The Issue Are Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, valid exercises of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact On December 22, 1991, the Respondents made amendments to Rules 60A- 2.001 and 60A-2.005, Florida Administrative Code, related to the certification of a "minority business enterprise" to engage in business with the State of Florida. With the amendments, a definition for the term "regular dealer" was created, which states in pertinent part: 60A-2.001 Definitions. . . . (10) 'Regular dealer' means a firm that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the material or supplies required for the performance of the contract are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of products. . . . The amendments included other requirements that a "minority business enterprise", as defined at Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes, must meet to be certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program. (The definition of "minority business enterprise" was changed by Section 288.703(2), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). The change does not effect the outcome in the case.) As promulgated December 22, 1991, Rule 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code states in pertinent part: The applicant business shall establish that it is currently performing a useful business function in each specialty area requested by the applicant. For purposes of this rule, "currently" means as of the date of the office's receipt of the application for certification. The applicant business is considered to be per- forming a useful business function when it is responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities in actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. The useful business function of an applicant business shall be determined in reference to the products or services for which the applicant business requested certification on Form PUR 7500. When the applicant business is required by law to hold a license, other than an occupational license in order to undertake its business activity, the applicant business shall not be considered to be performing a useful business function unless it has the required license(s). In determining if an applicant business is acting as a regular dealer and that it is not acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non- minority business, the Office shall consider the applicant's business role as agent or negotiator between buyer and seller or contractor. Though an applicant business may sell products through a variety of means, the Office shall consider the customary and usual method by which the majority of sales are made in its analysis of the applicability of the regular dealer require- ments. Sales shall be made regularly from stock on a recurring basis constituting the usual operations of the applicant business. The proportions of sales from stock and the amount of stock to be maintained by the applicant business in order to satisfy these rule requirements will depend on the business' gross receipts, the types of commodities sold, and the nature of the business's operations. The stock maintained shall be a true inventory from which sales are made, rather than by a stock of sample, display, or surplus goods remaining from prior orders or by a stock main- tained primarily for the purpose of token compliance with this rule. Consideration shall be given to the applicant's provision of dispensable services or pass-through operations which do not add economic value, except where characterized as common industry practice or customary marketing procedures for a given product. An applicant business acting as broker or packager shall not be regarded as a regular dealer absent a showing that brokering or packaging is the normal practice in the applicant business industry. Manufacturer's representatives, sales representatives and non-stocking distributors shall not be considered regular dealers for purposes of these rules. In passing the rules amendments, the Respondents relied upon authority set forth in Sections 287.0943(5) and 287.0945(3), Florida Statutes. Those statutory sections are now found at Sections 287.0943(7) and 287.0945(6), Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.). Those provisions create the general and specific authority for the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office to effectuate the purposes set forth in Section 287.0943, Florida Statutes, by engaging in rule promulgation. As it relates to this case, the law implemented by the challenged rules is set forth at Section 287.0943(1)(e)3, Florida Statutes (1994 Supp.), which establishes criteria for certification of minority business enterprises who wish to participate in the Minority Business Program contemplated by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. That provision on certification was formerly Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes. In assessing a minority business enterprise application for certification, the Respondents, through that statutory provision: [R]equire that prospective certified minority business enterprises be currently performing a useful business function. A 'useful business function' is defined as a business function which results in the provision of materials, supplies, equipment, or services to customers other than state or local government. Acting as a conduit to transfer funds to a non-minority business does not constitute a useful business function unless it is done so in a normal industry practice. Petitioners, Expertech and Mechanical, had been certified to participate in the Respondents' Minority Business Program, but were denied re- certification through the application of Rules 60A-2.001(10) and 60A-2.005(7), Florida Administrative Code. Marsha Nims is the Director of Certification for the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. In her position, she develops policy on minority business enterprise certification. As such, she was principally responsible for developing the subject rules. In particular, as Ms. Nims describes, the purpose in developing the rules was to address the meaning of a "conduit" set forth at Section 287.0943(1), Florida Statutes, in an attempt to insure that improper advantage was not taken by persons using certified minority businesses to enter into contractual opportunities with the State of Florida. In promulgating the rule, the Respondents spoke to representatives who were involved with unrelated minority business enterprise certification programs. One person from whom the Respondents had obtained ideas was Hershel Jackson, who processed certifications for the Small Business Administration in its Jacksonville, Florida office. This individual indicated that the Small Business Administration had developed a "regular dealer rule" that required individuals who sought minority certification from the Small Business Administration to make sales from existing inventory. This conversation led to the utilization of federal law as a guide to establishing the rules in question. At 41 CFR 50-201.101(a)(2), the term "regular dealer" is defined as: A regular dealer is a person who owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. It can be seen that the definition of "regular dealer" set forth in Rule 60A-2.001(10), Florida Administrative Code, is very similar to the federal definition. In addition, the Respondents used the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act Interpretations at 41 CFR 50-206 for guidance. The provision within the Walsh Healey Public Contracts Act that was utilized was 41 CFR 50-206.53(a). It states: Regular Dealer. A bidder may qualify as a regular dealer under 40 CFR, 50-201.101(b), if it owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other estab- lishment in which the commodities or goods of the general character described by the specifi- cations and required under the contract are bought, kept in stock, and sold to the public in the usual course of business. . . . The Petitioners presented witnesses who established the manner in which their respective industries carried out normal industry practices involving fund transfers to non-minority businesses from minority and non- minority businesses. Joseph H. Anderson is the President of Suntec Paint, Inc. (Suntec), which does business in Florida. Suntec is a non-minority corporation. It manufactures architectural coatings (house paints). Suntec sells and distributes its paint products through its own stores, through other dealers who have stores, and through sales agents. The sales agents would also be considered as manufacturers' representatives. Suntec's relationship with its manufacturer's representatives is one in which Suntec has an agreement with the representatives to sell the paint products to the representatives at negotiated prices which may be discounted based upon volume of sales. The representatives then sell the products to end users at a price that may be higher than the price between Suntec and the representatives. The representatives are responsible for marketing the product to customers. The products manufactured by Suntec are inventoried for distribution, or in some instances, made to order for distribution. The maintenance of inventory is principally for the benefit of the retail outlets controlled by Suntec. Suntec prefers not to maintain inventory because it ties up raw materials, warehousing space, and requires personnel to be engaged in the management and shipment of those products. If the product is "picked up" more than once in the process, it costs more money. Therefore, Suntec distributes inventory through the representatives by direct shipping from the manufacturer to the end user. Suntec's arrangement with its representatives is one in which the customer pays the representative for the product and the representative then pays Suntec. The representatives for Suntec do not ordinarily maintain inventory of the paint products, because this avoids having the representatives handle the product and then reship the product to the end user. By the representative handling the product, it would add expense to the transaction. Suntec, in selling its products through representatives and shipping directly from the manufacturer to the end user, is pursuing a practice which is normal in its industry. Suntec's arrangement with dealers unaffiliated with Suntec who have stores, provides the independent dealers with inventory. Nonetheless, there are occasions in which the independent dealer will place a large order with Suntec; and Suntec will ship the product directly to the end user. That practice is a frequent practice and one that is standard in the industry. Suntec has two minority businesses who serve as manufacturers' representatives and other manufacturers' representatives who are non-minorities. The minority representatives are Expertech, located in Gainesville, Florida, and All In One Paint and Supply, Inc. (All In One), also located in Gainesville. The two minority representatives for Suntec maintain some stock of paint. The inventory amount which All In One maintains was not identified. Within a few months before the hearing, Expertech had purchased 60 gallons of paint from Suntec. It was not clear what the intended disposition was for the paint. Thomas Rollie Steele, the Branch Manager for Bearings and Drives, serves as Sales Manager for that company in its Florida operations. Bearings and Drives has its corporate offices in Macon, Georgia. The company has thirty locations throughout the southern United States, with five different divisions. It specializes in industrial maintenance products and some services. Bearings and Drives is a non-minority firm. In its business Bearings and Drives has manufacturing arrangements or agreements to represent other manufacturers. As representative for other companies who manufacture the products which Bearings and Drives markets, Bearings and Drives is expected to solicit sales. The agreements with the manufacturers which Bearings and Drives has, establish price structures, terms and conditions, and shipping arrangements. Bearings and Drives serves as representatives for the manufacturers in a distinct service area. Bearings and Drives buys products from the manufacturers and resells the products to Bearings and Drives' customers. Bearings and Drives derives compensation by selling to customers at a price higher than the product was sold to them. The price at which products are resold by Bearings and Drives is controlled by market conditions. Bearings and Drives maintains some product inventory; however, in excess of 50 percent of the products sold are shipped directly from the manufacturer to the customer. The direct shipment improves the profit margin for Bearings and Drives by not maintaining an inventory and saving on additional freight expenses, taxes paid on existing inventory and labor costs to be paid warehouse personnel. Bearings and Drives uses a direct delivery system to its customers that is scheduled around the time at which the customer would need the product sold by Bearings and Drives. This arrangement is a standard industry practice. Aileen Schumacher is the founder, President, and sole owner of Expertech. This Petitioner had been certified through the Minority Business Program prior to the rule amendments in December, 1991. When the Petitioner, Expertech sought to be re-certified, it was denied certification in some business areas for failure to maintain sufficient levels of inventory. Expertech sells and distributes technical supplies, such as pollution- control equipment, laboratory equipment, hand tools, and other technical supplies. It specializes in the sale and distribution of safety equipment. Expertech does not provide services. The areas in which Expertech has been denied re-certification relate to the sale of laboratory supplies, paint, and pollution-control equipment. In marketing products Expertech buys directly from manufacturers, except in the instance where they cannot access the manufacturer directly and must operate through a distributor. Expertech tries to maintain as little inventory as possible and to have the commodities it sells shipped directly from the manufacturer to the end user. In addition to ordinary sales, Expertech takes custom orders for products not maintained in inventory by the manufacturer, which are directly shipped from the manufacturer to the customer. In Expertech's business dealings as a manufacturer's representative, wherein it arranges for direct shipments, it is performing in a manner which is standard in the industries in which it is engaged. Otto Lawrenz is the sole proprietor of Mechanical. Prior to the rules changes in December, 1991, Mechanical had been certified as a minority business enterprise. The attempt to re-certify was denied based upon the fact that Mechanical did not stock products and was serving as a manufacturer's representative in selling heating and ventilation equipment. Mechanical sells to mechanical contractors and sheet-metal contractors as a representative for the manufacturer. Mechanical bids on construction jobs and "takes off" the amount of equipment needed in setting its price quotes. If the submission of the price quotation is successful, Mechanical receives a purchasing order from the contractor, as approved by the project engineer. The equipment is then ordered by Mechanical, and delivered by the manufacturer to the job site or the contractor's home office. Mechanical does not maintain a warehouse or a store. The end user pays Mechanical within 30-60 days from the time that the equipment is delivered to the end user. Mechanical then pays the original manufacturer an agreed upon price. Generally, Mechanical sells special-order equipment. This type of equipment would be difficult to inventory since it is being custom-ordered and the units that are ordered are large in size. In addition, the variety of parts involved in these projects makes it difficult to stock them.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Haul-It, Inc., is a trucking company in the business of hauling road building materials. It owns 19 trucks and 13 trailers worth about $106,000; and owes between $75,000 and $79,000 to a bank. Occasionally petitioner engages additional trucks and drivers. All but eight of its 15 or 16 employees are truck drivers. Haul-It, Inc., was organized in 1973. Jack Taylor and his father started the business but later sold out to Hubert E. Real, the president, half- owner and operator of Columbia Paving, and Wiley Jinwright, a 24-year employee of Columbia Paving. Mr. Jinwright became president of Haul-It, Inc., and Jack Taylor stayed on as truck foreman. Messrs. Real and Jinwright each owned 20 shares of stock, representing half interest in petitioner. Columbia Paving itself has never held any of the 40 shares of stock that petitioner has issued. In November of 1980, Mr. Real conveyed all 20 of his shares to his wife, Helen Real; and Mr. Jinwright conveyed one share to Mrs. Real. Both transfers of stock to Mrs. Real were gratuitous. She knew at the time that her ownership might help Haul-It, Inc., qualify as a minority business enterprise. In addition, Mr. Real "had had a couple of heart attacks" (T. 14) and Mrs. Real "thought it would be nice to have a related [to Columbia Paving] business." (T. 14.) The evidence did not reveal whether Mr. Real has spent more, less, or the same amount of time with petitioner's affairs since his divestiture as before. Mr. Real remains active as president of Columbia Paving. From November of 1980 to the time of hearing, Mrs. Real has owned 52.5 percent of petitioner's stock and Mr. Jinwright has owned 47.5 percent. Petitioner's only offices are housed in a trailer located on land owned by Columbia Paving. Haul-It, Inc., pays Columbia Paving rent for the land on which its office trailer, trucks, and other equipment are parked. At the time of the hearing, between 70 and 80 percent of Haul-It, Inc.'s work was being performed under contract to Columbia Paving. As far as the evidence showed, petitioner has always performed most of its services under contract to Columbia Paving. Although it has had other customers, Columbia Paving is petitioner's only regular customer. (T. 27.) Petitioner uses Columbia Paving's computer to keep its books and shares a bookkeeper with Columbia Paving. Each company pays the bookkeeper a separate salary. Mrs. Real sits on Columbia Paving's board of directors. Neither Columbia Paving nor any other entity uses petitioner's hauling equipment unless it has contracted to do so. When Haul-It, Inc., "bid[s] through Columbia Paving" (T. 39) in response to invitations by the Department of Transportation, Columbia Paving personnel check the bid over to make sure that it "fits whatever plan or whatever estimates they feel are in order." (T. 40.) Soon after she became owner of a majority of petitioner's Stock, Mrs. Real became petitioner's vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, even though she had had no prior experience in the trucking business. Mr. Jinwright remains president of Haul-It, Inc. It was also in November of 1980 that Haul-It, Inc., applied for certification as a minority business enterprise. At that time and for some months afterward, Mrs. Real was not working for Haul-It, Inc., on any regular schedule. On the basis of the information petitioner furnished with its application, respondent, in November of 1980, "certified them for 12 months, on the condition that an on-site review would be conducted and at that time the decision would be made as to the ownership and control and whether this minority business enterprise should be continued as certified." (T. 61.) In April of 1981, respondent's Mr. Nath conducted an on-site review. At that time, Mr. Nath requested additional documents which petitioner eventually mailed to respondent. In September of 1981, respondent for the first time communicated to Haul-It, Inc., its intention to disqualify petitioner as a minority business enterprise. After receiving this news, Mrs. Real began going to work for petitioner daily. She has an office in the trailer that she shares with Mr. Jinwright, whose role in Haul-It, Inc., was reduced to cosigning checks when Mrs. Real began working full time. Most of Mr. Jinwright's time is now spent as Superintendent of Columbia Paving's four asphalt plants. Even so, he still draws a salary from Haul-It, Inc., equal to Mrs. Real's salary. Despite their respective titles, both Mr. Jinwright and Mrs. Real act on the assumption that she, rather than he, has ultimate authority in the conduct of Haul-It, Inc.'s business. Mrs. Real has full authority to hire and fire, authority which she has delegated, in the case of the truck drivers, to Jack Taylor. She has the final say on all questions of policy and operations that arise in the business. Haul-It, Inc., cannot borrow money or make expenditures without her permission. Jack Taylor and two other employees buy for Haul-It, Inc., but she cosigns all checks with Mr. Jinwright. She has not learned how to prepare a written bid for the Department of Transportation, although she is involved with bidding. Mrs. Real relies heavily on Jack Taylor's bidding expertise, as have petitioner's other owners. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation reflect the good work done in this case by counsel on both sides. To the limited extent proposed findings have not been adopted, they have been deemed immaterial or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny Haul-It, Inc., certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 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 3rd day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick E. Hurley, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Ella Jane P. Davis, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 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
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to certification as a minority business enterprise.
Findings Of Fact By undated application, Petitioner filed an Application for Minority Business Enterprise Certification. Stating that the applicant was established in November 1991, the application lists as the sole shareholders Hui Schaefer (a/k/a Gina Schaefer), who is a Korean-American minority, and her husband, Reid, who is a nonminority. The application was filed in July 1995. The application states that Ms. Schaefer is an Asian female owning 81 percent of the shares. The application lists Ms. Schaefer as the chief executive officer, secretary, and treasurer, Mr. Schaefer as the president, and Gordon Holfelder as the vice-president. The application lists these three persons as directors, plus DuWayne Boudin and Lenny LaRose. Except for Ms. Schaefer, the directors are nonminorities. Petitioner's bylaws provide for management of the business and property by a majority of the directors. The articles of incorporation provide similarly. Petitioner claimed at the final hearing that she had fired all of the directors except herself, but she produced no documentary proof of this action. Mr. and Ms. Schaefer purchased all of the stock of Petitioner in 1991. At the time of purchase, Ms. Schaefer received 500 shares and Mr. Schaefer received 400 shares. The sole purpose of this allocation was to enable the corporation to qualify as a minority business enterprise. The sole consideration for the shares was the forgiveness of about $6000 in debt. Mr. and Ms. Schaefer had lent this sum to Petitioner or its parent corporation, Unidyn Corp., so it could pay operating expenses, such as a telephone bill. Upon acquiring the shares, Mr. and Ms. Schaefer contributed capital to Petitioner in the form of furniture and equipment, which they value at $100,000. The evidence does not indicate that Mr. or Ms. Schaefer possessed any disproportionate interest in the $6000 loan, equipment, or furniture. To the contrary, it appears that their interests were equal in the money and assets. Petitioner is in the computer software business. Specifically, at the time of the application, Petitioner was a value-added retailer of computer programs. Petitioner purchased software programs from developers, customized the programs for end users, and resold the program to the end user with a commitment to provide technical support and training. Mr. Holfelder is a computer programmer. Mr. Schaefer is a sales representative. Ms. Schaefer is an office manager. At the time of the application, Petitioner employed nine fulltime permanent employees and earned over $800,000 in the fiscal year ending in 1993. At all material times, the compensation of Mr. Schaefer or Mr. Holfelder at least doubled the compensation of Ms. Schaefer. For calendar year 1995, their salaries were set at $60,000, while Ms. Schaefer's was set at $30,000, which was the same paid to Mr. LaRose. The other director listed on the application, Mr. Boudin, was set to earn $48,000 for 1995. The malleability of salaries in response to the requirements of government programs is reflected by Petitioner's explanation why Mr. Schaefer's salary is greater than Ms. Schaefer's salary. In a latter to Respondent dated August 30, 1995, Petitioner explained that the Schaefers were trying to refinance a home mortgage and "[s]everal of the mortgage companies suggested that it would be much easier to approve a VA mortgage if the husband and veteran, Reid Schaefer, had the highest salary." Ms. Schaefer has little technical experience in software programming. She could provide some technical support to customers for programs with which she was familiar as an end user, but she generally was not involved with the technical end of Petitioner's business. Ms. Schaefer's actual authority over corporation management was quite limited in practice. Hiring and firing authority is divided into departments with persons other than Ms. Schaefer responsible for such personnel decisions in the crucial areas of programming and marketing. Mr. Schaefer is responsible for purchasing. Even Ms. Schaefer's involvement in internal bookkeeping is subordinated to Mr. LaRose, who is Petitioner's in-house accountant. Mr. Boudin handles customer training and assists in sales. Ms. Schaefer signed most of the checks, but appeared to do so at the direction of others. She was not the sole person authorized to sign checks drawn on any of Petitioner's accounts, all of which authorized checks to be signed by a single authorized signer. At the end of 1994, shares were redistributed, leaving Ms. Schaefer with 500 shares, Mr. Schaefer with 100 shares, and Mr. LaRose, Mr. Holfelder, and Mr. Boudin with five shares each. Later, Petitioner issues one share to Brian Risley, a systems installer. These transactions left Ms. Schaefer with 81 percent of the issued shares of Petitioner. Later transactions left her with an even greater percentage of the stock; Petitioner repurchased the shares owned by Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Holfelder, and Ms. Schaefer acquired an additional 89 shares. Petitioner repurchased Mr. Holfelder's shares in connection with her termination in January 1996. By that time, Petitioner had transformed from a value-added retailer to custom applications, designing software programs from scratch. Ms. Schaefer does not control Petitioner either in ownership or operation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification. DONE and ENTERED on April 29, 1996, 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 April 29, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 2-3 and 6: rejected as legal argument. 4: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. 5: adopted or adopted in substance except as to implication that Ms. Schaefer controls the business. 7: rejected as not finding of fact. 8-9: rejected as recitation of evidence. 10 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10 (remainder): rejected as recitation of evidence and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 11: rejected as speculative and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as speculative. 13: rejected as subordinate. 14 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 14 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant. 15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 17: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and recitation of evidence. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 21 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 21 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and subordinate. 23: rejected as legal argument. 24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, subordinate, and legal argument. 25-26: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1: adopted or adopted in substance except for subsequent transaction, which does not alter findings. 2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: adopted or adopted in substance except for presence of additional nonminorities. 4-8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance except that such personnel decisions are divided into three areas with different persons in charge of each area. 16-17: adopted or adopted in substance except that the illustrations are rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Veronica Anderson, Executive Administrator Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Joseph Shields, General Counsel Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development Collins Building, Suite 201 107 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2000 Kurt A. Streyffeler Kurt A. Streyffeler, P.A. 3440 Marinatown Lane, Northwest Suite 205 North Fort Myers, Florida 33903
Findings Of Fact Anthony Charles Fabian, a journeyman electrician, is the president of Fabian's Electrical Contracting, Inc. (FEC). Mr. Fabian owns 51 percent of the stock in FEC. FEC was incorporated in 1984 and since that time has been continuously engaged in the electrical contracting business. Although FEC shares office space with other business entities, it is an independent business operation not affiliated with any other business. In 1987, FEC applied for and received certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Mr. Fabian has at all times maintained he is entitled to MBE status as a Hispanic American. Mr. Fabian was born in Tampa, Florida and lived in a Hispanic neighborhood there until he was six years old. During the time he resided in Tampa, Mr. Fabian's neighbors, family, and friends used Spanish as their predominant language. The family culture was Cuban as was that of the area where the family resided. At age six Mr. Fabian moved from Tampa to Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Fabian later moved from Pensacola to Tallahassee mid-way through his sixth grade school year. School mates in Pensacola and Tallahassee called him various ethnic nicknames, all related to his Hispanic ancestry. Such names included: "Julio," "Taco," "Spic," "El Cubano," and "Cuban Wheatman." Other than an affection for Cuban food, Mr. Fabian currently has no cultural practices to tie him to his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian does not speak Spanish. Mr. Fabian does not reside in a predominantly Hispanic community. Mr. Fabian does not practice the religious faith of his progenitors. Mr. Fabian does not instruct his child in any Cuban cultural practice. Mr. Fabian does not know of any Spanish cultural practice that came to him from his family. Mr. Fabian has never been refused work because of his Hispanic heritage. Mr. Fabian's mother has no Hispanic progenitors. Mr. Fabian's father, also born in Tampa, Florida, has the following ancestors: his father (Mr. Fabian's grandfather) was born in Spain, his mother (Mr. Fabian's grandmother) was born in Key West. Mr. Fabian's grandmother, Anna Rodriguez Fabian, (who Mr. Fabian spent time with in Tampa) spoke Spanish and claimed Cuban heritage as both of her parents had immigrated from there to Key West. For this reason, Mr. Fabian maintains he is a Cuban from Tampa. None of Mr. Fabian's grandparents was born in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean. He has never claimed otherwise. Sometime after FEC obtained certification as a MBE, the Department adopted what is now codified as Rule 60A-2.001(8), Florida Administrative Code. Such rule defines "origins" as used in Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to mean that a Hispanic American must substantiate his cultural and geographic derivations by at least one grandparent's birth. In July, 1992, when FEC submitted its recertification affidavit, the Department notified Mr. Fabian that he had failed to establish that at least one of his grandparents was born in one of the applicable geographic locations. Accordingly, Mr. Fabian was advised his request for recertification would be denied. Approximately eleven other persons have been denied minority status because they were unable to substantiate origin by the birth of a grandparent. Of those eleven, none had been previously certified. FEC is the only formerly certified MBE which has been denied recertification because of the rule. However, when FEC was granted certification in 1987 it was not based upon the Department's agreement that Mr. Fabian met the statutory definition of a Hispanic American. Such certification was issued in settlement to the preliminary denial of certification since the word "origins," as used in the statute, had not as yet been defined by rule. Additionally, the recertification of FEC was based upon Department error and not an acceptance that Mr. Fabian met the "origins" test. Finally, in 1991, the Department cured the rule deficiencies to create parallel requirements for certification and recertification for MBE status. When FEC submitted it recertification affidavit under the current rule, the request was denied. Mr. Fabian has been aware of the Department's position regarding his requests for certification from the outset. The Department promulgated the "origins" rule in response to a number of applications for MBE status from persons with distant relations or ancestors within the minority classifications. The necessity for an "origins" rule was demonstrated since the Department needed a clear standard which staff and the public could recognize as the dividing line for who would and would not qualify as a Hispanic American, and since the purpose of the program is to provide preferences in contracting to businesses run by individuals who have been disadvantaged. The standard devised afforded a narrowly drawn, recognizable criterion. In deciding to use the grandparent test, the Department looked to outside sources. Since there was no legislative history resolving the "origins" issue, the Department sought guidance from dictionary definitions and statutory uses in other contexts. In promulgating the rule, the Department gave notice to outside sources, including groups listed in the publication Doing Business in Florida, such as the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Commerce, small business development centers, community development corporations, local minority business certification offices, and the Minority Business Advocate's office. At the public hearing conducted for the purpose of receiving input regarding the grandparent test, no one offered opposition to the "origins" definition. Mr. Fabian is not a black American as defined in Section 288.703(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's recertification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 28th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6777 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 through 25, 28 through 31, 33 through 41, 43, 44, 46 through 50, 60, 64, and 70 are accepted. The first sentence in paragraph 8 is accepted. With regard to the second sentence it is accepted that the neighbors et al enjoyed Cuban food and cultural aspects but spoke Spanish. No proof was submitted that a language of "Cuban" was spoken by the community. The last sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant, otherwise the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is rejected as an incomplete statement of fact which, of itself, is insufficient to stand without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 26 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. With regard to paragraph 27 it is accepted Mr. Fabian has 16 years of experience, otherwise rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as not supported by the evidence or irrelevant. Mr. Fabian does have a phone number whether that number is listed in the telephone book is not supported by the record cited. Paragraph 42 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 45 are accepted. It is also accepted that Lewis & Thompson have used other minority subcontractors. Whether they "regularly" use them is irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 51 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as comment or argument. With regard to paragraph 52, it is accepted that Mr. De La O did not visit a job site; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 53, 54, and 55 are accepted as the applicable law of this case, not fact. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 57 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence; the definition also applies to other minorities. Paragraph 58 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is accepted as a partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 63 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 66 is rejected as argument. Paragraphs 67, 68, and 69 are rejected as irrelevant or incomplete statements. Paragraphs 71 through 73 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary or repetitive. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 17 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first, second, sixth and seventh sentences are accepted; the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted, the remainder is rejected as a recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. The second and third sentences of paragraph 11 are accepted, the first rejected as recitation of testimony, not statements of fact. Paragraph 13 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as argument or partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as partial statement of fact, incomplete to stand alone without further clarification; therefore rejected as not supported by the total weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins Gwendolyn P. Adkins Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Cindy Horne Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of Management Services Suite 307 Knight Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Sylvan Strickland Acting General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Suite 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
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 Whether Petitioner should be granted certification as a Minority Business Enterprise.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dora Industries, Inc. (Dora Industries), was started in 1989 by Sandra Roth (Roth), an American woman. Roth owns all of the company. Initially, Dora Industries bought janitorial and maintenance products from other companies and sold the products as a distributor. Roth graduated from Hunter College with a degree in graphic arts. From 1979 to 1985, she worked for Union Carbide in North Carolina doing research for the chemical division. She was later placed in charge of dealing with third world countries on ways to use chemicals in agriculture. In 1986, Roth went to work for Gold Coast Chemical Corporation (Gold Coast Corporation), which was owned by Eli Finkleberg. Her role at Gold Coast Corporation included doing the paperwork necessary for registering the chemicals manufactured by Gold Coast Corporations with the appropriate regulatory agency. In 1989, Roth formed Dora Industries and married Eli Finkleberg. Dora Industries purchased some of its products from Gold Coast Corporation. Due to ill health, Eli Finkleberg put Gold Coast Corporation up for sale in 1993. The company was advertised for sale in trade magazines. Using funds which Roth had acquired from the dissolution of a previous marriage, she purchased the manufacturing operations of Gold Coast Corporation in 1993. The purchase price was $96,000, which consisted of $47,091 in cash and the remainder in the assumption and payment of certain leases and contracts. In addition, Roth agreed to renegotiate the lease of the real property on which Gold Coast Corporation was housed to include the costs of clean up for hazardous materials which were found in the ground underneath the Gold Coast Corporation warehouse. The landlord attributed the presence of the hazardous materials to Gold Coast Corporation. The estimated cost of the clean up was not to exceed $200,000. The inventory of Gold Coast Corporation was not included in the sale. However, the inventory remained in the warehouse previously occupied by Gold Coast Corporation and was handled for Gold Coast Corporation by Dora Industries d/b/a Gold Coast Chemical Products (Gold Coast Products). After the inventory was sold Gold Coast Corporation no longer sold any products and has not actively sold chemicals for the last two years. Currently Dora Industries is manufacturing chemical cleaning products, distributing its own products and the products of other companies, and exporting products. Eli Finkleberg is the treasurer and a salaried employee of Dora Industries. His responsibilities include interviewing applicants for sales positions, running the sales division of the company, overseeing the sales manager, and supervising the office staff. His annual salary is approximately $35,000. Due to his poor health, he works between four and six hours a day. Jerome Berman is the general manager in charge of operations for Dora Industries. Mr. Berman owned and ran a chemical company for 23 years prior to coming to work for Dora Industries. His responsibilities include ordering all materials and supplies used in the production of and resale of industrial supplies, hiring and firing of all warehouse and distribution personnel, complying with governmental regulations, bidding, and supervising the warehouse and productions. Mr. Berman's annual salary is $57,000. Both Mr. Berman and Mr. Finkleberg have the authority to sign checks on the Dora Industries account. Mr. Berman's authority is limited to $5,000. Roth is responsible for making major purchases for the business such as a telephone system which she recently acquired. Roth employs a chemist who is responsible for the formulas used in the manufacture of the chemical products. This is the third chemist which Roth has employed since she started Dora Industries. Some of the formulas are given to Dora Industries by the suppliers of the raw materials, and some formulas are developed by the chemist. Roth does not have the expertise to develop formulas but she does have the expertise to manufacture a batch of products using a formula. Each day Roth discusses the sales and operations with Mr. Finkleberg and Mr. Berman, respectively. In the hiring of sales personnel, Roth meets the applicants which have been interviewed by Mr. Finkleberg and makes the final decision on who to hire. Roth has delegated the hiring of the hourly wage personnel in the warehouse to Mr. Berman. According to Berman, he advises Roth who he intends to hire in case she should have an objection. Mr. Berman has to report the reasons that he fires personnel to Roth. Roth did the bidding for the company before Mr. Berman was hired. Mr. Berman follows a set formula of cost plus a percentage of profit in the bidding process and requests permission from Roth before making any significant deviations from the formula. Eli Finkleberg owns Trout and Associates, which is a telemarketing firm selling cleaning chemicals to companies outside of Florida. Trout and Associates has one full-time employee and one part-time employee. The full-time employee is housed in an office in the building occupied by Dora Industries. Trout and Associates buys some of its products from Dora Industries for resale.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Lorenzo Ramunno, Esquire 1882 North University Drive Plantation, Florida 33322 Joseph L. Shields, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle Southeast 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle Southeast 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
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 for determination is whether Respondent should certify Petitioner as a minority business enterprise ("MBE").
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the governmental agency responsible for granting or denying applications for MBE certification in accordance with Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes,1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 60A-2.001 and 60A-2.005.2 Petitioner is an applicant for MBE certification. Petitioner is engaged in the business of installing traffic signal devices. Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation that was organized in 1990. Minority Ownership All of Petitioner's stock is owned by Ms. Burita Allen. Ms. Allen is a minority person within the meaning of Section 288.703(3) (the "minority owner" or "minority shareholder"). The minority shareholder is majority shareholder. She owns at least 51 percent of Petitioner's stock within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)1. Financial Risk And Control The minority ownership of Petitioner is real, substantial, and continuing within the meaning of Rule 60A- 2.005(3)(d)3. The minority owner provided all of the $100,000 used for Petitioner's initial capitalization on April 4, 1995.3 Petitioner was inactive from 1990 until it began its first job on May 11, 1995. Petitioner now has completed or started a total of eight jobs. The minority owner has knowledge and control of Petitioner's financial affairs. She has sole control of the day to day operations of the company and its profit and loss. She contributed all of its initial capital, writes the checks, and contracts with employees, subcontractors, and customers. Operating And Management Control The minority owner has operating control of Petitioner and is technically qualified to manage and operate Petitioner's business. She has generated significant growth for Petitioner. Operating revenues have increased from zero to $170,736.28 in less than two years. Petitioner has another $90,268.08 in work performed but not billed. Petitioner's clients include the Florida Department of Transportation, the United States Navy, and Nassau County, Florida. Petitioner has also performed jobs for private companies such as Georgia Pacific, Target, and Haynes & Sons Inc. Affiliation Petitioner's minority owner gained the knowledge and experience needed to operate Petitioner successfully as an employee of J.W. Buckholz Traffic Engineering, Inc. ("Buckholz Engineering"). Buckholz Engineering is a closely held Florida corporation owned by five individuals. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. She owns 52 percent of the stock of Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner shares office space, equipment, and staff with Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner allocates approximately 40 percent of the 70 to 102 hours she works each week to Petitioner. The remainder of her work week is allocated to Buckholz Engineering. The affiliation between Petitioner, its minority owner, and Buckholz Engineering does not impair the minority owner's ownership and control of Petitioner. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Petitioner's minority owner has an unimpeded legal right to share Petitioner's income, earnings, and other benefits in proportion to her stock ownership within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(2)(b). Neither the exercise of discretion by Petitioner's minority owner, her financial risk, nor her equity position in Petitioner is subject to any formal or informal restrictions within the meaning of Rule 60A-2.005(3)(a). There are no provisions in any purchase agreement, employment agreement, voting rights agreement, or the corporate by-laws that vary or usurp the minority owner's discretion. Buckholz Engineering assisted Petitioner in obtaining greater bonding limits than Petitioner could obtain on its own. Petitioner was capable of obtaining bonding on its own but increased the amount of bonding by adding Buckholz Engineering as co-applicant. Petitioner's minority owner is the majority shareholder in Buckholz Engineering. Buckholz Engineering is a professional service corporation that provides design services by licensed professional engineers. Buckholz Engineering utilizes professional liability insurance. It is not a construction company and has no need to be bonded. Petitioner derived its name in part to benefit from the goodwill of Buckholz Engineering. However, the two companies are not engaged in the same business. Buckholz Engineering is a professional engineering firm that performs professional services including the design of traffic control systems. Petitioner installs traffic signal devices. Unlike Buckholz Engineering, Petitioner does not need a professional engineering license to conduct its business. Electrical License Petitioner does not offer a trade or profession to the state which requires a trade or professional license within the meaning Section 287.0943(1)(3)1.4 Unlike the professional engineers in Buckholz Engineering, no state statute requires the minority owner to be licensed in a particular trade or profession in order for Petitioner to install traffic signals. Petitioner's minority owner satisfies all certification requirements that are generally required for Petitioner to conduct its business. The minority owner is certified by the International Municipal Signal Association ("IMSA") and by the American Traffic and Safety Association ("ATSA"). In a particular job, Petitioner's customer may require that a licensed electrician pull the necessary permits for the job or that a licensed electrician approve the job. This customer requirement comprises only a de minimis portion of Petitioner's business. Of the eight jobs contracted by Petitioner, only one customer has required the permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician. Petitioner can satisfy these occasional customer requirements by subcontracting with a licensed electrician at a cost that is a small portion of the job cost.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Petitioner's application for MBE certification. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner should be certified as a Minority Business Enterprise, (Woman-Owned).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Commission On Minority Economic and Business Development, now the Division of Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, was the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility for certifying minority and women-owned businesses for most state agencies. It is required, by statute, to ensure that the preference for minority business firms obtained by the certification process are awarded only to those firms for which the benefit is intended. Petitioner, Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc., is a small business corporation registered in Florida on August 7, 1985. At the time of the original incorporation of the corporation, 1,000 shares of corporate stock were issued of the 7,000 shares authorized in the Articles of Incorporation. Of these, 510 were issued to John D. Richeson, the individual who, with his brother in the late 1970's, started the window cleaning business while a student in college as a means of supporting himself and, later, his wife and family. The remaining 490 shares were issued to Hope L. Richeson, his wife. The funds utilized to start the business and ultimately incorporate were jointly owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson. The Articles of Incorporation, as filed initially, list John D. Richeson as incorporator and registered agent, and John D. Richeson and Hope L. Richeson as the Initial Board of Directors. On January 1, 1986, an additional 500 shares of corporate stock was issued in her name to give her a total of 990 shares out of a total 1,500 shares issued and outstanding. Mrs. Richeson's percentage of ownership, after the issuance of the additional 500 shares, was 66 percent. Share certificates reflect this fact. No additional funds were contributed to the corporate assets by Mrs. Richeson as consideration for the issuance of those shares. Mrs. Richeson, currently the President of the company, attended Bible College in Kansas for three years, graduating in 1978. She moved to Florida in 1980 where she attended Hillsborough Community College (HCC), taking as many business education courses as she could in pursuit of an Associates Degree in Business. In addition to that, she has taken the Small Business Administration Class offered by the University of South Florida. She married John Richeson in 1982 and they have worked together in the window cleaning business since that time. After graduating from HCC Mrs. Richeson contacted a family friend, an attorney, for the purpose of incorporating the business. It was at this time she began to run the business. Without asking any questions about the division of duties or the responsibility for leadership in the business, the attorney drafted the incorporation papers making Mr. Richeson the president. Ms. Richeson took the position of vice-president. She admits she did not, at the time, understand the ramifications of that action. Had she known the importance of the title, she would not have acquiesced in having her husband made president. Even though Ms. Richeson was the de-facto head of the business from the time of its expansion from a one-man operation, John D. Richeson served as president of the corporation from inception up to January 1, 1996, when Hope L. Richeson was elected president. At the annual meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation, held on December 20, 1995, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Richeson, the two directors, the Board recognized Mrs. Richeson's control over the operation of the business since its inception and made her president effective January 1, 1996, when Mr. Richeson, the incumbent, became vice- president Mrs. Richeson indicates, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that neither she nor her husband had any specific training in order to operate the business. What was most important was a general business sense and a knowledge, gained by reading trade periodicals and from experience, of specific window cleaning products. Most of the major business contracts obtained by Petitioner come from bids to government entities and corporations. Other than herself, several employees, namely those who were brought into the business because of their experience with large cleaning projects, evaluate prospective jobs and prepare proposals. This proposal is then brought to her for approval before it is submitted to the potential client. These individuals are her husband and the Van Buren brothers. Based on a job costing formula learned in school, Mrs. Richeson then evaluates the bid to determine if it is too low or too high. She determines if the company can do the job for the price quoted. In addition to bidding, Ms. Richeson claims to oversee every aspect of the business. These functions range from buying office supplies to costing jobs. No one but she has the authority to purchase supplies or equipment other than minor items in an emergency. She also supervises the finances of the operation, determining how earnings are to be distributed and how much corporate officers and employees are to receive as compensation. By her recollection, on several occasions, due to a shortage of liquid funds, she has waived her right to be paid for a particular work period. She claims not to have taken a withdrawal from the corporation for a year, but the corporation's payroll documents reflect otherwise. The salary of each employee is set by Mrs. Richeson. Employees are paid on a percentage of job income. Those employees who do the high-rise jobs receive 40 percent of the income from those jobs. From her experience in the business, this arrangement for paying washers works far better than paying a straight salary. On the other hand, office personnel are paid on an hourly basis. In the event the business were to be dissolved due to insolvency, Mrs. Richeson would lose her 66 percent stock interest in the corporation and her husband would lose his 34 percent interest. There are no other owners of the company, and no one other than the Richesons would bear any loss. Not only can no one but Mrs. Richeson make purchases for the company, even Mr. Richeson cannot sign company checks by himself nor can he pay bills or make any major business decisions. Only she has the authority to borrow money in the name of the corporation. This was not always the case, however. In 1994, Mr. Richeson purchased a new vehicle for the corporation, signing the finance arrangement as president of the company, but even then, Mrs. Richeson signed as co-buyer. Also, the 1994 unsigned lease agreement for the company's use of real property owned by the Richesons calls for Mr. Richeson to sign as president of the company. Mrs. Richeson is the only one in the company who has the authority to hire or fire employees. While she believes the company would go out of business if she were not the president, she also believes she would be able easily to hire someone to replace Mr. Richeson if he were to leave the company. These beliefs are confirmed and reiterated by Mr. Richeson who claims that his role in the company from its very beginning has been that of services rather than management. On August 14, 1995, Mrs. Richeson, who at the time owned 990 of 1,500 shares of corporate stock, filed an application for certification as a minority business enterprise. The application reflected Mrs. Richeson as the owner of a 66 percent interest in the corporation, but also reflected Mr. Richeson as president. This was before the change mentioned previously Melissa Leon reviewed this application as a certification office for the Commission in September 1995. She recommended denial of the application on several bases. The Articles of Incorporation submitted with the application reflect the Director of the corporation as John D. and Hope Richeson and list only John Richeson as incorporator in August 1985. The corporate detail record as maintained in the office of the Secretary of State also reflects the resident agent for the corporation is John Richeson. The corporation's 1993 and 1994 federal income tax returns show John Richeson as 100 percent owner. No minority ownership is indicated. Income tax returns are afforded great weight by the Commission staff in determining ownership. Though Mrs. Richeson claims to own the majority interest in the corporation in her application, the tax returns do not reflect this. In addition, the corporation payroll summaries for February 28, 1995, March 31, 1995 and April 30, 1995 all show John Richeson receiving more income from the business than did Hope Richeson. In the opinion of Ms. Leon, Mrs. Richeson's salary was not commensurate with her claimed ownership interest. The same records for the last three months of 1995 and through April 1996 reflect Mrs. Richeson as receiving more than Mr. Richeson, however. Other factors playing a role in Ms. Leon's determination of non- qualification include the fact that the purchase order for the truck reflected Mr. Richeson as president; the lease agreement shows him signing as president; the bank signature card reflects him as president in 1994 and the corporate detail record shows Mrs. Richeson as resident agent by change dated May 14, 1996, after the filing of the application. Upon receipt of the Petitioner's application, Ms. Leon reviewed the documents submitted therewith and did a telephone interview with Mrs. Richeson. Based on this information and consistent with the guidelines set out in the agency's rules governing certification, (60A-2, F.A.C.), she concluded that the application did not qualify for certification. Not only was the required 51 percent minority ownership not clearly established, she could not determine that the minority owner contributed funds toward the establishment of the business. Ms. Leon determined that the payroll records, reflecting that from February through April 1995, Mrs. Richeson drew less than Mr. Richeson, were not consistent with the same records for the period from October 1995 through April 1996, which reflected that Mrs. Richeson was now earning more than her husband. Further, the amount Mrs. Richeson earned constituted only 53.2 percent of the salary while her ownership interest was purportedly 66 percent. A further factor militating toward denial, in Ms. Leon's eyes, was the fact that there were only two directors. Since Mrs. Richeson was one of two, she could not control the Board, and minority directors do not make up a majority of the Board. While the documents played an important part in Ms. Leon's determination, the telephone interview was also important. Here Ms. Leon found what she felt were many inconsistencies between what was stated in the interview and Mrs. Richeson's testimony at hearing. Therefore, Ms. Leon concluded at the time of her review that the business was jointly owned and operated. It was not sufficiently controlled by the minority party, to qualify for certification. Nothing she heard at hearing would cause her to change her opinion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order denying Minority Business Enterprise status to Bay Area Window Cleaning, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, 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 August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5913 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which is rejected as a legal conclusion. Accepted that she ran the operation. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of the testimony of Mrs. Richeson and a generalized agreement with the comments made. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein, 11. - 12. Accepted. 13. - 14. Accepted. 15. - 17. Accepted. 18. - 19. Not proper Finding of Fact, but accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. 20. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 25. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contradicted by the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that until after the application was filed, Mr. Richeson was paid more than Mrs. Richeson, but the difference was not great. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not consistent with the evidence of record except for the allegation concerning Mr. Richeson's authority to sign corporate checks, which is accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam L. Sumpter, Esquire 2700 North Dale Mabry Avenue, Suite 208 Tampa, Florida 33607 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
