The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations set forth in the Respondent's letter to the Petitioner dated February 16, 2004, are correct.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to statute, the Florida Department of Education has developed and administers the Florida Teacher Certification Examination. A Florida teacher seeking certification as an educator by the State of Florida must obtain a passing score on the exam. In November 2003, the Petitioner applied to take the Teacher's Professional Education Test on January 24, 2004. The Petitioner signed the registration application on November 13, 2003, acknowledging that she agreed to the provisions set forth in the exam application materials. The Respondent received the Petitioner's signed application on November 17, 2003. The instruction sheet contained in the exam application materials provides in relevant part that examinees may not "communicate with other examinees in any way" or "give or receive assistance from other examinees," and states that related violations will result in the examination being "voided." Approximately two weeks prior to the exam, the Respondent sent a letter to all registrants. The Petitioner received a copy of the letter. In the letter, the Respondent outlined behaviors regarded as cheating, and specifically identified cheating to include "looking, or attempting to look, at the examination answers, responses, or other materials of another examinee." Prior to exam administration, supervisors and proctors received a Test Administration Manual and received instruction on identification of "cheating" or "suspected cheating," including observation of an examinee looking or attempting to look at another examinee's test materials or answer sheet. As to cheating, the Test Administration Manual sets forth the procedure to be followed by a supervisor or proctor who observes or suspects cheating is occurring, and provides in relevant part as follows: If a room supervisor who observes cheating activity, or to whom cheating activity is reported by a room proctor, is reasonably certain that cheating is taking place based on the clarity, duration, or vantage point of the observations, whether or not another individual can confirm the observation, the room supervisor shall collect the examinee's examination materials; inform the examinee that he or she will not be allowed to complete that examination or participate in any further testing on that examination administration date; make notes of the identity of those involved or in a position to have observed or been aware of the activity and the relative locations in, and other pertinent features of, the examination room; at the conclusion of the testing time, quietly request examinees who were not involved in but were in a position to have observed or been aware of the cheating to come to a private office or other appropriate location to be interviewed by, and give a statement to the room supervisor; and prepare a full written report of the incident, including as attachments all witnesses' statements and other pertinent documents or tangible items and make the report part of the Room Supervisor's Irregularity Report. Suspected cheating - If a room supervisor reasonably suspects that cheating activity is occurring but cannot be certain, even after conferring with one or more other individuals, that a cheating activity is taking place, the room supervisor shall continue to make observations and quietly notify a room proctor to continue to make observations of the suspicious activity; follow steps c, d, and e in number 3 above; and include in the Irregularity Report a notation that the answer folder of the examinee suspected of cheating should be analyzed in connection with the circumstances described in the report. During the exam administration on January 24, 2004, a supervisor present in the room where the Petitioner was located observed the Petitioner staring at the answer sheet of another person (identified as "Rekha"), who was also taking the exam. Rekha was seated to the left and slightly ahead of the Petitioner in the exam room. At the hearing, the supervisor described the Petitioner's suspicious behavior as "constant staring" and "noticeable concentration" towards Rekha's answer sheet. At the time the room supervisor observed the Petitioner's behavior, the test period was drawing to a close. Many examinees had already completed their work and left the room. By the time the supervisor saw the Petitioner's behavior, there were no other examinees in position to observe the Petitioner. After the exam ended, the supervisor compared the Petitioner's answer sheet with that of Rekha, and observed that there were a number of erasures and answer changes on the Petitioner's answer sheet that matched Rehka's answers. The supervisor completed an "Irregularity Report" dated January 24, 2004, in which he wrote: I witnessed Shagufa constantly looking at Rekha's answer sheet, in about the last 30 minutes of test. I compared answer sheets afterwards and noticed several answer changes on Shagufa's sheet to what was on Rekha's. The irregularity report and the answer sheets were submitted to the Respondent for further review. After the Respondent received the materials, the Respondent assigned Dr. Cornelia Orr, an expert in test response analysis, to review the answer sheets. Dr. Orr testified persuasively at the hearing and her testimony is credited. Dr. Orr compared the exam score for the Petitioner (referred to as Examinee A) with that of Rekha (referred to as Examinee B) and determined that their scores were "very similar." Dr. Orr reviewed the erasures on the answer sheets and determined that there were 27 erasures on the Petitioner's answer sheet. There were four erasures on Examinee B's sheet. Of the Petitioner's 27 erasures, 18 were changed from incorrect to correct answers and matched the answers of Examinee B. An additional four answers were changed from correct to incorrect answers and matched incorrect answers of Examinee B. Dr. Orr reviewed the incorrect answers on both sheets and determined that the Petitioner missed 54 questions, that Examinee B missed 48 questions, and that 30 of the Petitioner's incorrect responses matched the incorrect answers of Examinee B. Dr. Orr described the incidence of corresponding incorrect answers on the two answer sheets as "highly unusual." After concluding her review of the two answer sheets, Dr. Orr then analyzed the answers and scores of the 3,747 persons who took the test on the same day to determine the correlations between all examinees to Examinees A and B's answers. For all examinees, the average number of wrong answers corresponding to those of Examinee B was nine, as compared to the Petitioner's 30 incorrect answers which matched those of Examinee B. Based on Dr. Orr's review and evaluation, she determined that the chance probability of the Petitioner's high number of incorrect answers corresponding to those of Examinee B was one in 33,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Education enter a Final Order voiding the score of Shagufa Mubarik on the January 24, 2004, Professional Education Test. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Shagufa Mubarik 2426 Island Club Way Orlando, Florida 32822 Scott J. Odenbach, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Jim Horne, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board Policies 8.25(1)(j) and 8.25(1)(t), and, if so, whether Petitioner should suspend Respondent for three days.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Rosenthal is employed by Petitioner as a clerk specialist III in the specialized hiring section of the human relations department of the Pinellas County School District. Part of her assigned duties includes processing applications for substitute teachers to be employed by Pinellas County Schools. Ms. Rosenthal has been employed as a clerk specialist III since 2000. Her job responsibilities include the accurate and timely processing of data and files in the specialized hiring department of the Pinellas County School District. On January 12, 2008, Ms. Rosenthal met with Starla Metz, who at that time was the human resources director for specialized hiring, concerning the length of time Ms. Rosenthal was taking to process on-line substitute applications. Ms. Rosenthal was directed to use a weekly list to track the status of the on-line applications and to enter information in the sub database when she spoke with or emailed an applicant. Terri Alford, a human resources specialist, was directed to meet with Ms. Rosenthal each Friday to offer support as needed. In February Marilyn Lusher replaced Ms. Metz as director. Beginning on April 10, 2008, and continuing for about five meetings thereafter, Ms. Lusher met with the specialized hiring department to clarify and explain the department’s processes, to communicate transitions within the department, and to emphasize her expectations regarding accuracy and the need for confidence in the clerks’ data entry process. A checklist for the front of each file was updated, as well as detailed instructions for the clerks. Terri Alford and Karen Cope, a human resource specialist, supervised Ms. Rosenthal. They advised Ms. Lusher that Ms. Rosenthal continued to make clerical errors. Ms. Lusher requested that they provide her with specific instances in which errors were made. Ms. Alford and Ms. Cope documented the errors and presented them to Ms. Lusher. Additionally, Ms. Alford and Ms. Cope were instructed to document errors made by others in the department. On August 7, 2008, Ms. Lusher met with Ms. Rosenthal concerning performance deficiencies in Ms. Rosenthal’s work. Ms. Rosenthal had inaccurately retrieved information on an individual which would make the individual ineligible for hiring. A letter to the individual stating that the individual was a no hire had to be retrieved from the mailroom. Additionally, Ms. Rosenthal had made other errors such as: filing information in an applicant’s file that should have been filed in another applicant’s file, making inaccurate data entries in Winocular, and delaying the processing of applications. Ms. Rosenthal was given some steps to take in order to improve her work performance. Ms. Alford was to continue to meet with Ms. Rosenthal on Fridays to determine what support Ms. Rosenthal might need. Ms. Rosenthal always declined any additional help. Ms. Rosenthal’s poor work performance continued, and Ms. Lusher met with Ms. Rosenthal on August 15, 2008, to again discuss performance deficiencies. Ms. Rosenthal had taken some steps to correct her errors, but she continued to have delays in processing, inaccurate data entry, incomplete files, and errors in pulling the correct files. At that time, it was determined that future evaluations of Ms. Rosenthal’s performance were to be done using the Supporting Services Performance Appraisal form, which meant that Ms. Rosenthal’s performance would be rated as unsatisfactory, needs improvement, satisfactory, or better than satisfactory. On August 15 and September 12, 2008, Ms. Lusher met with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss errors that Ms. Rosenthal continued to make in her work. On September 26, 2008, Ms. Lusher and Dr. Ron Stone, assistant superintendent of Human Resources, met with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss Ms. Rosenthal’s inappropriate use of the computer and the Internet during working hours. Ms. Rosenthal was cautioned to refrain from the inappropriate use of the computer and to improve the accuracy and timely completion of her work. She was advised that there appeared to be a correlation between her inordinate use of the Internet and her poor work performance. Prior to the September 26, 2008, meeting, Ms. Rosenthal had requested that she be given additional time beyond her scheduled work hours to complete her work. This time would be compensated either as overtime or as compensatory time. At the September 26, 2008, meeting, Ms. Lusher informed Ms. Rosenthal that she would no longer be given additional time to complete her work. On October 23, 2008, Ms. Rosenthal was given a written reprimand for the unacceptable quality and quantity of her work. Ms. Rosenthal was directed to improve her work performance. After the written reprimand was issued, Ms. Rosenthal continued to make numerous clerical errors. Ms. Lusher’s job responsibilities increased dramatically, and she did not have the time to devote to meetings with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss Ms. Rosenthal’s deficient work performance. However, in August 2009, Ms. Lusher again met with Ms. Rosenthal to discuss Ms. Rosenthal’s errors in the processing or the absence of processing additional duty forms that were needed to process payroll for certain employees. Ms. Rosenthal had also provided some inaccurate information on extra duty time that was used in an agenda item for Petitioner, resulting in a complaint from the Superintendent of the Pinellas County Schools. Other issues were discussed such as Ms. Rosenthal’s personal telephone conversations while at work, Ms. Rosenthal’s transferring telephone calls to other team members when Ms. Rosenthal should have been able to answer the telephone inquiries, and Ms. Rosenthal’s failure to stay at her desk to answer the telephone when other team members were at lunch. On September 29, 2009, Ms. Rosenthal received a performance appraisal. She received an unsatisfactory rating for quality of work and a needs-to-improve rating for job knowledge, quantity of work, and initiative. She received satisfactory ratings for the other areas of her work. Ms. Rosenthal argues that, although she made mistakes, other team members also made mistakes. When Ms. Rosenthal’s mistakes are compared to the mistakes of other team members, Ms. Rosenthal’s are significantly greater in number. The use of the Internet and the conduct of personal business during work time contribute to Ms. Rosenthal’s inability to improve the quantity of her work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ms. Rosenthal is guilty of incompetence in violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(j) and failure to correct performance deficiencies in violation of Pinellas County School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t) and suspending her for three days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 7th day of July, 2010.
The Issue Whether petitioner's challenge to the grading of his examination for licensure as a Class B air conditioning contractor should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating contracting in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification as a Class B air conditioning contractor must pass the examination administered by respondent as a prerequisite to certification. Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sat for Part I of the Class B air conditioning contractor's examination on June 26, 1990, and received a failing grade of 67. Subsequently, petitioner filed a timely challenge to the respondent's grading of questions 5, 11, and 50 to the examination. Respondent sustained petitioner's challenge to question 11, accorded him credit, and raised his grade from 67 to 69. Respondent denied, however, petitioner's challenge to questions 5 and 50. Had petitioner been accorded credit for either question 5 or 50, he would have passed Part I of the examination. Question number 5 is an objective, multiple choice question. Based on the factual data in the question, the candidate is to choose, from among four possible answers, the answer that would derive the lowest cost for a line of credit. The correct response to the question was "C", and petitioner erroneously responded "A." At hearing, petitioner contended that he should be accorded credit for question 5 because he could have correctly derived the answer if Walker's Building Estimators Reference Book had been on the list of materials to bring to the test site. In this regard, petitioner testified that the test directed the applicants to utilize such reference in deriving the answer, and that had he been noticed of such fact he could have derived the correct answer through the referenced book. The subject examination, produced at hearing, was not, however, shown to contain any mention of the Walker's reference book, nor was the Walker's reference book one of the recommended reference books. In sum, petitioner's recollections regarding this question are erroneous, and his failure to correctly answer question 5 was based on his own lack of knowledge, and not any misdirection or misconduct on the part of respondent. Question 50 is likewise an objective, multiple choice question. Based on the factual data in that question, the candidate is again required to choose the correct response from among four possible answers. The correct response to the question was "D", and petitioner erroneously responded "C." At hearing, petitioner conceded that answer "D" was the only correct answer to question 50. Questions 5 and 50 were clear and unambiguous, and each contained only one correct response. Appropriately, respondent gave petitioner no credit for his answer to either question, because petitioner gave the wrong answer to each question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing petitioner's challenge to the subject examination, and that the examination questions and answers provided at hearing be sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC (“Blue”), for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) equipment and components located at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System, is contrary to DOT’s governing statutes, rules, or the bid specifications, and contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact DOT is an agency of the state of Florida tasked with procuring the construction of all roads designated as part of the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, or any roads placed under DOT’s supervision by law. On March 10, 2017, DOT published its bid solicitation for ITB-DOT-16/17-8017-AC (the “ITB”), seeking bids from contractors for maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement of HVAC equipment and components at various facilities along Florida’s Turnpike (SR 91) milepost 172.0 to milepost 312.0; Southern Connector (SR 417) milepost 0.0 to milepost 6.5; Beachline Expressway (SR 528) milepost 0.0 to milepost 8.4; Seminole Expressway (SR 417) milepost 37.7 to milepost 55.0; and Daniel Webster Western Beltway (SR 429) milepost 0.9 to milepost 11.0. The scope of work of the ITB requires all labor, materials, and incidentals necessary to provide maintenance and repair of 232 HVAC units located at 65 facilities along Florida’s Turnpike System. The contract is for one year, with three one- year renewal periods. The 65 facilities span the distance from Wildwood in the north at milepost 304 to past Yeehaw Junction in the south to milepost 172, and from a westernmost point on State Road 429 at milepost 11 (Orlando area) to the easternmost section of State Road 417. Under the ITB, the vendor is required to conduct bimonthly preventative maintenance services on each HVAC unit; a total of five visits per site, per year. The vendor is also required during the first month of the contract and any subsequent annual renewal periods to conduct one annual preventative maintenance service. The annual maintenance is typically more extensive than the 60-day maintenance. However, the bi-monthly and annual maintenance services require, on average, 30 minutes for each of the 232 HVAC units. The vendor is also required to provide unscheduled, emergency services to diagnose problems and make necessary repairs of units that are not operating properly. An unscheduled repair could take several hours to complete, and there have been occasions where more than one unit needed a repair at the same time. The vendor must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, to provide unscheduled, emergency services. Most air conditioning work is treated as an emergency, which requires the vendor to respond within three hours. The ITB includes specifications, schedules, a list of facilities, and other materials. Section 9.1 of the ITB requires bidders to meet certain minimum qualifications, including demonstrating the experience necessary to satisfactorily perform the services within the scope of work. Of particular relevance to the instant case is the following language on page 12 of the ITB: Certification of Experience The organized business enterprise (e.g. corporation, LLC or sole proprietorship) shall have been licensed and actively involved in the type of business requested for a minimum of three (3) years. Prior experience shall specifically be related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the Scope of Work for this Contract. Submit documentation of the work experience with the bid package. Pursuant to section 9.2, “[f]ailure by the bidder to provide the above item(s) will constitute a non-responsive determination. Bids found to be non-responsive will not be considered.” The Certification of Experience requirement is also referenced on page 2 of the ITB, followed by this statement: “The Department will review carefully to determine if the Vendor is responsive, responsible and qualified in the area of work contemplated by this Contract.” A two-page “Certification of Experience Documentation” form is located on pages 23 and 24 of the ITB. The form reiterates, in pertinent part: Prior experience shall specifically be related to the technical scope and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work for this Contract. Submit documentation of the work experience with the bid package. The Department will review carefully to determine if the Vendor(s) is responsive, responsible and qualified in the area of work contemplated by this Contract. Describe your work experience in detail for the minimum period required, beginning with your current or most recent project. Use a separate block to describe each project. (Print out additional copies of the form or attach additional sheets as necessary.) The form includes many lines, spaces, and separate blocks for bidders to provide the client names, addresses, and telephone numbers; dates of service; dollar value of each project; client project manager for each project; and a description of each project. The form includes enough lines and spaces for bidders to provide the required information for up to seven clients. The bidders are directed to attach additional sheets as necessary. The deadline for submission of bids was Tuesday, April 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. On April 4, 2017, DOT received and opened bids from four vendors in response to the ITB, which revealed the following bid tabulation prices: (1) All Seasons ($158,446.00); (2) Blue ($128,630.00); (3) Kenyon & Partners, LLC ($279,183.00); and (4) Florida Drawbridges, Inc. ($331,183.00). On April 4, 2017, DOT posted a notice of intent to award the contract for the work described in the ITB to Blue. Notwithstanding the requirement for each bidder to demonstrate prior experience “specifically . . . related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the Scope of Work for this Contract,” Blue failed to demonstrate such experience in the Certification of Experience Documentation form. The first client listed on Blue’s Certification of Experience Documentation form is the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”). With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of June 2015 to present and a project dollar value of $5,000.00 per year. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Provide HVAC Maintenance, Repair & Service @ Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center.” At hearing, Mr. Davis, the sole owner and operator of Blue, conceded the work involved a total of only 12 HVAC units, in two DJJ buildings, and at the same location. The second client listed is Florida Environmental Compliance Corp. (“FECC”). With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of 2012 to present and no dollar value for the project was provided. As to the project description, Blue stated: “HVAC Maintenance, Repair & Service. Installation.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for FECC involved a total of only eight HVAC units at two locations (Polk County–two units, and Orlando-six units). The third client listed is DOT. With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of July through August 2015, and the dollar value of the project was $21,300.00. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Installation of Recorder Room Ductless split system.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for DOT involved the installation of only three HVAC units in three locations at a cost of $7,100.00 each. The fourth client listed is CVS. With regard to this client, Blue indicated service dates of July through August 2014, and the dollar value of the project was $17,000.00. As to the project description, Blue stated: “Installation of Mini split system in CVS store clinics.” At hearing, Mr. Davis conceded the work for CVS involved the installation of only two HVAC units at one store location.2/ DOT did not review Blue’s Certification of Experience Documentation form to determine whether Blue demonstrated the necessary qualifications and experience required by the ITB. At hearing, none of the witnesses presented by DOT could testify as to Blue’s demonstration of prior experience, specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. Leonard Robinson, a contract manager for Jacobs Engineering, the consultant for the project, testified he was involved only “to a very small extent” in the review of Blue’s bid. Mr. Robinson testified that “the only thing I had to do was to award the bid per the lowest bidder as written in the contract and state the reason why I’m doing so and also sign the Conflict of Interest form. That is it.” Mr. Robinson did not review Blue’s qualifications or past experience, and he could not say that Blue could perform the work described in the ITB. Alan Chua is the capital improvement procurement administrator for Jacobs Engineering. Mr. Chua evaluated Blue’s bid to determine whether it corresponded to the engineer’s estimate. He testified he reviewed the Certification of Experience Documentation form, but only as to the dates and to the limited extent necessary to determine whether the projects listed by Blue satisfied the three years of experience required by the contract. Mr. Chua conceded he did not review the project descriptions for the four referenced clients identified on the form, and he could not say whether any of the four projects identified on the form were similar in volume or technical scope to that specified in the ITB. Trisa Thomas is a contracts development manager for Jacobs Engineering. Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the Certification Experience Documentation form. Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the dates to determine whether the projects listed by Blue satisfied the three years or more of experience required by the contract. She further testified she reviewed the dates, project manager, and project descriptions. As to the project descriptions, Ms. Thomas testified she reviewed the type of work Blue did for the company to see if it was related to the work specified in the ITB. However, she did not consider the volume of Blue’s work. Significantly, Ms. Thomas testified: Q: Okay. All right. Do you know why the dollar value of the project is on the Certification of Experience Documentation? A: Just to get an idea what they--how much they probably performed. Q: So would that help you get an idea of the volume of work that they performed for that client? A: I’m not even really sure if that played a factor. Q: And when you say, I’m not sure if that played a factor, what--what are you referring to? A: Well I guess what I’m saying is, I’m-- that’s really not where my concentration is. I’m looking at the years, the project description, what they--the type of work they performed for the--for that agency, and if the references are credible or, you know, satisfactory. Q: Okay. And when you say they’re satisfactory, what do you look at to determine if they’re satisfactory? A: Based on the service that they provided to them, the vendor will let us know how pleased they were with the work that they provided to their agency. Q: All right. Looking at this Joint Exhibit 5, pages 5 and 6, which places did Blue Ray’z perform HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and repair services that were of the same technical scope as the Invitation to Bid? A: I see on the Certification of Experience where they provided HVAC repair and service installation. Also I see where they provided installation of a recorder room. But the volume, there’s--I don’t--I wouldn’t be able to determine that. Q: And let me ask my question again. So which places did Blue Ray’z perform HVAC maintenance, repair, installation and replacement services that were of the similar technical scope? A: I don’t know. Q: What maintenance, repair and installation or replacement services did Blue Ray’z provide to another vendor that was similar to the volume of work specified in the Invitation to Bid? A: The volume work? I don’t know. Q: Do you know if the bid by Blue Ray’z was reviewed by anybody to determine if the experience was similar in size, technical scope and volume of work specified in the Scope of Work? A: I don’t know. Tr., Vol. I, pp. 121-123. Santiago Alvarez is the facilities and telecommunications administrator for the Turnpike Enterprise, which is part of DOT. Mr. Alvarez testified he did not review the Certification of Experience Documentation form in any detail. He just looked to confirm the documents were included in the bid package. Sheree Merting is the contract services administrator for DOT’s Turnpike Enterprise. Ms. Merting testified she was not involved in the evaluation of Blue’s bid. Amanda Cruz is a contract analyst for DOT. She did not review Blue’s bid to determine whether Blue was qualified by having the experience required by the ITB. DOT established specific requirements for the ITB to determine responsiveness and then failed to determine if Blue had prior work experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. DOT awarded the bid to Blue because it was the lowest bidder, without considering whether Blue demonstrated prior experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. DOT awarded the bid to Blue because it was the lowest bidder, even though Blue failed to demonstrate in the Certification of Experience Documentation form that it had prior experience specifically related to HVAC maintenance, repair, installation, and replacement services of commercial facilities similar in size, technical scope, and volume of work to that specified in the scope of work. In sum, Blue is not a responsive and responsible vendor, and DOT’s proposed action is contrary to the bid specifications, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary and capricious.3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Transportation, enter a final order rescinding the proposed award to Intervenor, Blue Ray’z Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2017, 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 28th day of August, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rafael Daman, is an optician, having been issued License No. 0001712. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Respondent filed an apprentice application with the Board of Opticianry. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) As part of that application, a form entitled "Apprentice Application to be Completed by Employer" was submitted to the Board of Opticianry. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) This form is signed and sworn to by Ramon del Busto, M.D., as supervisor of Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Dr. del Busto acknowledged his signature on this document. (Deposition 7) Additionally, Ramon del Busto, M.D., submitted an Affidavit By Sponsor, and swore that he was the sponsor of the Respondent. (petitioner's Exhibit 1, Deposition 5) Respondent was not employed by Ramon del Busto, M.D. (Transcript - 22, Deposition 7, 8, 9) However, Respondent worked as an unpaid employee or student of Dr. del Busto (Transcript -48, Deposition 8, 9) The Apprentice Application to be Completed by Employer was actually completed by the Respondent and a secretary employed by G&B Optical. (Transcript - 36, 38) Ramon del Busto, M.D., signed the Apprentice Application to be Completed by Employer, but had no personal knowledge of the accuracy of the information contained therein. (Transcript - 24, 36, 38; Deposition - 7, 8, 9) Ramon del Busto, M.D., supervised the Respondent when they were both at G&B Optical, but Dr. del Busto was present at G&B Optical only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and others times as necessary. Transcript - 22, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41; Deposition - 5, 9) However, Respondent was always present when Dr. del Busto was in this office. (Deposition - 9) Dr. del Busto did not remain on the premises while all the work of Respondent was being accomplished. (Transcript - 46)
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of procuring an optician's license by misrepresentation in violation of Subsection 484.015(1)(a) , F.S., and placing Respondent on probation under the supervision of another optician as provided by Subsection 484.015(2)(e), F.S., until Respondent demonstrates compliance with Section 484.007, F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 23rd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Davis, Kiesling & McCall 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee. Florida 32302 Mr. Rafael Daman 5426 N.W. 169th Street Mr. Samuel R. Shorstein Miami, Florida Secretary Department of Professional Mr. Fred Varn, Executive Director Regulation Board of Dispensing Opticians 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF OPTICIANRY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-337 LIC. NO. 0001712 RAFAEL DAMAN, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code. This matter relates to the administrative proceeding in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 94-2941. Respondent, a state agency, initiated the underlying cases, ACHA Case Nos. 90-08689 and 90-08804. Respondent was more than a nominal party in these cases. The attorney's fees that Petitioner seeks are reasonable in amount. The statutory cap of $15,000.00 applies. Petitioner did not employ more than 25 full-time employees. His net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time Respondent initiated the underlying action. Respondent initiated state action against Leonard E. Masters, M.D. in his individual capacity. Respondent did not initiate state action against Petitioner's professional corporation, L. E. Masters, M.D., P.A. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and cost only if he was employed as a sole proprietor of a professional practice in 1993 when Respondent initiated the underlying action. Petitioner is a licensed physician who has practiced as a sole proprietor of a unincorporated professional association since 1961. For tax year 1993, Petitioner filed a Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, with his federal joint income tax return. As reflected in that return, Petitioner earned a substantial portion of his 1993 income as a sole proprietor of a professional practice. L. E. Masters, M.D., P.A., is an active professional corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida on December 17, 1992. However, there is no evidence that Petitioner earned any income or business profit as an employee of his professional corporation in 1993. The mere existence of this corporation does not preclude Petitioner from practicing medicine as a sole proprietor of an unincorporated professional association. During discovery, Respondent requested that Petitioner furnish the name and address of his alleged sole proprietorship of an unincorporated business from 1990 through the present. Petitioner answered this inquiry as follows: L. E. Masters, M.D., P.A. since 1961 North Beaches Family Practice 100 Royal Palm Drive Atlantic Beach, Florida Petitioner's professional corporation was not created until 1992. This answer is not persuasive evidence that Petitioner worked solely as an employee of his professional corporation in 1993. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that, at all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Prior to the Probable Cause Panel meeting of December 7, 1993, Respondent forwarded to the panel members the entire investigative file, including all applicable medical records, and the written opinions of experts Neville Marks, M.D., and Reynold Stein, M.D. Each Panel member received and reviewed the materials prior to the Probable Cause Panel meeting. Present at the December 7, 1993 Probable Cause Panel meeting were panel members Robert Katims, M.D., Chairman of the Panel, and Martin Fenwick, M.D. Also present were Allen Grossman, Assistant Attorney General and counsel for the Board of Medicine's Probable Cause Panel and Fred Whitson, Senior Attorney for the agency. Prior to the consideration of any cases, Mr. Grossman advised the panel members that any questions concerning the interpretation of the law or rules, or what the panel's duties were, should be directed to him. Mr. Grossman also advised the panel that questions about the facts of the case, or the agency's recommendation should be directed to Mr. Whitson. Mr. Whitson proceeded to discuss the specific facts of the case. He reviewed the medical history of the four alleged victims described in the proposed Administrative Complaint. The panel voted unanimously to find that probable cause existed to charge Petitioner with violating Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the proposed Administrative Complaint. The panel documented its finding of probable cause in a memorandum signed by the Chairman of the Panel. During the probable cause proceeding, the panel considered the reports of two medical experts which support the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. One of those experts, like Petitioner, was a board certified family practice physician. The other was a psychiatrist. Both had experience in treating chemical dependency in adults. Both of Respondent's medical experts opined that Petitioner's treatment of four patients for chronic pain fell below the applicable standard of care. These opinions concluded that each patient had complicated medical, psychological, and/or chemical dependancy problems. The experts were especially critical of Petitioner's attempt to diagnose, treat, and manage the chronic pain of the patients with narcotic drugs but without the benefit of consultations with a psychiatrist or a chemical dependency specialist (addictionologist). Respondent was substantially justified in relying on the opinions of these experts, the patient's medical records and investigative reports to support the allegations in the Administrative Complaint even though they did not prove to be persuasive at hearing. After the formal hearing in the underlying case, the greater weight of the evidence indicated that Petitioner did not violate the applicable standard of care in his treatment of the four patients. This conclusion was reached after consideration of all the testimony and evidence presented at hearing. It did not mean that Respondent lacked a reasonable basis in law and fact for alleging that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner should receive credit for any of the 15 challenged questions in two parts of the certified general contractors examination given in June, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the general contractors examination given on June 29- 30, 1993. The examination consisted of three parts. The minimum score required to pass each part was 70. Petitioner passed the Business and Finance part of the examination with a score of 70. Petitioner failed the other two parts of the examination. He received a score of 61 on the Contract Administration part of the examination and a score of 67 on the Project Management part of the examination. Petitioner challenged eight questions on the Contract Administration part of the examination and seven questions on the Project Management part of the examination. The part of the examination on which each question appeared, the question number, the correct answer, and the answer chosen by Petitioner are as follows: EXAM PART QUESTION CORRECT ANSWER PETITIONER'S ANSWER Contract Admin. 2 B C Contract Admin. 5 D A Contract Admin. 10 D C Contract Admin. 11 C D Contract Admin. 13 C B Contract Admin. 20 C D Contract Admin. 22 C D Contract Admin. 37 B D Project Mgmt. 7 C D Project Mgmt. 9 D C Project Mgmt. 10 C A Project Mgmt. 11 B C Project Mgmt. 13 B A Project Mgmt. 23 D A Project Mgmt. 37 A D For each of the foregoing questions, the correct answer was the answer identified by Respondent and not the answer chosen by Petitioner. Petitioner presented no competent and substantial evidence to support his answers. The challenged questions were clearly and unambiguously worded. The challenged questions contained enough correct information to allow the candidate to select the correct response. The correct response for each of the challenged questions was supported by approved reference materials. The correct response did not require knowledge which was beyond the scope of knowledge that reasonably could be expected from a candidate for licensure. All current techniques were taken in account when the correct response was determined by Respondent. The examination was open book. Petitioner was allowed to refer to the Standard Building Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein DENY Petitioner's challenge to the questions at issue in this proceeding. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of April, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hickok Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Mr. Behzad Khazraee 142 Tollgate Trail Longwood, FL 32750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate for the General Contractor Examination given in February, 1990, (the "examination"). Petitioner passed part three but failed parts one and two. Petitioner subsequently passed part one in June, 1990. Petitioner received a score of 69 percent on part two of the examination and needs only one point to pass part two and the entire examination. 1/ Question 37 is worth one point. Respondent gave credit for answer "(D) 10" in response to question 37. Petitioner selected answer "(A) 0" in response to question 37. Question 37 requires a candidate to apply Section 713.12, Florida Statutes, to the facts provided in the stem to question 37. Section 713.12, in relevant part, gives a spouse 10 days after learning of a contract to object to the signing of a contract by his or her spouse. Question 37 requires a candidate to determine how many days a wife has to object to a contract entered into by a contractor and both spouses but signed only by her husband with her knowledge. Question 37 is not ambiguous. There is only one correct response to the question challenged by Petitioner. The correct response to the question is answer "(D) 10." Petitioner did not choose the correct answer for question 37. The wife is not deemed to waive any objection she has if she does not make it at the time of the signing. The time that the wife learned of the contract and its signing is clear and unambiguous from the facts in the stem of the question. The contract was entered into by both the husband and wife and was signed by the husband with the wife's knowledge. The ordinary and plain meaning of the term "with" connotes "at the same time as." The only type of property that is reasonably contemplated in question 37 is real property. Of the 649 candidates who took the examination, 81 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Of the candidates who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination, 92 percent selected answer "(D) 10." Only two percent of the candidates selected answer "(A) 0."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to question 37. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of April 1991. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administration 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 8th day of April 1991.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with the duty of regulating general contractors in the State of Florida. An applicant for certification as a general contractor must pass the examination administered by Respondent as a prerequisite to certification. Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner sat for the certified general contractor's examination on October 14-15, 1988. Petitioner did not pass Part I of the examination. Petitioner scored the highest score one can score on Part I without passing that part of the examination. While Petitioner received a grade of 69 on Part I of the examination, a grade in excess of 69 is required to pass. Had Petitioner been awarded any credit for his answers to the challenged questions, he would have passed Part I of the examination. Petitioner timely challenged the grading of four examination questions contained in Part I of the examination for which he received no credit, to wit: Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39. Petitioner's challenges were as to the format of the question or as to the grading of the question. Petitioner abandoned any challenge he may have had to other questions. Each of the challenged questions is an objective, multiple choice question. The candidate is required to choose the correct response from among four possible answers. Prior to taking the examination, Petitioner was told by Respondent that certain approved reference materials were used in formulating the examination questions and that certain reference materials could be used during the examination. Question 5 provided certain information from which the candidate was to determine the correct answer to an accounting problem. The question contained sufficient information to correctly answer the problem. The evidence does not support Petitioner's contention that this question is unfairly tricky. The accounting formula which was necessary to determine the correct answer to the problem was available to Petitioner in the reference material he was permitted to use during the examination. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 5 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Question 26, required the candidate to correctly answer a question about a reporting requirement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The question contained sufficient information to determine the correct response. The basis of Petitioners challenge to this question is that the information needed to answer the question was not contained in the reference material published by OSHA. The information needed to arrive at the correct response is contained in other reference material Petitioner was permitted to use during the examination. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 26 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner contends that two of the four responses to Question 32, which involved statements as to partnerships, are correct and that he should be given credit for his response to the question. Petitioner made unwarranted assumptions in arriving at his answer which resulted in his answer being incorrect. The question contained only one correct response. The question provided sufficient information to enable Petitioner to arrive at the correct response through the use of the reference materials that the candidates were permitted to use. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 32 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. Petitioner contends that two of the four responses to Question 39, which involved statements about workers compensation, are correct and that he should be given credit for his response to the question. Petitioner made unwarranted assumptions in arriving at his answer which resulted in his answer being incorrect. The question contained only one correct response. The question provided sufficient information to enable Petitioner to arrive at the correct response through the use of the reference materials that the candidates were permitted to use. Respondent gave Petitioner no credit for his answer to Question 39 because Petitioner gave the wrong answer to the question. None of the candidates who sat for the examination, including Petitioner, was awarded partial credit for an incorrect response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing bindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, enter a final order which finds that Petitioner abandoned his challenges to all questions except Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39 and which denies Petitioner's challenges to Question 5, Question 26, Question 32, and Question 39. It is further recommended that the questions filed as exhibits in this proceeding be sealed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4934 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 2 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed finding of fact in paragraph 10 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by paragraph 7 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are adopted in material part by paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are adopted in material part by paragraph 9 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by paragraph 10 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 6-9 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dirk Douglas Summerlot, pro se 16146 75th Avenue North Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 Robert G. Harris, Esquire Qualified Representative Department of Professional 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 69 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 24th day of January, 2018.
