Findings Of Fact Petitioner, E. J. Strickland Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), submitted to Respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), a bid on State Project No. 75030- 3518. Petitioner's was the lowest bid received by the Department. Petitioner's bid failed to meet the D.B.E. goals on State Project No. 75030-3518. The D.B.E. goal was 12 percent; under Petitioner's bid, only .04 percent of the contract would be performed by economically disadvantaged business enterprises. The only effort Petitioner made to secure bids of certified D.B.E. contractors to incorporate in its bid to the Department was to run a legal advertisement in the Orlando Sentinel on January 18, 19 and 20, 1986. The Department was scheduled to open all bids on January 22, 1986. Petitioner documented only the advertisements and the fact that it incorporated the only response to the advertisements in its bid in an effort to demonstrate good faith effort to meet the D.B.E. goals. 2/ There is no evidence that Petitioner acted with specific discriminatory intent in preparing its bid on State Project No. 75030-3518. Petitioner proved that it acted in this case precisely as it acted in the only other Department job on which it bid. In that case, Petitioner ordered from the Department plans and specifications and was sent plans, specifications and a bid package and was placed on the Department's list of prospective bidders. In accordance with the custom in the industry, the Florida Transportation Builders Association (FTBA) obtained from the Department the list of prospective bidders as of ten days before the bid letting date and distributed the list to its members. In accordance with the custom in the industry, several DBE and WBE contractors contacted Petitioner, verified that Petitioner was bidding on the project and submitted proposals for inclusion in Petitioner's bid. In that way, Petitioner received enough response from certified DBE and WBE contractors to meet the DBE and WBE goals on the job. In this case, in accordance with the Department's normal practice, the Department only sent Petitioner plans and specifications in response to Petitioner's December 30, 1985 request for plans and specifications. Also, since Petitioner did not specifically request a bid package, the Department did not include Petitioner on its list of prospective bidders. For that reason, no FTBA members, including the certified DBE contractor who bid on Petitioner's previous job with the Department, received notice that Petitioner was a prospective bidder on State Project No. 75030-3518. Had Petitioner been included on the FTBA list, Petitioner probably would have received enough response from certified DBE contractors to meet the DBE goals on this job, too. All four of the other bidders on State Project No. 75030-3518 met the DBE goals. One of them relied entirely on the FTBA list to notify prospective certified DBE contractors. One of them -- including the next lowest bidder, Cone Constructors, Inc. -- also sent a written request for a proposal to Pary, Inc., the same certified DBE contractor who previously had contracted with Petitioner on a Department job that was still ongoing. Another of the bidders on State Project No. 75030-3518 telephoned Pary, Inc., and asked for a proposal. Petitioner is not a member of the FTBA and did not inquire whether it was listed as a prospective bidder on the FTBA list. Petitioner did not make any effort to use the Department's DBE directory to directly contact certified DBE contractors concerning the job. Petitioner did not even contact Pary, Inc., to request a bid although Pary, Inc., was working for Petitioner at the time and had not responded to Petitioner concerning State Project No. 75030-3518. Petitioner's small effort to meet the DBE goals on State Project No. 75030-3518 did not rise to the level of good faith efforts. The evidence that Petitioner acted in this case precisely as it acted in the only other Department job on which it bid does not prove that Petitioner made a good faith effort in this case. To the contrary, it proved only that Petitioner was lucky to meet the DBE goals on the prior contract.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation, dismiss the bid protest of Petitioner, E. J. Strickland Construction, Inc., and award the contract in State Project No. 75030-3518 to the lowest responsive bidder, Cone Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees, as Petitioner alleges; and, if so, whether a penalty based upon the unpaid premium should be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation ("DFS" or the "Department"), is the state agency responsible, among other things, for the enforcement of the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements established in chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent Ameribuild Construction Management, Inc. ("Ameribuild"), is a Florida corporation having its principal office in Boca Raton, Florida. Brandon L. Roth ("Roth") is the owner and qualifier, and a corporate officer, of Ameribuild. At all relevant times, Ameribuild was licensed to engage in construction activity in the state of Florida. In the instant case, DFS alleges that Ameribuild, as the general contractor for a construction project in Miami, failed to secure workers' compensation insurance for Roth and six employees (the "Workers") of CJ Meeko, LLC ("CJM"), a business which, DFS alleges, was a subcontractor of Ameribuild on the project in question. In its defense against this allegation of noncompliance, Ameribuild raises two disputes of material fact, asserting that, contrary to DFS's preliminary determinations, (i) Roth did not perform services for remuneration for Ameribuild, and (ii) CJM was not Ameribuild's subcontractor but was, rather, in a direct contractual relationship with Prestige Imports Outparcel LLC ("Prestige"), the owner of the project. Based on these exculpatory (but disputed) factual allegations, Ameribuild argues that, as a matter of law, neither Roth nor any of the Workers was a statutory "employee" (a term of art in this context) of Ameribuild, and thus, to the point, Ameribuild was not obligated to secure compensation for these individuals. Of the material facts in dispute, the question of whether CJM was a subcontractor of Ameribuild is by far the most significant, as the Workers account for $132,593.32 (or 96 percent) of the $137,719.54 penalty that DFS seeks to impose. The Department, which has the burden of proving the affirmative of this crucial question, relies largely (although not entirely) on the hearsay statements of Roth and Eugene Parker ("Parker"), the latter an employee of Ameribuild at all material times who was foreman or superintendent of the subject project. These statements are admissible as substantive evidence under the "admissions" exception to the hearsay rule.1/ DFS introduced the statements of Roth and Parker through its investigator, Anthony Vinci, to whom (according to Mr. Vinci) the statements were made. Mr. Vinci also testified about statements made to him by Jack Rosales, the owner of CJM (and one of the six Workers mentioned above). To the extent offered for the truth of the matters asserted, Mr. Rosales's out-of-court statements to Mr. Vinci constitute hearsay that does not fall within any recognized exception. The undersigned has not made any findings of fact based, in whole or in part, on Mr. Rosales's hearsay statements.2/ Roth and Mr. Rosales testified at hearing. Both men denied that CJM had been Ameribuild's subcontractor, contradicting the section 90.803, Florida Statutes, admissions to which Mr. Vinci attested. Because the resolution of this particular dispute turns on credibility determinations, the undersigned will discuss the testimony itself in somewhat more detail than is usually warranted. On May 31, 2017, Mr. Vinci performed a random worksite inspection at 15050 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami Beach, Florida, where an automobile dealership was being constructed on a site that had been occupied by a drugstore. He immediately observed several men performing drywall work and debris removal. The first person to whom Mr. Vinci spoke was Mr. Rosales, who identified himself as the owner of CJM and confirmed that the five laborers presently at work were CJM's employees. Mr. Vinci immediately conducted on online database search and discovered that Mr. Rosales did not have an active exemption for himself or workers' compensation coverage for any of CJM's employees at the worksite. Parker, the Ameribuild employee, was present at the worksite, too, when Mr. Vinci arrived. As the project foreman, his duties included coordinating the job and making sure that the work flow continued. Parker told CJM's employees what to do. He opened and closed the worksite daily, coordinated all the subcontractors, and kept a log of persons entering and leaving the area. Parker, in short, was "in charge" on site. Mr. Vinci interviewed Parker, who acknowledged being an employee of Ameribuild and identified CJM as Ameribuild's subcontractor. Parker named Roth as Ameribuild's owner and gave Mr. Vinci Roth's name and number. Before calling Roth, Mr. Vinci went to his car and conducted an online search of Ameribuild's records. He learned that Ameribuild had workers' compensation coverage through a leasing company, which showed coverage for Parker. The leasing roster, however, did not cover Roth or any of CJM's employees. Mr. Vinci then got Roth on the phone to notify him that Ameribuild had not secured workers' compensation coverage for all of its employees and that, consequently, the Department would enforce compliance, including through the issuance of a Stop-Work Order ("SWO"). At hearing, Roth denied having spoken to Mr. Vinci at this time.3/ Mr. Vinci's contemporaneous notes, however, corroborate his recollection of the discussion at issue, and, equally important, the conversation fits comfortably into the undisputed chain of events, whereas its nonexistence would be harder, albeit not impossible, to reconcile with the parties' subsequent conduct. The undersigned finds that, in fact, Mr. Vinci and Roth spoke on the telephone on the afternoon of May 31, 2017. As recounted by Mr. Vinci, the ensuing discussion was, for the most part, about what you'd expect. After introducing himself, Mr. Vinci asked Roth about CJM and whether its Workers were covered. When Roth replied that Mr. Rosales had an exemption from workers' compensation, which he (Roth) had seen, Mr. Vinci informed him that, actually, Mr. Rosales did not have one. Asked whether he (Roth) had an exemption, Roth answered that he would need to check. In response to another of Mr. Vinci's inquiries, Roth told the investigator (according to the latter's contemporaneous notes) that he (Roth) did not receive any remuneration from Ameribuild. According to Mr. Vinci, whose testimony in this regard is hotly disputed, Roth stated that he had hired Mr. Rosales's company, CJM, as Ameribuild's subcontractor on the project in question. Armed with this information, DFS prepared a SWO for issuance to Ameribuild, which commanded Ameribuild to cease all business operations at the worksite and assessed a monetary penalty (exact amount to be determined) equal to two times the premium Ameribuild would have paid to provide the required coverage during the preceding two years. Mr. Vinci called Roth to tell him about the SWO and make arrangements for the service thereof. (Roth's denial of his participation in this conversation is rejected as unpersuasive.) Roth was informed of the requirements for obtaining a conditional release from the SWO so that Ameribuild could resume operations at the worksite pending a final release upon compliance and payment in full of the assessed penalty. Roth agreed to meet Mr. Vinci the following day at the Department's Miami office. That meeting took place as scheduled. Mr. Vinci personally served Roth with the SWO and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation ("BRR"). Roth then paid $1,000.00 towards the penalty, which had yet to be calculated, and delivered a signed "reduction-of-workforce" letter, i.e., a sworn statement, on Ameribuild letterhead, promising DFS that "Ameribuild Construction Management will no longer permit CJ Meeko LLC or his employees [to] work on the jobsite @ 15050 Biscayne Blvd., North Miami Beach, FL 33132 until CJ Meeko LLC is in compliance with Florida State Law." Upon receipt of Ameribuild's check and reduction-of-workforce letter, the Department executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, which authorized Ameribuild to resume operations at the worksite. There is no evidence suggesting that, during this meeting on June 1, 2017, Mr. Vinci or anyone else interrogated Roth, who could have remained silent and refused to comment on DFS's allegations, given that it would be DFS's burden to prove the charges, were Ameribuild to request a hearing. Roth, however, volunteered his opinion that if CJM lacked coverage (as DFS alleged), then Mr. Rosales must have made an "honest mistake" because he (Roth) sincerely believed that Mr. Rosales had applied for and obtained an exemption. The point of this statement, obviously, was not to deny the violation, but to minimize it as having been neither knowing nor intentional. Roth, it appears, was offering up facts that he probably hoped would mitigate the penalty. Regardless, more telling is what Roth——in responding to the accusation that Ameribuild was responsible for its subcontractor's (CJM's) failure to secure compensation——did not say. If CJM really were not Ameribuild's subcontractor, it would be expected that Roth would protest the Department's misunderstanding of this basic fact, and state that, in fact, CJM was Prestige's contractor. While Roth's silence in this regard perhaps does not rise to the level of an evidentiary admission,4/ the undersigned finds that his failure then (or later) to inform the Department of the "true" contractual relationships is suspiciously inconsistent with Ameribuild's current litigating position. If Ameribuild did not have a contract with CJM, then Roth, if he were not going to keep quiet, should have been making that point early and often. In the months that followed, Ameribuild provided documents to DFS responsive to the BRR, which DFS deemed insufficient for purposes of determining Ameribuild's payroll for the audit period of June 1, 2015, through May 31, 2017. In such situations, where the records are insufficient to establish actual payroll, the Department is authorized to base its penalty assessment upon an "imputed payroll." Consequently, using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and (e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.027, DFS determined (for the entire audit period) Ameribuild's imputed payroll, which is the compensation that Ameribuild is deemed to have paid the Workers and Roth. It is unnecessary in this case to make detailed findings regarding the assumptions behind Ameribuild's imputed payroll figures because Ameribuild does not dispute them or the amount of the resulting penalty ($137,719.54), which was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served on November 6, 2017. Rather, Ameribuild maintains that DFS has failed to prove the alleged violations, meaning there can be no penalty, which makes the imputed payroll irrelevant. If, on the other hand, Ameribuild were found to have violated a duty to secure compensation for Roth and Workers, which Ameribuild of course believes should not happen, then Ameribuild would concede that the imputed payroll and concomitant penalty are correct. As mentioned above, it is Ameribuild's contention that the Workers were not "employees" of Ameribuild for workers' compensation purposes because CJM was under contract, not to Ameribuild, but to the owner of the project, Prestige. Both Roth and Mr. Rosales testified about this purported contract; under the CJM-Prestige agreement as they described it,5/ the Workers might not have been Ameribuild's employees.6/ Ameribuild sought to introduce a copy of the contract as proof of the fact that CJM was Prestige's contractor. The Department objected because Ameribuild had not disclosed the contract as an exhibit until a few days before the hearing, long past the deadline established in the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. Ameribuild could provide no explanation for the late disclosure. Wanting to avoid the exclusion of evidence that could be dispositive, but unwilling to countenance the prejudice DFS might suffer if the surprise exhibit were admitted, the undersigned ruled that the document would be received on the condition that the hearing be recessed for a reasonable, but brief, period so that DFS could depose the appropriate person(s) at Prestige about the purported CJM-Prestige agreement, and then supplement the record with the deposition(s). Ameribuild, however, elected to withdraw the exhibit to prevent the Department from obtaining Prestige's testimony about the alleged contract. Thus, Ameribuild neither offered (nor proffered) the purported CJM-Prestige agreement, which, accordingly, is not in the evidentiary record. The undersigned probably would be permitted to draw an adverse inference from Ameribuild's counterintuitive failure to introduce the written agreement, which was obviously available and within Ameribuild's immediate control, and which (if genuine) would be, if not dispositive, certainly persuasive exculpatory evidence directly rebutting the Department's case-in-chief. The undersigned reasonably could infer from the totality of the circumstances that Ameribuild had reason to believe Prestige would not recognize and authenticate the purported contract if asked about it under oath in deposition, which reason being (need it be said?) that the purported contract is a fake. The undersigned declines to draw such an inference. Instead, the undersigned finds that, without the contract as corroborating evidence, Ameribuild has failed to present proof sufficient to undermine the strength of the Department's prima facie case. DFS has carried its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that CJM was Ameribuild's subcontractor. On the question of whether Roth was an employee of Ameribuild for compensation purposes during the period when his name did not appear on the coverage roster, however, the undersigned finds that the Department failed to carry its burden of proof. Roth testified at hearing that he had received no remuneration from Ameribuild during the months in 2016 and 2017 when he was not included in the company's compensation coverage, which testimony was consistent with his prior statement to Mr. Vinci in this regard. Other documentation in evidence shows that in 2015, when Roth received remuneration from Ameribuild, he was also provided workers' compensation coverage, through South East Personnel, Inc., a leasing company. While the evidence fails clearly to establish that Roth did not receive remuneration from Ameribuild, it fails clearly and convincingly to prove that he did. It is determined, therefore, that Roth was not an uncovered employee during the audit period. The proposed penalty must be adjusted to remove the amount attributable to Roth——$5,126.22. Ameribuild's penalty for noncompliance, based on the Workers' imputed payroll, should be $132,593.32.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order finding Ameribuild Construction Management, Inc., in violation of its obligation to secure workers' compensation and imposing a penalty of $132,593.32 for such noncompliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Florida Department of Transportation to award the bid on State Project No. 79002-3429, for construction of a highway project, SRI- 95/11th Interchange, in Volusia County, Florida, to PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) issued an Invitation To Bid (ITB) on State Project No. 79002-3429 (Project), construction of a highway project--SRI-95/11th Interchange in Volusia County, Florida. The project is 100 percent federally funded. On July 28, 1993, the bid letting was held. The apparent lowest bidder was Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. (Petitioner), with a bid of $10,480,685.71, and the apparent second lowest bidder was PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. (Intervenor), with a bid of $10,794,968.22 1/ Included as a requirement of the bid by Respondent was a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 12 percent. On its face, Petitioner's bid met and exceeded the DBE goal with an intended DBE utilization of 12.2 percent. However, one of Petitioner's DBEs, Gearing Engineering (Gearing), was not certified by Respondent as a DBE. Without Gearing, Petitioner fell short of the DBE goal. The bid specifications in the ITB provided in a section entitled "Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" that only DBEs certified by Respondent at the time that the bid is submitted will be counted toward the DBE goal. At the time Petitioner submitted its bid, Gearing had for the first time filed an application with Respondent to be certified as a DBE. At no time prior to this had Gearing been certified as a DBE by Respondent even though it had received certification as a minority business from local government. By the bid letting, Gearing had not been certified as a DBE by Respondent. On July 29, 1993, representatives of Respondent contacted Petitioner to inform it of the DBE problem and to inquire about its good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal. Petitioner responded the same day by written communication indicating, among other things, that it had contacted Gearing about its DBE status and that Gearing informed Petitioner that Respondent's DBE office had informed Gearing that it was appropriate for Gearing to submit a proposal and that certification was required, not at the time of submitting the proposal, but at the time work began. In the communication, Petitioner offered to substitute two certified DBEs for Gearing if Respondent determined Gearing could not be used. Also, Petitioner included with its response a letter from Gearing outlining the communication it (Gearing) had had with Respondent. Petitioner is no stranger to Respondent's bid process as it has prequalified to contract with Respondent and has been doing business within the State of Florida full-time for approximately five and one-half years. 2/ At no time prior to submitting its bid, did Petitioner contact Respondent's DBE office to determine Gearing's DBE status. Petitioner depended wholly upon the representation made by Gearing. Petitioner's division manager, who approved Petitioner's bid proposal for submission, directed his subordinates to only use DBEs certified by Respondent and appearing in Respondent's DBE Directory (Directory) when Petitioner was attempting to reach a DBE goal set by Respondent in a bid. The subordinates knew that Gearing was not in the Directory but failed to inform the division manager of Geary's non-certificate, deciding instead to depend on the representation made by Gearing. Had the division manager known of Geary's non- certification, he would have chosen another DBE from the list of DBEs on his selection list that were certified. Once a business becomes certified by Respondent as a DBE, it is added to a list of certified DBEs maintained by Respondent. A printed list of Respondent certified DBEs--DBE Directory--is provided to bidders, prior to the submitting of bids, so that bidders will know what businesses are certified and when their current certification expires. If a business appears in the DBE Directory for a bid, even though its certification may be listed as expiring before the bid letting date, the business can be included as a DBE on the bid. This procedure is used by Respondent because a renewal application may have been timely filed by a certified DBE, but Respondent may not have completed its renewal process at the time of printing of the Directory or that Respondent may not have timely furnished a certified DBE with a renewal notice or may not have received notification by return receipt that the DBE had received the renewal notice. Therefore, the DBE is retained on the list during Respondent's review process. 3/ Even if a DBE is found by Respondent to no longer meet the DBE requirements, if that DBE was on the DBE Directory at the time of a bid submission and used by a bidder for a project, the bidder would not be penalized. Furthermore, a business not appearing on the DBE Directory may become certified after the list is printed, but before bid submission deadline, and, therefore, be eligible to submit a proposal to a bidder for the particular project named. The DBE Directory also contemplates this situation by directing bidders on the first page of the Directory to contact Respondent directly if the status of a business, as a certified DBE, is in question, whether the business is listed or not. Moreover, Respondent informs bidders in the front of the Directory, printed in noticeable type, i.e., all capitalizations and boldtype, that only DBEs certified by Respondent will be counted towards meeting Respondent's DBE goals. At no time did Respondent's DBE office inform Gearing that it could submit a proposal on the Project without first receiving certification from Respondent as a DBE. The testimony of Respondent's operations and management consultant in its DBE office, who is the individual with whom Gearing communicated, is credible that anyone inquiring about a business submitting a proposal as a DBE to a bidder must first be certified by Respondent as a DBE in order to submit proposals on Respondent's contracts. Further, Respondent's continuous practice and procedure is to require DBE certification before a business can submit a qualified proposal as a DBE. Moreover, it is readily apparent that there was a miscommunication between the principals (husband and wife) of Gearing, causing a misinterpretation of what Gearing could or could not do before being certified. The subordinate principal (husband) who directly communicated telephonically with the DBE office denied that the DBE office informed him that Gearing could submit a proposal as a DBE before it was certified; whereas, the majority principal (wife) believed that he (husband) had informed her that Gearing could submit a proposal as a DBE during the pendency of its DBE application and she so informed Petitioner. On August 4, 1993, Respondent's Good Faith Efforts Review Committee reviewed the bids, including Petitioner's documents submitted on July 29, 1993. Its recommendation was (a) to declare Petitioner's bid nonresponsive due to Petitioner not meeting the DBE goal and not being able to document a good faith effort in attempting to meet the goal and (b) to award the bid to Intervenor. When the DBE goal is not met, the bid specifications in the section entitled "Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" provide that awarding the contract is conditioned upon the bidder demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goal, with the documentation being submitted with the bid. Furthermore, the said section enumerates what information will be considered in evaluating good faith efforts and provides that failure to show good faith efforts will result in disqualification of the bidder. The bid documents contain a DBE Utilization Summary form which displays a notice providing that, if the DBE goal is not met, documentation must be included with the bid to demonstrate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal, and if they are not included, the bid may be considered nonresponsive. Although good faith effort documents are to be submitted with the bids, generally, they are not because a bidder believes the goal has been met, as evidenced by its DBE percentage. Consequently, no bidder has been able to document good faith efforts when a good faith effort question arises after bid submission. Petitioner did not submit good faith effort documents with its bid because it believed that it had met, and even exceeded, Respondent's DBE goal. On August 11, 1993, Respondent's Technical Review Committee reviewed the bids and the accompanying recommendation. It concurred with the recommendation of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. On August 17, 1993, Respondent's Contract Award Committee reviewed the bids and the recommendations. It concurred with the recommendation of the Technical Review Committee, i.e., declaring Petitioner's bid nonresponsive for failure to meet the DBE goal and awarding the contract to Intervenor. On September 3, 1993, Respondent posted its notice of intent to award the contract for the Project to Intervenor. Petitioner timely filed a protest to the intended action. Respondent has filed a proposed rule change which would change the way it handles bidders attempting to meet DBE requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter its final order awarding State Project No. 79002-3429, for construction of a highway project, SRI-95/11th Interchange, in Volusia County, Florida, to PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Claude DuVoisin holds a current, active certified building contractor's license. He has been in the construction business since 1958, when he began in New Jersey. In 1970, respondent moved to Florida, where he has been principally engaged in building "luxury, custom" single family homes. He has built approximately 100 such homes in Florida and, until recently, ordinarily had five to seven under construction at any one time. On January 23, 1976, respondent, as president of Claude, L. D., Inc., borrowed from the Landmark Bank of Plantation the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) at 9 percent interest, and signed a promissory note in that amount by which he committed the corporation to repay principal in ten equal monthly installments, unless demand should earlier be made for repayment of the entire indebtedness. The note provided for payment of interest monthly as it accrued. Claude, L. D., Inc., was a Florida contracting corporation controlled by respondent, until its involuntary dissolution on December 11, 1976. Respondent caused the corporation to make installment payments in accordance with the terms of the note on February 23, 1976, on March 31, 1976 (approximately a week late), and on April 23, 1976, but the corporation made no payment in May of 1976. The payment due May 23, 1976, was made on June 8, 1976. On May 31, 1976, Al and Bessie Seamon entered into a written contract with Claude L. D., Inc., under which the corporation agreed to erect a single family residence on a Broward County site owned by the Seamons, in exchange for one hundred forty-seven thousand dollars ($147,000.00), Even before the agreement was executed, the Seamons paid Claude L. D, Inc., one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). The day after the contract was signed, one of the Seamons called from New York, requesting certain changes in the plans, which resulted in two months' delay in starting work under the contract. As work progressed, the Seamons requested more than 100 additional changes. One of these changes, involving the texture of the plaster on certain inside walls, was reduced to writing and signed by the parties to the original contract. From time to time, the Seamons made installment payments under the contract. By January 18, 1977, those payments aggregated eighty-eight thousand four hundred twenty-one and seventy-four hundredths dollars ($88,421.74). Respondent caused these moneys to be deposited in accounts belonging to Claude L. D., Inc., the same accounts from which the loan to Landmark Bank of Plantation was repaid, and from which were made disbursements for labor and materials for the half dozen houses Claude L. D., Inc., had under construction, including the Seamons'. No money from corporate accounts was diverted to respondent's personal use. When Mr. Seamon received a notice of lien from a roofing contractor with whom respondent had subcontracted, he inquired of respondent why the roofer had not been paid. Respondent said there was a crack in the roof he wanted the roofer to repair before being paid. Later the Seamons received a notice of lien from the contractor who installed the intercom system in the house. The Seamons had dealt directly with the intercom contractor, but the notices of lien raised questions in their minds and a meeting was scheduled with respondent. In January or February of 1977, respondent and his wife met the Seamons in a model home respondent had built. When the Seamons asked for an accounting of all moneys paid pursuant to the contract, respondent indicated that part of the money had gone to repay the loan from Landmark Bank of Plantation. Ms. Jeanne Klinger accompanied the Seamons to a second meeting, at a lawyer's office, where respondent again indicated that some of the money paid by the Seamons had been used to pay back a bank loan. On April 18, 1977, Respondent filed a petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Respondent did not complete construction of the Seamons' home. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stucky's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's certified building contractor's license be suspended until and unless respondent is discharged in bankruptcy. That respondent be on probation for a period of one year following restoration of his certified building con tractor's license, and that respondent be required to keep separate accounts for each project or operation with which he becomes involved while on probation. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 APPENDIX Paragraph one of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, but much of the paragraph consists of proposed conclusions of law, which have not been adopted. Paragraph two of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, but much of the paragraph consists of proposed conclusions of law, which have not been adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Keith L. Rinehart, Esquire Suite 202 5353 North Federal Highway Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Findings Of Fact Department of Transportation (DOT) Project #02000-3608 is a federal aid highway project requiring the replacement of a bridge on Kings Bay Drive over a canal near the Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida. The bridge is currently closed due to hurricane damage. The bid specifications were published, and a bid submittal deadline of March 28, 1990, was established. The bid specifications included a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goal of 10%, and hiring goals of 6.9% female and 17.1% minority. The bid specifications also included the following special provisions related to DBE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS * * * 2-5.3.2 Submittals for Contracts with Goals: For all contracts for which DBE contract goals have been established, each contractor shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE participation information shall be submitted with the Contractor's bid proposal. Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. The Contractor's bid submission shall include the following information (Submitted on Forms Nos. 275-020-002-DBE Utilization Affirmative Action Certification, 275-020-003-DBE Utilization Summary and 275-020-004-DBE Utilization Form): The names and addresses of certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs certified by the Department at the time the bid is submitted may be counted toward DBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm. If the DBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. * * * DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS ARTICLE 2-11 (Page 11) is expanded as follows: (h) Failure to satisfy the requirements of 2-5.3. * * * (Petitioner's exhibit #2, emphasis added) DBE goals for projects to be bid are established at DOT by a committee which includes a representative from the agency's Bureau of Minority Programs. From a list of individual bid items, the committee determines which items are normally subcontracted. Those items are totalled to achieve a percentage of the job. The Bureau of Minority Programs then reviews the list to determine the number of DBEs, from the agency directory, which would be available to perform the subcontracted work in the relevant geographical area. The Bureau of Minority Programs then makes its recommendation to the goals-setting committee. For example, if 40% of the job would normally be subcontracted and DBEs were available to perform 50% of that work, the goal could be set at 20%. In practice, the goals are not set so high, and the most common goal is 10%, as that is the overall goal of the DOT. Goals vary, depending on the type of work, the location and the availability of DBEs. Hiring goals are also established for each project, but in contrast to the DBE goals, they are not considered in the award of a bid. Four firms responded to the bid advertisement for Project Number 02000- 3608. The Cone Corporation was the low bidder at $588,793.45. Cone Constructors, Inc. bid $629,736.85. Piling and Structures, Inc. bid $700,436.53; and Leware Construction Company bid $733,333.33. The Cone Corporation bid included DBE utilization forms indicating that $56,000.00 would be subcontracted to H.S. Thompson Construction Company for concrete and rebar work. This amounts to approximately 9.5% of its bid. The Cone Corporation did not submit any statement with its bid package as to how good faith efforts were made to comply with the DBE goal. A good faith effort committee of the department met to review the bids, and determined that it could not evaluate the Cone Corporation's good faith efforts because no information was provided. Cone Constructor, Inc., the next lowest bidder, provided a $70,000.00 subcontract with a DBE firm, D.A.B. Constructors, Inc., for various work items related to the project. This amounts to approximately 11% of its bid, and meets the specified 10% goal. Piling and Structures, Inc., provided for six DBE subcontractors for a total of $56,000.00, or approximately 8% of its bid; and Leware Construction Company, the highest bidder, provided for four DBE subcontractors, for a total of $76,887.45, or approximately 10.5% of its bid. Thus, two bidders met the specified DBE goal, and two did not. The good faith efforts committee recommended that Cone Corporation's bid be declared nonresponsive because the DBE goal was not achieved and documentation of good faith effort was not submitted. The committee noted that DBE utilization forms submitted by other bidders indicated that there were other DBE subcontractors available for work on the project. Bob Graham is vice-president of the Cone Corporation and has worked for the firm for ten years. He is responsible for the day to day management of the firm, and he prepared the project bid. Bob Graham concedes that the DBE subcontract in his bid does not meet the 10% goal. He solicited and received other DBE subcontract quotations, but rejected them as being higher than non-DBE quotations. Only one DBE subcontractor responded lowest in an area of work and Graham submitted that firm, H.S. Thompson, as part of his bid. Bob Graham also admits that he did not submit any good faith documentation with his bid to demonstrate that an effort was made to meet the DBE goal. Bids are commonly compiled at the last minute, with the bidders assembling various quotations and putting together final numbers to meet the bid deadline. Graham simply did not have time to add the good faith effort documentation. He made a considered business decision to reject all but one DBE subcontractor, in favor of being able to submit a lower bid. He knew at the time that his bid was submitted that the DBE goal was not met. His bid was approximately $41,000.00 lower than the next lowest bid. For an additional $2,800.00 he could have met the 10% goal. This, of course, was apparent only after the bids were opened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, dismissing the protest of Petitioner, the Cone Corporation. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Crit Smith, Esquire SMITH AND THOMPSON, P.A. 1530 Metropolitan Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32308 John H. Beck, Esquire 1020 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul J. Martin, Esquire and Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. #58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. #58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified general contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license number CG C027718. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifying agent for Classic Design Builders. William R. DeFreitas describes himself as a broker of building materials for third world countries. His wife is also employed in that same business. They had their office building constructed for them. When they subsequently determined to add an addition to their residence, they solicited bids from that contractor and from two other persons. Aaron Ware, who held himself out to be an architect and the president of a company known as L. A. Designs, Inc., was one of the persons from whom the DeFreitases solicited a bid. He submitted a bid dated April 26, 1990, and a draw schedule on May 3, 1990. The extent of the work to be performed was finalized on June 6, 1990, when Mr. DeFreitas initialed the changes to the initial bid. The construction project contemplated under that contract was the addition of a family room, a laundry room, a shower off the master bath, and a small bath at the front of the house. The June 6, 1990, contract also called for replacement of the garage door and "painting of some interior doors." The total contract price was $50,000. While Ware was negotiating with the DeFreitases, he was also discussing with Respondent entering into a joint venture agreement between Classic Design Builders and L.A. Designs for the DeFreitas construction project. Their verbal agreement was memorialized in a written agreement dated June 18, 1990. Thereafter, Respondent did not advise Petitioner that he had entered into a joint venture agreement and, similarly, did not qualify the joint venture as a separate business entity for licensure purposes. Pursuant to instructions from Ware, Mr. DeFreitas directed a letter to the City of Boca Raton advising the building department that he had entered into a contract to construct an addition to his residence with "L.A. Designs/ Classic Designs." On July 2, 1990, Respondent on behalf of Classic Design Builders obtained a building permit from the City of Boca Raton for the DeFreitas addition. On July 6, Ware began work on the addition. Ware worked on the project from July of 1990 through the end of that year. During the course of that construction, the DeFreitases made many changes in the scope of the work contemplated by the original contract, which increased the contract price to above $56,000. Additional work was performed, which was not covered by the contract and which the DeFreitases agreed to pay for directly to the supplier or subcontractor. On February 4, 1991, the DeFreitases directed a letter to Ware advising him that the construction was close to completion and that it was time for them to "settle our account" as to the extras for which the DeFreitases had not paid. In that letter, the DeFreitases also offered to produce the invoices for materials and labor that they had agreed to pay to finish the job. In July of 1991 the DeFreitases complained to the City of Boca Raton. Respondent, as the holder of the building permit, was contacted and advised that the DeFreitases were alleging that their contractor had failed to complete the project. Respondent immediately went to the DeFreitases' business, met with Mr. DeFreitas, inspected the home, and prepared a punch list of items to be completed, many of which were not covered by the construction contract but were done by Respondent in an attempt to achieve customer satisfaction. Respondent completed the project, obtained the final inspections, and presented the DeFreitases with a warranty and release of lien. The DeFreitases refused to accept the warranty or release of lien. As a result of the DeFreitases' complaints, Respondent and Ware were charged with violating local ordinances. In those prosecutions, as well as in this case, the DeFreitases have attempted to obtain $11,000 from Respondent as "restitution" for moneys they have had to spend or will have to spend to complete the work envisioned by their contract with L.A. Designs, Inc. Most of the items listed as components of the claim for restitution are not even part of the construction contract. Of those few items covered by the contract, the money claimed is not. For example, the contract allocated $500 to be expended on the bathroom cabinets. The DeFreitases spent $1,670 on the cabinets and, surprisingly, are claiming that Respondent should pay them the difference because they spent more than their contractual allowance. Finally, they have claimed the cost of replacing inferior building materials provided by them, such as wood French doors. The DeFreitases paid to Ware approximately $4,000 less than they had promised to pay him as a result of the work completed by L.A. Designs. Rather than suffering a loss, the DeFreitases have actually received a windfall. At no time material hereto was either Ware or L.A. Designs licensed in the state of Florida as a contractor, architect, professional engineer, or landscape architect. Respondent knew that Ware and L.A. Designs were not licensed. At the time that Classic Design Builders and L.A. Designs entered into their written joint venture agreement and at all other times material hereto, Respondent was not an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of L.A. Designs, and Ware was not an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of Classic Design Builders. When Ware approached Respondent about entering into a joint venture for the DeFreitas project, Respondent had already suffered a minor heart attack and two mini-strokes. The joint venture agreement itself recites Respondent's need to limit his activities due to health reasons. In July of 1990 Respondent additionally tore an Achilles tendon in his left leg and was in a cast until Christmas of 1990. Due to his immobility during that time period, Respondent delegated all of his construction jobs to others, understanding that he was ultimately responsible for those projects since he was the contractor of record on them. In the same way, he delegated to Ware the day-to-day responsibility for the DeFreitas project. Other than "pulling the permit" for the DeFreitas project, Respondent's only other involvement in the job until the time that he was contacted as a result of the DeFreitases' complaints to the City of Boca Raton in July of 1991, was right after the job was commenced regarding some problem concerning the lot line. He was able to resolve that problem with the City of Boca Raton by telephone. The DeFreitases did not know that Respondent was the contractor for their construction project and ultimately responsible for that work. Although Ware had advised them that a "buddy" would somehow be involved in the construction, and although Mr. DeFreitas referred to both L.A. Design and Classic Design Builders in his letter to the City of Boca Raton authorizing a building permit to be issued, the evidence is clear that had the DeFreitases known of Respondent's responsibility, they would have been insisting that he perform services months earlier. In 1987 Respondent was charged with abandoning a construction project and/or failing to timely complete it. Respondent entered into a settlement stipulation admitting that fact and agreeing to pay a fine to the Construction Industry Licensing Board in the amount of $1,000. A Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation was entered on June 8, 1988. Respondent received no money from the DeFreitases or from Ware for the work Respondent performed on the DeFreitas addition. Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses for labor and materials on the DeFreitas residence between July of 1991 and June of 1992 total $1,747.50.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and VII of the Administrative Complaint filed against him; Finding Respondent not guilty of Counts III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint filed against him; Requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000; and Placing Respondent's license number CG C027718 on probation for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-10, 16-20, and 22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11-15, 21, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 23 has been rejected as being subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: John David Ashburn, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 3932 RCA Boulevard, Suite 3210 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Diane Perera, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Peter Mineo, Jr., Esquire 8220 State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Copies furnished, continued Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Contract No. E1G23 to DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. d/b/a DBI Services Corporation (DBI) is contrary to the Department of Transportation’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Findings Of Fact On June 18, 2007, the Department issued RFP No. E1G23, which solicited proposals for “ultra asset maintenance” for Interstate 75 (I-75) and interchanges in Broward, Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Manatee, Desoto, and Sarasota Counties. The Department issued three addenda to the RFP. The addenda did not make any material changes that are pertinent to the issues in this proceeding. The Scope of Services for the RFP stated that for all roadways and facilities covered by the contract, the contractor will be responsible for performing all of the maintenance activities that would otherwise have been performed by the Department, including but not limited to, mowing the right-of- way, maintaining guardrails, fixing potholes, maintaining stormwater management facilities, cleaning and maintaining rest areas, tree trimming, and incident response and management. In the asset management industry, this type of contract is known as a comprehensive asset management contract because the contractor is responsible for all maintenance activities within the right-of-way “from fence to fence, including the fence.” The RFP states that the contract will be awarded to the responsive and responsible vendor whose proposal receives the highest total score, which is composed of a price score and a technical score. The price score is weighted 30 percent, and the technical score is weighted 70 percent. The vendor proposing the lowest price received the full 30 points for the price score. The other vendors’ price scores were calculated through a mathematical formula based upon the percentage that the vendor’s price exceeded the lowest price. The technical score was based upon a subjective evaluation of the proposals in four broad categories: administration plan (weighted 20 points); management and technical plan (weighted 30 points); operation plan (weighted 30 points); and compliance plan (weighted 20 points). There are sub-categories in each of those categories, with a specific number of points assigned to each sub-category. Five evaluators independently reviewed the proposals. The evaluators –- Jennifer Perry, Howard Summers, David Holden, Lance Grace, and Robert Mannix -- were Department employees selected based upon their familiarity with the areas and services covered by the contract. All of the evaluators attended the pre-bid conference, which was mandatory for prospective bidders. No questions or concerns were raised at the pre-bid conference or at any point prior to submittal of the proposals regarding the evaluators having experience with the prior I-75 contract or having been involved in the preparation of the RFP. Three companies -- ICA, DBI, and VMS, Inc. (VMS) -- submitted responses to the RFP. ICA is a Tennessee corporation. DBI is a Pennsylvania corporation. Both companies provide asset management services in Florida and around the country, but ICA has more experience than DBI in providing comprehensive asset management services. The price offered by ICA -- $89,200,300.01 -- was the lowest of the three vendors that responded to the RFP; the price offered by DBI -- $92,630,739 -- was approximately 3.8 percent higher. As a result, ICA received a price score of 30 and DBI received a price score of 28.89. Three of the five evaluators -- Ms. Perry, Mr. Summers, and Mr. Golden -- scored DBI’s proposal the highest. Two of the evaluators -- Mr. Grace and Mr. Mannix -- scored ICA’s proposal higher than DBI’s proposal, but they scored VMS's proposal the highest. None of the evaluators scored ICA’s proposal the highest. DBI’s proposal received an average score of 85.40 from the evaluators, and ICA’s proposal received an average score of 82.96. As result, DBI received a technical score of 59.78, and ICA received a technical score of 58.07. When the price scores and the technical scores were combined, DBI received the highest total score of 88.67. ICA was the second-ranked vendor with a total score of 88.07. VMS was the third-ranked vendor with a total score of 86.12.3 On August 21, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract to DBI. The initial posting erroneously identified the winning vendor as “DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. T/A Aguagenix, Inc.” rather than DBI. The contract administrator, Cheryl Sanchious, explained that this was a clerical error caused by the Department’s computer system and that it has been corrected in the system. ICA timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the award to DBI. ICA posted a cashier’s check in the statutorily required amount in lieu of a protest bond. After the protest was filed, the Department entered into temporary emergency asset management contracts for the roadways and facilities covered by contract at issue in this case. ICA was given the contract for Broward and Collier Counties because it was already providing asset management in those counties under the predecessor to the contract at issue in this case, No. BC680. DBI was given the contract for the other counties, Sarasota, Lee, Manatee, Charlotte, and Desoto. It is undisputed that ICA’s proposal was responsive to the RFP in all material respects. The focus of ICA’s protest is four-fold. First, ICA contends that DBI’s proposal is not responsive because it did not affirmatively state that it would grant a first right of refusal to RESPECT of Florida (RESPECT). Second ICA contends that DBI is not a “responsible vendor” and that the Department confused the concepts of “responsiveness” and “responsibility” in its review of the proposals. Third, ICA contends that the evaluation committee failed to prepare a technical summary as required by the RFP, and that its failure to do so was material because it would have brought to light the discrepancies in Ms. Perry's scoring. Fourth, ICA contends that Ms. Perry's scoring was flawed and out of sync with the other evaluators in several respects. Each issue is discussed in turn. Responsiveness / RESPECT First Right of Refusal Section 8.2 of the RFP provides that “[a] responsive proposal shall perform the scope of services called for in this Proposal Requirements [sic] and receive a Technical Proposal score of at least seventy (70) percent of the maximum attainable points established for scoring the Technical Proposal.” Section 17.1 of the RFP provides that “[d]uring the process of evaluation, the District Contracts Office will conduct examinations of Proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the Proposal Solicitation. Those determined to be non-responsive will be automatically rejected.” Section 16.5 of the RFP requires the proposal to “[u]se only statements of what the Proposer will or will not accomplish” rather than “words such as may, might, should, etc.” Section 8.5 of the RFP authorizes the Department to “waive minor informalities or irregularities in Proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers.” That section defines “minor irregularities” as “those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department’s interest and will not affect the price of the Proposal by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Proposers.” The Scope of Services for the RFP requires the contractor to “grant ‘Respect of Florida’ a first right of refusal” to provide maintenance services at rest areas. This was intended by the Department to be a mandatory requirement of the RFP, and was understood as such by ICA and DBI. RESPECT is a not-for-profit organization that employs disabled and disadvantaged individuals. RESPECT employees perform janitorial and grounds maintenance functions at rest areas, including one of the rest areas covered by the RFP. ICA’s proposal expressly states that “ICA will grant Respect of Florida first right of refusal on rest area janitorial work consistent with statewide maintenance practices.” DBI’s proposal does not include an affirmative statement that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal. However, DBI stated in its proposal that it “is currently in negotiation with [RESPECT] to expand their existing maintenance responsibilities for rest areas within the project limits” and that “DBI Services believes that expanding [RESPECT’s] responsibilities in the project is the right thing to do.” The absence of an affirmative statement in DBI’s proposal that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal was not material to the evaluators. For example, evaluator Robert Mannix testified that he “generally looked for more of the intent to give [RESPECT] the opportunity of making a bid rather than the specific language of right of first refusal.”4 Similarly Ms. Perry testified that she considered granting RESPECT a first right of refusal to be a requirement of the contract whether or not the contractor mentioned it in its proposal. Amy Burlarley-Hyland, director of asset management for DBI, testified that DBI intends to provide a first right of refusal to RESPECT and that, consistent with the statement in DBI’s proposal, DBI is “committed to expanding Respect’s responsibilities on this project.” She explained that she did not include an affirmative statement to that effect in the proposal because it is “a known requirement” that will be part of the contract by virtue of it being in the RFP. Mr. Rader, ICA’s executive vice president, testified that it is more costly to contract with RESPECT to provide maintenance services than to contract with another entity to provide those services. Ms. Hyland disagreed with that testimony, as did Ms. Perry. No documentation was provided to support Mr. Rader’s claim that it is more expensive to contract with RESPECT, and the evidence was not persuasive that DBI received a competitive advantage by not affirmatively stating in its proposal that it will grant a first right of refusal to RESPECT. The RFP does not require the vendor to expressly acknowledge and affirmatively agree to meet each and every mandatory requirement in the RFP. Indeed, if this were the test for responsiveness, ICA’s proposal would be nonresopnsive because it failed to expressly acknowledge and affirmatively agree to meet a number of the mandatory requirements in the RFP. DBI’s proposal complies with the intent of the RFP in regards to RESPECT. Its failure to specifically state that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal is, at most, a minor irregularity. Failure to Determine DBI’s Responsibility Responsiveness and responsibility are separate, but related concepts in the competitive procurement context. Section 287.012(24), Florida Statutes, defines “responsible vendor” to mean “a vendor who has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance.” Section 287.012(26), Florida Statutes, defines “responsive vendor” to mean “a vendor that has submitted a bid, proposal, or reply that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” In order to bid on certain Department contracts, a vendor has to be pre-qualified under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-22. Pre-qualification serves as an advance determination of the vendor’s responsibility. Pre-qualification is generally not required in order to bid on maintenance contracts; bidders are presumed qualified to bid on such contracts. However, as noted in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the RFP, “certain maintenance contracts will contain specific requirements for maintenance contractor eligibility” if deemed necessary by the Department. This is such a maintenance contract. Section 7.1 of the RFP required the Department to determine whether the proposer is “qualified to perform the services being contracted.” That determination was to be made “based upon the[] Proposal Package demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area.” The RFP did not specify when or by whom this determination was to be made. The Department and DBI contend that the determination required by Section 7.1 is essentially a determination of whether the bidder is responsible, and that the determination is to be made by the evaluators during their scoring of the proposals. In support of that contention, the Department and DBI refer to Section 17.1 of the RFP, which provides that “[p]roposing firms must receive an average technical proposal score of at least (70) percent of the maximum attainable points established for scoring the Technical Proposal to be considered responsive.” Similar language is included in Section 8.2 of the RFP under the heading “Responsiveness of Proposals.” The interpretation of the RFP advocated by the Department and DBI is reasonable, and DBI’s proposal received an average score from the evaluators of 85.40, which exceeds the 70 percent threshold in Section 17.1 of the RFP. Indeed, each of the evaluators gave DBI more than 70 points for its technical proposal. The preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing supports the Department's implicit determination that DBI is “qualified to perform the services being contracted,” as required by Section 7.1 of the RFP. DBI has a 29-year history. It employs approximately 700 employees in 34 offices nationwide; it is the largest vegetation management company in the world; and it is ranked in the top five nationally in Pavement Maintenance Magazine. Even though DBI has less experience in comprehensive asset management contracts than does ICA, DBI has extensive experience in managing comprehensive activities under large contracts. DBI has managed over $400 million in performance- based contracts nationwide, including a $9 million comprehensive asset management contract with the Department in District 4 (US 27/Belle Glade area), and DBI’s director of asset management has extensive experience in highway and facility asset management in the private sector with DBI and VMS and in the public sector with the New York Department of Transportation. In sum, a determination that DBI is a responsible bidder was inherent in the Department’s decision to award the contract to DBI, which was based in large part on the technical score of its proposal by the evaluators, and the evidence presented in this de novo proceeding supports that determination. Therefore, even if, as ICA argues, the Department and DBI are improperly construing the word “responsive” in Section 17.1 of the RFP to mean “responsible,” ICA failed to prove that such error is material to the outcome of this proceeding. Failure to Prepare Technical Summary Section 17.1 of the RFP describes the evaluation process as follows: A Technical Evaluation Committee . . . will be established to review and evaluate each Proposal Package submitted in response to this Proposal Solicitation. The Committee will be comprised of at least five persons with background, experience, and/or professional credentials in relative service areas. The District Contracts Office will distribute to each member of the Committee a copy of each technical proposal. The Committee members will independently evaluate the Proposals on the criteria in the section below entitled “Criteria for Evaluation” in order to ensure that the Proposals are uniformly rated. The Committee will then assign points, utilizing the technical evaluation criteria identified herein and complete a technical summary. . . . . (Emphasis supplied). The District Contracts Office and/or the Project Manager/Technical Evaluation Committee will review and evaluate the price packages and prepare a summary of its price evaluation. Points will be assigned based on price evaluation criteria identified herein. During the process of the evaluation, the District Contracts Office will conduct examinations of Proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the Proposal Solicitation. Those determined to be non- responsive will be rejected. ICA contends that the evaluation committee failed to prepare a “technical summary,” which would have brought to light the scoring issues discussed below concerning Ms. Perry. The RFP does not define “technical summary” nor does it specify the form that the summary must take. The RFP does not specify how the evaluation committee as a whole would assign points to the proposals in light of the independent scoring mandated by Section 17.1 of the RFP. The evaluators did not assign points to the proposals as a committee, but rather independently scored the proposals. The evaluators did not meet as a committee to prepare a “technical summary.” Several of the evaluators testified that they considered the evaluation form that they completed for each proposal to be their “technical summary” for the proposal because the form included the scores assigned in each technical review category and summary comments about the proposal. The evaluators did not collectively discuss their scoring of the proposals after they completed their independent evaluations; they simply submitted their completed evaluation forms to Ms. Sanchious. Ms. Sanchious’ office prepared a spreadsheet summarizing the evaluators’ technical scoring of the proposals. The spreadsheet -– Joint Exhibit 33, titled “Proposal Evaluation/Breakdown Sheet” -- lists the scores awarded by each evaluator in each technical review category; calculates the total points awarded by each evaluator for each proposal; and calculates an “overall score” for each proposal by averaging the five evaluators’ scores for each proposal. This spreadsheet is more akin to a “technical summary” than is Joint Exhibit 21, which DBI and the Department contend is the “technical summary.” Indeed, Joint Exhibit 21 only includes the “overall score” and not the underlying data that was used to calculate that score. It was not unreasonable for the Department to calculate an “overall score” for each proposal by simply averaging the five evaluators’ scores for each proposal, and ICA failed to prove that the averaging being done by Ms. Sanchious’ office (instead of the evaluation committee) was a material deviation from the RFP. Indeed, ICA’s contention that discussion amongst the evaluation committee members to prepare the “technical summary” would have changed Ms. Perry’s scoring of ICA’s or DBI’s proposal is speculative, at best, in light of the findings below. In sum, the evaluation committee’s failure to prepare a “technical summary” as required by Section 17.1 of the RFP does not undermine the proposed award to DBI. Scoring by Jennifer Perry Ms. Perry was one of the five evaluators who reviewed the technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Ms. Perry is a licensed professional engineer. She has 10 years of work experience with the Department, and she currently serves as the assistant maintenance engineer for District 1. In that capacity, she is responsible for all forms of maintenance contracting in District 1, including routine maintenance and asset maintenance. Ms. Perry served for a time as the project manager for the existing asset management contract for I-75, which was held by ICA. As a result, she had the occasion to work with ICA employees and become familiar with ICA’s performance under that contract. There is no evidence that Ms. Perry is biased against ICA in any way. Indeed, she credibly testified that she had a good working relationship with ICA; that she had no major issues with ICA’s performance under the existing contract; and that she would have had no hesitation recommending that the contract be awarded to ICA if its proposal had received the highest score. Ms. Perry was heavily involved in the preparation of the RFP as a result of her position as assistant maintenance engineer for District 1. She was also involved in the selection of the evaluators. There is no Department rule or policy that prohibits a person from serving as an evaluator if he or she was involved in the preparation of the RFP. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Perry served as the project manager for the asset management contract held by ICA does not preclude her from serving as an evaluator. Indeed, Section 17.1 of the RFP specifically contemplates that the evaluators will have “background, experience, and/or professional credentials in relative service areas.” Similar language is contained in Section 287.057(17)(a), Florida Statutes. Ms. Perry spent between 10½ and 11 hours reviewing and scoring the proposals. She made detailed notes while she was scoring in order to capture her general impressions of each proposal and to serve as a reminder of issues to address with the vendor who was ultimately awarded the contract. Ms. Perry gave ICA’s proposal a score of 74. She gave DBI’s proposal a score of 86. Ms. Perry double-checked her scores before submitting her completed score sheets. She specifically went back over her scoring of ICA’s proposal after she noticed that she scored ICA lower than DBI and VMS because she thought she may have added wrong or overlooked something. She decided not to make changes to give ICA additional points just because she liked working with ICA. The main difference in Ms. Perry’s scoring of DBI's and ICA's proposals relates to Plan for Compliance with Standards (Plan for Compliance) section. She gave ICA 10 points for that section, and she gave DBI 20 points, which is the maximum available for that section. Each of the other evaluators gave ICA and DBI very similar scores in the Plan for Compliance section. The Plan for Compliance section describes the programs that the proposer intends to implement to ensure compliance with the applicable statutes, rules and Department policies. A proposer’s quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program is an important component of its plan for compliance. DBI gave the Plan for Compliance section significant emphasis because of the weight assigned to the section in the RFP. Ms. Burlarly-Hyland rewrote the section to make it more detailed because of her perception of its importance to the Department. ICA did not place as significant of an emphasis on the Plan for Compliance section in its proposal as did DBI. Indeed, ICA’s position in this case is that “a plan for compliance is quite standard and one would expect to see very similar plans and therefore very similar scores among the proposals.” DBI references its QA/QC program several times in the Plan for Compliance section, but the detailed description of the QA/QC program is included in the Management and Technical Plan section of DBI’s proposal. Ms. Perry relied on the description of the QA/QC program in the Management and Technical Plan section of DBI’s proposal in her scoring of the Plan for Compliance section. Similarly, in her scoring of the ICA and VMS proposals Ms. Perry did not limit her scoring of a particular section of the proposal to information presented in that section. Instead, she looked at the proposals in their entirety and “gave them credit . . . in any section that [she] felt it applied to because . . . [i]f they have a good idea, they need credit for it.” Ms. Perry explained that that she scored DBI higher than ICA in the Plan for Compliance section because, even though both proposals discussed their QA/QC program, DBI went into much greater detail about its program and its plan for compliance generally. Ms. Perry viewed the level of detail provided by DBI regarding its QA/QC program and its plan for compliance generally as an indication of the importance of these matters to DBI. Some of the material differences identified by Ms. Perry were DBI’s commitment to do its first QA/QC within the first three months instead of waiting six months as ICA proposed; DBI’s identification of a high-level person, the project manager, as being responsible for compliance; DBI’s commitment to provide its QA/QC reports directly to the Department; DBI’s “corporate culture concept” program that is similar to the Department’s “grassroots” program; DBI’s more detailed description of its training programs; and DBI’s commitment to have all of its herbicide applicators licensed by the state, not just in compliance with state law. Ms. Perry’s rationale for her scoring differences on the Plan for Compliance section is generally consistent with another evaluator’s “overall impression” that “the ICA proposal did not offer a lot of new innovation or continuous quality improvement over the level of performance that we had already experienced and . . . we were hoping to have in reletting the new contract rather than renewing the existing contract ”5 ICA also takes issue with Ms. Perry’s scoring of the ICA and DBI proposals in the DBE/RESPECT/Agency Participation section; the Proposed Facilities Capabilities section; the Routine/Periodic Maintenance Operations section; and the Rest Area Maintenance Operations section. Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal five points and ICA’s proposal three points for the DBE/RESPECT/Agency Participation section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because DBI provided more detail on how it would help develop disadvantaged business subcontractors, including training them on compliance with Department standards and helping them obtain work. She recognized that ICA also had a subcontractor development program, but she was more impressed with DBI's proposal because “DBI really went into a lot more detail in what they were going to do.” Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal five points and gave ICA’s proposal three points for the Proposed Facilities Capabilities section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because of the amount and type of equipment that DBI was going to make available for the contract and because of DBI’s commitment to put an office on the Alligator Alley corridor. Ms. Perry felt that the Alligator office was “very important” because that area is isolated and having an office in the area would make it easier for the contractor to respond quickly to problems. ICA’s proposal did not commit to put an office on the Alligator Alley corridor. Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal ten points and gave ICA’s proposal six points for the Routine/Periodic Maintenance Operations section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because DBI’s proposal included a week- by-week maintenance plan that detailed the specific activities that DBI would be working on each week and it also included detailed charts identifying the efforts that DBI would undertake to meet the requirements of the Department’s maintenance program. The description of the maintenance plan in ICA’s proposal was not nearly as detailed, and Ms. Perry was so impressed with DBI’s maintenance plan that she provided copies of the plan to the other districts’ operation centers as an example of the type of detained planning that she felt the Department should move towards. Ms. Perry scored ICA and DBI the same for the Rest Area Maintenance Operation section. She explained that even though the proposals focused on different aspects of their rest area maintenance plans, the plans were roughly equivalent overall. For example, DBI committed to maintain the rest areas in accordance with the Department’s standard maintenance requirements and, like ICA, DBI will handle customer comment cards from rest areas through its QA/QC program. Ms. Perry scored ICA higher than DBI in areas that she found ICA’s proposal to be better than DBI’s proposal. For example, in the Identification of Key Personnel Section, she gave ICA four points and DBI three points; in the Contractor Experience section, she gave ICA the maximum five points and DBI two points; in the Bridge Inspection section, she gave ICA the maximum 10 points and DBI seven points; in the Incident Response Operations section, she gave ICA nine points and DBI eight points; and in the Bridge Maintenance Operations section, she gave ICA the maximum five points and DBI three points. Ms. Perry’s explanation of her scoring decisions was reasonable and supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing. The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Perry's scoring of the proposals was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing the Formal Protest Petition filed by ICA, and awarding Contract No. E1G23 to DBI. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 14th day of December, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Stucco Drywall Contractors, Inc. ("Respondent"), failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation ("Department"), correctly calculated the penalty assessed against Respondent. Respondent does not contest the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only ("SWO"). Rather, Respondent asserts that the penalty contained in the 2nd Amended Penalty Assessment inappropriately includes two business entities ("HT Consulting Contractors" and "NDDS Services") that were "independent contractors" performing non-construction work, rather than "subcontractors" for whom Respondent has statutory liability.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirements of chapter 440 that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, a Florida for-profit corporation, does stucco and drywall work, and was actively engaged in such business operations in the state of Florida from November 15, 2014, to November 14, 2016, during the two-year audit period. At all times material hereto, Respondent was an "employer" within the meaning of section 440.02(16), and Esperanza Duran and Bernardo Gomez were "corporate officers," as that phrase is defined in section 440.02(9).1/ The Investigation It is the duty of the Department to make random inspections of jobsites and to answer complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation laws. On November 14, 2016, the Department’s investigator, Xotchilth Valdivia, commenced a random workers’ compensation compliance investigation at 12060 Hialeah Gardens Boulevard, Hialeah Gardens, Florida 33018, because she noticed two men doing a plaster job at a commercial construction site. The men said they worked for Plaster Solutions, Inc., adding that Plaster Solutions was a subcontractor for Respondent. The owner of Plaster Solutions, Duval R. Chavez, Sr., came to the worksite and told the investigator he had an exemption from Florida’s workers’ compensation laws, but no coverage for his two employees. Mr. Gomez came to the worksite and told the investigator he requested proof of workers’ compensation insurance when he hired Plastic Solutions, but did not receive it. The investigator searched the Compliance and Coverage Automated System maintained by the Division of Workers’ Compensation and found an exemption for Duval R. Chavez, Sr., but no workers’ compensation insurance for employees of Plaster Solutions. A similar search retrieved an exemption for Mr. Gomez and an employee leasing policy for Respondent. An employee leasing roster provided by Howard Leasing identified 10 employees of Respondent. The two men observed performing plaster work, Gilberto Reyes and Alexis Jeovany Ramos Jiminez, were not on the leasing roster and did not have exemptions from Florida’s workers’ compensation laws. The Department’s investigator contacted her supervisor and received permission to issue SWO 16-367-D5 to Plaster Solutions, Inc., and SWO 16-368-D5 to Respondent. Both orders were personally served on the respective business owners at the worksite. Upon service of the SWO, the investigator personally served Respondent with a Business Records Request ("BRR"), requesting business records sufficient to determine the amount of Respondent’s unsecured payroll for purposes of assessing a penalty pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d)1., for the audit period of November 15, 2014, to November 14, 2016. Penalty Calculation The Department’s penalty auditor, Sarah Beal, initially calculated a penalty in the amount of $117,791.66, based on business records (bank statements, proof of coverage or exemption for subcontractors) provided by Respondent. The auditor assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") class code 5480, Plastering, based on the investigator’s observations of plastering work on the date of the site visit and records provided, such as the notations on the memo lines of Respondent’s checks. An attorney for the Department, Young Kwon, served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment upon Respondent’s attorney, by email, on January 5, 2017. The Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on September 7, 2017, reducing the penalty to $74,042.40, based on clarifying information provided by Respondent. The undersigned granted leave to amend the penalty on October 16, 2017. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment calculates a penalty of $56,170.68 for HT Consulting Contractors and $12,983.50 for NDDS Services. Respondent concedes it did not secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for any of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheet. Respondent does not contest the penalties for the following individuals or entities listed on the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment: Alexis Jeovany Ramoes Jimenez, ANA Services, Inc., DH Drywall Contractors, Esperanza Duran, Gilberto Reyes, and YYM Frames Enterprises. The only penalties disputed by Respondent are those attributable to HT Consulting Contractors and NDDS Services. HT Consulting Contractors Respondent contends that HT Consulting Contractors provided non-construction referral services as an independent contractor, and therefore, no penalty should be attributable to HT Consulting Contractors. However, Respondent failed to present persuasive and credible evidence at hearing that HT Consulting Contractors was an independent contractor performing non- construction referral services. Accordingly, the penalty attributable to HT Consulting Contractors is appropriate. HT Consulting Contractors incorporated on August 10, 2015, and was administratively dissolved on September 23, 2016. Henry Torres Castillo testified that he was the sole owner and employee of HT Consulting Contractors, a business which he operated from his residence for a period of one year up until just a few months before the hearing, when he closed the business. At all times material hereto, Mr. Castillo shared his residence with his wife, Ms. Duran, who is Respondent’s president. Mr. Castillo testified that he is a former construction worker in the areas of roofing, marble, stucco, and drywall, who only researched and found construction jobs for construction businesses, including Respondent, for which he was paid a commission. Mr. Castillo testified that he drove his personal vehicle to construction jobs to generate leads, met clients at restaurants, traveled to different parts of Florida, and performed detailed research related to the cost of materials and labor for his client construction companies. Bernard Gomez is vice-president of Respondent. Mr. Gomez likewise testified that HT Consulting Contractors was a referral company that only provided referral services to Respondent for which it was paid a commission. Both Mr. Castillo and Mr. Gomez denied that HT Consulting Contractors provided any labor or work in the construction industry. No written contracts, statements, receipts, or invoices evidencing any services provided by HT Consulting Contractors to Respondent were presented at hearing. No detailed written description of any of the jobs for which a referral commission was purportedly paid to HT Consulting Contractors was presented at hearing. No documents evidencing any of the purported detailed research by Mr. Torres were presented at hearing. No federal income tax returns or IRS 1099 forms for HT Consulting Contractors were presented at hearing. No business bank account statements for HT Consulting Contractors for the audit period were presented at hearing. Mr. Castillo did not utilize any business cards or marketing materials on behalf of HT Consulting Contractors. Ms. Duran did not testify at hearing. The Department presented numerous checks from Respondent payable to HT Consulting Contractors. These checks were signed by Ms. Duran as president and on behalf of Respondent. Many of the checks, included within the Department’s Composite Exhibit 14, contradict Respondent’s position that it paid HT Consulting Contractors for referral services as an independent contractor performing non-construction work. In fact, the checks support the Department’s position that HT Consulting Contractors was a subcontractor for whom Respondent has statutory liability. For example, on November 21, 2015, Ms. Duran signed check number 1319 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $6,000.00. The memo line of the check reads: "Supervisor." On November 20, 2015, Ms. Duran signed check number 1321 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $3,800.00. The memo line of the check reads: "Supervisor." On March 31, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1417 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $12,000.00. The memo line of the check includes the word "labor." On April 20, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1442 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $10,000.00. The memo line of the check reads: "Pay/employment." On June 1, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1490 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $15,000.00. The memo line of the check reads: "Employment." On July 12, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1501 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $10,000.00. The memo line of the check reads: "Pay Employment." On August 29, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1530 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $11,000.00. The memo line of the check includes the words "sub labor." On September 7, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1534 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $18,000.00. The memo line of the check includes the words "sub labor." On October 21, 2016, Ms. Duran signed check number 1553 made payable to HT Consulting Contractors in the amount of $11,000.00. The memo line of the check includes the words "sub labor." Mr. Castillo could not explain the reasons for the notations of the words "labor," "supervisor," and "employment" on the memo lines of checks signed by his wife. However, Mr. Castillo understands that the phrase "sub labor" "mean[s] a subcontractor provides labor." Mr. Castillo could not recall any details about the jobs that generated checks in the amount of $12,000.00 (check number 1472); $15,000.00 (check number 1490); and $10,000.00 (check number 1501). The undersigned had the distinct opportunity to observe the demeanor of Mr. Castillo and Mr. Gomez when they testified at hearing. Mr. Castillo’s and Mr. Gomez’s testimony that HT Consulting Contractors provided referral services outside the construction industry to Respondent as an independent contractor is rejected as unpersuasive and not credible. In sum, the Department correctly applied NCCI class code 5480 and the penalty attributable to HT Consulting Contractors is appropriate. NDDS Services Respondent contends that NDDS Services provided non- construction referral services as an independent contractor, and therefore, no penalty should be attributable to NDDS Services. However, Respondent failed to present persuasive and credible evidence at hearing that NDDS Services was an independent contractor performing non-construction work. Accordingly, the penalty attributable to NDDS Services is proper. Yyheeling Evans testified that she is the sole owner and member of NDDS Services, LLC, a business which she has operated from her home since its creation in 2013. Ms. Evans testified that NDDS Services researches and finds construction jobs for construction businesses, including Respondent, for which she is paid a commission. Mr. Gomez likewise testified that NDDS Services is a referral company that only provided referral services to Respondent for which it was paid a commission. Both Ms. Evans and Mr. Gomez denied that NDDS Services provided any labor or work in the construction industry. No written contracts, statements, receipts, or invoices evidencing any services provided by NDDS Services to Respondent were presented at hearing. No detailed written description of any of the jobs for which a referral commission was purportedly paid to NDDS Services was presented at hearing. No federal income tax returns or IRS 1099 forms for NDDS Services were presented at hearing. No business bank account statements for NDDS Services for the audit period were presented at hearing. Ms. Evans did not utilize any business cards or marketing materials on behalf of NDDS Services. The Department presented numerous checks from Respondent payable to NDDS Services. These checks were signed by Ms. Duran as president and on behalf of Respondent. Several of the checks, included within the Department’s Composite Exhibit 14, contradict Respondent’s position that it paid NDDS Services for referral services as an independent contractor performing non-construction work. In fact, the checks support the Department’s position that NDDS Services was a subcontractor for whom Respondent has statutory liability. On November 9, 2014, Ms. Duran signed check number 1165 made payable to NDDS Services in the amount of $7,000.00. The memo line of the check reads: "GV 1st Floor." On May 13, 2015, Ms. Duran signed check number 1202 made payable to NDDS Services in the amount of $15,000.00. The memo line of the check reads: "LAN 20550-As of today." On June 29, 2015, Ms. Duran signed check number 1220 made payable to NDDS Services in the amount of $9,450.00. The memo line of the check includes the word "finish." Ms. Evans could not recall any details about the jobs that generated the aforementioned checks. Ms. Evans testified that she holds a non-construction exemption. However, Ms. Evans sought a construction industry exemption for NDDS Services during the applicable audit period and she did not hold a valid exemption during the audit period. The undersigned had the distinct opportunity to observe the demeanor of Ms. Evans and Mr. Gomez when they testified at hearing. Ms. Evans’s and Mr. Gomez’s testimony that NDDS Services provided referral services outside the construction industry to Respondent as an independent contractor is rejected as unpersuasive and not credible. In sum, the Department correctly applied NCCI class code 5480 and the penalty attributable to NDDS Services is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $74,042.40.3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2018.
