The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Archer Western De-Moya, Joint Venture (“AWD”), for a transportation project involving the design and reconstruction of federal and state roadways in Miami, Florida (“the Project”), is contrary to governing statutes, DOT’s rules, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the award is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Project, Parties & Participants Respondent, DOT, is the state agency authorized by section 334.30, Florida Statutes, to issue requests for proposals to solicit competitive bids for private-public (“P3”) partnership projects. The Project was located in District VI of the Department. Greg Schiess is the manager of the Strategic Initiatives Office for DOT. Mr. Schiess oversaw the Project and was the agency representative for DOT at the final hearing. Nadine Chinapoo was DOT’s procurement officer who oversaw the RFP process for the Project. The RFP had strict rules of contact between bidders and any DOT employee or officer. The Department designated Ms. Chinapoo as the “single contact and source of information” for the RFP. The Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (“MDX”) is a state agency created in 1994, authorized by Miami-Dade County, and funded through toll revenues. MDX has regional oversight of five expressways in Miami-Dade County, including State Road 836 (“SR 836”). On February 6, 2017, DOT issued the “Design-Build Request for Proposal for SR 836/I-395 from West of I-95 to MacArthur Causeway Bridge and I-95 Pavement Reconstruction and I-95 Southbound to SR 836 Westbound and SR-836 from West of NW 17th Avenue to Midtown Interchange (SR-836/I-395/I-95)” (“RFP”). The Department developed the RFP pursuant to section 334.30, Florida Statutes, which allows DOT to enter into a P3 to finance, design and build transportation construction and facilities. No one timely filed an objection to any of the RFP specifications. The RFP involves two contracts: (1) the DOT contract for federal interstates 95 (“I-95”) and 395 (“I-395”), and a portion of SR 836 leading to and from MacArthur Causeway Bridge; and (2) the MDX contract which involves another portion of SR 836 from Northwest 17th Avenue to the Midtown Exchange at I-95. A key component of the RFP was the replacement for “Bridge No. 8/9” of I-395, which would run east to west (“Signature Bridge”). According to the RFP, the Signature Bridge would take traffic over a portion of downtown Miami to and from the MacArthur Causeway. Ultimately, the winning bidder or design-build firm (“DB Firm”) would provide preliminary designs, coordinate design services with the Department to finalize the engineering and construction plans, and perform construction of the finalized designs. It would also need to self-finance the design and construction of the Project, because payment would be made by DOT into an escrow account and then disbursed to the selected DB Firm on periodic intervals. This form of payment was referred to as “gap financing.” BCC is a private civil engineering firm based in Florida specializing in roadway projects. The Department engaged BCC to advise and draft concept plans and portions of the RFP related to roadway design, roadway geometrics and temporary traffic control (also known as maintenance of traffic (“MOT”)). Staff from BCC also represented the Department in meetings with bidders as allowed by the RFP.4/ The Project Selection Committee (“PSC”) was made up of three members: Javier Rodriguez, Executive Director of MDX; Gerry O’Reilly, Secretary of DOT for District IV; and Dat Huynh, District Planning and Environmental Administrator of DOT for District VI. The PSC selected the Best Value Proposer (“BVP”) based on scores given for the bidders’ Technical Proposals, contract time, price proposals, and a passing grade for the bidder’s financial health. The PSC also met publicly at various times during the RFP process. The Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) was the group in the RFP process responsible for reviewing and scoring the Technical Proposal. The TRC was made up of four DOT engineers and one MDX engineer. The Technical Proposal was made up two volumes. Volume 1 was worth a total of 60 points and included criteria such as construction methods, MOT plans, and innovation. Volume 2 was worth up to 30 points, and addressed aesthetic criteria such as streetscapes, lighting and enhancements. The Aesthetic Review Committee (“ARC”) was the group assigned to review and pass acceptable Signature Bridge options. The ARC also was responsible for reviewing and scoring Volume 2 of the Technical Proposals from each bidder. There were originally five members: four non-DOT representatives from the local community; and Brian Blanchard, the DOT assistant secretary. Mr. Blanchard withdrew from the ARC prior to the scoring of Volume 2, when his duties at DOT increased after the DOT Secretary resigned. Each bidder could submit three bridge designs or options. The ARC members gave a “pass” or “fail” grade to each Signature Bridge option submitted. These pass/fail grades determined which proposals moved to the next phase of the RFP involving the technical aspects of the entire proposal. Although the ARC members also ranked each of the bidders’ options, these rankings were for “informational purposes only.” Leon Corbett, the Department’s finance manager for the RFP, was responsible for overseeing the final phase of the RFP process of evaluating the financial fitness of the intended DB Firm. Mr. Corbett was experienced in evaluating financial proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals, and specifically had experience in evaluating bidders for proposals involving P3s. Mr. Corbett and DOT staff evaluated the financial proposal of the highest scorer on a pass/fail basis. Petitioner, FAM, is a joint venture organized specifically to submit a response to the RFP. The corporate members of FAM are Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (“FEI”), Astaldi Construction Corporation and Munilla Construction Management, LLC (“MCM”). All three members of FAM are civil construction contractors that were prequalified by DOT to submit bids to the RFP. Hope Grumbles, FEI’s director of sales and infrastructure, served as the corporate representative for FAM at the hearing. AWD was also organized to submit a response to the RFP. AWD is composed of Archer Western Contractors, LLC (“Archer”), and the de Moya Group, Inc. (“de Moya”), both DOT- prequalified contractors. Ultimately, DOT issued a notice of intent that AWD had been chosen as the winning proposer or DB Firm. Kevin McGlinchey, the vice-president over Florida and the Caribbean for Archer, served as the corporate representative for AWD at the hearing. History and Groundwork for Project and RFP Planning for improvements to I-395 and the bridge to the MacArthur Causeway began in the early 1990s, but did not result in any renovations. Research on the project began again in 2004 with the beginning of a project development and environmental study (“PD&E”) and culminated in 2010 with the issuance of a Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Record of Decision.5/ The purpose of the PD&E study was to produce a recommendation for final designs and construction. Separate PD&E studies were done for the I-395 and SR 836 projects. The original PD&E premise was simply to replace the bridge on I-395, but that project did not move forward because of concerns that the bridge and the construction itself may have negative impacts on the area underneath and adjacent to the bridge, including Overtown, a historic black neighborhood located adjacent to I-395. At some point after the release of the PD&E studies, DOT created a Project Advisory Group which met numerous times until 2013. The Project Advisory Group consisted of representatives of numerous stakeholders in the road improvements, including governmental agencies and civic organizations from the local area. Meanwhile in 2010 and early 2011, BCC, on behalf of the Department, began developing the RFP language. Although it was not involved in the original I-395 PD&E, BCC reevaluated the PD&E for factors, such as environmental and socioeconomic impacts, traffic issues, and right-of-way requirements. These changes were incorporated in the concept plans and procurement language for the final advertisement requesting proposals for the Project. In 2013, a lawsuit filed against DOT in Miami-Dade County sought equitable relief relating to any bridge renovations by DOT. As a result, DOT agreed that any renovation or improvements by DOT to the I-395 interchange would include a “Signature Bridge” as part of the Project. In furtherance of this goal and to allow local input regarding the visual impact of the bridge on the area, DOT created an Aesthetic Steering Committee to review alternatives for the “Signature Bridge” and recommend a specific bridge design to DOT. Despite meeting numerous times, however, this committee was unable to reach consensus on any one specific design. The committee disbanded, but the concept of the committee’s role was incorporated in the RFP process in the form of the ARC. During this time, MDX also had plans to reconstruct portions of SR 836. DOT and MDX agreed to conduct the SR 836 renovations and the bridge replacement as part of the same project for convenience and to save resources. As a result, DOT partnered with MDX to conduct a multi-phased and comprehensive reconstruction project that would address the traffic and aesthetic concerns of the local citizens. The project would include three major components: (1) a “Signature Bridge”; (2) SR 836 renovations; and (3) I-395 renovations. Also as a result of the public’s concerns related to the visual impact of the Project to the surrounding areas, the Department developed an Aesthetic Manual (found at Joint Exhibit 3) for the Project. This manual focused on the Signature Bridge and area underneath the bridge. As explained in the Aesthetic Manual: [T]he signature bridge will be the crown jewel of the Project. The purpose of this structure is two-fold: to provide Downtown Miami with a contemporary infrastructure icon, and to improve the quality of the space below 1-395 by relieving it of obstructing piers and columns. . . . Irrespective of the ultimate design, the Signature bridge shall still adhere to [certain] constraints: [The] Signature bridge shall have a constant depth superstructure. The signature bridge shall be two fully independent bridges that are made to look like one form (e.g. twin basket handle bridges void of a visually unifying element will not be allowed). This structural autonomy is necessary because the EB and WB structures will be constructed sequentially, yet the stakeholders have insisted upon the appearance of one aesthetic entity. Concept Plans To provide bidders with an established set of design objectives (i.e., an idea of what it was looking for in the final product), DOT created concept plans that identified the project’s physical boundaries, the scope of the interstate reconstruction and proposed layouts. The RFP concept plans were developed and approved as part of the PD&E studies that were conducted for the I-395 and SR 836 projects prior to the issuance of the RFP. It is clear from the RFP itself and the testimony at the hearing that changes to the concept plans were anticipated and encouraged. A bidder’s improvements to the basic requirements and layouts to the concept plans could garner more points in the final bid score. The RFP described the purpose of concept plans. The Concept Plans have been developed to illustrate the work required for the Total Project. The Design-Build Firm may make use of the design in the Concept Plans as a starting point for the design. However, the Design-Build Firm is not limited to only the work identified in the Concept Plans but must stay within the constraints of the Department Commitments and the requirements of the RFP. Anthony Jorges, a civil engineer and the BCC consultant working with the Department on the roadway design, geometrics and MOT requirements of the RFP, gave clear and convincing testimony. He testified the concept plans were to serve as a launching pad for the proposals. [The concept plans are] essentially a starting point for the design-build teams. [I]t really is a conceptual level, about a 30 percent level design, but it gives the teams a point to start. It by no means is final or unmodifiable. It’s just a starting point . . . a baseline to start off with. No one timely filed any protest of the concept plans. RFP Timing and Process The procurement process took place over a year, from the date of advertisement to the selection of the DB Firm. The RFP process was broken down into four phases. Phase I: Short Listing Phase II: Aesthetic Signature Bridge Submission Pass/Fail Phase III: Technical Proposal Submissions and Scoring Phase IV: Price Proposal and Financial Proposal Submittals Although addressed in detail below, in summary, prequalified bidders were first required to submit a letter of response with specific preliminary information about the bidder. DOT then created a shortlist of bidders based on review of these letters. Each shortlisted entity was then given the opportunity to submit Aesthetic Signature Bridge Proposals. Each bidder that had a passing Aesthetic Bridge submission was permitted to submit a Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal. After the Technical Proposals were scored, the scores were announced along with each bidder’s price proposal and proposed contract time. After getting a pass grade on its financial proposal from the Department, the PSC selected the BVP. Phase I In Phase I, each proposer was to provide DOT a “Letter of Response” with general information, such as the proposer’s past projects and résumés of designated key staff positions. Specific to this protest, bidders were to designate a bridge architect and engineer of record for the Signature Bridge. Each timely Letter of Response submitted to the Department was to be evaluated on specific criteria by the PSC. DOT would then post a shortlist of bidders authorized to submit proposals. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted a Letter of Response and the PSC selected both for the shortlist, thereby advancing both to the second phase of the RFP process. Phase II Each proposer that was shortlisted provided a draft submittal of its Signature Bridge design or design options. These drafts were vetted by DOT through meetings that allowed the proposers and the Department to discuss any questions or concerns either had about the draft proposals. No members of PSC, TRC or ARC attended these “vetting” meetings; the meetings were solely intended to provide feedback and answer questions between DOT staff and the proposers. After the “vetting” meetings, each shortlisted proposer submitted up to three final Signature Bridge options to the ARC. Each ARC member then gave each option a “pass” or “fail” grade. If a proposer submitted more than one option, the ARC members ranked that proposer’s options by preference. These grades and rankings were provided to the PSC for review. To move to the third phase, a proposer must have received at least one “pass” rating. The RFP specifically provided the ARC’s rankings of individual options “are purely for informational purposes only, and will have no direct impact on the Pass/Fail decision or on the evaluation of the Proposer’s Technical Proposal.” On August 19, 2016, DOT issued the “Aesthetic Bridge Proposals Pass/Fail Posting Notice” indicating that the PSC had reviewed the ARC’s rankings. As allowed by the RFP, the PSC determined that the bidders that received three out of five passes would move on. AWD’s Signature Bridge proposal was a fountain-like design with multiple arches sprouting from a unified point. FAM’s Signature Bridge design consisted of two cabled structures that were similar, but inverted. Each had an arm with a rotating disk extending into the air. Ultimately, the PSC approved these submissions from FAM and AWD to proceed to the third phase of the RFP process. Phase III Whereas Phase II focused on the Signature Bridge, Phase III involved the Technical Proposals from the bidders. Each Technical Proposal was made up of a Technical Volume (Volume 1) and Aesthetic Volume (Volume 2). The TRC members reviewed and scored both volumes; the ARC members only scored Volume 2. According to the RFP, the technical scores were based on an “adjectival scoring system” that required each of the TRC and ARC members to review the volume or volumes of the proposals he or she was assigned and give each section an “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair,” or “poor.” These descriptive ratings were later converted to a numerical value and announced at the public meeting held on April 24, 2017, to open the contract time and price proposals. Ms. Chinapoo provided the Technical Proposals, the individual scores of the evaluators, and a spreadsheet compiling all the scores to the PSC for review prior to the April 24 public meeting. Unlike the other bidder’s proposals, AWD’s Technical Proposal included a viaduct made up of two by-pass lanes in each direction on an elevated freeway along the center of the existing SR 836. The viaduct had construction and safety advantages over traditional “parallel lane” formats and would eliminate interaction between I-95 traffic and special event traffic in downtown Miami. Because this was a novel concept not addressed in the RFP or concept plans, AWD was required to get DOT’s approval before submitting the preliminary designs. After the TRC and ARC members reviewed the Technical Proposals, AWD received a 53.980 out of 60 points on Volume I and 24.389 out of 30 points on Volume II; FAM received 50.180 points for Volume I and 28.656 on Volume II. ATC Process Bidders were allowed to obtain permission to deviate from the concept plans and RFP requirements in certain aspects. The RFP outlined a process for approving requests for an Alternative Technical Concept (“ATC”), which included any deviation from a component of the technical requirements, or any proposed material or technology not addressed in the RFP. The RFP schedule anticipated that bidders would submit their ATC requests after Phase I and, if approved, incorporate them in the Technical Proposals submitted in Phase III. The purpose of the ATC process was to allow “innovation, flexibility, time and cost savings on the design and construction of Design-Build Projects while still meeting the Department Commitments.” The ATC process included one-on-one discussion meetings between the Department (or its representatives from BCC) with bidders “to describe proposed changes to supplied basic configurations, Project scope, design criteria, and/or construction criteria.” The purpose of these one-on-one ATC meetings was to discuss the ATC proposals, answer questions that the Department may have related to the requested deviations, review other relevant information, and establish whether the ATC proposal met the requirements for approval when possible. Representatives from the bidders and/or their engineers or designers, and DOT staff were involved as needed to provide feedback on the ATC. None of the TRC, ARC, and PSC members attended ATC meetings or participated in the ATC process. An ATC was deemed worthy of approval if the concept suggested was equal to or better than the existing requirements of the RFP, as determined by the Departments. ATC requests, which reduced scope, quality, performance or reliability, would be rejected. The Department retained discretion to approve or deny an ATC without a need to state justification. Once approved, an ATC was treated one of two ways: with an addendum to the RFP so all proposers were aware of the deviation; or (2) without an addendum so only the proposer that submitted the ATC would be permitted to utilize the approved ATC in its design. Not all concept plans or RFP requirements were modifiable; some could not be changed through an ATC. Specific to these proceedings, the RFP had “specific ATC restrictions” (or what the parties referred to as “nonmodifiables”) on the following requirements: Minimum basic number of lanes [for I-395 and I-95] as shown in Attachment A-33. All Signature Bridge components shall be part of the structural system that carries bridge Dead Load (DL) and Live Load (LL). Minimum basic number of lanes [for SR 836] as shown in Attachment MDXA-02. Minimum widths of mainline lanes and ramp lanes [for MDX]. Preliminary Plans and Confirmation Letter During Phase III, each remaining bidder was required to submit a technical proposal in which the bidder provided design concepts with preliminary plans. The RFP did not seek proposals of final designs that were ready for construction. Rather, as explicitly stated, the actual preparation of final plans and designs was to be part of the contract work being solicited, and would be performed after contract execution. As was clear from the RFP and testimony at the hearing, the goal of the procurement was not for the award recipient to provide final signed and sealed plans. Instead, it would provide plans as deliverables in the contract, submitted to DOT engineers for review, comment, and approval. More precisely, the RFP and contract required the winning bidder to submit--during contract performance--60- percent plans (plans that are 60-percent complete) for DOT comment and approval, followed by 90-percent plans for further DOT review. Only after the 90-percent plans were finalized, were they to be signed, sealed, and submitted to DOT for construction. In other words, the final design plans were to be developed by the DB Firm’s designers in collaboration with DOT’s (and MDX) staff as part of contract performance and deliverables--not as part of the procurement itself. Because of the unique fluid nature of the proposal drawings, the RFP provided that DOT may waive minor irregularities in proposals as follows: Waiver of Irregularities The Department may 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. Minor irregularities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department’s interest and will not affect the price of the Proposals by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Proposers. Any design submittals that are part of a Proposal shall be deemed preliminary only. Preliminary design submittals may vary from the requirements of the Design and Construction Criteria. The Department, at their discretion, may elect to consider those variations in awarding points to the Proposal rather than rejecting the entire Proposal. In no event will any such elections by the Department be deemed to be a waiving of the Design and Construction Criteria. Because the proposal plans were merely preliminary, DOT required each bidder to submit a “Written Confirmation Letter” (“Compliance Letter”) stating that regardless of the preliminary plan, if chosen as the DB Firm, it would comply with and be bound by all requirements in the contract documents during contract performance. The winning bidder was required to fully comply with the Design and Construction Criteria and other RFP requirements for the price bid, regardless of the preliminary designs or if the proposal was based on a variation. AWD and FAM each submitted Compliance Letters. Phase IV and Selection of AWD as BVP In Phase IV, FAM, AWD, and two other bidders submitted their price proposal and total project calendar days. During the public meeting on April 24, 2017, price proposals from each proposer were opened. The price proposals also included each proposer’s total estimated contract time. Based on the formula set forth in the RFP, each proposal received a score for its price proposal. The members of the PSC were not involved in evaluating the price proposals or the contract time. Instead, the prices and contract times were evaluated by DOT staff, who were to alert the PSC members to issues with a proposer’s price or contract time. The record established DOT staff were not concerned and did not alert the PSC members to any issues. Both AWD and FAM received a score of 4.99 points for their price proposals. AWD proposed a total contract time of 1,460 days; FAM proposed a total contract time of 1,825 days. The RFP provided the formula for scoring the proposed contract times as: 5 x (a/b), where a = lowest number of calendar days proposed by any bidder; and b = number of calendar days proposed by that bidder. Using this formula, AWD received 5.00 out of 5 points; and FAM received 4.00 points. The total scores were then noticed by the Department. The next step in this phase was for the Department to evaluate the financial fitness of the intended award. The Department’s finance manager for the RFP, Leon Corbett, and DOT staff evaluated the financial proposal of the highest scorer on a pass/fail basis. As noticed in the RFP, the financial review portion for this RFP was to occur after the April 24 public meeting announcing the technical scores and price proposals. The RFP states that the “PSC shall select the BVP for the Total Project.” It also states that “[t]he Proposer with a responsive Proposal will be evaluated by the PSC for award of the I-395 Agreements as the Best Value Proposer as set forth in this RFP.” Finally, the RFP provides as follows: The PSC will review the evaluations of the Technical Proposal and the scores for the Proposed Contract Time and Scored Price Proposal for each Proposer and make a final determination of the highest score. The PSC has the right to correct any errors in the evaluation and selection process that may have been made. The Department is not obligated to award the I-395 Agreements and the PSC may decide to reject all Proposals. If the PSC decides not to reject all Proposals, the I-395 Agreements will be awarded to the Proposer determined by the PSC to be the Best Value Proposer. Before the scheduled PSC meeting on May 12, 2017, Ms. Chinapoo provided each PSC member with the technical proposals submitted by the vendors, the individual scores of the evaluators, and a spreadsheet compiling the scores. On May 12, 2017, the PSC met to consider the scores, as well as DOT staff’s evaluation of the AWD financial proposal. The PSC unanimously determined that AWD was the “Best Value Proposer” based on the highest technical score, the best value proposer and the best contract time. One PSC member, Mr. Rodriguez, testified that before the May 12 meeting he spent about 12 hours reviewing the material before making the final decision as to which bidder would be BVP. He also testified that he considered AWD the BVP because “they had the best score, after they were scored, they had a compliant price, and they had the best time.” Mr. Rodriguez indicated he would have asked any questions at the meeting had he seen anything unusual, untoward, or problematic about the scoring of the proposals. Mr. Rodriguez noted there was one anomaly in the technical scores of one ARC member who preferred the FAM’s proposal. Whereas the other members of the ARC gave AWD scores of 26.2, 24.6, and 17.80 out of 30 points for Volume 2, John Richard gave AWD a score of 7.20 points; while awarding FAM a nearly perfect score of 29.300. Mr. Richard awarded the other two proposals (not FAM or AWD) 9.00 and 2.5 points. Mr. Rodriguez considered, but was not concerned about Mr. Richard’s individual scores because Mr. Rodriguez felt the scores were based on “aesthetics” and just “an opinion” about which proposal Mr. Richard thought offered the prettier bridge. There is no evidence establishing the PSC failed in its responsibilities or did not follow the RFP process in selecting the BVP as described in the RFP. After the PSC determined the intended award, the Federal Highway Administration was required to concur, the DB Firm was required to submit final financial documents, and the parties would then execute the contracts. DOT’s Scoring In the Amended Protest, FAM asserts the bid award should be rejected because the Department used the wrong methodology for assigning the technical scores for Volume 2. DOT took all of the reviewers’ scores, added them together and divided them by the number of reviewers. FAM claims that correct methodology would be to take the ARC members’ individual scores and average them to one score (x); take the TRC members’ individual scores and average them to another score (y); and then average x and y to arrive at a technical score for Volume 2. Although the RFP was specific as to what criteria the ARC and TRC members were to use in grading the technical proposals, and how those grades were converted to numbers, it was silent as to how the individual reviewers’ scores would be combined to come up with one score for Volume 2. As explained previously, all members from the TRC and the ARC used an “adjectival scoring system” that required individual evaluators to rate portions of the proposals as “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair,” or “poor.” Consistent with the RFP, non-reviewers (Mr. Schiess and a DOT in-house attorney) assigned numerical equivalents to the adjectival scores. These individual numerical conversions were delivered to Ms. Chinapoo, who kept them secure until the scores of all proposers were presented in a spreadsheet during a public meeting on April 24, 2017. As established by the evidence at the hearing, typically in DOT procurements there are technical reviewers scoring the technical part of proposals. In that situation all of the reviewers’ scores are averaged (i.e., added all together and divided by the total number of reviewers). Unlike other procurements that are based only on technical components and price, this RFP involved an additional component relating to aesthetics. Therefore, in this RFP process there were two separate scoring committees, ARC and TRC, each starting out with five members each. Mr. Rodriguez testified the method used by DOT-– calculating the final score by adding up the scores from the individual reviewers and then dividing it by the number of reviewers--was common practice. Theoretically, under this typical method, for the Aesthetic volume of the Technical Proposals, DOT would have added the scores from each of the ten committee members and divided by ten to reach the technical score. During the course of the procurement, however, one of the members, Brian Blanchard (the sole DOT representative on the ARC) resigned from the committee, and was not replaced. The RFP is silent as to how the absence of a committee member should be treated. DOT addressed the reduction in ARC membership by notifying the proposers that Mr. Blanchard was no longer on the ARC; and explaining the “scoring of your Technical Volume 1 will be done by the five-member Technical Review Committee (TRC), who will also score your Aesthetic Volume 2, along with the four remaining members of the ARC.” It did not clarify how the individual scores would be used to arrive at a total score. As reflected in Joint Exhibit 46, DOT converted the adjectival description provided by each ARC and TRC member and then calculated the scores of each of the reviewers to reach a total sum, which was then divided by the number of reviewers for each volume of the technical proposal. The language in DOT’s notice announcing Mr. Blanchard’s departure from the ARC is ambiguous. The fact, however, that the Department did not provide a formula (as it did for scoring the price proposal or contract time scores) and that it mentioned the “members,” and not the committees, supports the use of the typical averaging methodology, averaging scores of all nine evaluators. As Mr. Schiess testified, this is the way an evaluator’s scores would be treated in any other procurement. Q.: Do you know who made the decision on how to average those numbers? A.: The decision to average the scores has been something the Department has been doing. That’s just common practice. Q.: And what is the common practice? A.: To average the scores of the evaluators. Q.: Just take a straight average, add up all the evaluators and divide the scores by the number of evaluators? A.: Correct. Similarly, the testimony of the PSC members established this was common practice. Mr. Rodriquez testified that he has served on numerous DOT project selection committees over the years and that scores of evaluators are typically averaged. Dat Huynh, another PSC member, described the process as “regular averaging” as “just combining the number and dividing by the number of people that were in participation.” The testimony established any contrary method would need to have been clearly spelled out in the RFP. At the May 12 public hearing, FAM’s representatives raised the issue of the scoring and claimed it defeated the public’s role in the process. The evidence, however, established the public did have a key role in the selection of the Signature Bridge. The ARC’s role was to provide public input. In addition to scoring Volume 2, the ARC evaluated the Signature Bridge design proposals on a Pass/Fail basis and served as the “gate-keeper” keeping any designs it did not approve from moving further in the process.6/ John Morris, president of the third-place proposer, also indicated at the May 12 public meeting that based on his experience the process was not unusual: My team came in third in that process. And I’m not really here representing my joint venture team. I’m really more here as someone who has done a great deal of work with the Department of Transportation and bid on a lot of design-build projects over the last 20 years, and as far as I’m concerned, the DOT followed the process that they laid out in the RFP. Additionally, a plain reading of the RFP indicates it was the weight of the individual ARC members, not the ARC as a whole, that was valued. For example under the section titled “Aesthetic Signature Bridge Proposals Pass/Fail,” the RFP stated in relevant part: Each ARC member will independently pass or fail each option submitted. Each ARC member will also rank the options provided by a Proposer against the other options provided by the same Proposer against the other options provided by the same Proposer. * * * Although the ARC members will rank the different options . . . these rankings are purely for information purposes only, and will have no direct impact on Pass/Fail decision or on the evaluation of the Proposer’s Technical Proposal. * * * [T]he PSC will recalculate the options based on “passing” being lowered to three (3) out of five (5) passes from the ARC members. (RFP at 20)(emphasis added). There is also support for using individual scores in the RFP section titled “Final Selection Process,” which provides that at the public meeting where the price proposals are opened, “the Department will announce the adjectival scores for each member of the TRC and ARC, by category, for each Proposer.” (emphasis added). This interpretation makes sense given that the previous form of the ARC, the Aesthetic Steering Committee, could not come up with a consensus regarding a style or appearance for the Signature Bridge. Moreover, given that it was the DOT’s representative and not a public member that resigned, it cannot be said that the method used by DOT undermined the public’s participation in the process. There is no evidence that the method put forth by FAM is supported by the RFP, any rules or by any industry or departmental precedent; nor is there evidence that the ARC and TRC were to contribute to the scoring process equally. There is no evidence that the averaging methodology used by DOT is contrary to any statute or rule. The Department’s deriving the total score for Volume 2 by averaging all the evaluator’s scores was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition or arbitrary and capricious. AWD’s Contract Time As stated previously, the RFP provided the formula for scoring the proposed contract times as: 5 x (a/b), where a = lowest number of calendar days proposed by any bidder; and b = number of calendar days proposed by that bidder. Additionally, the RFP noted: “The Proposed Contract Time should incorporate and set forth an aggressive but realistic time frame for the required completion of the Total Project.” According to the RFP, any time more than 1,825 days would be nonresponsive. AWD’s Proposed Contract Time was 1,460 days; FAM’s Proposed Contract Time was the maximum provided by the RFP-– 1,825 days. This comes out to be a 365-day or a one-year difference. As a result, using the formula in the RFP, AWD achieved a score of 5.0 out of 5 points for its contract time, and FAM achieved a score of 4.0 points. FAM challenges AWD’s contract time, claiming it was not realistic. FAM argues the 1,460 days proposed by AWD was unrealistic and insinuates this number was done solely to manipulate the scoring. AWD counters, not only was it realistic, it was aggressive, as requested by the RFP. There is no evidence of collusion or that AWD knew the individual technical scores before it came up with its proposal or that there was any kind of unethical or improper conduct relating to the contract time. Rather there was competent and convincing evidence that AWD’s shorter time proposal was realistic given its resources and experience. Kevin McGlinchey, who was involved in developing AWD’s contract time, testified the calculation of AWD’s contract time was an on-going process and was not finalized until a short time before the price and time submission was due. The evidence established AWD’s joint members had previous experience with DOT and P3/design-build projects. In addition, AWD was a very large contractor in the state with access to adequate local labor. Archer employs 1,300 workers in the area; de Moya employees up to 300 workers in the area. For example, depending on equipment availability AWD could have five eight-hour shifts, five ten-hour shifts, or six eight-hour shifts; or AWD could increase the number of crews working each shift. This access to labor afforded AWD the ability to increase its crews and shifts, thereby reducing the length of total work time. AWD also reduced its contract time over the procurement process by changes in its construction plan that allowed it to overlap construction phases and work on more than one segment of the Project concurrently, instead of running consecutively as originally anticipated when it submitted preliminary design documents and MOT plans. Mr. Schiess testified that he and a DOT bridge expert reviewed AWD’s Proposed Contract Time to determine whether it was realistic. This review was conducted between the time the scores were publicly released on April 24, 2017, and the PSC meeting on May 12, 2017. Mr. Schiess testified “based on our experience in Florida and other projects [with] these contractors [Archer and de Moya], that [1,460 days] was not an unrealistic time.” Because there was competent evidence AWD had the resources and a plan to complete the Project in the 1,460 days, its contract time proposal was aggressive, realistic, and responsive to the RFP. AWD’s Financial Proposal FAM also challenges the “Pass” grade DOT awarded AWD on its Financial Proposal. It argues (1) DOT failed in not reviewing FAM’s financial proposal; (2) AWD’s original financial proposal was non-responsive; and (3) DOT improperly allowed AWD to supplement information to its original financial proposal. Section VI, M., of the RFP addresses the financial requirements of the RFP and the documentation that must be provided by bidders. The financial evaluation is a two-step process with an initial Financial Proposal to be submitted on the due date for the price proposals. After the PSC chose a BVP, Mr. Corbett and his staff was also responsible for reviewing a final letter of commitment or credit provided by the DB Firm, which was due 15 days following the Department’s posting of its Intent to Award. Mr. Corbett and his staff conducted the initial financial review for this procurement after the public meeting, announcing the technical scores, price proposals and contract times. The Department was to give the highest scoring bidder either a pass/fail grade, which was relayed to the PSC to make its final decision. During this period, the RFP specifically allowed Mr. Corbett to obtain additional financial information. It states: The Department’s evaluation of a Financial Proposal is solely for the benefit of the Department and not for the benefit of the Design-Build Firm, any entity related thereto, the public or any member thereof, nor create for any third party rights. . . . The Departments evaluation of each Financial Proposal will be on a pass/fail basis. Analysis of the Design-Build Firm’s Financial Proposal by the Department will include, but not be limited to the following: * * * d. Review of the Lender Letter(s) of Commitment or Demonstration of Line(s) of Credit to determine if it meets the financing needs established in the Project Financial Plan. * * * The Department reserves the right to request any additional information or pursue other actions required to meet its obligations to complete the financial due diligence. (RFP at 70.) As an initial matter, although Mr. Corbett did not conduct a concurrent pass/fail review of the financial proposal submitted by FAM (or the other bidders who made it to Phase IV), nothing in the RFP required the Department to review and assess the financial proposals of all the bidders. FAM asserts by failing to have its financial proposal evaluated, the PSC was deprived of the option of awarding the contract to FAM. However, if the PSC had opted not to award the contract to AWD despite its status as the highest scoring bidder, nothing in the RFP would have precluded the Department from initiating a pass/fail review of the FAM financial proposal at that point to assess FAM’s financial viability for the contract award. The Department did not err in evaluating only the highest scoring bidder, AWD. Regarding AWD’s responsiveness to the financial requirements of the RFP, AWD timely submitted its financial proposal to DOT on August 24, 2017, which included a preliminary letter of commitment (“PLOC”) from BankUnited. According to the RFP, the PLOC was required to contain the following information at a minimum: The lender was interested in providing financial support for the project; The lender had reviewed the financial requirements of the RFP; The amount of financial support the Lender intended to provide (no minimum amount was required by the RFP); Any special conditions to the PLOC. After AWD was ranked as the highest scoring bidder, Mr. Corbett and his staff conducted DOT’s initial review of AWD’s financial proposal. There is no dispute that DOT had the right to request any additional information or pursue other actions required to meet its duty of due diligence. The evidence established the original financial proposal met the minimum requirements of the RFP, but DOT requested additional assurances and clarification regarding its PLOC, which AWD provided. As Mr. Corbett explained, AWD’s Financial Proposal was responsive to the RFP requirements, but he had questions relating to the PLOC. Q.: And so this determination of responsiveness was made after you had the original financial proposal, Archer Western- de Moya, the first supplemental proposal and a second supplemental proposal that we just went over, correct? A.: So I mean, there is responsiveness and there is pass/fail, and I think that’s where we have to explore a little bit more. The letter states responsive, meaning it meets the minimum requirements. And then there is the pass/fail, which I don’t know why I didn’t address pass/fail, why I didn’t say it’s a pass in the letter. But the pass came at that point, too, yes. * * * So my answer is it wasn’t an additional proposal, it was--the original proposal was what was evaluated for responsiveness. We asked for additional assurances to make sure they were headed towards a path of getting the resources necessary to finance the project. So the determination was made after receiving all that information. It is evident on the face of the BankUnited PLOC that it is responsive, as it complies with the following minimum RFP requirements. BankUnited confirmed “its interest in providing financing” for the project. BankUnited stated it “has taken careful consideration to review and understand the financial elements of the Project.” BankUnited specified it was “prepared to provide a credit facility up to” $125 million; and the $125 million credit facility consists of $75 million from BankUnited and another $50 million from other participating banks. It is this reference to “other participating banks” that triggered Mr. Corbett to request further information. Attached to the PLOC was a term sheet from BankUnited that sets forth the conditions for its $125 million credit facility. Although FAM contends that the BankUnited PLOC is nonresponsive because BankUnited is only committing to provide $75 million of the $125 million credit to AWD, the evidence at the hearing established BankUnited was proposing to provide a single credit facility totaling $125 million, some of which BankUnited may obtain through group or a “pool” of lenders. The financial proposal was that BankUnited would be the lead arranger of multiple banks participating in the “lending pool.” Nothing in the RFP prohibited this type of “pool,” and the testimony at the hearing established DOT has accepted this kind of loan structure in the past. Where a single credit facility in the form of a loan pool is being proposed, there is nothing in the RFP that precluded BankUnited, as the lead arranger, from submitting the PLOC on behalf of all of the lenders that are or would be participating in the credit facility. Regardless, even if BankUnited’s PLOC is treated as offering a credit facility in the amount of $75 million rather than the full $125 million, this does not render the AWD financial proposal nonresponsive since the RFP merely requires that the PLOC state the “amount the Lender intends to lend,” and does not require what amount that should be. The RFP only states that the commitments “should meet the required amount [of gap financing] identified in the Project Financial Plan.” Obviously, the goal was to ensure the winning bidder had the ability to secure preliminary commitments equaling the amount it may have to put forward for completion of the Project because DOT would be making period payments, but not until after the DB Firm had incurred the expenses. Given BankUnited’s PLOC meets the minimum requirements of the RFP, AWD’s financial proposal was responsive. Moreover, the RFP allowed DOT to look beyond the bare minimum requirements of the RFP to obtain a higher level of assurance before finalizing a “passing” grade. Mr. Corbett also wanted the information in anticipation of questions that the PSC members may have. Specifically, the evidence established that on April 25, 2017, Ms. Chinapoo’s requested AWD to provide additional information regarding the proposed pooling loan being offered by BankUnited. In particular, Mr. Corbett sought “additional assurances” that BankUnited would be able to obtain the balance of the “pool” financing from other participating banks. On April 27, 2017, AWD responded to DOT’s request for additional assurances. In this response, AWD reaffirmed that BankUnited was committed to provide the Final Letter of Commitment that was required under DOT’s RFP. Because AWD’s compliance with the request for information was provided prior to the agency’s announcement that it intended to award the contract to AWD, these additional documents did not violate section 120.57(3)(f). On April 28, 2017, AWD also confirmed to DOT that it had taken steps toward finalizing the $125 million pooling credit facility described in the BankUnited PLOC. AWD also provided another PLOC from Private Bank indicating Private Bank also had an interest in participating in the BankUnited credit facility. Private Bank’s PLOC proposed that it would participate in BankUnited’s credit facility (rather than offering its own credit facility) and that its proposed $50 million loan to the $125 million pool would be the same as the conditions set forth in BankUnited’s term sheet. AWD’s April 28 response also advised that it was continuing to explore the possibility of having BankUnited provide a credit facility for the entire $125 million in gap financing needed. The details regarding this alternative credit facility were described in a letter from BankUnited that was attached to AWD’s April 28 response. Mr. Corbett admitted he considered the additional information received from AWD before announcing his final decision to “pass” the AWD financial proposal; and this information solidified his decision to give AWD a passing grade. Although hypothetically it is possible that had AWD provided different information, Mr. Corbett would have not been assured and may have reached a different result, this is not evidence of an error. Rather it is the essence of conducting “due diligence.” It is also true the additional information BankUnited provided included information that was not contained in AWD’s April 24 financial proposal. Based on this, FAM argues that the April 27 and April 28 responses constitute modified or amended financial proposals that were submitted after the RFP’s financial proposal deadline in violation of section 120.57(3)(f). However, FAM’s position must be rejected for several reasons. First, the RFP expressly authorized DOT “to request any additional information or pursue other actions” in furtherance of its financial due diligence. This clearly is broad authority that does not limit DOT’s inquiry to information that merely clarifies the financial proposal. Having failed to challenge this “due diligence” language in the RFP provision within the time permitted by section 120.57(3)(b), FAM has waived any objection to DOT’s use of this provision. Further, in both its April 27 and 28 responses, AWD reaffirmed that it was prepared to move forward with the BankUnited credit facility proposed in AWD’s April 24 financial proposal. Although AWD’s April 28 response included information from Private Bank, this information did not propose a new or different credit structure, it simply provided additional information regarding the pool structure expressed originally by BankUnited. Because the BankUnited credit facility indicates that there would be other lenders participating in its credit facility, the identification of Private Bank is consistent with, rather than amending or modifying, the financing plan presented in AWD’s financial proposal. Again, the purpose of the Financial Proposal and PLOC was not to obtain a final commitment from the DB Firm to a particular financing arrangement with a particular lender. Instead, the RFP only required the proposer to present its “preliminary” or possible financing plans so that DOT could evaluate the likelihood that the final award would go to a proposer that had the financial resources necessary to finish the project on time. Only after the contract was awarded would AWD be required to present DOT with its final financing plan in the form of a final letter of commitment. Nothing in the RFP required that this final financing plan be identical to the preliminary financing plan that was presented in AWD’s initial Financial Proposal. As such, the Department’s request for and consideration of the information from AWD regarding the BankUnited PLOC and the pooling credit structure did not violate section 120.54(3)(f), and was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition or arbitrary and capricious. FAM also argues the Preliminary Term Sheet (“PTS”) attached to the BankUnited PLOC conflicts with the RFP, which specifies the circumstances under which money paid under the proposed contract may be assigned to a lender as security for a loan. The RFP provision at issue, referred to by the parties as the “Assignment Clause,” states in relevant part, as follows: Reimbursement shall be made to the Design- Build Firm by warrant mailed to the Project Specific Escrow Account [“PSEA”] using a unique vendor number sequence. The Design-Build Firm may, with the express written consent of the Surety(ies) and the Lender(s) Financier(s), sell assign or pledge any monies paid into the Project Specific Escrow Account by the Department in favor of third parties and including but not limited to the Design-Build Firm’s Surety(ies) and Lender(s)/Financier(s); however, any such sale, assignment or pledge must only attach to payments made by the Department after such funds have been paid by warrant mailed to the Project Specific Escrow Account, and no sale, assignment or pledge of any receivable from the Department is authorized nor will be permitted by the Department. (RFP at 63)(emphasis added). AWD submitted with its Financial Proposal the BankUnited PLOC, which had an attachment with the following relevant language: Seller [AWD] proposes to sell the right of certain future [DOT] payments . . . to one or more Purchasers in order to finance the Project. As established by Mr. Corbett and Department e-mails, the intent of the Assignment Clause was to make “each [contract] payment payable to the vendor/contractor executing the agreement.” In this regard, the RFP treats the deposit of funds into the PSEA as payment to the contractor. The assignment is permitted under the RFP’s Assignment Clause if AWD’s assignment of a contract payment to a lender does not divert DOT’s payments away from the PSEA to BankUnited. In other words, there is no violation if the funds continue to be deposited into the PSEA. If, however, the assignment gives BankUnited the right to receive payments from DOT before the payments are mailed to the escrow account, it violates the RFP’s Assignment Clause. There is no dispute that the BankUnited PTS purports to assign certain rights held by AWD to the BankUnited as collateral for the proposed credit facility. The terminology used to describe the assignment is non-specific and creates ambiguity as to what the particular right is that is being assigned or sold. For instance, there is language in the PTS indicating that AWD is selling or assigning its “right to payment from DOT” without describing what that right is. In order to know what “right to payment” is being assigned, it has to be determined what right to payment AWD would actually have under its DOT contract since AWD cannot sell or assign contract rights that it does not have. See Cole v. Angora Enters., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). As established by the RFP and testimony at the hearing, AWD will have no right under the DOT contract to receive payments directly from DOT; rather, payments from DOT will first be deposited into the PSEA, which will then be available for disbursement to the DB Firm. Because AWD will have no right to direct payment from DOT (as opposed to indirectly through disbursement from the PSEA), AWD cannot assign or sell a right to direct payments from DOT to any lender, including BankUnited. Stated differently, the only “right to payment” that AWD can assign is its right to payment from the PSEA. Moreover, the plain meaning of the PTS establishes AWD does not intend to assign or sell to BankUnited the right to receive payments from DOT before the payments are deposited into the Project Specific Escrow Account. The PTS states as follows: The Seller [AWD] shall establish a project specific escrow account (the “Project Specific Escrow Account”) with the Escrow Agent. All payments payable by DOT under the Department Contract will be deposited into the Project Specific Escrow Account. (emphasis added). Consistent with this directive, the PTS requires the parties, including BankUnited, to execute the “DOT Project Specific Escrow Account Form” as part of their financing transaction. As established by the Department’s exhibits, the purpose of DOT Project Specific Escrow Account Form, which must be signed by both the bidder and lender (or in this case AWD and BankUnited), is to “irrevocably” request, authorize and direct DOT “to process, issue and transmit any and all future payments otherwise payable directly to [the DB Firm] to now be processed, issued and transmitted using DB Firm’s Project Specific Escrow Account . . . in lieu of DB Firm’s regular vendor account. . . .” This irrevocable request to DOT would be made in the name of AWD as the DB Firm contracting with DOT. As the lender, BankUnited’s signature on the form would indicate its consent and agreement “to be so bound by the entirety of the terms of [AWD’s] Request for Specific Escrow Account ” In other words, by signing this form, BankUnited will be agreeing to be bound by AWD’s irrevocable request to have all DOT payments deposited into the Project Specific Escrow Account. This means that, in accordance with the RFP’s Assignment Clause, BankUnited will be irrevocably agreeing not to receive payments from DOT before payments are deposited into the Project Specific Escrow Account. The arrangement between AWD and BankUnited does not violate the Assignment Clause and is, therefore, responsive. AWD’s Technical Proposal FAM challenges a number of aspects of AWD’s technical plan as being non-responsive to the RFP. Specifically, it claims AWD’s proposal violates the non-modifiable requirements for the number of lanes on certain portions of the Project and the lane width requirements. Basic/Continuous Lane Requirements for I-395 (Attachment A-33) As described earlier, AWD made substantial changes to the RFP’s concept plans for I-395 and SR 836 by proposing a two- tiered road formation made up of a two-lane viaduct on an upper level and a collector road system on the lower level. In order to pursue this design, AWD submitted an ATC proposal which was eventually approved as “ATC 12C”. The proposed viaduct would have two continuous lanes in each direction between the two major highway systems, SR 836 and I-395, without being impeded by local SR 836 traffic. The local traffic would be carried on a lower roadway or Collector- Distributor (“CD”) road underneath the viaduct. This lower CD road would also have one continuous lane in each direction, for a total of three continuous lanes in each direction. DOT determined that the viaduct concept and changes were an improvement over the RFP concept plan. As explained by Anthony Jorges, a traffic roadway engineer for BCC: First with the viaduct, by separating the traffic, it provides you unimpeded access to and from Miami Beach to the east, so it improves the emergency evacuation and improves access for emergency services. This addresses the event traffic issue that I brought up earlier. While you have events that may cause backups on the lower level for local traffic, we do have a separate level for the mainline that’s going to carry through. So you have those two lanes on top free at all times. So that was a significant advantage that we were looking at. And in addition to that, there is also the additional lane on the westbound to northbound--I am sorry, the eastbound to northbound movement, and that is taking it from the one lane that was in the RFP concept to the two lanes that Archer Western de Moya provided. That provides significant improvements to the operations of the mainline. It also provides safety benefits because now traffic that was queuing up on this ramp back on to the mainline is separated. Whatever traffic queues up here is separate from the mainline, and you won’t have the possibility for the speed differential, which contributes significantly to accidents. FAM contends that DOT erred in approving a technical proposal ATC 12C, because the number of continuous basic lanes on the highway was a non-modifiable requirement of the RFP. According to the testimony at the hearing and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“AASHTO Manual”), highway lanes can be grouped into two categories: basic lanes and auxiliary lanes.7/ A basic lane is essentially one that is designated and maintained over a significant length of a route, irrespective of changes in traffic volume and lane balance needs. The parties also referred to a “basic lane” as a “continuous” lane-–one that allows traffic to move over a “significant length of route” without having to change lanes. An auxiliary lane is essentially all lanes other than the basic lanes. It is defined as “the portion of the roadway adjoining the through lanes for speed change, turning, storage for turning, weaving, truck climbing and other purposes that supplement through-traffic movement.” As part of the 2010 I-395 PD&E, DOT found that I-395 lacks sufficient capacity “for system linkage” with SR 836 and other roadways due, in part, to the fact that it has only one continuous lane in each direction while the linking roadways have three. One continuous lane on I-395 was inadequate to provide the necessary access or linkage to the other road systems. Initially, the Federal Highway Authority (“FHWA”) approved a plan to address I-395’s deficiencies which added one additional continuous lane in each direction. On June 15, 2015, however, the FHWA approved the Final Re-Evaluation (completed by BCC) for the I-395 PD&E. This version included a design change allowing “three (3) continuous lanes in each direction to match 836 on the west and MacArthur Causeway on the east.” (emphasis added). DOT noted that this design change was supported by AASHTO design principles, including the basic lane concept. A concept plan for the I-395 project, which included the three continuous lanes and later became the RFP concept plan, was attached to the Final Re-Evaluation. Section VI of the Final Re-Evaluation addressed DOT’s commitments for the I-395 project, including commitment number 14: “[m]aintain and enhance continuity between SR 836/I-95 facility on the west and the MacArthur Causeway on the east.” DOT concluded on page 18 of the Final Re-evaluation that the addition of the third continuous lane on I-395 was necessary to support this commitment, stating: STATUS: [ ] Design Changes No. 1 and No. 7 describe the need to add an additional lane in each direction and widen a portion of the westbound MacArthur Causeway Bridge in order to accommodate the changes to the ingress and egress points of the Port of Miami Tunnel. These changes allow the I-395 project to be compatible with both roadways to the east and west and provide system continuity. DOT also noted that the I-395 project would be constructed concurrently with the SR 836 project, which was the subject of a separate PD&E that was completed in 2011. The SR 836 PD&E Study noted on page 6: More specific improvements potentially involve the provision of a minimum of six continuous (i.e., 3 directional) mainline lanes and the provision of parallel collector distributor facilities to separate the system to system traffic from the local to system traffic. This language establishes MDX also intended that there be three continuous lanes in each direction as proposed by DOT for the I-395 project. In short, DOT’s intent was to have three continuous lanes that would extend from the western boundary of SR 836 to the eastern boundary of I-395. This would allow a driver in any of these lanes to travel from one end of the project to the other without having to change lanes. As a result of the re-evaluation of the PD&E, BCC developed the language for the RFP that related to continuous lane requirements also found in Attachment A08. This language states, in relevant part: The Department has prepared a set of Reference Documents, which include Concept Plans. These plans convey an established set of design objectives to which the Design-Build Firm is required to accomplish in [the I-395] component of the project. The Department’s design objectives include: * * * Provide 3 continuous through lanes to the I-395 Mainline in the Eastbound and Westbound direction. The RFP also provided “[t]he Design-Build Firm shall not modify the following requirements with an ATC Proposal . . . Minimum basic number of lanes shown in Attachment A-33.” Mr. Jorge’s testimony was that the purpose of this language was to be consistent with the objective to provide three continuous lanes in each direction on I-395 to and from the Signature Bridge. The reason the word “minimum” was included in there was we wanted to make sure that we were getting at least three lanes in each direction, and that is the intent behind having the word “minimum.” We did understand that there would be a possibility for changes. But we wanted to make sure that we had at least three lanes in each direction. Attachment A-33 is titled, “I-395 Lane Schematic” and includes information relating to the number of “basic lanes,” “auxiliary lanes,” and the “direction of lanes” at various points of entry via connector roads and ramps onto I-395. For the Signature Bridge, Attachment A-33 has a footnote that states, “The Signature Bridge Shall Accommodate a Minimum of Four 12’ Lanes in Each Direction[.]” The plain reading of Attachment A-33 in the context of the RFP is that the three continuous or basic lane requirements applied to the roadways, but that the Signature Bridge was required to have four continuous lanes. On its face, Attachment A-33 is a schematic drawing that shows all of the lanes in the RFP concept plan for I-395. Although four of the lanes depicted in Attachment A-33 are identified as auxiliary lanes, the rest are identified as basic lanes. However, absent is any indication of some “minimum” number of basic lanes that must be maintained and that cannot be altered through the ATC process, except at one location, which is at the Signature Bridge. For that specific location, Attachment A-33 states that there must be a “minimum of four 12’ lanes in each direction.” (emphasis added). The fact that a minimum is specified at one location on Attachment A-33, but not others, is an indication that DOT did not intend to establish a minimum for other locations on the schematic. Indeed, if DOT had intended for all basic lanes depicted at each location to be the minimum number of lanes for that location, then there would have been no point to including a specific note to express that the number of lanes at the Signature Bridge location was a minimum of four lanes. Mr. Jorges confirmed that this language requiring four lanes in each direction in Attachment A-33 applied only to the Signature Bridge. Q.: And what is the minimum number of basic lanes that there need to be at that [the Signature Bridge] location? A.: Four. Q.: And is a minimum number of basic lanes indicated on attachment A-33 at any other location? A.: No, it’s not. Q.: Can you explain how indicating a minimum number of lanes at the signature bridge is consistent with the PD&E? A.: The PD&E called for three lanes in each direction of I-395, so at the signature bridge, you have 16 a situation where you have the three lanes from I-395 plus the one lane from the eastbound connector, and that’s how we arrived at the four. Like I mentioned before, it was beyond the minimum three that we were expecting, and that’s why we felt it was necessary to identify minimum for that specific location. * * * Q.: Do you have a view or an opinion as to whether or not it would make sense to have a minimum basic number of lanes at every location that’s depicted on A-33? A.: Well, if every lane there was designated as a minimum requirement, there would be no room for any sort of modification or changes by the team, so it essentially eliminates any possibility for innovation and really negates the design- build process. Q.: Can you explain whether or not that would be consistent or inconsistent with the objective of the RFP? A.: It’s--the attachment is consistent with the objectives. One of the key objectives was to have three lanes in each direction. And there is other objectives stated, but they are not specific as to the number of lanes. Although Petitioner’s roadway engineer offered its own interpretation of the Attachment A-33 and the RFP language regarding continuous lanes, Mr. Jorges’ testimony was more reliable and convincing. Mr. Jorges was familiar with the history of “continuous lane” requirements and the reasons for including that requirement in the RFP. He and others from BCC were involved in drafting the concept plans and the RFP language that included the “three continuous-lane” requirement in the RFP. In reality, while the RFP stated the proposals were to “adhere to the number of lanes” in the concept plans, each bidder also had the option of pursuing an ATC that would allow it to deviate from this requirement. The purpose of the ATC process was to encourage the proposers to offer innovative solutions or an approach that was equal to or better than the RFP concept plans or other requirements in the RFP. The viaduct design offered by AWD was found to be “equal to or better” to the concept plan and thus meets the standard for issuing an ATC because (1) AWD’s ATC proposal does not preclude DOT from “meeting the Department Commitments,” which are defined to include the ones “listed in the PD&E, FEIS/ORS and any Reevaluations attached” and (2) AWD’s ATC proposal did not violate the Specific ATC Restrictions set forth in the RFP. Attachment A-33 plainly states there must be a minimum number of basic lanes at the Signature Bridge location only. FAM’s argument that every basic lane identified on Attachment A-33 should be treated as a “minimum” continuous lane that cannot be modified is rejected. The Department did not violate the RFP by issuing ATC 12C, and AWD’s proposal with this ATC is responsive to the RFP. Basic Lane Requirements for SR 836 (Attachment MDXA-02) FAM also challenges the number of lanes proposed by AWD for the MDX’s portion of SR 836 of the Project, which are established by attachment MDXA-02. Specifically, FAM argues AWD’s plan is “one basic lane short of the four basic lanes required by the RFP from Northwest 10th Avenue going eastbound through to I-395.” (FAM’s PRO, p. 16 at para. 45) The issue to be determined is whether the RFP and MDXA-02 requires four continuous lanes for this portion of the Project. Unlike Attachment A-33, Attachment MDXA-02 is not a schematic of all the lanes on the SR 836 concept plan. Instead, Attachment MDX-A02 contains only “typical sections” or a view of a cross-section (not a linear) of the roadway at a particular location. It is not possible to determine from only a cross- section view of a segment of the roadway whether any of the lanes are continuous over a significant length of SR 836. Thus, Attachment MDX-A02 does not reveal which lanes on SR 836 are basic or continuous. Although Mike Madison, FAM’s roadway engineer, testified it was “possible” by reference to the typical sections “to determine what the basic lane requirements are for State Road 836 even if they are not identified as basic lanes on those typical sheets,” he did not rely on (or even refer to) Attachment MDX-A02. Instead, he relied on the RFP concept plan and the industry definition of “basic lane.” The RFP’s SR 836 concept plan referenced by Mr. Madison does identify which lanes are continuous. Again, the concept plans were to serve as reference documents for proposers to build off of and improve. The SR 836 concept plan serves as “general information only,” except as “specifically set forth in the body of” the RFP. Regardless, both parties offered evidence that AWD’s SR 836 proposal includes three basic or continuous lanes. Mr. Jorges’ testimony established the SR 836 concept plan has three basic lanes on the mainline and no basic lanes on the adjacent collector ramp. Instead, the fourth lane that FAM claims was necessary and non-modifiable was actually an auxiliary lane, not a basic lane. The evidence established the “fourth lane” in question is a CD road. Although a CD road can be a continuous lane, here it was not. In the concept plan, the CD road merely collects traffic from Northwest 12th Avenue, which it then distributes to I-395 without providing any access to or from SR 836. Because the CD road on the concept plan does not serve traffic that originates from SR 836, the concept plan’s CD road does not serve the function of a continuous or basic lane for SR 836. Further, the alleged “fourth lane” on the RFP concept plan’s CD road is not continuous and, thus, cannot be considered a “basic” lane. Mr. Madison admitted the concept plan’s CD road does not originate at the western boundary of the SR 836 project. Instead, the concept plan’s CD road originates at Northwest 12th Avenue, nearly halfway between the Project’s western and eastern boundaries. Thus, traffic cannot navigate the length of the SR 836 project on this fourth lane without changing lanes as required by the PD&E. Hypothetically, as explained by Mr. Jorges, a driver would not have access to a continuous lane on the concept plan’s CD road; on the concept plan, a driver entering the CD road via the northbound Northwest 12th Avenue entrance cannot reach the interchange and I-395 without shifting to another lane. After the interchange, this same driver would be forced to shift to another lane again to reach the MacArthur Causeway. By contrast, a driver accessing AWD’s CD road at the western boundary of SR 836 would be able to reach the MacArthur Causeway with no lane changes. Finally, as noted above, the Final Re-Evaluation for the I-395 PD&E proposed the addition of a third continuous lane to I-395 so that I-395 would have “three continuous lanes to match 836 on the west.” (emphasis added). The goal of the I-395 project was therefore symmetry in the number of basic lanes to improve linkage between the I-395 and SR 836 systems. The RFP required three basic or continuous lanes for the MDX portion of SR 836. AWD’s proposal was responsive to this basic lane requirement. Minimum Lane Width Requirements FAM next contends AWD’s proposal is non-responsive because it reduces the lane width for the lane and ramps for the SR 836/I-95 interchange. There is no dispute AWD’s lanes were reduced by an ATC from 12 feet to 11 feet at the ramp in question, but at issue is whether the ramp is in the I-95 portion of the Project, which is modifiable (i.e., not subject to the ATC restrictions); or is in the MDX portion of the Project, which is non-modifiable. The RFP states that “services performed by the Design-Build Firm shall be in compliance with” DOT’s Plans Preparation Manual (“PPM”). (RFP at 77.) Included in the PPM is a 12-foot lane-width requirement. For that portion of the roadwork within the scope of the MDX project, the RFP states that the winning bidder “shall not modify” through the ATC process the “[m]inimum widths of mainline lanes and ramp lanes.” (RFP at 84.) However, pursuant to Addendum 11, this ATC restriction was removed from the RFP for roadwork that is part of DOT’s I-395 project. In ATC 12C, AWD indicated it would be reducing the lane width of the SR 836 west-north connector from 12 feet to 11 feet starting at the physical gore. A “gore” is the area where a ramp joins the mainline or where two streams of traffic converge. Although there was testimony about a “theoretical gore” as opposed to a “physical gore,” engineers use the physical gore to mark the point where the ramp ends and the highway begins. In this case, AWD, through ATC 12C, sought to narrow the width of the traffic lanes at the point where the northbound ramp physically joins and transitions onto I-95. According to FAM’s roadway engineer, this reduction in the lane width is necessary because this ramp connects eastbound SR 836, which has 12-foot lanes, with northbound I-95, which has 11-foot lanes. The evidence establishes the portion of the connector road at issue is not part of the MDX project because it is owned and maintained by DOT, not MDX. This is confirmed by the fact that DOT owns the Northwest 17th Street Bridge (Bridge ID 870369), which is on the connector road to the south of the lane-width reduction area. DOT’s ownership of the lane-width reduction area is also consistent with DOT’s I-395/I-95 maintenance map, which shows that DOT (and not MDX) maintains this part of the roadway. FAM does not rely on the jurisdictional or maintenance maps, but rather relies on two documents in AWD’s ATC 12C application in which AWD referred to “836” as the applicable “State Road Number” and “MDX” as the “Approving Agency” for the proposed lane-width reduction. FAM also noted that AWD used station markers referring to SR 836 to identify the lane-width reduction area. However, as confirmed by the attachments to the RFP, including the DOT maintenance maps and DOT’s bridge inspection report, AWD was mistaken that MDX owned this segment of the roadway. This does not make DOT’s granting of the ATC erroneous. Moreover, FAM offered no document prepared by either DOT or MDX, including the RFP itself, which established MDX’s jurisdiction over this portion of the roadway. Here, the lane-width reduction occurs north of the physical gore, which is the point where the lanes originating from the ramp become physically connected to the lanes on the existing highway, I-95, via pavement that lies between the converging lanes. For safety purposes, according to the AASHTO Manual, once a roadway becomes physically connected to the highway, it is good engineering practice to design the roadway to match the criteria for the highway (e.g., 11-foot lanes) rather than to continue using the ramp criteria (e.g., 12-foot lanes). Even FAM’s roadway engineer acknowledged that, at some point before reaching I-95, the lanes joining I-95 from the connector road must transition from 12 feet to 11 feet to match the I-95 lanes, and that good engineering practice requires that this transition be done gradually rather than “suddenly.” He conceded that the lane-width transition proposed by AWD was reasonable, but disagreed whether the ramp ended at the physical or theoretical gore point. Q.: Right. You agree with me that at some point the lanes that are coming in to I-95 have to transition from 12 to 11 to match? A.: They would have to at some point. Q.: You can’t just go from 12 and all of a sudden have an 11-foot lane, right, that’s bad engineering practice? A.: Yes. Q.: As a matter of fact, the PPM won’t let you do it that way and AASHTO, too, you’ve got to have a transition? A.: Correct. Q.: Okay. So we are not questioning the reasonableness of having a transition? A.: Reasonableness, no. Q.: Okay. So I think to figure out the disconnect again, do you think the ramp doesn’t end at the gore? A.: No, it ends north of the gore, the other side of the gore point. Q.: But you just said there are two points. A.: Theoretical gore points. Q.: You believe the ramp ends at the theoretical gore point? A.: Yes. At the same time, FAM offered no evidence to show that it would still be possible to comply with the gradual transition requirement in the PPM and AASHTO if the lane reduction were delayed until after the theoretical gore when there is no longer any pavement separating the 12-foot lanes from the connector road and the existing 11-foot I-95 lanes. Because MDX neither owns nor maintains that part of the roadway where the lane is narrowed to 11 feet, this road segment is not within MDX’s portion of the Project or jurisdiction. Because the portion of AWD’s proposed lane narrowing for the ramp to I-95 was in the Department’s I-95 jurisdiction, it was modifiable. Therefore, AWD’s ATC proposal with the lane-width reduction was responsive and also a reasonably safe way to transition traffic to I-95. FAM’s Proposal Prior to and at the hearing, AWD argued FAM’s proposal was non-responsive to the RFP and to DOT’s regulations in a number of ways: (1) FAM’s engineer of record, FIGG-WGI, was a joint venture and, as such, could not work on the Project; FAM’s bridge architect, Linda Figg, was not qualified to serve in that capacity; (3) FAM’s Financial Proposal lacked the requisite audited financial statements; and (4) FAM’s technical proposal was inconsistent with the RFP requirements. FIGG-WGI, Inc. First, AWD claims FAM’s designation of FIGG-WGI as an engineer of record violates Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 75.003(2), which states as follows: (2) The Department shall not recognize joint ventures for purposes of qualifying consultants to work for the Department. Each individual or firm will be annually qualified based upon individual or firm capability. FAM designated in its Letter of Response both “FIGG Bridge Engineers, Inc.,” and “Wantman Group, Inc.” as two subcontractors as part of the FAM team. Later, however, FAM designated FIGG-WGI as FAM’s “Lead Design Firm.” Prior to submitting its Letter of Response, David Wantman asked DOT what information a design joint venture needed to submit to receive DOT approval to participate in this procurement. Carla Perry, a DOT procurement manager, was responsible for the prequalification process for this RFP. She informed FIGG-WGI engineering joint ventures “are not recognized” and that WGI would need to be designated as the engineering firm instead of the joint venture. She suggested the following: The foreign firm could sub to the Construction JV (or to Wantman), but the Engineering JV you referenced below would not be recognized for purposes of fulfilling the technical qualification in the engineering work types, and would be found non-responsive. . . . FAM’s position at final hearing and in its PRO was that FIGG–WGI was not a “legal joint venture.” This position is contrary to the evidence in FAM’s technical proposal noting FIGG–WGI was “organized as a fully integrated, single-purpose entity, which is the engineering firm of record” and the testimony at the hearing establishing FIGG-WGI was formed for legal reasons to insulate its members (Figg Engineering and Wantman) from third-party liability on large construction projects. FIGG-WGI is a joint venture and its participation in the Project, had FAM been chosen, would have violated DOT’s rules regarding what type of business structures can work on DOT projects. The violation, however, was curable. The RFP allows changes in designated key personnel and “teaming arrangements” subject to the Department’s approval. Approval of changes would be based on “whether or not the proposed substitutions in Partner/Teaming Arrangements are comparable to the Partner/Teaming Arrangements identified in the Letter of Response and/or Technical Proposal.” Here, the evidence establishes that the members of the joint venture are both individually prequalified to do work for DOT. In reality, their employees are the same employees of the joint venture which would have been working on the Project had FAM been chosen as the BVP. Moreover, the testimony at the hearing established that if FAM was chosen, both Figg Bridge Engineers, Inc., and Wantman Group, Inc., would have individually contracted with FAM in whatever corporate form would have been required by DOT. The RFP “Waiver or Irregularities” also provides FDOT may waive irregularities in proposals “where such is merely a matter of form and not of substance, and the correction . . . of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers.” Here, AWD failed to sufficiently establish how it suffered (either potentially or actually) from FAM’s designation of FIGG-WGI, LLC. Nor was there any evidence of how AWD would have been prejudiced if FAM was allowed to substitute the individual members of the joint venture, if FAM had been chosen to be the BVP. Any error in designating FIGG-WFI, LLC, as its lead designer and engineer of record was a curable minor irregularity that would not have made FAM’s proposal non-responsive. Linda Figg Second, AWD makes the same arguments regarding Linda Figg’s designation as “Bridge Architect” as it did in its pre- hearing motions as to why FAM’s proposal was non-responsive: the RFP required bidders to designate a bridge architect; and Linda Figg, the person designated by FAM, is not an architect. FAM designated Ms. Figg in its Letter of Response as its “Lead Bridge Architect.” Ms. Figg is not licensed as an architect with the State of Florida under chapter 481, Florida Statutes, (Architecture, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture) nor is she licensed in any other state. The RFP is silent as to the qualifications of a bridge architect. Nothing in the RFP indicates the designated bridge architect must be registered or licensed; nor does it require the designated bridge architect to meet specific educational or other qualifications. No evidence was provided at the hearing as to how the Department defined “bridge architect.” In fact, FDOT did not join with AWD in this argument. Nor was there evidence at the hearing establishing the industry standard for defining a “bridge architect.” Merriam-Webster defines “architect” as “a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction.” Architect, Merriam-Webster Online (2017), https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/architect (accessed on February 23, 2017). Ms. Figg meets this definition of “architect.” Moreover, Figg Engineering is prequalified by DOT and has available professional staff (other than Ms. Figg) who are licensed architects and/or professional engineers. As such, FAM’s designation of Ms. Figg as its Lead Bridge Engineer did not make its proposal non-responsive. FAM’s Bridge Design – Load AWD also asserts FAM’s Signature Bridge proposal violates the RFP’s non-modifiable requirement that “[a]ll Signature Bridge components shall be part of the structural system that carries bridge Dead Load (DL) and Live Load (LL).” “Dead load” is the actual weight of the bridge structure; “live load” is the added weight of the traffic traveling on the bridge. As explained at the hearing, “components” are the necessary parts of the bridge: superstructure (what cars drive on); substructure (pylons or columns); and foundation (what the pylons and columns are set on). In contrast, railings are safety devices and considered “appurtenances” as opposed to “components.” FAM’s bridge design contained two rotating disks, each on top of an extended arm. Bridge components that do not serve a purpose or carry any weight were not allowed by the RFP, and bidders could not obtain an ATC to change this requirement. FAM’s own bridge engineer, Denny Pate, testified that nonstructural parts of the bridge were prohibited by the RFP. Q.: Can you give the judge an example of a nonstructural bridge component that would be noncompliant under the RFP? A.: The RFP requirement, obviously, is--in my opinion, is saying: We don’t want fake bridge components. For example, there is a project development over here just west of Port St. Joe on the coast there called WindMark. And as part of their entrance to their development, they have a very standard short-span girder bridge, but they have put up steel, fake steel trusses along the sides that basically add interest to the bridge, make it visually more unique, but they don’t do anything. They are not structural. Mr. Pate went on to testify that the rings on the tops of FAM’s proposed bridges do not carry any live load. They were not necessary and could be removed without any effect on the bridge’s structural integrity.8/ This was consistent with the testimony of John Corven, AWD’s bridge engineering expert. Mr. Corven explained the loads in FAM’s Signature Bridge proposal picked up by the cables into the pylon did not find their way into the single arm with a rotating disc and, thus, the arm and disc would not be part of the load-carrying capability of the bridge. The inclusion of non-load bearing components was more than a minor irregularity. One could imagine a scenario where an aesthetic design may compromise safety concerns. More importantly, failure to adhere to the restriction requiring only load-carrying components had the potential of prejudicing other bidders who complied with this requirement from coming up with more eye-pleasing bridge designs. Mr. Corven testified: Q.: As an engineer, what would be the impact if that restriction were lifted in terms of the work you are doing from an engineering standpoint, meaning if you no longer had to worry about dead and live load components, how does that impact how you go about designing a structure? A.: Well, I think it would free the engineer to more artistic and aesthetic expressions for elements that might capture a visual appeal but not be functional structurally. Although the rotating ring may have been aesthetically and architecturally interesting, it was prohibited by the RFP. As such, FAM’s Signature Bridge design with the arm and rings was non-responsive. Twin Structures AWD also asserted FAM’s Signature Bridge proposal violated the RFP’s prohibition against “twin structures” found in the Aesthetic Manual for the RFP which states: The signature bridge shall be two fully independent bridges that are made to look like one form (e.g. twin basket handle bridges void of a visually unifying element will not be allowed). This structural autonomy is necessary because the EB and WB structures will be constructed sequentially, yet the stakeholders have insisted upon the appearance of one aesthetic entity. Elsewhere the RFP notes, the bridge proposals must adhere to the following minimum requirements: “No twin structures.” The common sense meaning of “twin structures” is two bridges that are identical or exact duplicates. Simply looking at the design, FAM’s proposal’s eastbound and westbound structures are not identical, but rather inversely similar. Moreover, as established by Mr. Pate’s unrefuted testimony, there were a number of “non-twinning” aspects of FAM’s Signature Bridge proposal. The westbound bridge runs straight, whereas the eastbound bridge contains a horizontal curve. The towers are mirrored so that the features are not in the same direction. The features on the two structures are staggered. There are a different number of spans in the overall length of the structures. The overall structures are different lengths: Bridge 8 (eastbound) has a signature bridge length of 980 feet and 1,432 feet of overall length between the spans; and Bridge 9 (westbound) has 977 feet for the Signature Bridge and 1,207 feet in overall length. FAM’s proposed Signature Bridge design did not contain twin structures prohibited by the RFP requirements. Constant Girder Depth AWD also challenges FAM’s Signature Bridge as being non-responsive to the Aesthetic Manual’s requirement “the signature bridge shall have a constant depth superstructure.” The language of the RFP does not include this reference, but does require “[g]irder depth on each side of the expansion joints shall be the same, i.e., no steps allowed.” As explained at the hearing “girder depth” is “basically what your eye sees as the distance from the top to the bottom of the roadway surface.” Both AWD’s and FAM’s bridge engineering experts testified the girder depth on each side of the expansion joint was the same in FAM’s Signature Bridge design and complied with the RFP language requiring equal girder depth on each side of the expansion joint. FAM’s Signature Bridge was responsive to the RFP’s girder depth requirement. MOT Plan Next, AWD contends FAM’s MOT plans are non-responsive because (1) the plans do not illustrate pedestrian access; (2) the plans do not have the requisite number of traffic lanes; and (3) the plans contain two reverse curves without a tangent. The RFP requires the following: The Construction Phasing/Sequencing Plan shall provide information regarding Traffic management for Total Project . . . [and] shall include a narrative describing the means by which the Design Build Firm will move vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic along the Project Limits. The evidence established FAM provided a narrative description of pedestrian access in its technical proposal and submitted MOT plans that allow for the same level of pedestrian access as exists in the present condition. As such, FAM met the pedestrian access requirements of the RFP, and its MOT was responsive to the pedestrian access requirements. AWD next contends that the RFP requires that three lanes of traffic be maintained during all MOT phases because that is what exists in the present condition. However, DOT clarified in writing during the Q&A phase that proposers need only provide the same number of lanes shown in the RFP concept plans during MOT. The evidence at the hearing established FAM provides the same number of traffic lanes shown in the Concept Plans, and as such its MOT plans are responsive to this requirement. Finally, AWD contends FAM’s MOT plans are deficient because one of the ramps (Ramp D1) contains two reverse curves without a tangent. A tangent is the straightaway leading a driver in a certain direction when he or she comes around the curve. Although the testimony surrounding the curves in the MOT plan was highly technical, Mr. Madison, FAM’s roadway engineer, convincingly explained that the two reverse curves in FAM’s MOT are not super-elevated or abnormally cross-sloped. A cross-slope is the pitch of the roadway from one side to the other; a normal cross-slope is two percent. The testimony at trial established FAM’s MOT plan contains two curves that are two percent in one direction at all times and meet industry safety standards. Thus, they do not require a tangent. Regardless, even if the curves required a tangent, there was no evidence that failure to include this tangent put other bidders at a disadvantage. Finally, if Ramp D1 required a tangent, the plans AWD complains about are preliminary in nature. During the Q&A phase, DOT notified FAM that its Ramp D1 design needed a tangent between two curves or otherwise needed to be redesigned to meet the standards. FAM agreed to do so. Because this was a “modifiable” aspect of the MOT, had the PSC selected FAM as BVP, adjustments and corrections to Ramp D1 could be achieved per FAM’s commitment to comply with the RFP in its Confirmation Letter. FAM’s MOT plans were responsive to the RFP, and any need for an adjustment to include a tangent could have been provided in the final plans as allowed and anticipated by the RFP. Audited Financial Statements AWD argues FAM’s Financial Proposal was non- responsive because it did not contain audited financial statements from one of the members of its joint venture. The winning bidder was required to self-finance portions of its work as it would not receive full payment from DOT until after it had incurred costs for design and construction. This type of structure is often referred to as “gap financing.” The RFP required each bidder to submit a Financial Proposal “so the Department can be assured that the Design-Build Firm has sufficient financial resources to construct the Department Project within the allotted Contract Time, based on the Cash Availability Schedule.” To satisfy itself that the entity who would ultimately design and build the Project was able to finance the labor and construction costs, the Department required each bidder to provide a financial proposal that contained, among other things, audited financial statements. The RFP required the following in the Financial Proposals: The minimum required documents the Design- Build Firm must submit to the Department as part of the Design-Build Firm’s Financial Proposal shall include, but may not be limited to, the following: . . . Financial Statements of members of the Design-Build Firm or any partners of the joint venture that make-up [sic] the Design-Build Firm that will be responsible for the repayment of financial support related to the Department Project or directly provides financial support related to the Department Project. Lenders that are not members of the Design-Build Firm or partners of the joint venture that make up the Design-Build Firm are not required to provide Financial Statements. Financial Statements shall include: For the most recent two (2) fiscal years in which audited Financial Statements are available, audited Financial Statements prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Required Financial Statements shall include: Opinion Letter (Auditor’s Report); Balance Sheet; Income Statement; Statement of Retained Earnings or Changes in Stockholders Equity; Statement of Cash Flows; and Notes to Financial Statements. * * * If audited Financial Statements are unavailable for the most recently completed fiscal year, unaudited Financial Statements, prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, shall be provided for such fiscal year. An affirmative statement shall be provided indicating that the Financial Statements for the most recently completed fiscal year are still being audited. These unaudited Financial Statements shall be certified as true, correct and complete by the Chief Financial Officer or treasurer of the entity. Requirements for unaudited Financial Statements are the same as for audited Financial Statements, except an Opinion Letter (Auditor’s Report) is not required. (RFP at 67–68.) As described in the RFP, the RFP required a joint- venture bidder to submit the audited financial statements of each of its members in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); if a partner of a joint-venture member would provide financial support for the project, that partner’s audited financial statements were required to be submitted as well. There is no dispute FAM did not and could not include any audited financial statements for one of its members, FEI, because FEI is not audited. There is also no dispute that FEI will be responsible for the repayment of financial support related to the Project or would directly provide financial support related to the Project. FAM did not qualify for the alternative included in the RFP for providing audited financial statements when such statements are unavailable for the most recent fiscal year. Moreover, it was clear from the testimony put on by FAM that such audited statements could not have been provided in a timely matter, even if the Department had allowed FAM to supplement its financial proposal. Brian Smith, the assistant corporate controller for Fluor Corporation, testified if FAM had been selected BVP and the Department had requested the audited financial statements for FEI, it could not have provided them until well after the May 18, 2017, date set forth in the RFP for selecting the BVP. Q.: Had you been asked by DOT for an FEI audited financial statement for 2016 back in April of 2017, what is the soonest that FEI could have provided that information to DOT? A.: An audit of this nature would generally take four to six weeks, on an expedited basis, probably four weeks. FAM counters it provided equivalent information and thus there was no effective harm. The RFP, however, specifically requires audited financial statements, not the information in those statements. This seems especially prudent given the size of the Project and when, as in this case, the bid was awarded as a public–private transportation facility under section 334.30, Florida Statutes, which emphasizes the financial health of bidders. Moreover, the failure to submit audited financial statements has been found to render a proposal non-responsive when such statements are required by an RFP. See Jani-King Gulf Coast Region v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd., Case No. 16-2762BID, RO at 23 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 26, 2016) (explaining the importance of audited financial statements, noting they “provide a much higher level of assurance as to the validity of the financial information presented,” than unaudited statements). Nor can FAM satisfy the requirement for audited statements from FEI simply by submitting such statements from FEI parent corporation. See Consultec, Inc., d/b/a Gen. Am. Consultec, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Admin., Case No. 91-5950BID, RO at 29 (Fla. DOAH Nov. 25, 1992) (finding submission of financial information from parent company failed to satisfy RFP requirement to provide audited financial statements and thus proposal was non-responsive). As explained in Consultec, FAM would have had an advantage had it not been required to provide such statements. Succinctly, . . . its failure to comply with the audited financial statement requirement of the RFP gave it an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders since by submitting the balance sheet of its parent company, as opposed to its own financial statements, HCPP effectively precluded any assessment of its own financial soundness. Id. As such, FAM’s failure to include the audited financial statements of FEI renders its Financial Proposal non- responsive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner Fluor-Astaldi-MCM, Joint Venture’s Amended Formal Written Protest, and affirming Respondent Florida Department of Transportation’s Notice of Intent to award to Intervenor Archer Western-de Moya, Joint Venture. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 10th day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Introduction On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified and interested contracting firms that it was accepting bids from firms interested in providing various services on State Job No. 90030- 3539. Such bids were due on or before June 24, 1987. In general terms, the project required the successful bidder to perform various maintenance services on the Old Seven Mile Bridge between Pigeon Key and Knight Key just southwest of Marathon in Monroe County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that the project involves the following classes of work: Bridge painting 82 percent Restoration of spalled areas 6 percent Miscellaneous concrete and steel 9 percent Maintenance of traffic 3 percent In response to this offer, three contractors submitted timely bids. These included petitioner, Midwest Industrial Painting of Florida, Inc. (Midwest), intervenor-respondent, Cone Constructors, Inc. (CCI), and J. D. Abrams, Inc. Their respective bids were $1,746,390, $1,122,000 and $2,149,345. The parties have stipulated that the bids of both CCI and Midwest are below the DOT budget estimate and preliminary estimate for the project. On August 3, 1987 DOT posted its intent to award the project to CCI, which submitted the lowest dollar bid. Thereafter, petitioner timely filed a protest challenging the award of the contract to CCI. In its formal protest, Midwest contended that CCI was ineligible to submit a bid since it was not prequalified by DOT to perform bridge painting, a service required for this job. The filing of the protest prompted the instant proceeding. The Project The Old Seven Mile Bridge, once a vital link in the Florida Keys highway network, was replaced in the early 1980s with a new Seven Mile Bridge. Since its replacement, the old bridge has had very little, if any, traffic and is no longer in service as a state highway. Indeed, its center span has been removed, and it is used primarily as two fishing piers by avid anglers and for access to Pigeon Key where a University of Miami research facility is located. The legislature recently mandated that the old bridge be turned over to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). So that DNR receives the bridge in good condition, DOT intends to perform all necessary maintenance and rehabilitation prior to its turnover. The project has been identified as State Job 90030-3539. The job includes painting the exposed structural steel, doing "corrective measures" to portions of the structural members, and other miscellaneous work. The project will be funded wholly with state funds, and is not considered a critical job. Although at hearing DOT personnel considered the structural work to be the most important aspect of the project, and the painting to be incidental, DOT did not prepare the bid specifications in this manner. Rather, it elected to prepare the specifications listing bridge painting as normal work. By categorizing the work in this manner, DOT did not contravene any statute, rule or standard. Had DOT categorized painting as "specialty" or incidental work on the project, painting would have been considered an incidental aspect of the job, and bidders would not have to be prequalified in bridge painting. However, DOT did not assert its specifications were in "error," or that this might serve as a ground to reject all bids. Indeed, there is no evidence that any bidder was confused or had any doubt as to the services required under the contract. Prequalification Requirements DOT requires that, on projects exceeding a cost of $250,000, bidders obtain a certificate of qualification setting forth the areas (classes) in which they are qualified to perform work. This is commonly known as prequalification. One of these classes of competency is bridge painting, which constituted approximately 82 percent of the work to be done on Old Seven Mile Bridge. The parties have stipulated that CCI's certificate of qualification did not include bridge painting as an area in which it had been qualified. Despite several post-June 24 requests by DOT to furnish additional information, CCI had not yet supplied such data at the time of hearing as would enable it to qualify. On the other hand, Midwest was conditionally qualified in this area, but, because of certain DOT reservations, its certificate was due to expire on June 15, 1987. However, Midwest requested a Section 120.57(1) hearing to contest this expiration date, and Midwest has, with DOT's acquiescence, continued to use its certificate for bidding purposes until an adjudication of the claim is made. Without a certificate of qualification, DOT rules provide that a contractor not be given bid documents that would enable it to submit a bid. Further, DOT witnesses confirmed that no bidder has ever been authorized to become prequalified after it had submitted a bid, nor has a nonqualified bidder been awarded a contract. The agency does have a "policy" of allowing contractors who are qualified in the major work class of minor bridge work (but who are not qualified in bridge painting) to receive bid documents on certain major projects. Even so, this policy, however applied in the past, has never been used on a project such as this, and DOT officials confirmed that this was the first time bid documents had been erroneously sent to a nonqualified bidder. DOT's Reaction to the Bids Through "inadvertence" or "error," DOT furnished bid documents to CCI. Thereafter, CCI, Midwest and a third contractor submitted bid proposals. When the bids were opened, DOT discovered that the lowest dollar bidder (CCI) had not been prequalified on bridge painting. The bids were then routed to the DOT technical review committee, a five person committee that reviews projects where the bids do not conform with award criteria. This committee made no recommendation and was "uncommitted." The matter was then reviewed by the DOT awards committee which unanimously recommended that the contract be awarded to CCI even though it had not prequalified on one segment of the work. In proposing that the contract be awarded to CCI, DOT acknowledges that this is not its normal practice. Indeed, it concedes that this is probably the first occasion that it has proposed to award a contract to a nonqualified bidder. However, it considers the project "unique" in the sense that the bridge will be turned over to DNR immediately after the work is completed. In addition, by using CCI, it can save around $624,000 in state funds which can be used to claim almost another $6 million in matching federal funds for other state work. Finally, DOT is fully satisfied that CCI is capable of performing the work on the project, particularly since it considers the structural repairs the most important aspect of the job. If CCI's bid is rejected, DOT's preference is to reject all bids and relet the project. The agency's nonrule policy is that, for projects valued at more than $250,000, a contract will be awarded if the lowest bid is no more than seven percent above DOT's estimate of the project's value. In this case, both CCI and Midwest submitted bids below DOT's budget and preliminary estimates. The Bidders Midwest, which is located in Tarpon Springs, Florida, has been in the bridge painting business for many years, and has worked on DOT projects since 1974. This is the first occasion the firm has filed a protest. The firm is capable of performing the required work. Although its certificate of qualification was supposed to expire on June 15, or before the June 24 bid opening day, Midwest challenged this action and the certificate continues to be used for bidding purposes. The apparent low bidder (CCI) is located in Tampa, Florida and has been engaged in a number of DOT projects since it was formed approximately five years ago. It is now working on three other DOT bridge projects. The firm was prequalified in the bridge painting class in 1983 and 1984, but for some reason, allowed its qualification to lapse. Its present certificate is valid until April 30, 1988 and qualifies CCI to bid on several types of major bridge projects. CCI stands by its bid proposal, and is fully confident the work can be done for $600,000 less than proposed by Midwest. The firm has access to the necessary equipment and manpower to perform the job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting the bid of Cone Constructors, Inc. on the ground it was unqualified and non-responsive, and instead awarding the contract on State Job 90030-3539 to Midwest Industrial Painting of Florida, Inc., which submitted the lowest responsive bid. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 43023532.000 authorizing Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation (DOT or Department), to construct the Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement and associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation is a state agency charged by statute with the construction, maintenance, and operation of the State Highway System. The Pinellas Bayway Bridge in Pinellas County, Florida, is part of the State Highway System. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is a political subdivision created pursuant to Chapter 61-691, Laws of Florida (1961), which exists and operates under the Water Resources Act, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The District has the regulatory authority to implement the ERP program in Pinellas County, Florida. The existing Pinellas Bayway Bridge (the Existing Bridge) is a two-lane bascule structure located within and spanning Boca Ciega Bay, an Outstanding Florida Water. It has three-foot wide walkways on both sides, with no shoulders for the travel lanes. The Existing Bridge connects the cities of St. Petersburg and St. Pete Beach, and was built approximately 40 years ago upon perpetual easements "for public State Road right of way purposes" conveyed in 1960 and 1961 from BOT/IITF to the State Road Department, the predecessor of the Department. The perpetual easements do not contain any restrictions on the perpetual right to construct and maintain a "public state road upon and/or over said land," other than conditions that recognize prior rights of the United States of America and prior grants by the Board of Trustees. The proposed replacement of the Existing Bridge will be located entirely within the boundaries of those perpetual easements. The practice and policy of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT/IITF), and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), has been that, under Section 253.002(1), Florida Statutes, perpetual easements such as those conveyed for the Bayway Bridge are sufficient authorization for expansion of bridges within the boundaries of the perpetual easements. Since the time of construction of the Existing Bridge, the area served by it has transformed from a largely uninhabited barrier island to a densely developed area. The Department has been studying and preparing for replacement of the Pinellas Bayway Bridge since the early 1980's, and studying alternatives since the early 1990's. In the year 2000, with the concurrence of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, the cities of St. Petersburg and St. Pete Beach, and the United States Coast Guard, the Department determined that the best alternative for replacing the Existing Bridge was a fixed-span, high level bridge with four travel lanes and a pedestrian walkway along the southern side of the bridge (the Replacement Bridge or Project). The fixed-span alternative was selected as superior to low-level and mid-level bascule options for superior traffic efficiency, superior access for emergency vehicles, superior emergency evacuation, and improved boat traffic. As part of the design process of the Replacement Bridge, the Bayway Bridge Beautification Committee was formed to provide the Department with input from the residents as to the aesthetics of the Replacement Bridge. The Bayway Bridge Beautification Committee was made up of representatives from the neighborhood and homeowners associations in the area, and submitted a report containing suggested improvements that were incorporated into the ultimate design of the bridge, including lighting, hardscape, and landscape features. Each of the three replacement alternatives (low-level, mid-level, or high-level) would result in the elimination of parking spaces within existing Department right-of-way adjacent to the east and west ends of the Existing Bridge. These parking spaces are intended for the use of drawbridge tenders and Department maintenance vehicles; currently, they also are utilized by fishermen and others recreating on the Existing Bridge. Neither the cities of St. Petersburg nor St. Pete Beach provides public parking in the vicinity of the Existing Bridge. Navigation and Shoaling The height of the Replacement Bridge will allow all boats using the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) with mast heights of less than 65 feet to freely go under the bridge. Large boats currently must wait for the Existing Bridge to open and have to either circle or move forward and backward while waiting for the drawbridge to open. This will not be the case with the proposed bridge. The fenders lining the channel crossing under the proposed bridge will also be widened to 100 feet from the existing 90 feet. The Replacement Bridge also will be higher in places other than the ICW crossing, including 39 feet high near the west end where Mud Key Channel crosses (versus 9 feet under the Existing Bridge). As a result, more boats will be able to pass under the Replacement Bridge in Mud Key Channel than with the Existing Bridge, and fewer will have to use the so-called Entrance Channel paralleling the south side of the bridge between the ICW and Mud Key Channel. In this respect, the Replacement Bridge will improve navigation. Petitioners contend that additional use of Mud Key Channel, coupled with changes in the ability of boaters to see other boats on the opposite side of the bridge will change, will create a navigation hazard and safety concern for boaters, wading fishermen, and occasional swimmers using Mud Key Channel and the Entrance Channel. As for wading fishermen and occasional swimmers, their activities occur mostly to the south of the extreme western end of the bridge, and boats using Mud Key Channel would pass them whether they pass under bridge at Mud Key Channel or pass under at the ICW and use the Entrance Channel to or from Mud Key Channel. The Replacement Bridge will not increase the number of boats passing by them. As for boaters' ability to see, the Existing Bridge is lower, has more but narrower pilings. The higher Replacement Bridge will have fewer pilings but they will be wider, including 22 feet square pile caps 7 feet high at the water line. In terms of boaters' ability to see through the bridge, the Existing Bridge and Replacement Bride have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the particular circumstances and location of the boats, wading fishermen and occasional swimmers in question. It was not proven that the Replacement Bridge, compared to the Existing Bridge, will create navigation hazards and safety concerns. The Replacement Bridge will extend some 70 feet into the Entrance Channel to Mud Key Channel. Currently, the width of the Entrance Channel is 215 feet, narrowing to 130 feet at the junction with Mud Key Channel. The width of Mud Key Channel at some points is only 100 feet. The Replacement Bridge will narrow the Entrance Channel to a minimum width of 145 feet, will not affect the width at the junction with Mud Key Channel, and will not affect the width of Mud Key Channel itself. The currents in this area are felt least within the Entrance Channel. Boats are currently able to pass each other safely in the Intercoastal Waterway and the narrow confines of Mud Key Channel, which are both narrower than the Entrance Channel will be upon completion of the Project. Boats with masts higher than 65 feet will not be able to go under the Replacement Bridge. Petitioner, Michael T. (Ted) Irwin, has a boat with a 90-foot mast (with radio antenna), which he keeps at his residence north of the bridge site. Once the Replacement Bridge is constructed, he will have to either access the Gulf of Mexico by heading north through Johns Pass, or move his boat to another mooring location. Mr. Irwin testified that Johns Pass, while navigable in his boat, is much more difficult and much less desirable for him than going through the drawbridge at the Existing Bridge. There are over 11,000 boat crossings per year by boats with masts too tall to pass under the Existing Bridge. Of these 11,000, Mr. Irwin's boat accounts for 20 to 60 of those crossings. Mr. Irwin testified that there are three or four other boats in the area with masts taller than 65 feet. Even assuming that those boats are kept north of the bridge site, which was not clear from the evidence, there was no evidence as to the extent to which those boat owners would be inconvenienced by having to use Johns Pass, or as to whether they could make suitable alternate arrangements. Clearly, the Replacement Bridge will have some impact on navigation. While the Replacement Bridge will require Mr. Irwin to change his current boating practices, and while the Entrance Channel will be narrower, the impact on navigation in the area will generally be positive. For the vast majority of boaters, boat traffic will move more freely through the area and, at least in some circumstances, with better visibility. With respect to sediment transport or shoaling, the Department introduced evidence in a bridge hydraulics report showing that the Replacement Bridge would not experience scour around the pilings during either a 100- or 500-year storm event. In addition, there was expert testimony that harmful erosion or shoaling would not occur as a result of the Project. Petitioners offered only speculation on the likelihood of erosion or shoaling, candidly admitting that their concern was that such conditions "might" occur. There is an undisputed evidentiary basis to conclude that sediment transport or shoaling will not occur around the Replacement Bridge. Fishing and Recreation People currently fish from the Existing Bridge using the two three-foot wide catwalks. Although not designated for public parking, people who do not live within walking distance of the bridge site currently park on either end of the Existing Bridge within the Department's right-of-way. All of these parking spaces will be eliminated by the Replacement Bridge; but they would be eliminated under all designs considered, including a low level drawbridge. Other bridges in immediate vicinity are not used for fishing due to lack of nearby parking. Fishing will be allowed from the Replacement Bridge from the single 11-foot wide multi-use path along the south side of the Replacement Bridge. While the multi-use path will allow fishermen and other users to get farther away from passing car traffic, fishing on strong incoming (south-to- north) tides will be less desirable from the south side of the Replacement Bridge, and the higher bridge elevations also will make fishing generally less desirable. There are several other locations within 20 minutes of the Existing Bridge that are available for fishing by the public. In particular, the fishing pier at the old Skyway Bridge in southern Pinellas County is specifically designated for public fishing, as are several other locations. The Replacement Bridge's multi-use path also will be more user-friendly for people who want to walk or bike across. Also, the path will continue from the bridge site to the intersection of State Roads 679 and 652, providing a safe sidewalk where none currently exists. The path will ultimately tie into a trail system linking the area to Fort DeSoto Park. The Replacement Bridge will also be more wheelchair accessible than the Existing Bridge. Water Quality Boca Ciega Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. The ambient existing water quality in Boca Ciega Bay meets the standards which are applicable to that waterbody in the location of the Replacement Bridge, as demonstrated by the water quality data gathered from Pinellas County and by the Department. Such data were comprised of dissolved oxygen readings from the County and the analysis of water samples provided by the Department. Petitioners questioned whether such water quality data were sufficient, but testimony from District experts demonstrated the sufficiency of these data. Petitioners introduced no evidence to indicate that water quality does not meet standards in the vicinity of the Project. Within the limits of the Project, including the bridge site, the western approach to the bridge, and State Road 679 to the intersection of State Road 652 of the eastern side of the bridge site, there currently is a very limited amount of surface water runoff treatment. Although the project will involve adding several acres of impervious surface, after construction there will be less untreated surface water runoff than exists currently. The proposed treatment system will primarily involve three ponds: two lined effluent filtration ponds along State Road 679; and a wet detention pond located adjacent to the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, known as the compensation pond. The compensation pond is proposed because there is not enough right-of-way in the project area to build ponds or other treatment systems to treat the runoff from the Replacement Bridge. The compensation pond will treat surface water runoff from the Skyway Bridge that today is discharged untreated into the same Outstanding Florida Water, Boca Ciega Bay. The two effluent filtration ponds will be lined with an impermeable material up to the level of seasonal high ground water elevations within the vicinity of those pond sites to prevent groundwater drawdown and prevent interaction between water in the pond and groundwater. DOT introduced detailed site plans, engineering studies and credible expert engineering testimony that the three stormwater treatment ponds will detain stormwater runoff in a manner that complies with the presumptive criteria in the District's Basis of Review. In addition, the two effluent filtration ponds have been oversized so as to treat 100 percent more volume than is required for treatment systems discharging into Outstanding Florida Waters. Less untreated surface water runoff will be discharging into Boca Ciega Bay after construction than is today. Further, much of the impervious area to be added will not be automobile travel lanes, and these areas will not generate the heavy pollutant loadings associated with the travel lanes. In addition, the pollutant loading from the travel lanes on Replacement Bridge will be less than from the Existing Bridge. At the Existing Bridge, pollutant discharge into Boca Ciega Bay occurs in several ways. First, oils and greases from the actual drawbridge mechanism itself drip straight down into the Bay. With the elimination of the drawbridge, this discharge will stop. Second, stopped cars and trucks waiting for the drawbridge to open and close drip oils and greases onto the roadway in greater concentrations than traffic which is moving. This was evident by examining photographs of the travel lanes on either side of the drawbridge, and the dark staining of the roadway where traffic is stopped. With no drawbridge to stop traffic, less oil and grease will be discharged. Third, boats waiting for the existing drawbridge to open also discharge undetermined amounts of uncombusted gasoline and oil into the water. (Generally, their engines are kept running and in and out of gear to maintain steerage while waiting for the bridge to open.) Those boat engines will have to run for less time in the vicinity of the Project if the boats do not have to wait for the existing drawbridge, thus reducing the discharge of uncombusted gasoline and oil into the Bay. Another boost to water quality will occur as a result of the mitigation for the Project. District rules allow impacts to wetlands and other surface waters to be mitigated, and the Department does so in accordance with the program set forth in Section 373.4137, Florida Statutes. That program calls for the Department to contribute a dollar amount to the District based upon the expected acres of wetlands and other surface waters impacted by the project. Mitigation provided for this purpose in accordance with Section 373.4137, Florida Statutes, and approved by the Secretary of DEP, is deemed to satisfy mitigation requirements. In this case, the mitigation project to compensate for impacts by the Replacement Bridge to sea grass beds within the affected surface waters is a water circulation project at Fort DeSoto Park, located at the southern end of Boca Ciega Bay, in the same receiving waters where the impacts will occur. The project consists of opening a dead-end section of the Bay created by the SR 679 causeway to Fort DeSoto Park to improve water flow. Improved water flow will improve dissolved oxygen levels, which in turn will improve conditions for sea grasses, which will in turn lead to more dissolved oxygen. This Project has been approved by separate final order by DEP, satisfying the mitigation requirement. In addition, the Department and the District demonstrated that the mitigation project will improve water quality in the receiving waters. The Project will not degrade water quality in Boca Ciega Bay, and the record is also clear that the Project will actually improve water quality in the Bay. This means that the Project is consistent with the Surface Water Improvement Management Plan adopted by the District, which calls for improved water quality and increased sea grasses. Petitioners called no witnesses with respect to the water quality issue. Although Petitioners listed a water quality expert, James Shirk, as a witness in answers to interrogatories, and even though Respondents deposed Mr. Shirk; Petitioners not only decided not to call Mr. Shirk as a witness, they objected to introduction of Mr. Shirk's deposition into the record of the case. In their PRO, Petitioners criticized a lack of studies to determine the efficacy of proposed Ponds 1 and 2 and the Compensation Pond. They also criticized a lack of studies of water quality impacts of untreated discharges from a 18-inch pipe to be constructed at the western end of the bridge. They argue that, due to the asserted lack of studies, reasonable assurances were not given either that the Project will not degrade water quality or that it will result in a net improvement in water quality. But, based on the evidence in this case, studies of the kind Petitioners want to require were not necessary to prove that the Project will not degrade water quality but rather will result in a net improvement in water quality. In their PRO, Petitioners also cited the deposition testimony of Jeremy Craft that Ponds 1 and 2 discharge into Class III waters "in the vicinity of a Class II water body" and criticized the lack of a "plan or procedure with respect to protection of the Class II waterbody that demonstrates that the regulated activity will not have a negative impact and will [not] result in violations of water quality standards in such Class II waters, as required in the District's Basis of Review [BOR] Section 3.2.5(b)." But there was no other evidence that Ponds 1 and 2 will be a "regulated activity" or "system" that is "adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters." To the contrary, the evidence that the nearest Class II waters were over a mile away from the Project site and would not be affected negatively by the Project. Similarly, Petitioners in their PRO contend that the Compensation Pond "discharges to Class II waters and waters that are prohibited for shellfish harvesting" and that "[t]here has been no plan or procedure provided with respect to protection of that Class II waterbody that demonstrates that the regulated activity will not have a negative impact on Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in such Class II waters, as required in the BOR Section 3.2.5(a) and (b)." The basis cited for this criticism was reference to "Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification Map #42 (Effective: June 18, 1997)," that appears to show the Compensation Pond adjacent to or in close proximity to an area where shell fishing is prohibited. There was no testimony explaining the map, which did not purport to map Class II waters. In any event, if the Compensation Pond is "adjacent or in close proximity" to Class II waters which are not approved for shellfish harvesting, and if it is considered to be the "regulated activity" or "system," creation of the Compensation Pond to treat previously untreated discharges will not have a negative effect on Class II waters or result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. Petitioners in their PRO also cite the Final Roadway Soil Survey and Stormwater Pond Report (Report) prepared by the Department's consultants for the purpose of establishing the fact: "Groundwater data beneath the roadway near the east end of Pond 2 indicate that the seasonal high groundwater table is between 4.0 and 4.5 feet, NGVD." Although never made explicit, Petitioners' PRO seems to raise the specter that the liner for this pond was deficient because it only came up to 2.5 feet, NGVD. No witness explained where the Report establishes the "seasonal high groundwater table" "beneath the roadway near the east end of Pond 2," or if it even does. It appears that Sheet 9 of Appendix B of the Report indicates a single datum point of groundwater at approximately 4.0 feet, NGVD, on June 1, 2002; meanwhile, Table 4 of Appendix A of the Report also states that the "Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Table" at the same location is at the "Approximate Elevation" of 1.2 feet, NGVD. In any event, even assuming that the "seasonal high groundwater table" "beneath the roadway near the east end of Pond 2" were 4.5 feet, NGVD, all of the expert testimony on the subject of the liner was that it came up high enough to function properly in the location of Pond 2. The last water quality issue raised in Petitioners' PRO addresses the amount of impervious surface runoff treated under the Replacement Bridge Project. Specifically, Petitioners seem to contend that BOR 5.8(b) was interpreted to only require treatment of the runoff contributed by the two additional automobile travel lanes provided by the Replacement Bridge Project; the area of the existing travel lanes and the multi-use path was not figured in the calculation. While not clearly explained, the expert testimony was that the Project met the requirements for water quality treatment under both BOR 5.2.e. and BOR 5.8(b) and (c). BOR 5.2.e. requires projects discharging into Outstanding Florida Waters to provide treatment for a volume 50 percent more than otherwise required for the selected treatment system. BOR 5.8(b)1. requires that, for "off-line treatment systems and on-line treatment systems . . . which provide storage of the treatment volume off-line from the primary conveyance path of flood discharges," the contributing area to be used in calculating the required treatment volume is the area of new pavement. It appears that BOR 5.8(b)1. was used for the parts of the Project not treated by Ponds 1 and 2. The "area of new pavement" was considered, for purposes of BOR 5.8(b)1. to be just the new travel lanes; the area of the multi-use path apparently was not added for purposes of BOR 5.8(b)1. because it would not be expected to add much, if any, pollutant loading. In addition, BOR 5.8(c) provides: When alterations involve extreme hardship, in order to provide direct treatment of new project area, the District will consider proposals to satisfy the overall public interest that shall include equivalent treatment of alternate existing pavement areas to achieve the required pollution abatement. While also not clearly explained, the expert testimony was that BOR 5.8(c) also applied and was met by the Project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the application of the Florida Department of Transportation for Individual Environmental Resource Permit No. 43023532.000. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Downie II, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 William D. Preston, Esquire 2937 Kerry Forest Parkway Suite B-1 Tallahassee, Florida 32309-6825 Steve Rushing, Esquire David C. Ryder, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Respondent Felo McAllister and his wife Dorothy own a home and dock on Texar Bayou off Escambia Bay in Pensacola, Florida. A storm sewer with a diameter of 15 to 18 inches empties into the Bayou near the dock. The silt- laden outflow from the storm sewer has resulted in a sand bar or berm two or three feet wide paralleling the shoreline from the McAllisters' property line to the dock. This sand bar separates a ditch caused by the outflow from Texar Bayou. Over the years, silt has accumulated underneath the dock. The McAllisters originally applied for a permit to dredge boat slips at the dock. Andrew Feinstein, an environmental specialist II in respondent Department's employ, evaluated the original application and recommended denial, because he felt extending the dock was preferable to dredging. The McAllisters then modified their application so as to seek a permit for dredging at the mouth of the storm sewer in order that the silt already deposited there would not wash underneath the dock. Mr. Feinstein and Michael Clark Applegate, an environmental specialist III and dredge and field supervisor employed by the Department, testified without contradiction that the Department has reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate any applicable rules. The permit DER proposes to issue contemplates that the berm will not be breached. The bottom on which the dredging is proposed to take place belongs to the City of Pensacola. Although under water, it is a part of a dedicated roadway. The City itself does maintenance dredging to ensure the efficiency of storm sewers, but is glad for assistance from private citizens in this regard. J. Felix, City Engineer for Pensacola, is authorized allow dredging on this road right of way, and has done so. See also respondent's exhibit No. 2. The site proposed for placement of the spoil is a low area affected by flooding. Fill there would affect drainage onto neighbors' property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER issue respondent McAllister the permit it proposed to issue in its letter of September 14, 1979, upon condition that the spoil be placed at least 100 feet from the water's edge. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Larry Jay Sauls and Ms. Harriett Tinsley Sauls 14 West Jordan Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Felo McAllister 2706 Blackshear Pensacola, Florida 32503
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Dennis Soucek is a licensed dentist in Florida. On April 11, 1981, Ms. Elaine Yarbrough consulted the Respondent Soucek concerning dental treatment for extreme protrusion of her four front teeth. The Respondent and Yarbrough discussed various treatment plans including fixed and removable prostheses and orthodontics. On June 23, 1981, the Respondent Soucek extracted Yarbrough's four protruding teeth and provided her with a temporary bridge. The Respondent intended for Yarbrough to wear the temporary appliance until her gums had receded sufficiently to receive a permanent fixed bridge. In normal cases, a six-week period is advised after extraction and before impressions are taken for a permanent bridge to allow gum recision to take place. In this case, however, the Respondent allowed a period of approximately three months to transpire before the permanent impression was made. The added period of time was taken by the Respondent as a precautionary measure due to the extreme protrusion which was present in Yarbrough's mouth prior to the extractions. However, notwithstanding the three-month period, Yarbrough's gums continued to recede after the impressions were made and the bridge was installed, which caused a pronounced ledge to form around the gum line and the pontics. Approximately two months after permanent placement of the bridge, Yarbrough returned to the Respondent's office and asked him to solve a problem that had developed of air entering under her bridge. The Respondent attempted to solve the problem by using a porcelain repair kit. When the Respondent could not get the kit to properly bond to the teeth, he suggested to Yarbrough that more time be allowed for the unforeseen shrinkage to end before further repair attempts were made. The Respondent never saw Yarbrough again after this final visit. The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Mervyn Dixon, D.D.S., who examined Yarbrough, was primarily concerned that the pontics installed by the Respondent showed poor adaption to tissue in that the gingival facial aspect of the pontics exhibited the "heavy ledge" referred to previously and that the labial tissue surfaces of the central pontics were pressing against the incisive papilla to the extent that there was a blanching due to lack of circulation. Additionally, Dr. Dixon testified that it is not acceptable to use filling material to repair a new bridge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Board of Dentistry finding the Respondent Soucek guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1981) in his treatment of the complainant, placing him on probation until such time as he furnishes evidence of completion of thirty (30) hours of continuing education in bridge work, and imposing a $1,000 administrative fine. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 24th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hugh Maloney, Esquire PATTERSON & MALONEY 790 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 030520 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33303 Fred Varn, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 0024080 (DPR) 82-2947 (DOAH) DENNIS SOUCEK, D.D.S., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice dentistry and for regulating such licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent practices general dentistry under license number DN 0002494. Background Mr. Hubert Anderson is a 70-year-old male (the "patient"). The patient initially saw Respondent in September, 1989, for replacement of a three-unit gold bridge that had been seated many years earlier. The patient did not experience any pain from the old bridge. However, the old bridge had to be replaced because tooth #8 had abscessed and needed to be removed. On October 30, 1989, Respondent constructed and installed a porcelain- fused-to-metal bridge. The bridge is a six unit, anterior, fixed bridge for teeth numbers 6-11. The pontics of the bridge are located in the space formerly occupied by the patient's two anterior teeth, numbers 8 and 9. The two crowned teeth on either side of the pontics, numbers 6,7, and 10,11, form the abutments in the bridge that hold the pontics in place. 2/ Respondent built up tooth number 10 with dissolvable dental cement. A non-dissolvable material should have been used to build up tooth number 10. The patient experienced generalized pain and soreness in the mouth immediately upon installation of the bridge by Respondent. The patient returned to Respondent's office approximately one month later complaining that everything hurt. Respondent told the patient that nothing was wrong. However, Respondent offered to replace the bridge if the patient would have root canals done on all four abutments. 3/ Respondent did not confirm his diagnosis with x-rays. Open margins caused by an ill fitting bridge can cause symptoms similar to those associated with the need for root canals including: sensitivity to hot and cold; sensitivity upon chewing or eating sweet, sour, or salty food; and generalized aching. Open Margins The pain experienced by the patient was caused by the ill fitting bridge constructed and installed by Respondent. The substructure of the bridge was so ill fitting that the entire bridge needed to be replaced in 1991. 4/ None of the bridge margins fit well around the abutment teeth. 5/ Tooth number 6 has grossly open distal and mesial margins. Tooth numbers 7 and 10 have grossly open distal, mesial, and facial margins. Tooth number 11 is sensitive to percussion and has open margins circumferentially. 6/ The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent jeopardize the patient's health. The open margins present areas where bacteria and food debris can collect and lead to decay or plaque. Open margins also expose nerve endings in dentin and cause discomfort. 7/ Other Causes Excluded The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by decay. A porcelain-fused-to- metal bridge with properly adapted margins at the time the bridge is seated in the patient's mouth will not exhibit open margins over a short period of time unless there is recurrent decay which erodes the teeth away from the bridge margin. The patient does not exhibit recurrent decay. The patient's decay resistance is evidenced by his age and lack of fillings or cavities in his teeth. The absence of recurrent decay was documented in two separate dental examinations. 8/ The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by gum recision. The patient has no periodontal problems, including periodontal problems in the area where the bridge is located. 9/ The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by normal wear and tear. The open margins on a porcelain-fused- to-metal bridge do not expand under normal wear and tear. Even if expansion were to occur as a result of normal wear and tear, the expansion would be slight and would occur over a period of 10 to 15 years. The margins in the bridge installed by Respondent are gross margins that were present when the bridge was installed. They were documented by examination within two years of the date of installation. The open margins in the bridge constructed and installed by Respondent are not caused by expansion of the metal in the porcelain-fused-to-metal bridge. If the bridge margins were closed at the time the bridge was initially seated, and then later opened due to expansion of the underlying metal, the porcelain veneer on all of the abutments would have fractured. The porcelain on the patient's abutments is intact. 10/ Negligence And Incompetence Respondent is incompetent and negligent within the meaning of Section 466.028(1)(y). Open margins in the patient's bridge are the result of Respondent's failure to meet the minimum standards of performance in installing the patient's bridge. 11/ Prior to permanently cementing a bridge to a patient's mouth, a dentist should "try-in" the bridge, checking all margins, contacts, and occlusion by clinical examination and x- ray. Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists by failing to detect the open margins at the time of the try-in and by failing to remake the bridge by retaking the impression and sending it back to the laboratory for re-fabrication. The patient complained of pain on at least two separate occasions. Respondent's failure to use x-rays to determine the cause of the patient's complaints of pain failed to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists. All crown and bridge margins should end on sound tooth structure. The bridge installed by Respondent is short and does not finish on sound tooth structure. The failure to finish on sound tooth structure fails to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists. The margin on tooth number 10 ends on the build-up of cement and not on sound tooth structure. The failure to finish the bridge on non-dissolvable material fails to meet the minimum standards of performance for dentists. Respondent failed to detect open margins when initially fitting the bridge on the patient and upon two subsequent examinations. Respondent diagnosed the patient as needing root canals without verifying the diagnosis with x-rays. Respondent failed to determine the cause of the patient's pain on two separate examinations including the failure to use x-rays for diagnostic purposes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(y), reprimanding Respondent, imposing a fine of $3,000, and placing Respondent on probation for one year pursuant to the terms of probation prescribed in Petitioner's PRO. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 18th day of July 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether Respondent's license as a dentist in Florida should be disciplined because of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations involved in this hearing, relating to both cases, the Respondent, Peter A. Kurachek, was licensed as a dentist in Florida under license number DN 0005429, and the Board of Dentistry was and is the state agency governing the practice of dentistry in Florida. AS TO CASE NUMBER 89-1240 Jill J. Hageman started work at the Respondent's clinics in Port Charlotte and in Venice, Florida in July, 1985 and left his employ in January, 1986. During the period of her employment it was office practice to soak instruments used on patients in a cold soap solution, not a bactericide. Her job included the task of cleaning used instruments and she had been instructed to scrub them and soak them in a soap solution before placing them in a dry heat sterilizer. This unit, not an autoclave or a chemclave, did not have any gauges or lights to indicate appropriate temperature. The instruments were left in the soap solution between 30 minutes and an hour; then rinsed and dried. During the first three months of her employment the heat unit was not there. It was installed only after she had worked there for some time. Her instructions on the use of the soap solution and the procedure to be followed came from the Respondent. Ms. Hageman was concerned with sterilization. She observed that some instruments were rusty and the procedures she was instructed to follow were not consistent with what she had been taught in dental technician's school. Respondent denies this and none of the other doctors who worked for him who testified at the hearing observed any. It is found, therefore, that allegations of rust are not supported. The sterilizer utilized in Respondent's office was not as sophisticated as those seen by Ms. Hageman in other offices or in school. Since it did not have any means to indicate completion of sterilization, it was difficult to tell when the instruments were completely sterilized. This was the only office in which she has ever seen a dry heat sterilizer used. On one occasion, when she was assisting Respondent with a patient, she saw him drop an instrument on the floor, pick it up, and use it in the patient's mouth without sterilizing it. She was upset by this but failed to discuss the situation with Respondent or the patient, or make a notation in the patient's record. This incident allegedly took place shortly after she began work at Respondent's clinic but she, nonetheless, remained there for several months, perhaps mentioning it only to her friend and coworker, Ms. Gillespie. She finally left Respondent's employ of her own volition because she was concerned about the lack of sanitation in the clinic. To the best of her knowledge, she was not about to be fired. Ms. Gillespie worked in Respondent's office in Port Charlotte during 1985 and 1986, primarily as a receptionist, but, when necessary, as a dental assistant. She was licensed as such, holding an expanded certificate. To the best of her recollection, no sterilization was practiced in the facility. Respondent repeatedly used instruments that had been washed with an all purpose soap, and while there was an autoclave on the premises, it was inoperable during the entire period that she worked for him. As she recalls it, instruments were washed in the soap, dried, and placed back into the instrument drawers for subsequent use on patients, and this lack of sterilization concerned her. On one occasion, Respondent needed a post for a device he was inserting into his patient's mouth. When he could not find a dental post, he asked Ms. Gillespie for her hair brush, and when she gave it to him, cut several bristles off and, as she recalls it, without washing or sterilizing them in any way, inserted one into a patient's mouth as a post. The brush had been used and had hair in it. This shocked her but she did not make any official report of it, discussing it only with Ms. Hageman. Though there is some inconsistency between the testimony of Ms. Hageman and that of Ms. Gillespie regarding the type of mechanical device used by Respondent to sterilize his instruments, it is obvious that both are discussing the same piece of equipment and one or the other is in error in her description of it. However, both agree that the equipment on hand did not work in any case, and that Respondent knew it did not work. According to Ms. Gillespie, he advised his employees to falsely state, if asked, that instruments were taken to the other office for sterilization. Respondent denies both Hageman's and Gillespie's allegations. In the area of sanitation, in Dr. Robinson's opinion, the use of soapy water is not appropriate and does not meet minimum standards of sanitary practice. Further, the use of a dropped instrument or the use of a bristle from a hairbrush for a post in a patient's mouth is not an appropriate sanitary procedure. Use of alcohol as a sterilizing agent is inadequate. Respondent's wife claims that on the day the clinic was visited by the investigator, a sterilizer, a cold sterilizer, and a daylight loader were present and operable. The heat sterilizer in question was a small unit different from that in most other offices. It has a temperature gauge and lights to show its operation, but, admittedly is difficult to operate. The cold sterilizer is merely a covered tray utilized to hold instruments while immersed in a sterilizing fluid. At that time in either March or April, 1985, this office in Port Charlotte had been open for about 7 to 8 months. Ms. Hageman had already left Respondent's employment as had Ms. Gillespie. Ms. Kurachek is not a technician but has picked up considerable knowledge of procedures and equipment over the 21 years she has been married to Respondent. Monica Colburn is a certified dental assistant and Respondent's receptionist in the Port Charlotte office. In May, 1986, she worked in the Venice office and has worked for Respondent for over three years. She did not work with either Ms. Hageman or Ms. Gillespie, both of whom preceded her. She has seen Respondent and other dentists drop instruments while working on a patient. It is a common occurrence. When this happens to Respondent, he always leaves the instrument on the floor and asks for a new one. Only when the patient departs is the instrument picked up and it is sterilized before being used again. The chemclave, the autoclave and the cold sterilizer have all been there as long as she has been employed. Both Ms. Hageman and Ms. Gillespie claim that while employed as dental assistants by Respondent, they were instructed to adjust dentures on patients. Ms. Hageman relates that in order to do this, she had been instructed to place an identifying paste inside the pink part of the denture currently in use by the patient to identify raised pressure points and then adjust the denture. She did this, accomplishing the procedure at the Respondent's direction but without his assistance or supervision. She also was given no training in the procedure by the Respondent but had some background in it because the procedure was briefly covered to give students a familiarity with it, not a use capability, during training. In fact, when in either basic technician school or classes for her expanded certificate, she was advised that for her to do this type of work by herself was illegal. She did it, even knowing it was improper, out of fear of Respondent's ill temper and because, as her boss, he had instructed her to do it. Nonetheless, though it bothered her that she was being required to do something illegal, she did not complain to anyone other than Ms. Gillespie even though she was required to perform the procedure for approximately four different patients. Ms. Gillespie, primarily the receptionist in the office, was occasionally called upon by the Respondent to make adjustments to a patient's dentures and when she did this, on at least 12 separate patients, he did not supervise her performance of the procedure nor was he present in the room while it was being done. His sole participation in training her was to show her once or twice how to accomplish the procedure and even after Ms. Gillespie advised Respondent of her concerns regarding this, and that she was not licensed to do this type of work, he nonetheless inferred that if she did not do as he directed, she was likely to lose her job. Since she was a divorcee with two children and needed the employment, she did as she was told. She was also asked to use a cavitron on a patient but refused and even the potential of losing her job would not convince her to do so. The instrument may legally be used only by a licensed dental hygienist or dentist. According to Dr. William F. Robinson, an expert in general dentistry, whose opinion is accepted herein, the task of adjusting dentures is one which cannot be delegated to a dental assistant whether or not the assistant has an expanded certificate because dental adjustment is a delicate procedure which requires special training that assistants do not normally receive. To do so violates community standards as an improper application of the dentist's practice and can result in: destruction of soft tissue and bone, neurological damage, incorrect occlusion resulting in speech and fungus problems, sanitation problems, and an overreactive gag reflex with choking. Ms. Colburn, Respondent's current assistant, has never adjusted an appliance or been asked to do by Respondent. The same can be said for the other assistants. Only a dentist does adjustment though she has taken a paste impression preparatory to an adjustment being made. This has been the policy at Respondent's clinic so long as she has been there. It should be noted, however, that Ms. Colburn has been employed by Respondent only since the initiation of the investigation involved herein and is not aware of any practice previous to that time. At Respondent's request, she contacted prior denture patients to see if any had had their denture adjusted by an assistant. None of the five who responded so indicated. Respondent claims that his clinics now have and had, during the first five months of 1985, an autoclave and a large tub for cold sterilization. To support this claim, Respondent offered three checks and a purchase order which he asserts refer to the autoclave in question. However, the purchase order, upon review, fails to indicate a vendor and is undated, and the checks total an amount larger than that necessary for the purchase of the instrument. Respondent claims that the autoclave he had worked but not properly. It would heat up to the proper temperature for sterilization and would stay at that temperature but had no timer capability and would not complete the cycle to remove and heat and turn itself off. In order to get the instruments out, the operator would have to pull the plug. Ultimately, Dr. Kurachek purchased another heat sterilizer and then a chemical sterilizer, but asserts that at all times he had some kind of sterilization capability in each of the clinic offices. No doubt some type of equipment was present, but it is found that the equipment did not work sufficiently to be reliable for sterilization, and was a problem. Respondent also denies ever having picked up a dropped instrument and using it in a patient's mouth. He claims that when he drops an instrument he leaves it where it is until either the patient leaves or it is convenient for him to retrieve it and sterilize it. He also denies that he used a hairbrush bristle as alleged by Ms. Gillespie. He admits, however, that at times he used hairbrush bristles as posts and still does when a regular post is not available. In the instant case, Respondent claims that the bristle was taken from a brush bought specifically for this purpose and used only after sterilization in a cold sterilization solution. He unequivocally denies using any bristle from Ms. Gillespie's personal hairbrush claiming he has not ever seen that brush until it was shown to him at the hearing. Respondent also claims that instruments were transported from one center to another but only to replace an instrument that was used and was no longer effective, or to fill a need in the center to which taken. Respondent claims that this sterilization process was adequate and meets sterilization standards. The procedure followed consisted of a wash in soapy water and a rinse, followed by cold sterilization, and for those instruments requiring further sterilization, a second rinse was used followed by heat sterilization. Dr. Kurachek did not clarify what was meant by use of the term "cold sterilization". According to Respondent's expert, Dr. Bliss, at one time it was appropriate to use nylon bristles as posts for crowns and a hair brush bristle, if properly sanitized before use, could legitimately be inserted if it was the proper size. Respondent attempted to discredit the testimony of Ms. Gillespie, and to a lesser extent, Ms. Hageman, by implications that they were merely trying to seek revenge by making the allegations here involved because they had been suspected of misconduct with funds while employed. There was no direct evidence to that effect, however, and such inference is rejected. Taken together, the evidence shows, and it is found, that inadequate sterilization equipment was on hand and proper sanitation procedures were generally not followed, but the allegation relating to use of a dropped instrument is rejected. AS TO CASE NO: 89-1241 Ms. Jean D. Spears was treated at the Respondent's clinic during the period 1984 through 1986. During the early part of her treatment, she went there strictly for routine fillings and cleanings. However, as time went on she also needed some crown preparations. At first she saw Dr. Feasley who took the required x-rays and did the fillings required and, did some other things for her. She had no problem with this treatment. However, in 1985 she also needed a bridge installation for which Dr. Feasley did the preparation but, because he left employment with the Respondent before the bridge could be constructed and placed, it was ultimately completed and placed by a Dr. DeVol. The bridge prepared by Dr. Feasley and installed by Dr. DeVol did not fit at first and could not properly be placed. Ultimately the Respondent was called in and recommended something be done which seemed to cure the problem. However, while the Spears were on vacation, the bridge came out and had to be recemented several times. After this, Respondent made a partial bridge for Mrs. Spears for other teeth, but this bridge did not fit either. Because she was dissatisfied with the fit of the original bridge made by Dr. Feasley Ms. Spears went to another dentist, Dr. Currie. She then returned to Respondent who agreed to remake the original Feasley bridge and an appointment was made for her after Respondent did a lot of other work elsewhere in her mouth. However, when the time came for Respondent to correct the original bridge, even though he had promised to do so, Respondent refused to work on it claiming it was not his responsibility since he did not make it. Ms. Spears thereafter complained to state authorities and sometime later, Respondent called and offered to do the necessary repair work. At this time, Ms. Spears refused to allow him to do so because she had made alternative arrangements for correction and she never went back to Respondent's clinic. Instead, she went to see Dr. Feasley, her original dentist, who remade the bridge which now fits properly and which she wears to this day. Ms. Spears considered herself to be a patient of Respondent's clinic regardless of which dentist did the work for her, and though she does not blame Respondent for the poor fit of the original bridge, she considers him ultimately responsible since he is the owner of the clinic. She was upset by Respondent's attitude and even after he originally agreed to fix the bridge he changed his mind and suggested she go back to Dr. Feasley to get the repair work done because it was not his, Respondent's, responsibility. Respondent questions Ms. Spears' recollection of the particulars involved in her complaint against him and though it is obvious that time has dimmed her memory of exact dates and times, it has not adversely affected her recollection of the ultimate facts. At 78 years of age, she appears to have a good command of her faculties and is considered a credible witness. Dr. Feasley worked at Respondent's Venice clinic from 1983 to 1985 as a contract dentist and during that period, treated Ms. Spears for whom he suggested, on April 25, 1984, a root canal. Though he attempted to do the root canal, he was unable to accomplish it. He sealed it up and suggested she have an endodontist pull the tooth in question, number 18. Somewhat later, on August 1, 1984, he took several x-rays and did some fillings, and prepared three teeth for crowns which he set in place. In light of Ms. Spears' age and health, he felt it appropriate to put in crowns even though she had some periodontal disease. In July, 1985, he also did the preparation work for the construction and insertion of a bridge to cover teeth numbers 18 - 21 for Ms. Spears, but because he severed his connection with the clinic before it was finished, he was unable to follow through on it. However, he saw Ms. Spears again at his new office in May, 1986 when she came to him complaining of the bridge on teeth 18 through 21 which had been placed by Respondent's clinic after his departure and with which she had had problems since its insertion. Dr. Feasley took x-rays and found that the bridge in question was defective and based on what she told him, he recommended it be replaced. On July 15, 1986, Dr. Feasley removed the offending bridge, repaired teeth 18 and 22, and put in a new bridge extending between those two teeth. It is noted that an additional tooth was added. When, in 1986, Dr. Feasley examined the bridge constructed at Respondent's clinic, he determined the fit was inappropriate. There was a margin gap on tooth 21 which had been filled with a tooth colored material. This was not as he, Dr. Feasley, had designed the bridge. When Dr. Feasley made the new bridge for teeth 18 through 22, he charged Ms. Spears even though on May 13, 1986, Ms. Spears told him that the Respondent had sent her to him to have him fix the bridge. In the course of their conversation, Ms. Spears advised him that whenever she had gone to the clinic, they would always do most of the work requested but, would never work on the bridge for teeth 18 through 21 which, though made at the clinic, had been prepared and designed by Dr. Feasley. Dr. David R. Smith, an expert in general dentistry called by the Petitioner, reviewed Ms. Spears' records and x-rays and examined her on April 24, 1988. Based on his review, he concluded that for various reasons, Respondent's treatment failed to meet the minimum standards of performance within the community. These reason were: There was no charting of periodontal disease. X-rays clearly showed periodontal disease on tooth 18 resulting in bone loss; that the teeth were tipped; and that teeth numbers 3 and 4 were periodontally involved. The clinical examination showed severe function involvement on tooth 32; tooth 18 had a 5 mm periodontal pocket on two sides and a 4 mm pocket on two others; teeth 6, 8, 22, and 23 showed buckling and bleeding on probing with active periodontal disease; the mobility of the teeth was slight; teeth 4 and 5 had been roughly ground flat on the biting surface; tooth 11 showed decay on the biting edge; and teeth 12 and 13 showed short margins around a bridge. The charts prepared on Ms. Spears show that Dr. Feasley started treatment with preparation for a bridge for teeth 18 through 21. The bridge was placed in the patient's mouth on July 19, 1985 by Dr. DeVol. There were some problems with this bridge and Dr. Curry treated Ms. Spears and did an extraction of an unrelated tooth. Ms. Spears continued to complaint about the 18 to 21 bridge and in December, 1985, a filling material was placed on the edge of the tooth which leads Dr. Cook to believe there was a short margin which required the patch. Work was also done on upper right teeth 3 through 5 and 12 through 14. Some of these are in direct occlusion with teeth 18 through 21. On February 6, 1986, Dr. Kurachek first saw Ms. Spears. He indicated in the record at that time that it was a difficult case, (teeth 3 through 5 had super-erupted and needed adjustment), and he had to grind down some teeth. He also indicated the patient needed a bridge on the upper left from tooth 12 through tooth 14. On February 7, 1986, he delivered a partial bridge and advised Ms. Spears of the need for another different bridge which she refused to have done. At this time, Respondent failed to chart any periodontal disease. On several follow-up visits, Respondent adjusted the partial bridge and on February 20, 1986, he placed some covering material over a gap left by a short margin. On March 13, 1986, he concluded that the teeth 18 through 21 bridge was to be redone at no charge. On April 8, 1986, the bridge still was not corrected and in May, 1986, Respondent entered in the file that he did not want to interfere with Dr. Feasley's work. The records indicate Respondent did the bridgework on teeth 12 through 14 before the patient's periodontal disease was corrected, and in the opinion of Dr. Smith, this is below community standards. In this, Dr. Smith disagrees with Dr. Feasley's position that in light of the patient's age, installation of a bridge prior to correcting periodontal disease is acceptable. Though there is a divergence of opinion on this issue, the better position is that one should treat and cure the periodontal disease before beginning bridge work. In Dr. Smith's opinion, however, the first bridge on teeth 18 through 21, constructed by Drs. Feasley and DeVol, appears inadequate due to the repeated adjustments that were necessary. Given the fact that this bridge was inadequate, it was improper for Respondent to put a bridge on teeth 12 through 14 without regard to the improper condition of the teeth 18 through 21 bridge. It would have been more appropriate for him to fix the 18 - 21 bridge first and then install the 12 - 14 bridge. Dr. Smith is of the opinion that Respondent's installation of the 12 - 14 bridge without first correcting the problem with 18 - 21 does not meet standards because it did not treat the underlying problem and it impacted and abutted a severely impacted tooth, (18). In addition, the placing of the partial denture on the left side, (teeth 28 - 31), was a violation of standards since it was anchored to a faulty tooth, (tooth 18), by a wire that went around the mouth behind the front teeth. Both conclusions are found to be correct. It also appears that Respondent recommended adjustment of the biting surface of teeth 3 through 5 and that teeth 12 through 14 be planed. He recommended extracting teeth 24 and 25 and insertion of a lower bridge. He also indicated the bridge on teeth 18 through 21 should be redone but refused to do it himself, and it was not done at Respondent's clinic. Dr. Paul A. Hounchell, also an expert in general dentistry, also reviewed Ms. Spears' records and her x-rays, and from the records was unable to determine the treatment plan anticipated for this patient. There was no charting of her periodontal problems and a failure to chart pockets is not within standards in this state. Dr. Hounchell agreed with Dr. Smith regarding the impropriety of inserting a new bridge on different teeth in Ms. Spears' mouth without first correcting the improper formulation of the 18 through 21 bridge. He also observed that the margin on tooth 12 was open at least 1 mm and that on tooth 13 by at least 1/2 mm or more and his opinion, this is outside minimum standards. Dr. Rupert Q. Bliss, an expert in general dentistry, has served on the Board of Dental Examiners and has been a consultant for it thereafter. He teaches at the University of Florida Dental School and has, over the years, reviewed thousands of charts and records. He has considerable experience in crown and bridge work and general reconstructive dentistry with the majority of his practice dealing with prosthetic manufacture. His examination of the records kept on Ms. Spears by Dr. Smith, Petitioner's expert, shows they contain little in regard to periodontal pockets. In charting this area, training generally calls for the noting of six items for each tooth. Other than as to teeth 32 and 18, Dr. Smith's records note only four items per tooth. This is not appropriate. However, Dr. Smith's charting is not in issue. Comment is made by Dr. Bliss only for comparison. The clinic notes on Ms. Spears prior to the Respondent's taking over of her treatment in February, 1986, show many problems in her mouth which Respondent recognized and agreed to correct, especially regarding the bridge for teeth 18 through 21. Since Respondent took over treatment of Ms. Spears in mid process, it is not necessarily below standards for him to have failed to rechart prior conditions and to continue with the treatment already begun, especially since she had been seen be another dentist in the same office. Though Dr. Bliss keeps detailed charts on his patients, it is not uncommon to see charts which do not include thorough periodontal pocket charting. While he does not approve of this practice, there is no absolute requirement for it. The Board standards require a complete examination including thorough charting of periodontal pocketing. The chart kept by Respondent appears to be typical. It does not conform to the minimum standards in Florida but is consistent with common practice in the dental community. As to Respondent's grinding down of teeth to make them fit to a bridge, this can legitimately be done, but if it is, it leaves the tooth open to the mouth environment. According to Dr. Bliss, whether to do so is a judgement call, but evaluating Respondent's performance in grinding down teeth 12 through 14 before correcting teeth 18 through 21, in his opinion the process was accomplished in a manner equal to or above minimum standards. If the grinding of teeth 12 through 14 were done to an ideal plane of occlusion, it would reduce pressure on the lower bridge and would improve the periodontal condition of the patient on teeth 18 through 21. Consequently, it would eliminate the potential for traumatic occlusion. Further, the initiation of crown and bridge work before clearing up the periodontal problems was acceptable in this case, Bliss opines, because Respondent was picking the patient up in mid treatment. Had Ms. Spears been a new patient, it would have been more appropriate to clear up the periodontal problems before starting the crown and bridge work. Ms. Kurachek was present in her husband's office when the investigator from the Department came. He was there for approximately 15 minutes during which she heard him indicate it appeared everything was in place and he would so report. There appears to have been a serious misunderstanding on someone's part regarding this, and it is highly unlikely the investigator made such comments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice dentistry in Florida be suspended for a period of six months and that he be fined $3,000.00, and that when reinstated, he be placed on probation, under such terms and conditions as the Board may prescribe, for a period of three additional years, these actions to run concurrently with the penalty, if any, imposed by the Board in its action, when taken, in its allied case involving the Respondent, heard under DOAH case number 89-5544. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1240 AND 89-1241 The following constitutes my specific ruling pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3(a). Accepted and incorporated herein. 3(b). Rejected. 3(c & d). Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. 5.-7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12.-14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. By the Respondent: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated but not dispositive since there is some issue as to whether either worked properly. 1st sentence accepted. Rejected since sole evidence of this is hearsay testimony. Balance accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a summation of testimony and a comment thereon. 1st sentence accepted. Balance is not a Finding of Fact but a summation of testimony. A restatement or and comment on testimony, not a Finding of Fact. 1st Sentence accepted. Balance merely a restatement of testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15.-19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted. 1st sentence rejected as not supported by evidence of record. Balance accepted. Accepted as accurate description of treatment plan and of Respondent's reasons therefore without accepting appropriateness thereof. & 25. Accepted. Accepted. & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29.-32. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. Accepted. Accepted but not determinative. Accepted, but it was never done properly. Accepted, but failure to examine eventually is a failure of standard. Rejected as an inaccurate summary of testimony. Dr. Bliss indicated charting is often not done properly and indicated specifically that Respondent's charting was not up to standards. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 730 South Sterling Street, Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 33609 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an after-the-fact building permit for work done to their manufactured home on Big Pine Key following Hurricane Irma.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 2014, Petitioners paid $115,0003 to acquire title to a lot in unincorporated Monroe County bearing the address of 31480 Avenue F, Big Pine Key (Lot). The Lot is in the Avenues neighborhood within the Sands subdivision, which consists of site-built and manufactured homes. The Lot measures 100 feet deep and 40 feet wide. Because the back 20 feet of the Lot is submerged bottom of a canal, the effective area of the lot is 80 feet deep by 40 feet wide. The Lot is at the southern end of Big Pine Key, just north of Route 1. About 400 feet--or six lots--to the east of the Lot is water that connects to the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean about two miles to the south and to the Gulf of Mexico a greater distance to the north. The landward extent of the canal at the back of the Lot extends three or four lots to the west. The Avenues neighborhood features an alternating series of evenly spaced canals and lettered avenues, all running in an east-west direction. The six canals are of roughly equal dimensions. The canal behind the Lot is the second closest to the ocean. The Lot is in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone AE, indicative of a relatively high risk of flooding. The base flood elevation of the Lot is nine feet above mean sea level.4 The base flood elevation is the elevation specified for a structure to avoid floodwaters from the base flood event, which is the flooding projected to result in a flooding event with an annual probability of occurrence of 1%.5 The prevailing elevation of the Sands subdivision is only three feet above mean sea level, so that the base flood event would inundate the subdivision by an average of about six feet of water. The AE zone is associated more with rising and wind- driven water. The VE zone, which extends from the water to a point three lots east of the Lot, is associated with the stronger water forces of surging water. These zones reflect the projected relative risks to structures posed by the depth of a flood and the energy of the water column in terms of velocity and, where applicable, wave action. When they acquired the Lot, Petitioners also acquired the title to a 56-foot by 12-foot 1970 Ritz-Craft, Inc., manufactured home located on the Lot (Trailer). Originally purchased for about $2000, the Trailer has been located on the Lot continuously since at least December 28, 1971, when a predecessor-in-interest of Petitioners filed with the Monroe County property appraiser's office a Declaration of Mobile Home as Real Property. When acquired by Petitioners, the Trailer still had many of its original fixtures, including the original Formica counter, bathroom, and trailer tub, and the finished floor was composed of vinyl strips glued together, the walls were covered in wood paneling, and the kitchen cabinets were made of wood. Given practices prevailing in the industry at the time of the manufacture of the Trailer, the subflooring, cabinets, and unfinished counters were likely particleboard, which is highly susceptible to water damage, and the walls were likely plywood, although these components may have been replaced over the years. The front of the Trailer is the 12-foot end facing Avenue F to the north, and the back of the Trailer is the 12-foot end facing the canal to the south. Abutting one side of the Trailer is a freestanding wood deck measuring 16 feet by 8 feet. At all material times, the Trailer's foundation has consisted of stacks of concrete blocks forming piers under the Trailer. These stacks elevate the Trailer so that the finished floors were about three feet above grade. If the elevation of the Lot approximated the average elevation in the Sands subdivision, without regard to wave action and tide, storm surge would need to exceed six feet to submerge the finished floors of the Trailer. In their first three years of ownership, Petitioners performed the usual maintenance on the Trailer, including a paint job, but did not alter the components described above. The only major work took place in May 2017 when Petitioners paid $2210 to Privateer Alliance, a certified general contractor, to disconnect their septic tank and connect to central sewer lines. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma, a category-four storm, made landfall at Cudjoe Key. The storm caused extensive flooding and wind damage in the Florida Keys, but especially in Big Pine Key, which is about ten miles east of Cudjoe Key. The damage along Avenue F indicated that the causative force was moving water more than from rising water, and structures east of the Lot suffered more damage than structures farther from the water.6 In compliance with a mandatory evacuation order, neither Petitioner was in the Trailer when Hurricane Irma struck. The storm inflicted the most damage to the Sands subdivision, among residential areas. On Big Pine Key, floodwaters reached five to eight feet above mean sea level, and floodwaters in the vicinity of the Trailer persisted for about 12 hours, as noted by Respondent.7 Respondent offered into evidence Composite Exhibit L, page 1, which is a map entitled, "Coastal Depth Grid." The map depicts the portion of the Avenues that includes the Lot. The map bears coloring that, according to the legend, is intended to report the flooding depths from Hurricane Irma. Although the variations in color are too slight to differentiate among the varying depths shown in the legend, Respondent construed the Coastal Depth Grid to show nine feet of floodwater over the Lot. Respondent offered no predicate for the Coastal Depth Grid. To the contrary, one of Respondent's witnesses, Mary Wingate, who is a 24-year employee working in Respondent's Floodplain Office of its Building Department, testified to a more reasonable floodwater depth of five to eight feet. A floodwater depth no higher than the low end of Ms. Wingate's estimate is supported by the damage to the interior of the Trailer, as discussed below.8 For these reasons, the Coastal Depth Grid is not credited as a source of a finding of floodwater of nine feet above mean sea level over the Lot. Following a major storm, prior to the order allowing residents to return to their homes, building or safety inspectors visit affected areas and make initial determinations of the safety of individual residences. If a structure is determined to be unsafe, the inspector posts a red card that states, "Destroyed," so as to prevent reoccupation or re-energizing of the residence. Fifty to sixty inspectors for the entire Keys started inspections in the upper keys on September 13 or 14. Reflective of the devastation caused by Hurricane Irma in the Florida Keys, three weeks passed before a building inspector visited the Lot on October 3, 2017. At that time, the building inspector, who is a licensed professional engineer, determined that the Trailer had been destroyed, so the inspector posted a red card on the Trailer. This determination was based on damage to the front of the Trailer, which was visible from the street; the inspector did not examine the interior, the utilities, or the back of the Trailer. From the street, the inspector correctly determined that the walls, windows, and doors had been unaffected, but the siding and trim would require repair. For the roof and roof structure, the inspector checked boxes stating that these elements required repair and replacement; perhaps, the seemingly inconsistent checkmarks were intended to mean that repair would be sufficient for some parts of the roof and some parts of the roof structure, but replacement would be necessary for other parts of these two elements. In fact, neither the roof nor roof structure required replacement, although the roof required the replacement of a damaged roof panel. In a brief narrative, the inspector noted on the inspection form: "Building completely off foundations & separated from entry stairs & deck." Perhaps due to a daunting workload, the inspector failed to notice that the back of the Trailer was still on its concrete block stacks. The front of the Trailer had been driven off its stacks, likely by storm surge, and rested about four feet from its original position, still somewhat above grade because it rested atop debris. On October 14, 2019, a building inspector conducted another inspection of the Trailer and determined that the damage equaled or exceeded 50% of its assessed value, pursuant to the SI/SD ordinance, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Again, this inspection did not include an examination of the interior of the Trailer. The October 14 determination relied on a FEMA-supplied tool, Composite Exhibit L, page 2 (FEMA Tool), for estimating damage based on a "long-duration" saltwater inundation of a manufactured home. Two problems preclude reliance on the FEMA Tool. First, the inspector used the above-described Coastal Depth Grid to determine that the Lot was subjected to a floodwater depth of nine feet--or six feet above the finished floor of the Trailer. Because the actual floodwater depth was substantially less than nine feet, the FEMA Tool produced an excessive estimate of damage. Second, the inspector applied the FEMA Tool to a flooding event that was not shown to be of long duration, as required for use of the tool.9 It is impossible to determine which of the two flaws in the use of the FEMA Tool produced the greater distortion in damage estimates. Even when using a more-reasonable input of three to four feet of flooding above the finished floor--i.e., six to seven feet of floodwaters--the FEMA Tool predicts that the air conditioning unit, subfloor, finished floor, and bottom cabinets would be completely destroyed. The air conditioning unit, which is installed in the wall, was undamaged, as were the bottom cabinets. The flooring components are discussed below, but were not completely destroyed. The FEMA Tool predicts near-total to total destruction of the plumbing, doors, and wall finishes, which, as discussed below, were substantially undamaged. The FEMA Tool predicts damage of 38% to 72% to the electrical system, which was undamaged. In other respects, as well, the FEMA Tool over-estimates the extent of the damage to the Trailer. The failure of the parties to offer into evidence the FEMA tool for short-duration saltwater flooding to a manufactured home precludes a finding as to the extent to which the actual floodwaters were substantially shallower than even Ms. Wingate's estimate or the duration of inundation was very brief. In either case, the repairs undertaken by Petitioners are a good measure of the damage to the Trailer, except for the finished floor. First, Petitioners rented some jacks and, with one or more friends, lifted the front of the Trailer, restacked the concrete blocks, and reset the Trailer atop them. Apparently at the same time, Petitioners also restored the wood deck to its prestorm condition. The retail value of this work was $1000. Second, the storm damaged the weatherhead or cap that shields the electric service line from the elements where the line enters the Trailer. The retail value of the work to replace the weatherhead and perform the electrical safety inspection required before the power company would restore power to the Trailer was $1060. Third, the storm caused minor damage to one or more plumbing lines. The retail value of this repair work was $240. Fourth, various exterior panels required repair or replacement due to damage. The retail value of the repairs was $575, and the retail value of the replacement of 16 outer panels was $1280. Fifth, the storm destroyed the skirting along the bottom of the Trailer. The retail value of this replacement work was $1056. Sixth, the retail value of minor trim repairs necessitated by the storm was $500. The retail value of the above-described work was $5711. During the same time period, Petitioners performed additional work for which they never obtained a permit. The Conclusions of Law explain the relevance of the retail value of this work, which consisted of the installation of five new windows at $1075, the application of window sealant, caulking and hardware totaling $295, and the installation of a new front door for $320. The retail value of this work, which did not address floodwater damage, was $1690. This work plus the previously described work thus totaled $7401. This leaves the finished floor and subflooring and one panel of plywood that had separated from the wall and was flopping. The plywood paneling is de minimis. One panel of wall plywood separated from the wall, although it is unclear how that happened, and the repair would represent an insignificant expense, even if the panel had to be replaced. One of the Petitioners testified that there was water damage on the floor at the front of the Trailer extending across the front room and into the living area, where it discolored the bottom four inches of a sofa cover and left a muddy residue. At the back of the trailer, Petitioner found a water mark about one-half inch high along metal bunkbeds. According to this witness, the walls bore no dirt or mud, and neither they nor the cabinets were damaged by the water, but the vinyl floor tiles separated by no more than 1/8th of an inch due to ungluing from exposure to the water. This testimony is credited. The floodwater that entered the Trailer left a silty deposit on the floor, so it was relatively easy to determine the vertical reach of any floodwater that entered the Trailer, and the limited damage to the roof and sides of the Trailer does not appear to have allowed significant, if any, amounts of rain water into the Trailer. The crucial questions, which are left unanswered in this record, involve the extent of the work necessary to restore the finished floor and subflooring to their prestorm condition and the retail value of the cost of this work. One of Petitioner's witnesses was David Koppel, who is a licensed professional engineer with considerable experience in the assessment of damages, partly from a 22-year career with Respondent. In December 2018, Mr. Koppel inspected the foundation, tie-downs, interior and underneath of the Trailer, both flooring units, and the walls and cabinets and concluded that the structural elements were "sound" and everything was intact as it was built, except for a little "swelling and separation" of the finished floor, which Mr. Koppel testified was so minor that its repair or replacement would be left to the owners' choice. Mr. Koppel opined that all work had been performed in conformance with the 1970 Building Code, which was in effect when the original building permit was issued. Mr. Koppel's testimony is problematic in two regards.10 He mistook the vinyl floor for a wood floor, and he misidentified the referent as the owners' preference instead of the prestorm condition, as explained in the Conclusions of Law. Otherwise, Mr. Koppel's testimony is credited. There is no evidence that Petitioners repaired or replaced any of the items that Mr. Koppel inspected, prior to his inspection, so he would have found any damage, such as rot or mildew, that would have developed in the intervening 15 months between the storm and his inspection. This leaves as the sole open question as to damages the retail value of the cost of the work to repair or replace the damaged portion of the finished floor--an issue that is not addressed in the record. Lastly, it is necessary to determine the prestorm value of the Trailer. The property appraiser assessed the Trailer at $17,769. After a 20% adjustment, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent increased the value of the Trailer to $21,323. Petitioners' witness, an experienced real estate appraiser, testified that the Trailer was worth $53,618, using the cost approach to value. Her total estimate of the cost of the structure, if new, was $73,450, which she reduced by $19,832 for depreciation. Petitioners' appraiser never explained why she estimated only $20,000 or 27% for depreciation for a 50-year-old manufactured home. Her appraisal also lacked comparable sales to back up her cost approach to value and never took into account published sources of market values for used manufactured homes. Petitioners' evidence does not persuade that a manufactured home, parked beside the ocean for 50 years, is worth today over $50,000. Thus, Petitioners failed to overcome the adjusted assessed value of $21,323. However, the proved retail value of the work associated with damage and improvements of $7401 is less than 50% of the value of the Trailer of $21,323. Following the storm, Petitioners and contractors performed the above-described work. By May 12, 2018, Respondent initiated an investigation into the substantial unpermitted work that Petitioners had undertaken. On June 8, 2018, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation/Notice of Hearing for July 26, 2018 (NOV). The NOV alleges the unpermitted work and requires corrective action of obtaining an after-the-fact or demolition permit. The hearing before the special magistrate took place on September 27, 2018. At the hearing, as stated in Petitioners Exhibit F, Respondent's counsel advised the special magistrate: This one isn't terribly complicated or terribly difficult in that we just need the after the fact permit so that the inspections can be performed to make sure that the utilities are connected, safely reconnected, reattached. It's currently on the blocks in the proper situation, hopefully it doesn't happen again. The NOV proceeding concluded with the parties' agreement that Petitioners would file an application for an after-the-fact permit, although the discussion indicates that Respondent was focusing exclusively on the necessity of a permit to replace the Trailer on its concrete block stacks and to replace the wood deck to its original position abutting the Trailer. The after- the-fact permitting process then ensued, as described in the Preliminary Statement.
Findings Of Fact King Royer, Inc., the Petitioner, and the State of Florida, Department of General Services, entered into a contract dated October 15, 1974, for the construction of vocational facilities at the Union Correctional Institution at Raiford, Florida. A copy of the contract agreement is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the plans for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and the specifications for the project are Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, all admitted into evidence. The contract has been completed and a certificate of contract completion issued by the Department of General Services as reflected in the copy of that certificate which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The certificate of contract completion is attended by a letter of explanation from the architectural firm in charge of the project which letter is Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. This certificate of contract completion makes reference to change order No. 2, and a copy of change order No. 2 has been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This cafe is brought pursuant to Article 8.5 of the contract document, Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner for Construction of Buildings, which calls for claims and disputes to be appealed to the Department of General Services for hearing. Those specific claims of appeal are promoted by two documents. The first document is the letter of July 16, 1975, by King Royer as president of the Petitioner corporation. This letter is addressed to the Director of the Department of General Services and is treated as the appeal document. There are five items within this element of the appeal which are listed as follows: "(1) Extension of tire for completion of the project, due to late delivery of the engineered metal building, and delays in completing corrective work of which we were informed only a few days before scheduled completion of the project. Removal of concrete floor which we believed to be 4" thick on the plans, but for which the Architect contends 6" thickness is required. Removal of approximately 2,500 square feet of slab which we contend was substantially in accordance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. Temporary bracing for the building, not necessary for any possible loads on such bracing, during removal of the concrete slab. Painting of interior metal structure, not required by the plans and specifications." Paragraphs one and four of this letter/petition will not be considered in substance, for reasons which will be set forth in the section of this recommended order, entitled Conclusions of Law. The second element of the appeal concerned an amendment to the appeal for purposes of considering change order No. 2, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. This amendment was entered into by stipulation and agreement of counsel for the parties. The stipulation and agreement, indicated that the appeal could consider the elements of the change order to this extent: (1) The element on extension of time due to inclement weather; (2) liquidated damages, only those elements where the liquidated damages pertain to delays associated with the removal of the concrete floor slabs reflected in paragraphs two and three of the original appeal and the painting of interior metal structures as indicated in paragraph five of the original appeal; (3) additional testing shown in the change order; (4) additional services of the structural engineer shown in the change order; and (5) additional services, of the architects and engineering firm, shown in the change order. The first it ruled to be a proper subject for consideration in this appeal, was item two of the July 16, 1975, appeal. As mentioned before this item deals with the removal of a concrete floor which the Petitioner contends was supposed to be 4" thick in accordance with the plans and for which the architect in speaking for the Respondent claims should have been 6" thick to comply with the plans. This area is shown at page 2 of 27 in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is to plan of the project. The area is found between column line A as a southern boundary and it's northern boundary is a common line extended from the northern wall of the auto mechanics shop. Its eastern boundary runs along column line 5, than proceed through an area approximately 4' 10" wide from column line 5, west to the eastern most wall of classroom 1, and then inset to the eastern wall of the instructor's office No. 1, and then inset to the small closet like area identified as No. 1, these latter dimensions making up the western boundary of the disputed area. In the initial pour of the concrete in that area, the depth of the pour was 4" and was so intended by the Petitioner. The architect of the project discovered that the depth was 4" and not 6" and ordered that this section of the concrete slab be removed. The removal was effected and the cost of that removal and reinstallation is at issue in the appeal. Sheet 5-2, which is at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, calls for a 6" concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop and this auto mechanics shop is that area identified on Sheet 2 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and includes the disputed area previously described before. Since the initial pour was 4" instead of 6" in the area as described, the Petitioner was not in compliance with the plans and the architect was correct to cause the removal of the initial pour and the substitution of the 6 " pour. Item three in the appeal, set forth on July 16, 1975, questions the requirement for the removal of approximately 2500 square feet of slab which the Petitioner contended was in substantial compliance with the contract and adequate for the intended purpose. This area would be constituted of the remaining aspect of the auto mechanic shop which has not previously been identified in discussing item No. 2. Its southern boundary begins at the intersection of column line A and 1, thence along column line A to the intersection with column line five; go dawn column line 5 from that point to the intersection with the first wall encountered to locate the western boundary; then along that wall east to an intersection of the wall and column line 1 to locate the northern boundary; and then south along column line 1, to the intersection of column line 1 and column line A, to locate the eastern boundary. When the Petitioner initially poured the concrete slab in this area it placed the welded wire fabric by such a method that fabric sunk to the bottom or near bottom of the concrete slab, in violation of Division 3.2C. of the specifications, which call for the welded wire fabric to be placed in the center of the slab. Approximately a week after the floor was poured a Case No. 584 diesel forklift which weighs 10,000 pounds was driven onto the newly poured slab in the auto mechanics area, 100 to 150 times carrying approximately 1500 pounds of structural members on each run. Subsequent to the time that the mesh sunk to the bottom or the near bottom of the concrete floor slab, cracks were discovered in the surface of the floor of the auto mechanics shop and these cracks are determined to be structural cracks. These structural cracks were promoted in part by the location of the mesh in the concrete slab and by the traffic of the fork lift. The location of the mesh may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 which is a photograph of the auto mechanics slab when it was being removed and also in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 which is a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area. The nature of the structural cracks is shown by hand drawn lines placed on number 5-2, at page 14 of 27 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, the pencil lines being drawn by Villany Hausner, the structural engineer on the project and the red lines being drawn by Jeff Hoxie, the project architect. This floor slab in the auto mechanics area was also dusted in contravention of Division 3.11A of the specifications which prohibits dusting of the exposed slab. The Petitioner tried to demonstrate that the cracks found on the surface of the concrete slab in the auto mechanics shop were not structural in nature by driving a 38,000 pound concrete truck onto the slab in the auto mechanics area in excess of two months after the pour. This test is found to be inadequate to overcome the conclusion that the cracks were structural in nature in that the test was not properly designed. The Petitioner was offered an opportunity for utilizing a properly designed test at its expense, as prescribed by the architect but the Petitioner did not respond to this offer. There was conflicting evidence about the depth of the initial pour in the area of the 2500 square feet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 seems to indicate that a test performed by the Petitioner showed the depth to be substandard but other Exhibits by the Petitioner, namely Petitioner's Exhibits No. 11 and No. 12 show photographs of the concrete slab being torn out indicating that the depth approximated 7". There is also an Exhibit, Respondent's No. 9 which was a core sample taken from the auto mechanics area, but it is not clear what section of the auto mechanics area it was taken from, whether in the 2500 square foot area or in the narrow area 4' X 10" which was mentioned in the point No. 2 of the appeal of July 16, 1975. After reviewing the evidence on the depth of the slab, it is not clear what the true depth was on an average, in the 2500 square foot section. Nonetheless, based on the structural cracks, as explained by the mesh location and to a lesser extent by the driving of the fork lift truck onto the slab, the initial pour of to 2500 square feet was not in compliance with the contract and tie architect was correct in having the slab removed when the Petitioner failed to respond to his offer to have the slab tested. Item No. 5 in the July 16, 1975 appeal pertains to the painting of the interior metal structures and the Petitioner claims that these metal structures are not required by the plans and specifications to be painted. The Petitioner promotes his argument by reference to Division No. 9 of the specifications, particularly 3.7A of Section 9F, which is found on page 9F-8. This part, 3.7A says, "do not paint . . . pre-finished item as specified under Division 13- special construction." Therefore, it is the Petitioner's contention that any item found in Division 13 should not be painted. However, Division 13 in its Section 13B, 3.1C found at page 13B-2, says, "give one shop coat of paint as specified herein to all steel surfaces . . ." This statement is further supported by Division 9, Section 9F, 3.6B(3) at page 9F-7, which says that ferrous metals, including shop painted items will have one coat of rust inhibiting primer and one coat of interior gloss oil house paint. Therefore, the reference 3.7A in Section 9-F of Division 9 does not exclude all so called pre-finished items as specified under Division 13 from painting and the architect was correct in insisting that all interior metal structures which were not in fact pre-finished be given a shop coat, one coat of rust inhibiting primer, and one coat interior gloss oil house paint, as necessary. The second aspect of the appeal concerns change order No. 2. The parties agreed that the 20 day extension of time due to inclement weather should be awarded to the Petitioner at $50 a day for a total amount of $1,000. The second item of the change order concerning liquidated damages in the amount of $1,800 is sustained in view of the fact that only those items pertaining to the removal of the floor slab and painting of the structural members could be considered in addressing the liquidated damages, because of the prior stipulation. Therefore, the architect being found correct in his actions, the liquidated damages should stand. Items 3-5 in the change order concerning additional testing, additional services of the structural engineer and additional services of the architect and engineering firm are proper cost items in view of the problems associated with the floor slab and the appeal of their assessment should be rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended that those items found in the July 16, 1975 letter of appeal offered by the Petitioner not be allowed. It is further recommended that the matters as set forth in the amendment to the petition as found in change order No. 2 be allowed only to the extent of an award of $1,000 for extension of time due to inclement the technique considered acceptable far reimbursement of the amount of $1,000, regardless of the decision on the other matters of the appeal. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John F. Roscow, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact By application dated March 3, 1983, Respondent ITT Community Development Corporation (ITT) requested a permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to dredge 815 cubic yards of material from the Intracoastal Waterway In Flagler County, Florida, as part of the construction of a high-level concrete highway bridge over the intracoastal Waterway. The proposed bridge project will extend Palm Coast Parkway from the end of existing pavement to State Road A1A east of the Intracoastal Waterway, and thus complete the Interstate 95 connector link with coastal State Road A1A. At the present tine, there are two drawbridges across the Intracoastal Waterway some ten miles south at Flagler Beach. and approximately 15 miles north at Crescent Beach. Existing high bridges across the Intracoastal Waterway are further north and south of the proposed bridge project. (Testimony of Smith, ITT Exhibits 1, 9- 12) The proposed bridge is a fixed concrete bridge approximately 2,598 feet long and 52 feet, 7 inches in width. The bridge will have a minimum vertical clearance of 65 feet above mean high water and 66.4 feet above mean low water, with a horizontal clearance of 90 feet between fenders. It will involve a cast- in-place concrete deck set upon prestressed concrete columns. The bridge will be supported by sets of concrete beams and placed on top of pilings, which will be driven into the surface to a depth of approximately 80 feet. The center two support piers, which are the subject of the requested permit, will be set upon concrete seals constructed inside of cofferdams, which will be located within the right-of-way of the Intracoastal Waterway. It is the construction of these two piers within the limits of the cofferdam that involves the removal of material which is considered dredging pursuant to DER rules. (Stipulation) The cofferdams will be made of steel and will be driven into place to encompass the pier foundations, with the 815 cubic yards of material excavated from inside the cofferdams being placed on a barge and transported to the adjacent uplands as part of the bridge approach construction. During construction of each support pier, a turbidity curtain will be placed around the cofferdams and the barge. Bridge deck drains will be omitted over the Intracoastal Waterway, and first flush storm water runoff will be retained in a stormwater management system which meets the requirements of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. Piles used in the construction of the two fenders shall be made of concrete rather than treated timber. Treated timber may be used for the horizontal wales, the catwalks, and other components of the fender system which do not extend below M.S.L. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the release of preserving chemicals by the timber components of the fender system will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Turbidity controls will be used during the the construction of the two piers in the Intracoastal Waterway if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 29 NTUs. (Stipulation, Greene) The bridge will connect two parcels of land under the ownership of ITT, and will facilitate access between Palm Coast Parkway and the State Road A1A. (Stipulation, ITT Exhibits 1, 9-12) After receiving the ITT application, DER solicited comments from adjoining landowners, the Flagler County Board of Commissioners, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, but none were received. By letter dated April 13, 1983, the Department of Natural Resources gave its authority for the project under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. An onsite inspection of the proposed site was made by DER in June 1982 and March 1983, who found that the project site was devoid of literal vegetation and that minimal impact could be expected from the project provided that turbidity is contained during construction. They further determined that the bridge pilings would not eliminate valuable habitat or alter the natural flow of the Intracoastal Waterway, a Class III body of water. Further, in view of the fact that the dredging activities would be isolated by the cofferdams, no turbidity problems re expected. On May 18, 1983, the DER District Manager issued a notice of its intent to issue the requested permit for the reason that reasonable assurance had been provided that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity would not result in violation of water quality criteria under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Cede, and that the proposed activity would not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests, or create an navigational hazard or impediment, or alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interests. The intent to issue provided that the permit would be subject to the condition that turbidity controls would be used during construction if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 50 JTU above background. (Testimony of Tyler, ITT Exhibits 2-5, 7) By Resolution No. 83-13, dated August 18, 1983, the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners expressed its support of the concept of the proposed project as long as the cost of construction is funded through ITT funds or bridge tolls. (ITT Exhibit 13) In their prehearing and posthearing stipulations, the parties agreed to the following: That reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the short-and long-term effects of the bridge construction will not adversely affect the surficial aquifer to such an extent that it will cause harm to its use by Petitioners as a potable water supply. That the construction and operation of the proposed bridge will not interfere with the conservation of the Florida Scrub Jay, the Gopher Tortoise, or the Indigo Snake. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the release of preserving chemicals by the timber components of the fender system will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Reasonable assurance has been provided by ITT that the short-term effects of turbidity will not adversely affect the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in violation of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed bridge will not create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation, or substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters so as to be contrary to the public interests, and the proposed bridge will not result in the destruc- tion of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity, including but not limited to destruction of natural marine habitats, grass- flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, and establish[ed] marine soil(s] suitable for producing plant growth of the type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life or natural shoreline processes to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests. If the permit is issued, it shall be issued with the following conditions: Turbidity controls will be used during construction of the two piers in the Intracoastal Waterway if the level of turbidity produced exceeds 29 NTUs above background. Piles used in the construction of the two fenders shall be made of concrete rather than treated timber. Treated timber may be used for the horizontal wales, the catwalks, and other components of the fender system which do not extend below M.S.L. In view of the above stipulations by the parties, the only remaining disputed issues of material fact are whether the proposed project will interfere with the conservation of the Florida panther and Florida black bear to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interests. The black bear is considered to be a "threatened" species of wildlife by the State of Florida. A wildlife survey of some 2,000 acres of land surrounding and including the project area during the period 1979-82 by an expert in the field of wildlife ecology revealed traces indicating the presence of the black bear on two occasions in a location east of the proposed project area. On those occasions, bear tracks were found east of State Highway A1A in a hammock area north of the bridge corridor in 1979. However, the signs were insufficient to indicate that there was a resident bear population in the area. Signs of the black bear are fairly common on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway in swampy wilderness areas, such as Long's Creek area and Graham's Swamp. It is possible that, on occasion, a black bear may wander into or cross the bridge area; however, construction and operation of the bridge should have little or no adverse impact on any black bear population which is located either several miles south or north of the proposed bridge area. (Testimony of Brown) The Florida panther is classified as an "endangered" species by the State of Florida. The four-year survey of wildlife undertaken by ITT during the period 1979-82 failed to disclose any traces of the panther in the area surrounding the proposed project site. There are only approximately 20 to 30 Florida panthers in the state, and all are located to the south and west of Lake Okeechobee in the Everglades. The Florida panther requires a vast area of undisturbed habitat. Approximately 400 square miles are necessary for males and some 50 to 100 square miles for a female. They avoid populate areas. Several state personnel saw a tan catlike animal near the entrance to Washington Oaks State Gardens which is located a number of miles north of the proposed bridge site, on May 13, 1983. They reported to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission that the animal was a Florida panther, and plaster casts of the animal's tracks were submitted to that agency for verification. However, the casts were insufficient upon which to base an identification of the animal as a Florida panther, and the park personnel admittedly lacked sufficient qualifications to determine if the animal was, in fact, a Florida panther. There have been other purported sightings of panthers in the general area during past and recent years by Petitioner Gerald D. Schatz and others who reported such sightings to him for investigation. However, it has never been confirmed that the said sightings were of the Florida panther. Although a suitable habitat for the panther is the Graham Swamp, that area is not large enough to be sustain the Florida panther, and It is unlikely that any of that species are present in the area of the proposed bridge. It is accordingly found that construction of the bridge would have no impact on the Florida panther. (Testimony of Brown, Wood, Ganson, Nichols, Schatz; Petitioner's Exhibits 3-5)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit pursuant to Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-580, subject to standard conditions, and the special conditions set forth in paragraph 6 above of the Conclusions of Law herein. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 30th day of November, 1983.
