle. Three and three-quarters shares came from her father, and she acquired four additional shares at the time she bought the business. Three and three quarters shares are owned by Mrs. Cloversettle's aunt, Ms. Sims, who lives in North Carolina; fifteen shares are held in the name of her father, Conrad Johnston; and eighteen and three-quarters shares each are held by his two brothers, Bert and Don. Ms. Sims takes no income from Johnston, does not participate in the management of the company, and plays no role in it other than as share owner. At one point, Mr. Cloversettle owned a one-half interest in the four shares his wife got at the time of purchase, but she considered herself the owner in that they were titled jointly only "for simplicity", just as the house and their bank accounts are also owned jointly. On April 26, 1994, after the initial denial of Petitioner's application for MBE certification, the joint ownership was terminated and the shares registered in Ms. Cloversettle's name only without any exchange of consideration therefor. Much the same pertains to the company bank accounts. Before the denial, both George and Brenda Cloversettle could sign company checks. Since then, however, George Cloversettle has been removed as an authorized signatory on company accounts. The shares owned by Ms. Cloversettle's father and his brothers, Donald, Bertram, are presently held as "security" for the payment of the purchase of Johnston by Mrs. Cloversettle. The shares are not voted and are held in escrow under an escrow agreement. A stock pledge agreement, dated February 7, 1986, to which the Cloversettles were not parties, produced after the hearing, pertains only to the corporation and Conrad and Margaret Johnston. Its terms, somewhat confusing, can best be interpreted as providing that upon default in payment, the stock held in escrow would revert to the original holder as titled on the face of the certificate or, at the option of the original owner, be sold. At the time of denial, the shares owned by Donald and Bertram had not been properly endorsed into the escrow but this was done prior to formal hearing when, by affidavit dated August 1, 1994, the escrow agent indicated both Donald's and Bertram's shares were subject to the 1986 escrow agreement. The 1986 agreement prohibits the issuance of any new or additional shares of stock until the purchase obligation is paid off. This provision may have been violated when the four additional shares were issued to the Cloversettles in 1990. The shares owned by both Bertram and Donald were the subject of a stock sale agreement for $93,000.00 for each block of eighteen and three-quarters shares. Both the date of the agreement and the signatures of the parties are not evidenced on the documents, however, but it appears Bertram deposited fifteen of his shares with the Tampa 1st National Bank in 1975, some fifteen years prior to the Cloversettle's 1990 purchase of the company. Conrad Johnston entered into a purchase agreement in 1985 with the original owners which did not include the Cloversettles. His fifteen shares were signed into escrow on February 6, 1986. These discrepancies in capital ownership were not clarified at hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Cloversettle entered into the agreement to buy the company from the Johnstons in 1990 for a purchase price of $300,000. Though in an earlier deposition, Mrs. Cloversettle indicated only about $3,000 of the purchase price had been paid, which money allegedly came from the proceeds of an insurance policy loan and a mortgage on their home, at hearing, she testified $30,000 had been paid, all of which came from the mortgage on their home. No payments on the obligation are currently being made by the Cloversettles because each of the original owners executed an agreement deferring payment until the company is financially able to make regular payments. The minutes of a special shareholder's meeting held on July 8, 1994, reflect the above-noted Johnston brothers' certificates were surrendered for cancellation in July, 1990. However, the minutes also note that the sale and redemption of the certificates was subject to an escrow pursuant to the February, 1986 escrow agreement which, in November, 1993, was affixed to an amended agreement naming Edward Hill as Escrow Agent, which referred to the Johnston brothers not as stockholders but as secured creditors. Because of the complex manipulation of the shares and their status, it is impossible to determine the relative ownership of the parties. Petitioner has not established with any degree of clarity that Brenda Cloversettle, though a minority owner, has actual and real ownership of at least 51 percent of the company equity free of any residuary or reversionary interest which could divest her of her 51 percent ownership. The shares covered by the escrow agreement, while classified by Petitioners as treasury stock, cannot legitimately be so considered since it is still in the name of the original owners and does not become property of the company until the obligation incurred for its purchase is satisfied. While, as noted previously, no additional payments have been made on the purchase price, the company maintains a life insurance policy on each Johnston which Ms. Cloversettle indicates is to be used to pay off the outstanding debt upon their respective deaths. She admits however, there is no document requiring the insurance proceeds to be used that way, and no independent evidence of the policies' existence was forthcoming. The primary business of Johnston is commercial printing/graphics. Ms. Cloversettle is the sole director of the corporation whose bylaws, as of July 8, 1994, require all directors to be minority persons. She has asserted, and it was not disproved by evidence to the contrary, that she has the primary role in decision-making concerning the company's business transactions and she is the sole person required to execute any transaction related documents. She has final authority as to all corporate decisions and is not required to consult with anyone else when corporate decisions are being made, though she may do so. Johnston does not keep inventory on hand but purchases supplies necessary on a job driven basis. According to Ms. Cloversettle, she controls the purchase of inventory and determines the need and appropriateness of equipment rentals or purchases. She seems to be familiar with and to understand the use of the products utilized by the company in its daily operations. She has a fundamental knowledge of the equipment used in the company's operation and, though she may not be fully qualified to operate every piece, can operate some of it. Though she periodically consults with her husband regarding business operations, she is not required to do so and has the responsibility for the hiring and management of employees. She alleges she sets employment policies, wages, benefits, and employments conditions at the company without the need to coordinate her actions with anyone. However, in a phone interview with the Department's representative, in February, 1994, Ms. Cloversettle had difficulty correctly answering many of the technical questions she was asked at hearing. Mr. Cloversettle, who has worked with the firm for approximately twenty years, is its key employee in computer graphics and serves as production manager and vice-president. Without doubt, along with Mr. Ezell, the firm's printer, he is primarily responsible for the daily plant operations, supervising the other employees, planning daily work flow, and insuring the vendors who supply the needed raw materials do so in a timely fashion. Ms. Cloversettle is college trained and, as noted previously, a licensed cosmetologist. She has done bookkeeping for the firm and acted as office manager, but has no formal training in printing, or graphics, other than years of observation as she grew up with the operation when it was operated by her father. Her primary hands-on experience is in book bindery and shop cleaning but she can run some of the smaller, less exotic equipment. She is not familiar with all the terms and duties involved in the operation of this business and could not accomplish them all. She acknowledges she spends most of her time in the office. She claims to be solely responsible for the financial affairs of the company and is the only one currently authorized to sign company checks. This situation, as has been noted, is of but recent origin, however. Nonetheless, Mr. Cloversettle continues to remain subject to equal debt responsibility with Ms. Cloversettle because of his prior co-signing of risk documents relative to loans taken by the company prior to the application, denial and hearing. Ms. Cloversettle's testimony regarding her method of evaluating the company's ability to perform potential jobs creates the impression that she is aware of the company's limitations and its abilities. She does not run the cameras or the presses and she need not do so. She does not solicit business but she hires a salesperson to do so and has the authority and capability to evaluate and accept or reject the work brought in. In the last two quarters of 1993, according to company payroll records, Mr. Cloversettle was paid approximately $6,426.00 while Ms. Cloversettle was paid only $2,650.00. However, after the application was denied, the ratio was changed dramatically to where she now earns $180.00 per week, and he, only $52.95.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Johnston Lithograph & Engraving, Inc.'s request for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1994, 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 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes 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: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted as to the shares of Ms. Cloversettle and Ms. Sims. However, this does not indicate acceptance of the proposition that there are no other shareholders, or that the transfer of shares from Mr. Cloversettle to his wife was bona fide. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. Accepted. However, as noted in the body of the Recommended Order, it is impossible to clearly define the actual status of the brothers' and father's retained shares or whether they have the potential to dilute Ms. Cloversettle's shares. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Not proven. 9. Not proven. 10. - 12. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted, but based entirely on unsupported testimony of Ms. Cloversettle. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 22. & 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 25. Not an appropriate Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted as a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted but more as a comment on the state of the evidence. - 12. Accepted and incorporated more briefly herein. More a comment on the evidence and a Conclusion of Law than a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance more a comment on the meaning and effect of the basic fact. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. First three sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance comment on the evidence. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 25. This is a restatement of testimony by both sides. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick T. Reeves, Esquire Langford, Hill, Trybus & Whalen, P.A. Post Office Box 3277 Tampa, Florida 33601-3277 Wayne H. Mitchell, Esquire Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building, Suite 201 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 John Thomas Interim Executive Director Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner's application for certification as a Women Business Enterprise be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Diann Criss Atkinson, Qualified Representative Shurly Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 15267 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 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 Petitioner Coggin and Deermont, Inc. (C&D) has forty-odd employees. The company owns a building and, among other equipment, bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, graders, draglines, and dump trucks. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. C&D clears, grubs, grades, and otherwise prepares roadbeds and constructs roads through the stage called "base work." C&D has qualified as a prime contractor with respondent Department of Transportation. The firm also builds culverts and storm drainage structures, including head walls, and does other concrete work. After Mr. Deermont died, at age 94, his partner carried on their road- building business with the help of Ralph C. Carlisle, a 25-year employee, and, until recently, president of C&D. Mr. Coggin died last year at 88, and the Carlisle family decided to acquire the rest of C&D's stock. Mr. Carlisle's wife Bertha, nee Lopez, had inherited Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) from her father, who, like her mother, was born in Mexico. Blonde and blue-eyed, Mrs. Carlisle herself was born in the United States, on April 26, 1929. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. FAMILY BUYS COMPANY On February 10, 1982, the Carlisles bought all of C&D's stock Mr. Carlisle did not already own. They used Bertha's inheritance to make a Six Thousand Dollar ($6,000) cash payment and executed a promissory note in the amount of One Hundred Seventy-three Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($173,325), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, for the balance of the purchase price. The note was secured by a mortgage encumbering three parcels of real estate owned jointly by Ralph C. and Bertha L. Carlisle. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The expectation is that income from C&D will make it possible for Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle to make the installment payments promised in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. C&D owes some Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) to various banks. Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle are personally liable for some, if not all, of C&D's debt. They are not obligated to begin installment payments on the note they executed to pay for the stock until March 10, 1983. Mrs. Carlisle paid Two Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($225) per share for her stock. (T. 58.) Only one hundred (100) shares are outstanding. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Mrs. Carlisle holds fifty-one percent (51 percent) of C&D's stock, and her husband holds thirty-four percent (34 percent). Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle have two sons, Ralph C. III and Richard D., to whom they gave ten percent (10 percent) and five percent (5 percent) of C&D's stock, respectively. All the Carlisles are directors of the corporation. Dividends have not been paid since the Carlisles took over. At some point, the Carlisles "decided [they] were going to apply for minority business enterprise [certification] and use [Mrs. Carlisle's] ethnic origin." (T. 64.) PRESIDENT'S DUTIES Mrs. Carlisle did not bring any particular expertise to C&D, even though she had accompanied her husband on some of his travels for C&D (without compensation). After graduation from high school, attendance at "business school," and two years as a clerk in a stock broker's office, she married Mr. Carlisle and began a twenty-five-year career as a housewife, which was interrupted recently by a two-year stint as an interior designer in a gift shop. (T. 65.) When she became majority stockholder, Mrs. Carlisle voted herself president of C&D. She succeeded her husband in that office. Her salary is One Thousand, One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($1,125) weekly, and his is Eight Hundred Ninety-five Dollars ($895) 1/ weekly. They "combine" their salaries. (T. 90.) Machinery is not Mrs. Carlisle's strong point; she has some difficulty distinguishing among the different types of heavy equipment C&D uses. Field operations are not her primary concern. As a matter of company policy, she ordinarily visits job sites only in the company of her husband. (T. 63, 66- 67.) Her routine upon returning from site inspections she described as follows: [W]hen I come back I always check my mail and my phone calls or--something like that. Most of the time when I go out on the job, like I say, it's quite a distance away from home and I go back to the office and check to see what problems we have had, I have had. He checks his desk and I check my desk. And then we'll go on home and that's when we confer with our sons again. And business starts all over again. (T. 67-68.) She also buys most of the office supplies and signs weekly payroll checks, which are prepared by an employee and countersigned both by her husband and Patricia Kirkland, who keeps C&D's books. Mrs. Carlisle has only limited knowledge of basic accounting concepts. (T. 85-86.) She acts as C&D's "EEO representative," (T. 53) a task she took over from a secretary, Mrs. Cook. Mrs. Carlisle has other duties in connection with bid preparation. She reads some ten newspapers published in Chipley, Florida, and surrounds "to see which jobs are going to be coming up" (T. 50) and orders the plans for jobs C&D might be interested in; she and her husband ["he's the engineer and has all the experience . . ." (T. 51)] inspect the site; she inquires by telephone of "salesmen and people to get the prices" (T. 52) for pipe, concrete, and other materials, but does not negotiate prices. According to Mrs. Carlisle, her "husband is the one that is doing all of the figuring on the job," (T. 52) but Mrs. Carlisle works at figuring, particularly when she travels with her husband to Tallahassee. MINORITY OWNERS Both sons work for C&D and had held salaried positions with C&D before the Carlisles bought out the other owners. Their combined experience amounted to less than five years. The older boy, Ralph C. III, serves as corporate treasurer and as general superintendent "overseeing all the work that the company has under construction" (T. 20) and overseeing maintenance. He has power to hire and fire and has exercised it. As treasurer, he reviews a treasurer's report prepared by Mrs. Kirkland and signs rental agreements. He can operate every piece of equipment C&D owns. He has never supervised a road-building project from start to finish, but he worked on one project as a timekeeper and grade man from start to finish. He worked for C&D for a year after he graduated from high school. Since then he has had two years of college; he took math, engineering, and accounting courses. After college, he worked for Ardaman & Associates in Tallahassee for eight or nine months taking soil samples, before returning to C&D in February of 1982. He is paid Two Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($225) weekly. Richard D. works as foreman of a six-man crew, at a salary of One Hundred Seventy Dollars ($170) per week, and has full authority in the field in his father's absence, including the power to hire and fire the men he supervises. He began at C&D as a laborer. He has finished 60 hours of drafting technology courses at a junior college and may graduate in December. EFFECTIVE CONTROL As vice-president and general manager, answerable only to his wife, Ralph C. Carlisle has charge of C&D and manages day-to-day operations. He is trained as an engineer and does surveying for C&D. He is "the job estimator" (T. 90); he stakes out jobs and prepares cost reports. Richard D. Carlisle testified as follows: Q: Who do you report to? A: My daddy. Q: Do you receive instructions from him? A: Mostly. And I receive instructions from my brother and my mother. She will help us out. (T. 13.) Ralph C. Carlisle III testified, as follows: Well, basically I have the control of field supervising. If I make a decision in the field and it doesn't work then I ask [my father] to make a decision. That way he has a little more experience than I do, not a little more, a lot more. I make ninety- nine per cent of the decisions in the field. (T. 28-29.) He explained the lines of authority at C&D in these words: Totally to my mama, I'm totally responsible to her. But in the meantime I'm still re- sponsible to my daddy too. What I'm saying is, basically I do not have to report my day to day activities to anybody. If I have to, if there is something that arises I tell my mama first, being the stockholder, if she is available. If not then I go over it with my daddy. Basically my daddy and I have a little conference every evening on the field activ- ities, which my mama is also in on. We have a little conference every evening. We do report our activities to each other every evening. When it gets right down to it we don't have to. When asked whether decisions she makes in the field are joint decisions, Mrs. Carlisle answered: Yes. Just really because I'm president of the company that still doesn't mean -- that still means that we share it. My husband has a lot of say so just like I do. He has more knowledge in this field than I have. And this is what he is educated in too. (T. 70.) Mrs. Carlisle does not make policy for C&D by herself. (T. 76.) Mr. Carlisle is involved with all technical decisions. (T. 91.) The four owners live together as a family and discuss business at home as well as on the job.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 9th day of September, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office (formerly known as the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development).
Findings Of Fact Aqua Terra, Inc., is a corporation that was organized under the laws of Florida. Aqua Terra is a small business as that term is defined by Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. 1/ The work of the corporation requires expertise in geology and in environmental science. The work of the corporation also requires the services of an engineer for certain projects. Isidro Duque owns 51 percent of the stock of Aqua Terra. Mr. Duque is of Hispanic-American descent and is, consequently, a member of a recognized minority group. Richard Meyers owns 49 percent of the stock of Aqua Terra. Mr. Meyers is not a member of a minority group. Mr. Duque founded Aqua Terra on April 23, 1993. Mr. Duque and Mr. Meyers were coworkers at another company before Mr. Duque founded Aqua Terra. Mr. Duque was the sole shareholder and only officer of the corporation until March, 1994, when Mr. Meyers formally joined the company. When Mr. Meyers joined Aqua Terra in March, 1994, the parties negotiated the structure of the corporation. They agreed that Mr. Duque would retain 51 percent of the authorized stock of the corporation and that Mr. Meyers would be issued the remaining 49 percent. Mr. Duque was named the President, Treasurer, and a Director of the corporation. Mr. Meyers was named the Vice- President, Secretary, and a Director of the corporation. The Board of Directors consists of only these two directors. According to the bylaws of the corporation, all corporate powers are to be exercised under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of, its board of directors. A majority vote of the board of directors is required. Mr. Duque is a professional geologist while Mr. Meyers is an environmental scientist. They both direct projects undertaken by the corporation and share the overall responsibility for such projects. Mr. Duque is primarily responsible for those aspects of a project that require expertise in geology. Mr. Meyers is primarily responsible for those aspects of a project that require expertise in environmental science. The corporation retains the services of a consulting engineer for projects that require certification by an engineer. The engineer the corporation uses for this purpose is not a member of a minority group. Both Mr. Duque and Mr. Meyers have the authority to transact any and all business on behalf of the corporation, including the signing of checks and bank drafts. Mr. Meyers and Mr. Duque actively participate in the daily operation of the corporation. Mr. Duque manages the business development activities of the corporation. Mr. Meyers manages the financial concerns of the corporation and is primarily responsible for purchasing. Mr. Meyers and Mr. Duque assert that Mr. Duque, as the 51 percent shareholder, retains the right to overturn any decision made by Mr. Meyers and that he retains ultimate authority to control the corporation. That right was not established since the existing authority to manage the corporation is, pursuant to the bylaws, vested in the Board of Directors. The managerial functions actually performed by both stockholders are essential to the operation of the company, and one was not established to be more important than the other. Petitioner failed to establish that Mr. Duque 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 Respondent enter a final order that denies Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1996, 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 27th day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner’s certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Locker Services, Inc., is a business owned by Kimberly Gates and her husband, James Gates. Kimberly Gates is a Caucasian female. There is no evidence that James Gates is within a protected classification under the minority business enterprise certification program. Kimberly Gates is the president of the corporation and owns 60 percent of the stock. James Gates is the vice-president of the corporation and owns the remaining 40 percent of the stock. The bylaws on record for Locker Service, Inc., establish that the Board of Directors directs the corporation’s business affairs. The Board of Directors consists of Kimberly Gates and James Gates. According to the by-laws, both Mrs. and Mr. Gates manage the business. Both Kimberly Gates and James Gates are authorized to sign checks on the corporate checking account. A General Indemnity Agreement underwrites the corporation’s bonding requirements. James Gates is a signatory on the agreement and is personally liable as an Indemnitor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Gates, President Locker Service, Inc. 2303 Bayshore Drive Belleair Beach, Florida 33786 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Sheri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was incorporated in July 1992. Petitioner is a graphic design firm specializing in strategic, market-driven design. Petitioner conducts market analysis of a client and, only after defining the corporate identity of the client, engages in the development of suitable graphic design. Mary Francis Weathington is the president and chief executive officer of Petitioner. Her experience in communications began in 1980 as a technical writer and editor. From 1989-92, Ms. Weathington served as an account supervisor for an advertising firm. In this role, Ms. Weathington supervised all junior account executives, developed marketing plans, presented proposals to clients, and communicated client needs to agency staff. Ms. Weathington started Petitioner with John LoCastro, who had worked with her at the advertising agency during the same period of time. Mr. LoCastro was responsible for concept development, management, and design direction at the advertising agency. A third person, David Miller, was also involved with the formation of Petitioner. Mr. Miller served as secretary and treasurer, Mr. LoCastro as vice president, and Ms. Weathington as president. Until December 31, 1993, when Mr. Miller resigned from Petitioner, the three principals each owned 50 shares of the 150 issued shares of Petitioner. The capital contribution of each principal was valued at $4500. When he left the company, Mr. Miller transferred his stock to Petitioner in a transaction that required him to pay money to the company due to its thin capitalization and performance. At the same time, Ms. Weathington purchased two more shares. In the summer of 1994, Ms. Weathington bought three more shares and Mr. LoCastro's wife bought two shares. Presently, Ms. Weathington owns 55 shares, Mr. LoCastro owns 50 shares, and Mrs. LoCastro owns two shares. Petitioner has not issued other shares. Petitioner's board of directors consists of Ms. Weathington, her husband, Mr. LoCastro, and his wife. However, Mr. Weathington is a nonvoting director. Besides the two principals, Petitioner employs only one other fulltime employee, an office manager who is responsible for answering the phone, bookkeeping, proofreading, and handling miscellaneous clerical duties. Petitioner also employs, as needed, freelance graphic designers. Petitioner has recently employed a freelance copywriter. In a small company like Petitioner, there is necessarily some sharing of responsibilities in order to secure and produce design work and ensure that payables and receivables are properly managed. However, there are clear areas of responsibility for Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. As his resume states, Mr. LoCastro is "[r]esponsible for overall creative management, with an emphasis on creative development, planning and design." He is in charge of visual graphics and does nearly all of the computer graphics work, unless it is assigned to a freelancer. Ms. Weathington is responsible for marketing in two respects. First, she markets for Petitioner. She has brought a large majority of the clients to Petitioner and continues to remain responsible for their use of the company. Second, Ms. Weathington assists the clients in developing advertising and design programs that will effectively market the products and services of the clients. Ms. Weathington conducts market research of a client's needs and prepares advertising and design strategies to maintain and enhance the client's business. Ms. Weathington also is chiefly responsible for the management and administration of Petitioner. The office manager's bookkeeping duties are performed under the supervision of Ms. Weathington, who handles personnel, purchasing, planning, and accounting. Although the signatures of both principals are required on checks over $500, this requirement reflects security concerns and does not have a bearing on the division of responsibilities between Ms. Weathington and Mr. LoCastro. Although Mr. LoCastro is responsible for the in-house visuals, Ms. Weathington is responsible for copywriting, which is performed in-house nearly in its entirety. Each principal has been required to guarantee personally the debt of Petitioner. But, given the greater assets of Ms. Weathington, the financial risk is actually borne by her, not Mr. LoCastro. Petitioner's lender would not have made the loan on Mr. LoCastro's guarantee alone, but would have on Ms. Weathington's guarantee alone. Ms. Weathington's control of Petitioner is evidenced in other respects. Petitioner pays for a cellular telephone for her, but not Mr. LoCastro. The marketing brochure prepared by Petitioner features Ms. Weathington in a superior role to the subordinate roles of Mr. LoCastro and Mr. Miller. Ms. Weathington's indispensable contribution to Petitioner is documented by gross sales figures for 1993, during which, for personal reasons, she was unable to work in the spring and fall. When she returned to work in the summer, gross sales increased from less than $10,000 per month to over $50,000 per month. When she left work again in the fall, gross monthly sales fell again to the $20,000 level. Profits have also increased by 16 percent since Ms. Weathington's return.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for minority business enterprise certification. ENTERED on January 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 24, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 8, 9, and 12: adopted, although based on the facts and not a claimed concession or absence of dispute. 22: adopted, except that the evidence showed only that gross revenues went down during Ms. Weathington's absences. Nothing in the record addressed net earnings or profits during these periods. Remaining proposed findings: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1 (first sentence): adopted. 1 (remainder)-4 (except for last sentence): rejected as subordinate. 4 (last sentence): adopted. 5-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. 10: to the extent not subordinate, adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 14-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and recitation of evidence. 20 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 20 (second sentence): rejected as legal argument. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for the implication that, as a practical matter, Mr. LoCastro's guarantee represents as real a financial risk as Ms. Weathington's guarantee. 22 (first sentence): adopted. 22 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Increased sales does not mean increased profits, and nothing in the record indicates increased profits. 22 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 307 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John S. Derr Bush & Derr, P.A. 2874-A Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, FL 32308 Attorney Cindy Horne Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 312 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
